UKH

I have mused over the years that where gear erosion could be easily tackled without impacting on the appearance, safety or experience of the climb and a consensus could be reached that maybe something should be done before it is too late...

The particular placement that made me start thinking about this was the cam slot in Topsail at Birchen.  When I first climbed many years ago it was a parallel slot made up of the same stuff as the face.  As others have noted it has grown and grown as the skin wore off and the soft pale rock below has been scuffed off by (rough? careless?) cam placements.

I think it's grown several sizes and at the current rate is will be "very large" cam size and broken in 5-10 years.

Here, it occurs to me that it could be treated, painted with a clear binder (someone will know better) to increase it's wear resilience.

It's not so much that this needs glue or cement, just something to hold the very top layer of loose sand together so that the scuffing of the cam doesn't brush it off.

It's very unlikely that the cause of the erosion will cease.

Should "we" do something about it? or just let it wear out.

(caveats noted about holds being glued on, the thin end of the wedge, manufactured climbs, safety, careless placements, the thread below etc etc).

If "we" should, what's best? how do we reach consensus? draw a line? monitor the placement? and what do we use? a thin, penetrating 2 part epoxy soaked into the vulnerable surface was my assumption, probably repeated yearly.

I can think of several other similar situations on classic climbs going the same way fast.

It's not the only erosion problem at Birchen of course...

Put a bolt in

🍿

Wood hardener gets used at nesscliff.

Oh I like it! no thin end of the wedge, 0-bolting in one post!

If that wood hardener stuff works on rock then it's perfect, it soaks in a treat.

Bent nails get used at Ness....
Probably best if what goes at Ness stays at Ness.

That one is actually pretty easy, at least in theory - stop using it!.  The thread just below the lip is bomber and really doesn't need backing up with a cam placed in cream cheese a foot higher up.  And if the prospect of leading the route without the cam is too daunting maybe just do it on a toprope instead.

Don’t be daft, this is a trad climb! The obvious solution is a peg-bolt.

I'd ask people not to experiment on classics. Hold stabilisation has been used on many eroded holds on boulder problems on soft rock (by people who know what they are doing after extensive testing) but I'm not convinced it's been used to stabilise gear placements... an artificially hardened skin might just crack off when shock loaded, making the erosion situation worse.

My main advice is for climbers who don't have a good chance of success to not tackle such routes and if they try and fail, to lower to the ground and do something else. From my extensive experience at Birchen (I've spent months there as a crag author) a lot of damage is done by resting on gear after slumping or lobbing onto cams. You can sometimes hear the soft rock grinding as climbers move around on weighted cams.

Indeed: the definitive guide advice on the route is don't use that worn placement on Topsail and the general point about sitting on cams leading to a gouged mess is made in the crag introduction.

There's nothing in Eastern Grit about not using that placement, although there is a warning about not resting on it. There is a thread just below that adequately protects the move so its reasonable to suggest it - maybe rockfax should include something to that effect? Its very soft for VS anyway so I'm very surprised that anyone who feels able to get on it also feels the need to rest on gear.

What we're on the subject, I was dismayed to see an Instructor at Burbage a few weeks ago teaching her clients top rope leading and getting them to sit test their gear at frequent intervals. ( can't recall if it was every placement ) but you could hear the rock grinding away as they swung backwards and forwards getting a feel for how good the piece was .

From watching many hundreds of attempted ascents it's clearly tried by some people who simply shouldn't be on a VS of that type. It's an unusual sequence for new strongish climbers reasonably trying an early VS... some of whom fluff it. The fewer experienced gritstone climbers I see moving into VS are broadly OK. It's an excellent VS brute for the short with some wonderful horizonal egyptioning under the roof on view.

I mean it wouldn't be the end of the world if the slot was just filled entirely. Someone who knows what they're doing mixes some sand from the crag with some kind of mortar to get a good colour mix and just fill it. No point trying to beef up a totally unnecessary placement if we want to discourage people from using it, just get rid of it all together. 

Of course then we are getting into dangerous ethical territory on a natural grit edge. 

"your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” 

What about a replaceable tough, silicone rubber lining? Invisible from below, nice and grippy for the cam lobes.

I regularly see adverts from instructors offering "learn to fall on trad gear" courses. They won't be running those on topsail (I hope!) but I'd bet the same instructor will always return to the same route for their "trad falling" workshops.

I have seen similar on the Roaches where placements have appeared where there weren't any before

Obviously this sort of advice would need to be added to guides otherwise things will continue as they are.

It's wishful thinking to think that people will stop using the placement on Topsail until it is too large or broken...

 I hate to break it to you as the person that writes these things, but 95% of people will not and do not read the crag introductions. 

Self fulfilling prophecy this - it's soft for VS, so people making their first forays into the grade are likely to try it. Maybe we just sandbag it instead to make it less appealing.

This is one of the better and more realistic plans!

Perhaps the practical way to do this would be to covertly fill the jug above with Sika?

