UKH

heading up to the CIC in a week for 4 days and after something short and low on the mountain for the first day after dragging big bags up to the hut.

I know there are a few that meet the bill but I've ticked some so I'm keen for recommendations

Looking at grade III-V ice or III`- IV mixed 

 

One's I've done are:

Italian Right Hand IV

Vanishing Gully V (soft)

The Curtain IV(hard)

 

Thanks

 

Rob

In reply to RM199:

First pitch of Waterfall Gully and SW Ridge Douglas Boulder are popular options. CIC icefalls if formed. Slingsby's Chimney gets unappealing reviews. 

In reply to RM199:

East ridge of Douglass boulder IV 5 mixed is well protected good fun short route, 2 pitches I think or possibly 3 with a very short exit pitch.

In reply to RM199:

Green Gully is a quick round trip from the Hut if firm conditions in Coire na Ciste and No. 4 Gully, and doing it late afternoon means you're unlikely to have another party above you on the route. 

In reply to RM199:

Or first two or three pitches of the likes of Hadrian's, Point 5 or Minus 2 then ab off. Best pitch on each of the above routes is 1st, 2nd and 2nd respectively, so even just two pitches then home will give you a lot of value. And you'll have the fun of Point 5 without overhead climbers. Or do the first two pitches of Zero then ab. Haven't done that one myself, but no-one I know who has done it enjoyed any of it after that! 

Or, if suitable snow on CMD east slopes, trudge up to it and enjoy a well earned bum slide back to the Hut. 

In reply to Tricadam:

Certainly unorthodox and verging on bizarre suggestion!

In reply to RM199:

 

It tops out on the plateau but Neptune Gully with the direct finish is a good route at III, scenic, no cornice issues, quick to access and with a choice of descents close by that lead straight back to the hut.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Good point: I meant the west slopes. 

In reply to Tricadam:

I hadn't even picked up on that......... and I'm sure you knew it's not what I was referring to!

In reply to Tricadam:

It is hard to find a convincing abseil anywhere on Zero, though top of P2 is your best chance. Zero is a dangerous route (expertae crede). Climb something else would be my advice. And quite a few of the Nevis guides would give the same advice--some of them refuse to guide it.

In reply to Sophie G.:

A couple of the reasons it's not on my personal to-do list!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Haha, well, all of the suggestions in that particular post were unorthodox! Personally, the routes I've done following arrival in the afternoon at the CIC having walked up with the big bags are Green Gully and CMD Arete. Personally I'd find it hard to ab off a lovely big route after a couple of pitches, but there's plenty of folk out there who wouldn't mind, especially if they thereby got some excellent climbing.

In reply to Tricadam:

Tous les grand chefs sont tués en rappel.

In reply to Sophie G.:

Il y a une parcelle de verite!

In reply to RM199:

Slingsby's Chimney is garbage. We did it as an approach to NE Buttress. A poor line. The chimney bit is short- lived and more of a gully leading to a serious section with fairly run out climbing on thin ice. Felt at least tech 4 and was harder than anything on NE Buttress apart from the Man Trap! Grade II my arse.

In reply to Wee Davie:

You can just do Slingsby's and drop down the other side to save going all the way up NE Buttress so would fall under the remit of doing something short - and, ok, it is rather "sporting" in the middle, the right to left traverse with no gear is interesting. 

In reply to Pids:

I suppose that's true but not for a grade II leader. I did Orion Direct the same season & to be honest Orion was no harder than Slingsby's!

In reply to RM199:

Don't be so defeatist! Pack as light as you can, get up there early and make the most of it! 

You should have daylight until half eight, the world is your oyster . . . 

Andy

In reply to Sophie G.:

What is the issue? thanks

In reply to John Kelly:

As I say, not climbed it myself, due to the following: only two pitches of decent climbing (potentially with less than ideal belays) followed by hundreds of metres of sketchy soloing or death roping, depending on preference. Add in a climber or two above you who could fall off/cheesewire you and/or potential cornice collapse and/or spindrift avalanches and it's looking less and less appealing, particularly when there are so many other fantastic lines around. 

In reply to Tricadam

 

 

I'd submit that to Simon Richardson as an alternative route description for the next guide

 

Seriously though, Zero is an excellent climb and far more than the first two pitches. It's a striking line with some brilliant positions, and you can't help feel the history when climbing it (or when preparing to climb it).

 

The gear may be rubbish but I wouldn't know - I soloed it and it didn't feel "sketchy"!

In reply to Patrick Roman:

Each to their own, and certainly no denying that Zero's in an amazing place on the mountain. My own view of Zero is the same as Tricadam's above. Its being busy is of course part of the problem.

In reply to Wee Davie:

I concur, 1 peg in a 60m run out pitch on thinly iced impregnable rock!

In reply to John Kelly:

The issue on Zero is the gear (or lack of it). I recall when I did it the gear was ok on the top of pitch one. The crux is starting pitch 2. If the leader falls it is straight onto the belay which could rip. Not when I did it.....the conditions allowed for a reasonable belay but this is unusual. Deaths have occurred as the belay on pitch one has failed and the leader has taken a high factor fall onto the belay.  

