Tryfan - I hate it but I want to walk up it.
Judith
much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin]. It's a horrible lump of
horribleness and I don't like it.
However, I shall be attempting to walk over the top of it next weekend
and I need some advice!
Last time I tried to climb/walk Tryfan I started from the A5 and soon
found that I could not see the way to go. I think I may have stayed
too far to the right, as I believe this is a trickier route, and there
was no sign of a path. I ended up clinging on to a mixture of
vegetation and rock and cursing the d*mn mountain..... then I gave up.
I am more experienced now, and I am certainly not expecting a
waymarked, paved path, but are there any obvious navigational markers
I can use to stay on the easiest route?
I'm not really sure what people mean by The North Ridge. Is that the
"other path" (marked as a black dotted line on the OS map) which goes
N/S over the mountain to the W of Heather Terrace?
Also, where is Bristly Ridge? I can't see anything named such on my
1:25k OS map but I have read that it's a scramble and I would want to
find the easiest route to the S off Tryfan.
I'll be heading to Glyder Fach next.
If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
route and finishing with Tryfan?
Judith
Tom Crispin
<no.spam.for....@aol.com> wrote:
>At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
>much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin]. It's a horrible lump of
>horribleness and I don't like it.
It happens to be my favorite mountain. I held my 40th birthday party
on its summit on 21 December 2007.
>However, I shall be attempting to walk over the top of it next weekend
>and I need some advice!
>
>Last time I tried to climb/walk Tryfan I started from the A5 and soon
>found that I could not see the way to go. I think I may have stayed
>too far to the right, as I believe this is a trickier route, and there
>was no sign of a path. I ended up clinging on to a mixture of
>vegetation and rock and cursing the d*mn mountain..... then I gave up.
>
>I am more experienced now, and I am certainly not expecting a
>waymarked, paved path, but are there any obvious navigational markers
>I can use to stay on the easiest route?
>
>I'm not really sure what people mean by The North Ridge. Is that the
>"other path" (marked as a black dotted line on the OS map) which goes
>N/S over the mountain to the W of Heather Terrace?
Yes.
>Also, where is Bristly Ridge? I can't see anything named such on my
>1:25k OS map but I have read that it's a scramble and I would want to
>find the easiest route to the S off Tryfan.
>
>I'll be heading to Glyder Fach next.
>
>If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
>route and finishing with Tryfan?
No. Start from the A5 and go stright up. There are steps to start
you off, then they peter out and you have to find your own way.
Look out for the Cannon - a great slab of rock sticking out at right
angles to the mountain. You will know when you are at the summit when
you see two huge slabs of rock. One is called Adam, the other Eve.
You haven't really climbed Tryfan until you've stepped between these
slabs.
Bristley Ridge starts at SH661588 and ends at SH658583. It has one or
two tricky steps. I once saw a brocken spectre from the top of
Bristly Ridge.
idris
The path goes up the North Ridge in that it keeps to the center line of
the mountain, its reasonably straight forward to keep on the path until
shortly after the canon stone. After that tackle all short scrambles
head on keeping just slightly West of South. Avoid being tempted East by
easier looking diversions they usually peter out leaving you in exposed
positions on the East side. The descent from the summit to Bwlch Tryfan
is much easier.
From Bwlch Tryfan there is a badly worn scree slope that leads up to
the summit of Glyder Fach, to the West of this path there is a rocky
outcrop, Bristly Ridge goes up the nose of this outcrop. I have never
done it, I am told it requires a good head for heights. You can avoid
the scree by going East towards Llyn Y Caseg Fraith and then back along
the ridge, further but much easier.
Gerald
Paul Saunders
> At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
> much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin].
TRUH - VAN :-)
> I am more experienced now, and I am certainly not expecting a
> waymarked, paved path, but are there any obvious navigational markers
> I can use to stay on the easiest route?
Not really. Probably best to do it on a fine day when there are plenty of
other people around. Then you can just follow them.
Scrambling is unavoidable, so it's best to do it when it's dry, the rocks
there can be a bit slippery when wet.
> Also, where is Bristly Ridge? I can't see anything named such on my
> 1:25k OS map but I have read that it's a scramble and I would want to
> find the easiest route to the S off Tryfan.