I can't recall the placement though I've probably done the route. Apart from triggering some tutting, if it's not actually necessary, what's the consequence of ignoring the problem and letting it get 'too large or broken'?

jk

People won't be able to use it.
So... exactly the same as what happens if we implore people not to use it, but without the effort of all the imploring.

Consequences are exactly as you say, some tutting and the placement getting too big to be useful.  I think it's a mild shame.  I think I've thought the same for years and years but I've never been that bothered to do anything about it. 

I'm still not that bothered _but_ I can see a problem like this coming to some climbs I am bothered about and I did wonder if this singular placement provided a good test case to see if, "something should or could be done".

I can see the case for things like glued holds on limestone to stabilise a route in something like its original form. I can see the case for stabilising sandy holds on fragile high trafficked crags. I can see the case for an attempt at stabilisation or repair of worn/blown placements where they're necessary to preserve the character. I can even see a case for pre-emptive fixed gear to preserve the character of certain routes at risk of losing a key placement to erosion. I can also see merit in arguments against them.

With something like Topsail where I think we're basically discussing aesthetics, I think the risk of botched jobs probably outweighs the benefit.

That weathered layer of industrial grime that defines the look of our grit crags is going to be lost to traffic over time, the micro flora and fauna that provide the lovely(?) greens, browns and oranges will be lost to chalk streaks, that's just inevitable if traffic levels hold up and as our air gets cleaner.

jk

I think that's a reasonable view. 

I think I differ slightly because, to me, the aesthetics of Topsail are insufficiently compelling so as to make me wonder if this is a good place to experiment (carefully) to develop strategies for elsewhere.

As I said above, in the definitive guide we specifically highlighted cam damage on classics from people weighing placements where the hard surface has gone (in the conservation part of the guidebook introduction and in the crag introduction); and specifically in the Topsail route description, not to use the worn slot. To me that's then a matter of judgement for any lead climber using that guidebook. However, some people use other guidebooks, and that includes legacy editions that are still good enough and suit them. Some know but clearly don't care (in our big teams we have politely talked to a lot of people about obviously problematic conservation issues and most take that well and say they will change, but a few just respond badly)

For the wider educational needs, the BMC and UKC have both been producing advice around "respect the rock". Plus, clubs, instructors and individuals teach good practice.

We do our best to lead horses to water.

The weathered hard surface layer formed on millstones and the quarry faces prior to industrial grime. It's a chemical process that happens irrespective of pollution (just maybe a bit faster then).

Not a problem on granite. Probably fine on most rock (I assume they would select good placements for the task, on 'non-classic' routes... probably a naive assumption)

What's the chemical process?

I know the industrial deposits are not what makes the hard skin. I was talking about the appearance changing as that grimy skin gets worn away.

I did get the sentence arse about face so it's a fair point.

jk

I'd guess minerals leached out of saturated rock over time concentrate and recrystalise at the surface where evaporation occurs.

jk

Even granite fails, gets polished and or worn eventually, but I take the point. 

Instructors already spend a fair bit of time looking for suitable spots to run courses, and I guess they don't want to reinvent the wheel every course*, so will tend to recycle the same routes. 

* like teachers planning lessons 

This ^^^. I'm a stone conservator. There is still no magic consolidator that doesn't make decay worse. Whatever their claims for 'breathability' they trap damp and hasten freeze-thaw damage. 

Just use the thread. 

At the worn cam slot, a big arrow pointing to the thread? 

The problem with Topsail is that the difference between the thread and the cam is having gear below your feet for the crux (of a cruxy route) or at waist-level. 

You'll always get people who don't want to take a wang; especially if it's considered low-in-the-grade (so a lot of people climb it at their limit). 

Best course of action is to downgrade it to HS (where it rightfully belongs!) and it won't get anywhere near as blasted. Yes, it's significantly harder for shorties but so are lots of routes. They're not usually graded for people ~5ft5 (I'm not suggesting that's right or wrong; it is what it is).  

And collect up all the copies of Classic Rock and tear that page out...?

Have you never heard of 'a stitch in time'? Before too long, sand will be pouring out of the slot and Birchen will be reduced to a dune.

Gritstone is way greener than it used to be in the late 70's and 80's - the air's cleaner than it used to be which seems to have allowed the algae/lichens - whatever it is that is green - to grow back more. I agree that the pH of chalk rather fouls everything up, but the cleaner air won't be helping it.

Does it get VS in there? My understanding was that Classic Rock included routes up to HS in difficulty and that routes like Topsail and Piton Route had been upgraded in the intervening years. 

Anyway, it gets VS in most currently-used guides but I don't think it should, and it is leading to its demise. A single 4c move on bomber, easy gear does not a VS make. The other equivalent routes at Birchen with a hard crux move on the gear are graded appropriately (Orpheus Wall, Keel, etc.)

Routes considered low-in-the-grade are always going to take more of a ragging vs sandbags. Someone needs to be the first to propose a down-grade and I'm calling on UKC/Rockfax to do the right thing!