After the crux there is then a snow plod of about 200 metres to the top. It would be pretty hard to fall on that but if you did you would possibly take your roped partner with you. 

Another shortish route would be Raeburns's Buttress IV (5). 

In reply to The Grist:

What did you belay with

 

In reply to John Kelly:

I did Zero last weekend. Belay at the top of pitch 1 was two ok screws after 60m. Couldn't get any others as ice was not good enough. Start of pitch 2 I was able to get a couple of reasonable screw runner after a few metres. Found a fairly good rock belay at top of p2 but only after simul climbing a bit

Abbing down the route definitely not recommended unless ice is good

In reply to John Kelly:

A yoghurt

In reply to oliverk:

Dragged up it year's ago, good ice all way up iirc, though it would be fairly safe with modern screws

In reply to LakesWinter:

Not a Mars Bar?

In reply to John Kelly: I did zero about ten years ago. I recall actually placing a size 2 cam and one crap screw. I also remember hoping my mate did not fall off. But probably ignore that.....as with most things winter they change from season to season. In my opinion it is not a great route. The other major gullies and buttresses are a lot more interesting. 

 

In reply to The Grist:

I think I started Zero Gully at around 1 or 2pm when I climbed it. Fairly quick to climb if confident on ice. Enjoyed it at the time but the difficulties were over after 1.5 pitches. Doesn't live up to its billing for me looking back. Irrespective of its history etc.

In reply to RM199:

 Zero is an old classic  testpiece  the hardmen  of the day labouriously carved foot and handholds to make progress with a belayer lashed to an axe or the hut poker, proper grade V.  See it for what it is the history.

How times change, it is now soloed in under an hour with modern tools, we  embrace the boldness of this historic gully wth this style paying homage to those first ascensionists and thier archaic ways.

Would i  climb it in this old style? no way,  a solo ascent captures the essence of what the Ben is all about for me, adventure, freedom of movement and as close as it gets to an alpine environment in the UK, the joy of moving unencumbered,  piolet traction at it's best.

In reply to The Grist:

Climbing Orion Direct yesterday has helped me think about this a bit more: with Zero, I think it's not so much the lack of gear per se as it is the poor risk:reward ratio. If you're going to take that kind of risk, make it for something fantastic like Orion (which has six really worthwhile, fun pitches) rather than for two OK pitches followed by 200m of slope slogging. If you want to compare like with like and stick to Nevis gullies, Minus 2 has four pitches of fantastic climbing, no slope slog, decent belays and some rock runners.

Re Orion and safety, I don't know how typical this is (I suspect common, given the way the "ice" forms, but others are much better qualified to comment!) but yesterday, in seven pitches and including belays, we placed a grand total of three nuts, a Tomahawk twice, a tricam and one sling. Other than that, it was screws that were, almost without exception, utter garbage! Was it worth it? Absolutely. But would it have been worth taking those risks for the lesser rewards of Zero? For me personally, no.

It would be interesting to hear how other people weigh up these sorts of things, and indeed how others have found Orion from a safety/gear point of view.

In reply to Tricadam:

Interesting reflections. I expect one thing that makes Orion safer than Zero is that Orion is well known to be harder. So it gets less traffic. So there's less chance of having someone else climbing above you generating a barrage of spindrift/ ice-bombs/ falling gear/ falling bodies.

I have a personal campaign to get fewer people to do Zero so it's safer in this way

In reply to Sophie G.:

That makes sense: less traffic will indeed increase safety. There's also the fact that, rather than one big long gutter for falling ice, falling climbers, falling climbers with rope tied between them etc., Orion is a complex set of grooves and snowfields which means that there's much less chance of a falling item bumping into you if you're further down the route. On Thursday we'd initially thought we'd be first on it until we saw a team maybe 20 mins ahead of us initially head seemingly for Orion/Slav/Zero, then turn left - we hoped for the Minus face - but then turn back right for Orion! No problem, we thought, we'll do Minus 2. On closer inspection, however, it looked unappealingly thin: certainly nothing like the beautifully ice-choked chimney I'd been up three years back. That was the point at which we came up with the above theory, which fortunately proved to be pretty accurate!

Re how the upper reaches of the likes of Point 5, Zero, etc. often get climbed, I never fail to be dismayed by teams moving together with two 60m ropes at full length between them clipped to absolutely nothing. Especially if one finds oneself below such a team! Either rational faculties are in abeyance or were never present in the first place, and neither is appealing! Have been below such a team once; never again.

In reply to Tricadam:

Re your last comment, I presume there IS a rationale: the leader may find a rock outcrop or ice boss in which to place a runner, so it's better to keep the rope on rather than coil it and solo to the top?

Rob F

 

In reply to Tricadam:

PS it doesn't sound as though much has changed on Orion: when I did it over 40 yrs ago we found just one natural rock belay (spike at start of crux).  The other 9 belays (45m ropes back then) were either pegs or iffy ice screws.

In reply to rif:

Rob, if that's what they were actually doing then yes. When they're passing such opportunities without bothering to then no.

In reply to Tricadam:

Completely agree. Didn’t think Zero is any more dangerous than any other similar ice routes, and there’s plenty of IV’s that are possibly both as dangerous and steeper.

In reply to RM199:

Have a rest day or man up?