Simpsons and Swinsto were surprisingly never anchored with consideration for pull through trips.
I expect the original ladder-and-line techniques did not suit pull-throughs. The spits that appeared for SRT rigging would not suit pull-throughs (since you can pull down the rope but you would leave behind your bolts and hangers). So I presume at the time of the P-bolt installation in 1992 there wasn't a history of popular sporting pull-through trips in these caves. (I wasn't around so cavers with memories of the 80s please chime in here).
The installation of DMM Eco anchors (i.e. fixed, stainless steel, smooth anchors) has facilitated pull-through in the last 30+ years, and I think that the popularity of pull-through trips has increased since then as a result.
The “standard” 2 anchor slightly offset set up has been used in all locations except for the 3 options at the end of Simpsons.
Slit Pot, Slit Pot “over the top” bypass and the last part of the Great Aven.
Currently there is an array of anchors in place and “Tat” in various states.
An array of anchors could be tidied up, if some are unsuitable, and the tat removed. This would cost very little except time. Removal of something undesirable does not necessitate adding stainless chain.
These locations would be best suited (In my opinion) to chain linking 2 anchors to a single point (a free spinning welded ring)
Reasons for this approach.
Having a single point to pull down from with no rope rub on a pitch in the 30m range is highly desirable.
Does the single point introduce a new failure mode that was not there before - that a knot and krab fits through the single eye?
Whilst the wear and tear on the anchors from pulling down is negligible, science says it must be happening, so moving this wear away from the anchor can only be a good thing on such a big pitch and will ensure the anchors are still sound in 500 years 😱.
It is my understanding too, that the wear and tear on existing anchors is negligible. The P-bolts are long lasting in the current usage and have a history to show it.
By adding stainless chain you would be introducing a new wear mechanism, now of metal-on-metal. Do we have a comparable history to show this will not result in additional wear on the anchors?
Whilst I support aiming for long-lasting anchors, your project shows that for reasons unanticipated at installation, someone else will likely have different ideas in the future and want to make changes. For this reason it is desirable to do the least that does the job, and to make installations removable.
The chains are only attached by mallions to the anchors so this is absolutely NOT permanent and can be removed at any time.
I support equipment being removable/adaptable/maintainable. If the equipment were removed by persons unknown, say, next year, would this still be good value for money?
This solution will remove the need for cavers to add and keep adding “Tat”. Something that really shouldn’t be needed on such a popular cave.
There is not a 'need' to add tat in my opinion. Many cavers progress through these caves without leaving tat behind. (Perhaps the mystery people who leave tat in Simpson and Swinsto read this forum and could explain to us why.)
Nothing proposed here would affect “hard rigging”.
This is good, thank you for confirming this.
Aiming for a sustainable, fit for purpose solution (dare I say best practice) would seem like a good aim for a representative body.
Please explain how adding more metal is sustainable when people have managed without it for 30 years.
I agree we should be aiming for best practice, however it is less clear whether adding more man-made fixed aids of a novel type (for this caving region, at least), and adding additional inspection requirements on the users is best practice.
If the committee decide not to pass this proposal which is absolutely their right, at least it would save me dragging some chain through the cave 😂.
How heavy are you anticipating these chains being?
However we will still be left with the issue of Tat appearing in these locations or problems pulling down.
I expect we would continue to see tat appearing in these caves whether or not chains are installed. I wish it were not the case but I believe the people that choose to install and abandon their own stuff will continue to do so regardless of this proposal. Did the completed re-vamp of Swinsto prevent tat being abandoned as it was intended to, or has more appeared since?
As a counter-point, I am minded to think that adding more and more CNCC-sanctioned fixed aids actually will result in a long-term trend towards more abandoned tat if people become more accustomed to seeing permanent man-made fixed aids in our caves.
=====
A lengthy post, I know. I feel there is a lot to respond to. I would like the CNCC meeting to be the definitive place for the community to discuss and form agreement, and I aim to attend the upcoming meeting. Separately, this forum definitely has a place for sharing information that helps inform and shape views.
My own position *for now* is one of caution and scepticism. I like the natural feel of most of our caves, with fewer fixed aids, and I see this as another step on the journey towards fixed iron everywhere, which is undesirable to me, so my tendency is to not support this proposal at the current time.
My concerns with the proposal itself are:
1) I feel it is not clear what the proposal actually is yet, i.e. what is being installed and what it will look like. There is no clear specification etc and people are left to google it to find out for themselves.
2) The proposer is anonymous, other than it is written by someone other than Ian Patrick
3) The logic for two installations at Slit Pot, and also one at Great Aven, is not substantiated clearly enough.
4) The proposal does not refer to anyone else who asked for this within the community
5) It's not clear why two offset anchors could not be used instead, as used at the other pitches
6) The sustainability angle is at best debatable, given the proposal is to install new stuff, rather than to continue without, or 'reduce,reuse,recycle'
7) The introduction of a new type of equipment, new failure modes, new inspection requirements, new record keeping, is undesirable.
8) The document title shows as "Swinsto Chains.doc" on my browser, is this an indication of intention to install them elsewhere
9) The proposal was submitted late and feels like it is being rushed.
10) There doesn't seem to be a 'try it and see' option presented. It would be easy to do a trial with - say - a chain of maillons and krabs - to demonstrate that the problems described are really solved by the solution presented.
If all these issues are resolved I am not against changing my mind. It just seems a lot at the moment to support a proposal that is not fully developed and articulated.