Bristly Ridge leads up to Glyder Fach, it's not part of Tryfan. It can
easily be avoided, best to follow the path up to Llyn Caseg Fraith, as Idris
said.
> If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
> route and finishing with Tryfan?
Perhaps. It's definitely much easier from the south, far less ascent and
much less steep. In fact I don't think there's any scrambling from the
south, just a rocky path which is fairly easy to follow IIRC.
If you finish with Tryfan, do it from the south, then retrace your steps and
descend via the path that goes past Llyn Bochlwyd, or you could start by
following the path up to the Llyn.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
>route and finishing with Tryfan?
www.walkingoutdoors.co.uk/Geoff/tryfan
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Paul Saunders
> You will know when you are at the summit when
> you see two huge slabs of rock. One is called Adam, the other Eve.
> You haven't really climbed Tryfan until you've stepped between these
> slabs.
Nonsense! It might be a tradition but it's certainly not necessary to claim
that you've bagged it. Simply climbing up onto Adam would suffice, or even
just touching the top. (Is it necessary to climb onto the top of trig
points?)
If you do fancy the jump from Adam to Eve, I don't recommend attempting it
when it's wet.
Pic here:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/pg/gl/aes75.jpg
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Judith
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
>>route and finishing with Tryfan?
>
>www.walkingoutdoors.co.uk/Geoff/tryfan
Nice pictures, but where are the captions?!
Judith
Judith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
>>route and finishing with Tryfan?
>
>No. Start from the A5 and go stright up. There are steps to start
>you off, then they peter out and you have to find your own way.
>
>Look out for the Cannon - a great slab of rock sticking out at right
>angles to the mountain. You will know when you are at the summit when
>you see two huge slabs of rock. One is called Adam, the other Eve.
>You haven't really climbed Tryfan until you've stepped between these
>slabs.
I won't be jumping anywhere. I've seen photos of people jumping
between the two rocks and it definitely looks like a "jump" rather
than a "step". I shall be keeping at least one limb (preferably
three) in contact with the ground at all times!
Judith
Judith
wrote:
>
>The path goes up the North Ridge in that it keeps to the center line of
>the mountain, its reasonably straight forward to keep on the path until
>shortly after the canon stone. After that tackle all short scrambles
>head on keeping just slightly West of South. Avoid being tempted East by
>easier looking diversions they usually peter out leaving you in exposed
>positions on the East side. The descent from the summit to Bwlch Tryfan
>is much easier.
>
> From Bwlch Tryfan there is a badly worn scree slope that leads up to
>the summit of Glyder Fach, to the West of this path there is a rocky
>outcrop, Bristly Ridge goes up the nose of this outcrop. I have never
>done it, I am told it requires a good head for heights. You can avoid
>the scree by going East towards Llyn Y Caseg Fraith and then back along
>the ridge, further but much easier.
Thanks
Judith
Jhimmy
"Judith" <no.spam.for....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rnlsd41t34ad8u9rg...@4ax.com...
Judith, I know you don't like scrambles. I've done the north ridge 4 times
and each time have taken a different line! It's from grade 1 to grade 3
depending on where you are. I don't think it's for you.
The route I would advise is from the A5 find the path past Tryfan Bach
(which is a good little climbing wall) head south to Bwlch Tryfan (Bristly
Ridge is directly behind you and in line with the wall) and tackle the south
ridge of Tryfan which is a clamber and not a scramble.
Do NOT attempt the jump from Adam to Eve (or is it the other way round)
there's a very big drop next to them.
BTW, I used to camp at Gwern Gof Uchaf farm so this would be an even better
starting point.
Jhimmy
Judith
wrote:
>Judith, I know you don't like scrambles.
You're right. I get quite frightened, sometimes, when I have to use
my hands. I've tried (roped) climbing a couple of times and don't
like that either. I know many people on urw are happy to walk along
knife-edges with their hands in their pockets ..... but I'm not one of
them.
>I've done the north ridge 4 times
>and each time have taken a different line! It's from grade 1 to grade 3
>depending on where you are. I don't think it's for you.
Fair enough! You're probably correct.
>
>The route I would advise is from the A5 find the path past Tryfan Bach
>(which is a good little climbing wall) head south to Bwlch Tryfan (Bristly
>Ridge is directly behind you and in line with the wall) and tackle the south
>ridge of Tryfan which is a clamber and not a scramble.