Definitely HS in my mind. 

Definatly HS. Very similar in difficulty to Sail Buttress with its single, pretty safe, 4b+ move.

I wasn't debating the grade. I was suggesting the motivation to do it might not go away so easily with a downgrade.

I don't think it would be less popular with a downgrade, partly due to Classic Rock. In any case in the definitive route description we said don't use the cam in that damaged slot and explicitly graded for that.

As for Classic Rock routes being less than VS and all that associated modern grade creep shizzle that pops up on threads, I'll stop giggling in a while. Part of the irony wrt this thread was the biggest grade creep gritstone ever saw was when routes were not downgraded as they shifted from bold to highly protectable (and slightly easier to climb) in the gear and protection improvements in the period from the late 60s to the late 80s (when cams were widely available).

Yeah that was exactly my point in my 'tear the page out" post.

On the sub VS Classic Rock point, The Chasm must be a contender for the most challenging well known VS in the UK!?

There's also a certain irony to bringing that old chestnut up whilst talking specifically about a route that has been highly protectable since the invention of the sling. 

I've not climbed Topsail, but climb a lot in the Lakes and regularly in Wales. Even here, despite the volcanic rock, many placements are significantly worn. In particular, shallow nut slots get worked smooth and gradually become uselessly flared, so that nuts can no longer be reliably placed, and you often end up with a dodgy microcam in the shallow flare instead.

I felt it was worth mentioning in relation to the scale of the problem...

There are also many boulder problems where the holds gradually become smaller and more polished; not to mention the descent from the Idwal Slabs that became sufficiently polished that some absolute tool vandalised it in an attempt to "roughen it up".

I don't have a solution, but clearly climbing does leave significant traces on the rock... not to mention the expenditure of energy, burning of fuel, release of CO2, deforestation for rubber, mining for metals and chalk and creation of plastic and other forms of waste...

In that context, Top Sail's erosion is piss in the ocean.

Some guidelines for more sustainable approaches to climbing may be overdue.

Is there not a substance available which mimics the natural processes which make the hard skin?

Just the opposite.... it's important history and the relative protectability between then and now is very much my point. I'm not denying grade creep happened just that most of the grit classics around VS crept most back in the 70s and 80s guidebooks because they didn't get downgraded as they became much more protectable.

So a simple example of comparative tracked grades changes:

Hargreaves was an unprotected Severe in 1951, was HS in 1964 and from 1976 onwards was a protectable VS. If it was unprotected now it would be E1 4c in my view.

Topsail was a protectable Severe in 1951 and a VS in every subsequent guidebook (MVS in 1970). If that damaged cam placement wasn't to be avoided we would have given it HS 4c in the 2010 definitive.

There are very effective products to 'densify' the surface of concrete. It would be interesting to see what they'd do to raw eroded sandstones, possibly nothing.

It'd be a different process to the natural one.

jk

This is a pretty key point. Telling people to not use the cam slot is imo not really going to be successful, because it really makes a big difference to how safe the route is. Falling off onto the thread from the crux would be relatively nasty (I think), whereas falling onto the cam is a fairly casual proposition.

I don't know what a good/fair solution is. The current solution of asking people to avoid the slot in favour of the thread is basically saying - "In order to preserve the rock, please don't try this route unless you're confident you won't fall off onto the worn gear placement (or you're happy to take quite a nasty fall onto a lower placement)". Maybe it would be more successful if phrased like that, though obviously it sounds more elitist.

I don't think it would be a bad fall onto the thread; the roof sticks out so you'd have a relatively benign fall into space (it's been a while since I've done it but I was happy not placing the cam, and I'm a wimp). Tbh, falling onto the cam may even be worse as it would increase the chances of you interacting with the overhang. 

I'm not sure it does make it as much less safe as you imply, even if it is tested in a fall... VS leaders making significantly different decisons based on gear 1m higher on such a route seems overstated to me. Worst case in a fall: what if the cam skids on the soft sandy rock and pops?

We wrote what we wrote in the definitive hoping many climbers would respect the conservation aspect (and if especially nervous to choose another route). Our emphasis in the introductions was more about not sitting on cams in damaged breaks, after a fall or slump (or more colloquially: don’t dog on cams in damaged rock).

I've heard that (in olden times) bare knuckle fighters used to use urine to harden up their hands. It might be tricky to get into a position to apply this on Topsail.

I think you're thinking of curing chilblains.

No,

No! lithium grease... on all the holds on the bottom half. Prevention is better than cure 🤣

Permanently placed knotted rope "nut" (or knotted "hex" if that exists) like for Czech sandstone. Softer than the rock and not repeatedly inserted and removed. Permanently placed as we don't create or carry our own knotted protection here.

Quite possibly completely impractical and unacceptable, but it works in Bohemia and I like the novel idea of kni(o)tting gear.

No, fill it in with alternative protection available. In fact I might do it myself.