That sounds reasonable and would at least allow me to get to the
summit and get over the psychological block of not being able to do
Tryfan. Once I was up there I'd be able to see how the North ridge
looked from above (although I would not descend that way.)
>
>Do NOT attempt the jump from Adam to Eve (or is it the other way round)
>there's a very big drop next to them.
Like I said elsewhere, I have no intention of jumping!
>
>BTW, I used to camp at Gwern Gof Uchaf farm so this would be an even better
>starting point.
I'm staying at Idwal Cottage YH. My original plan was to do all of
the 3Ks and bivi overnight but then two things occurred to me: 1. It
will be dark from 7pm until 7am and that's a long time to lie on a
mountain in the dark; 2: Crib Goch! I'm now going to do circular day
walks of the Snowdon area, Glyders and Carnedds (but leave the northen
Carnedds for another time).
Cheers Jhimmy
Judith
Tim Jackson
> > At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
> > much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin].
>
> TRUH - VAN :-)
I've know that's the pronounciation for some time. But I've never known
whether the stress is on the first or second syllable. Which is it?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)
Tom Crispin
<no.spam.for....@aol.com> wrote:
>>Do NOT attempt the jump from Adam to Eve (or is it the other way round)
>>there's a very big drop next to them.
>
>Like I said elsewhere, I have no intention of jumping!
While you *could* jump the 1.2m gap, it is nothing more than a step.
http://tinyurl.com/4tq5av from
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hUMkd4KBHzo/RhqSoqXwQOI/AAAAAAAAAao/FcqwbtH3cwg/DSCF3403.JPG
Paul Saunders
>> TRUH - VAN :-)
>
> I've know that's the pronounciation for some time. But I've never
> known whether the stress is on the first or second syllable. Which
> is it?
First.
In Welsh the stress is always on the last but one syllable, so it's on the
first in a two syllable word, the middle in a three syllable word and so on.
So for example,
GwasTADfryn
YstradFELLte
CwmrhydyCEIRw
DolGELLau
CwmLLYNfell
FfesTINiog
TanyGRISiau
PenrhynDEUdraeth
LlanfairFECHan
PorthMADog
LlanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogoGOgoch :-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
>> Like I said elsewhere, I have no intention of jumping!
>
> While you *could* jump the 1.2m gap, it is nothing more than a step.
Not if the length of your stride is 1.1m. ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Judith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>Do NOT attempt the jump from Adam to Eve (or is it the other way round)
>>>there's a very big drop next to them.
>>
>>Like I said elsewhere, I have no intention of jumping!
>
>While you *could* jump the 1.2m gap, it is nothing more than a step.
I have just measured out 1.2 metres on the dining room floor. I have
to do a cross between a step and jump to cover the gap - and that's
without a rucksack on my back and not being bothered if I topple over.
I reckon a comfortable step for me would be 40cm from front of back
foot to back of front foot (ie so that both feet are on solid ground).
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4tq5av from
>http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hUMkd4KBHzo/RhqSoqXwQOI/AAAAAAAAAao/FcqwbtH3cwg/DSCF3403.JPG
That bloke is jumping!
Judith
Roger
from Judith <no.spam.for....@aol.com> contains these words:
> I'm staying at Idwal Cottage YH. My original plan was to do all of
> the 3Ks and bivi overnight but then two things occurred to me: 1. It
> will be dark from 7pm until 7am and that's a long time to lie on a
> mountain in the dark; 2: Crib Goch! I'm now going to do circular day
> walks of the Snowdon area, Glyders and Carnedds (but leave the northen
> Carnedds for another time).
In which case the obvious route for you is up the main drag from Ogwen
Cottage.
Incidentally I agree with Jhimmy that you wouldn't like the North Ridge
of Tryfan. You would like Bristly Ridge even less but that is easily
avoided on the scree path to the left.
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.
Jhimmy
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:4r4td4507o80kb6ka...@4ax.com...
That shows an upward camera angle. What you really need is an angle to show
the fall if you fail to make it. Is it 30 feet or more?
Can't remember as it's been 3 years since.
Jhimmy
hyweldavies
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:20:33 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote...
> > > At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
> > > much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin].
>
> > TRUH - VAN :-)
>
> I've know that's the pronounciation for some time. But I've never known
> whether the stress is on the first or second syllable. Which is it?
>
> --
> Tim Jackson
> (Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)
both syllables are stressed equally
Hywel
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>>www.walkingoutdoors.co.uk/Geoff/tryfan
>
>Nice pictures, but where are the captions?!
I wrote the gallery software, never did quite get a round to writing a
captioning version :-} Damned if I can remember now anyway.
Odd mountain Tryfan. From the A5 it doesn't look much of a climb. We
figured that this was an optical illusion. The rocks are so much bigger
than one is used to seeing it makes the mountain look smaller.
When we did it we never quite got to Adam and Eve because I felt it was
too dangerous with a dog. But we got close enough.
I like Tryfan, I hope the pictures show why.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
Crossing a London road is probably more dangerous. I've never heard
of someone falling to their death from Adam and Eve, but I have often
heard of people being crushed beneath the wheels of trucks.
Phil Cook
>(Is it necessary to climb onto the top of trig
>points?)
Yes if you are Ian Dainty!
>If you do fancy the jump from Adam to Eve, I don't recommend attempting it
>when it's wet.
Do you remember when we were up there on Expedition One in the pissing
rain and damp and somebody almost came a cropper jumping from Adam to
Eve?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Judith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>That shows an upward camera angle. What you really need is an angle to show
>>the fall if you fail to make it. Is it 30 feet or more?
>
>I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
>safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
>
>Crossing a London road is probably more dangerous. I've never heard
>of someone falling to their death from Adam and Eve, but I have often
>heard of people being crushed beneath the wheels of trucks.
I have terrible balance which may, or may not, be linked with my weak
knees. Maybe if I did the exercises that the physioterrorist gave me
umpteen years ago it would get better. I fall over if I stand on one
foot. Crossing a two foot wide, 3 inch deep stream causes me
problems. (Doesn't it, Phil!)
The "fear of falling" is well-developed in me. It's not a fear of
heights but a fear of falling off.
But thanks for the tip; I shall leave the juggernaut down on the A5!
Judith
Roger
from Phil Cook <ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> >If you do fancy the jump from Adam to Eve, I don't recommend attempting it
> >when it's wet.
> Do you remember when we were up there on Expedition One in the pissing
> rain and damp and somebody almost came a cropper jumping from Adam to
> Eve?
Vaguely. Where is my TR when I need to refresh my memory of what I
witnessed during my lengthy wait for the rest of the party to join me on
the summit?
Andy Leighton
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:12:56 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>>Do NOT attempt the jump from Adam to Eve (or is it the other way round)
>>>>there's a very big drop next to them.
>>>
>>>Like I said elsewhere, I have no intention of jumping!
>>
>>While you *could* jump the 1.2m gap, it is nothing more than a step.
>
> I have just measured out 1.2 metres on the dining room floor.
Snap - well office floor not dining room.
> I have to do a cross between a step and jump to cover the gap - and that's
> without a rucksack on my back and not being bothered if I topple over.
Yep same for me. I guess we ought to form a wimps club for people who
don't like exposure and who don't own seven-league boots.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Roger
from Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> contains these words:
> Yep same for me. I guess we ought to form a wimps club for people who
> don't like exposure and who don't own seven-league boots.
I don't like exposure and have trouble keeping my balance but I made
that jump* numerous times in my (much) younger days including, on one
occasion, halfway through a Welsh 3000s so if this wimp can do it you
need to think up another excuse.
*Actually a double jump - there and back as one pillar is easier to
climb than the other.
Phil Cook
>The message <e89ud4ls9pd2mn0qi...@4ax.com>
>from Phil Cook <ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> >If you do fancy the jump from Adam to Eve, I don't recommend attempting it
>> >when it's wet.
>
>> Do you remember when we were up there on Expedition One in the pissing
>> rain and damp and somebody almost came a cropper jumping from Adam to
>> Eve?
>
>Vaguely. Where is my TR when I need to refresh my memory of what I
>witnessed during my lengthy wait for the rest of the party to join me on
>the summit?
It wasn't my fault we took a grade III route whilst you took a grade I
with your hands in your pockets ;-)
Phil Cook
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:06:58 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>That shows an upward camera angle. What you really need is an angle to show
>>>the fall if you fail to make it. Is it 30 feet or more?
>>
>>I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
>>safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
>>
>>Crossing a London road is probably more dangerous. I've never heard
>>of someone falling to their death from Adam and Eve, but I have often
>>heard of people being crushed beneath the wheels of trucks.
>
>I have terrible balance which may, or may not, be linked with my weak
>knees. Maybe if I did the exercises that the physioterrorist gave me
>umpteen years ago it would get better. I fall over if I stand on one
>foot. Crossing a two foot wide, 3 inch deep stream causes me
>problems. (Doesn't it, Phil!)
Err, yes. I am reading this in wonderment, thinking how can the girl
who refused the dead easy enclosed ten foot scramble up the East ridge
of Pen yr Ole Wen from Ffynon Lloer be contemplating the North Ridge
of Tryfan?
The first time I can remember going up Tryfan I went up the Heather
Terrace under heavy snow and up from the South.
The easy route onward to the Glyders from Tryfan is to go to Llyn
Caseg-fraith along the contouring path and then trundle up the easy
slope until you hit the bouder field.
Tom Crispin
<ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Judith wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:06:58 +0100, Tom Crispin
>><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>>>That shows an upward camera angle. What you really need is an angle to show
>>>>the fall if you fail to make it. Is it 30 feet or more?
>>>
>>>I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
>>>safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
>>>
>>>Crossing a London road is probably more dangerous. I've never heard
>>>of someone falling to their death from Adam and Eve, but I have often
>>>heard of people being crushed beneath the wheels of trucks.
>>
>>I have terrible balance which may, or may not, be linked with my weak
>>knees. Maybe if I did the exercises that the physioterrorist gave me
>>umpteen years ago it would get better. I fall over if I stand on one
>>foot. Crossing a two foot wide, 3 inch deep stream causes me
>>problems. (Doesn't it, Phil!)
>
>Err, yes. I am reading this in wonderment, thinking how can the girl
>who refused the dead easy enclosed ten foot scramble up the East ridge
>of Pen yr Ole Wen from Ffynon Lloer be contemplating the North Ridge
>of Tryfan?
>
>The first time I can remember going up Tryfan I went up the Heather
>Terrace under heavy snow and up from the South.
This is my favourite pic of Tryfan.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/tryfan
I didn't go to the summit on that walk, the trundle up the Glyders in
deep snow from Capel Curig was enough. We descended from Glyder Fach
to Cwm Tryfan using survival bags as toboggans, and then the long walk
back along the footpath parallel to the A5 to our start point.
The Friday night drive up from London between Llangollen and Capel
Curig was interesting too.
Paul Rooney
> At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
> horribleness and I don't like it.
It's only horrible because you subconsciously associate it with
Triffids.
Advice: do the north ridge with someone else who's done it before. The
north ridge is on the north side, since you ask.
It's a marvellous walk combined with some tricky scrambling, and not
to be undertaken by idiots - people can and do fall off and die.
There is no set route - you have to pick your way up the crags.
The worst bit, really, is the drive home stuck behind Jones the
Tractor.
Roger
from Phil Cook <ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> >Vaguely. Where is my TR when I need to refresh my memory of what I
> >witnessed during my lengthy wait for the rest of the party to join me on
> >the summit?
> It wasn't my fault we took a grade III route whilst you took a grade I
> with your hands in your pockets ;-)
It wasn't grade 3 weather but AIUI what slowed you lot down wasn't the
difficulty of a much shorter route than the one I took but the endless
photo opportunities someone managed to find despite the thick clag.
Judith
wrote:
>> Yep same for me. I guess we ought to form a wimps club for people who
>> don't like exposure and who don't own seven-league boots.
>
>I don't like exposure and have trouble keeping my balance but I made
>that jump* numerous times in my (much) younger days including, on one
>occasion, halfway through a Welsh 3000s so if this wimp can do it you
>need to think up another excuse.
Roger, I think you need to recalibrate your Wimp scale. It's reading
high. I suppose by the same measure, Naismith was a lame sissy?!
Judith
Judith
<ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Crossing a two foot wide, 3 inch deep stream causes me
>>problems. (Doesn't it, Phil!)
>
>Err, yes. I am reading this in wonderment, thinking how can the girl
>who refused the dead easy enclosed ten foot scramble up the East ridge
>of Pen yr Ole Wen from Ffynon Lloer be contemplating the North Ridge
>of Tryfan?
That was an interesting walk. IIRC it was a little bit misty and we
only managed to meet up again by shouting and walking in the direction
of the calls.
Maybe my question does seem a little unlikely to those of you who have
walked with me, but I know many people actually enjoy walking/climbing
up Tryfan and I suppose I have a psychological block about the blasted
hill. (Yeah, mountain whatever. Mountains should be walk-up-able;
Tryfan is just a lump of scraggy rock; that's not a mountain!)
>
>The first time I can remember going up Tryfan I went up the Heather
>Terrace under heavy snow and up from the South.
I would like to get to the top by the easiest means [1] so that route
does seem preferable to the North Ridge.
>
>The easy route onward to the Glyders from Tryfan is to go to Llyn
>Caseg-fraith along the contouring path and then trundle up the easy
>slope until you hit the bouder field.
Thanks for the tip.
Judith
[1] Oh heck, I'm not becoming a bagger, am I?
Judith
<PaulV...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
>> much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin]. It's a horrible lump of
>> horribleness and I don't like it.
>
>It's only horrible because you subconsciously associate it with
>Triffids.
I wondered why I keep having bad dreams about aggressive vegetables.
>
>Advice: do the north ridge with someone else who's done it before.
Sounds like good advice. I'd not have done Striding Edge on my own
but I managed it on an Expedition (even if I did bypass the horrible
bits).
Judith
Paul Saunders
> Roger, I think you need to recalibrate your Wimp scale. It's reading
> high. I suppose by the same measure, Naismith was a lame sissy?!
I think the classifications are as follows:
Couch potatoes
Wimps
Normal walkers
Fit walkers
Naismith
Roger
:-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Roger
from Judith <no.spam.for....@aol.com> contains these words:
> Roger, I think you need to recalibrate your Wimp scale. It's reading
> high. I suppose by the same measure, Naismith was a lame sissy?!
Naismith was a hard man.
"Naismith is giving an account of an ascent of Cruach Ardrain,
Stobinian and Ben More on May 2nd when, he says, the hills did not
have their customary cover of spring snow (changed days!). He points
out the route entails 10 miles of walking, 6,300 ft of climbing and
that it took him 6 and a 1/2 hours. He concludes, 'This tallies with
a simple formula, that may be found useful in estimating what time
men in fair conditions should allow for easy expeditions, namely, an
hour for every 3 miles on the map, with an additional hour for every
2,000 ft of ascent.' "
You should note that his rule is for what he saw as "easy expeditions"
and I for one never thought 6300 feet of ascent as an easy day even in
my prime, and I am now at least 35 years past that prime and haven't
even been out walking since June.
Judith
wrote:
<Snip Naismith>
>You should note that his rule is for what he saw as "easy expeditions"
>and I for one never thought 6300 feet of ascent as an easy day even in
>my prime, and I am now at least 35 years past that prime and haven't
>even been out walking since June.
I reckon my rule-of-thumb works the other way round. I assume a slow
rate of progress over mixed terrain but identify areas where I should
be able to speed up eg where there's a good path to follow over
flattish ground. Over an average mixed day I assume an average speed
of 2mph, and that should cover meal stops too, but I tend to only
include peaks when they are on the way to somewhere else rather than
the destination in themselves.
When are you going to do the Great Orme? Your sig's been like that
for ages.
Judith
Paul Saunders
> I reckon my rule-of-thumb works the other way round. I assume a slow
> rate of progress over mixed terrain but identify areas where I should
> be able to speed up eg where there's a good path to follow over
> flattish ground.
Good rule of thumb.
> Over an average mixed day I assume an average speed
> of 2mph, and that should cover meal stops too,
Add photography to the equation and I usually estimate 1.5mph. I speed up if
the weather is crap and I stop taking photos!
> but I tend to only
> include peaks when they are on the way to somewhere else rather than
> the destination in themselves.
But peaks are the somewhere that you're on your way to, aren't they?
If peaks aren't your destination, then where on earth are you going, and
why? ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
> safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
It doesn't matter how much care you take, jumping onto a slippery wet rock
is never safe.
> Crossing a London road is probably more dangerous.
If you do it without looking yes, but not if you wait for the right moment
and cross at the right place.
> I've never heard
> of someone falling to their death from Adam and Eve,
But how many people have slipped and hurt themselves but never reported it?
Besides, lots of people have died falling off Tryfan, how do you know they
didn't fall off Adam and Eve? If you just find a body below the cliffs, how
would you know how they fell?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Do you remember when we were up there on Expedition One in the pissing
> rain and damp and somebody almost came a cropper jumping from Adam to
> Eve?
I don't think so, but I probably wasn't paying attention, or my memory's
faded.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> It wasn't grade 3 weather but AIUI what slowed you lot down wasn't the
> difficulty of a much shorter route than the one I took but the endless
> photo opportunities someone managed to find despite the thick clag.
Actually it wasn't that. We didn't take many photos. There was a
particularly awkward bit that we had to climb up, but we had to do it one at
a time, so there was a queue while we each painstakingly took our turn.
I don't know who chose that route, I was just following along at the back.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Judith
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> but I tend to only
>> include peaks when they are on the way to somewhere else rather than
>> the destination in themselves.
>
>But peaks are the somewhere that you're on your way to, aren't they?
>
>If peaks aren't your destination, then where on earth are you going, and
>why? ;-)
Have you ever walked down one of the Scottish glens like Cona Glen or
Glen Gour. No, of course not, they're not in Wales! You should give
them a go; the scenery is breath-taking and the hills/mountains are
exactly where they should be ie above you.
A couple of rubbish photos here:
http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2006/slides/5_Cona_Glen.html which
remind me of the scale of the great gouges in the landscape.
Something big must've dug these holes!
Actually, some of my 2007 photos give a better idea of why I go
walking.
http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/9_Bearneas3.html Why
go up the mountain when you can go through this gap *between* the
mountains?
Judith
Paul Saunders
> Have you ever walked down one of the Scottish glens like Cona Glen or
> Glen Gour. No, of course not, they're not in Wales!
No. Unfortunately Wales has very few wild valleys, most of them are filled
with roads/farms/houses etc. Maybe that's why I'm always inclined to go up,
because that's where the wild land is.
> You should give
> them a go; the scenery is breath-taking
I agree. One day perhaps...
> and the hills/mountains are
> exactly where they should be ie above you.
Well I wouldn't go that far! Probably ideal for camping. Boggy underfoot?
> A couple of rubbish photos here:
> http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2006/slides/5_Cona_Glen.html
Nice scenery!
> which
> remind me of the scale of the great gouges in the landscape.
> Something big must've dug these holes!
Glaciers?
> Actually, some of my 2007 photos give a better idea of why I go
> walking.
> http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/9_Bearneas3.html
Yeah.
> Why
> go up the mountain when you can go through this gap *between* the
> mountains?
Because climbing them is fun and the view is better higher up. And you get
temperature inversions which make fantastic sunrises.
You'd probably love New Zealand, loads of tramping trails that follow wild
valleys between really high spectacular mountains.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Tom Crispin
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Besides, lots of people have died falling off Tryfan, how do you know they
>didn't fall off Adam and Eve? If you just find a body below the cliffs, how
>would you know how they fell?
I expect that any investigation into a body at the foot of Tryfan's
cliffs will be able to determine if the late human had fallen from
Adam and Eve.
In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
pedestrians.
Roger
from Judith <no.spam.for....@aol.com> contains these words:
> When are you going to do the Great Orme? Your sig's been like that
> for ages.
The next time I drive that far along the A55 which, given the amount of
walking I have done this summer, may be never. Perhaps I should revert
to a signature more appropriate to a couch potato:-(
--
Roger Chapman
Looking North over the Aire Valley (and Marley Gasworks) to Rombolds Moor
Jell
> I won't be jumping anywhere. I've seen photos of people jumping
> between the two rocks and it definitely looks like a "jump" rather
> than a "step". I shall be keeping at least one limb (preferably
> three) in contact with the ground at all times!
>
> Judith
Judith (and everyone else),
Re junping from Adam to Eve. It looks like this...
http://www.cognate.info/Snowdon/html/rogues_gallery.html (third
picture down). So it's a short jump or a long step. (More of a jump
with my short legs!)
But as you can see I did it 25 years ago and that will do me!
Jell
FenlandRunner
> The message <fdkvd49go94dds166893q76482skvkr...@4ax.com>
> from Judith <no.spam.for.goofif.ple...@aol.com> contains these words:
How does 17.6km with 1,560m ascent in 4hrs 20mins compute with
Naismith?
David
Phil Cook
>Actually, some of my 2007 photos give a better idea of why I go
>walking.
>http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/9_Bearneas3.html Why
>go up the mountain when you can go through this gap *between* the
>mountains?
Whenever I pass this sign it grates. What on earth is a Great Western
train doing up there? Strathcarron is on the Kyle of Lochalsh line and
that was ex London Midland and Scotish, originally Highland Railway.
http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/4_WelcomeToStrathcarron.html
Alan Dicey
> Judith wrote:
>
>> Actually, some of my 2007 photos give a better idea of why I go
>> walking.
>> http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/9_Bearneas3.html Why
>> go up the mountain when you can go through this gap *between* the
>> mountains?
>
> Whenever I pass this sign it grates. What on earth is a Great Western
> train doing up there? Strathcarron is on the Kyle of Lochalsh line and
> that was ex London Midland and Scotish, originally Highland Railway.
> http://hometown.aol.com/goofif/TGOC_2007/slides/4_WelcomeToStrathcarron.html
>
Harry Potter. The West Highland line stands in for the route of the
Hogwarts express, pulled by a preserved Hall painted a colour
approximating Midland Crimson Lake.
Roger
<e6ce3b54-6bf0-407d...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
from FenlandRunner <fell...@gmail.com> contains these words:
> How does 17.6km with 1,560m ascent in 4hrs 20mins compute with
> Naismith?
11 miles and 5118 feet of ascent.
That is a lot of ascent in such a short distance so what was the route?
Naismith would be 6 hours 14 minutes so you obviously need a faster
rule. Try Chapman's Rule - one hour for every 4 miles and another for
every 3000 feet of ascent. That would give 4 hours 27 minutes.
Paul Saunders
>> Besides, lots of people have died falling off Tryfan, how do you
>> know they didn't fall off Adam and Eve? If you just find a body
>> below the cliffs, how would you know how they fell?
>
> I expect that any investigation into a body at the foot of Tryfan's
> cliffs will be able to determine if the late human had fallen from
> Adam and Eve.
And this information would be published where? Just because you haven't
heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. But even if no-one's fallen off
the cliff, that doesn't mean no-one's fallen off Adam and Eve. I'm sure
there must have been minor accidents over the years, but not serious enough
to warrant a call out.
There's definitely a risk involved, especially if wet, and if there's a risk
that something will happen, the law of chance means that it will.
> In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
> including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
> pedestrians.
How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless comparison.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
>> When are you going to do the Great Orme? Your sig's been like that
>> for ages.
>
> The next time I drive that far along the A55 which, given the amount
> of walking I have done this summer, may be never. Perhaps I should
> revert to a signature more appropriate to a couch potato:-(
Don't give up yet Roger! I realise you may have some problems at the moment,
but anyone who's been as fit and active as you've always been should be able
to recover relatively easily. There must be a solution, you just have to
find it.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
PeterC
>> In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
>> including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
>> pedestrians.
>
> How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless comparison.
But there are 2 that have lived up there for millenia and they've never
fallen off.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.
Paul Saunders
>> How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless
>> comparison.
>
> But there are 2 that have lived up there for millenia and they've
> never fallen off.
But what happened to Adam and Eve's younger sibling? Tryfan means "three
peaks" you know! ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
FenlandRunner
> from FenlandRunner <fells...@gmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > How does 17.6km with 1,560m ascent in 4hrs 20mins compute with
> > Naismith?
>
> 11 miles and 5118 feet of ascent.
>
> That is a lot of ascent in such a short distance so what was the route?
>
> Naismith would be 6 hours 14 minutes so you obviously need a faster
> rule. Try Chapman's Rule - one hour for every 4 miles and another for
> every 3000 feet of ascent. That would give 4 hours 27 minutes.
>
> --
> Roger Chapman
> Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
> 89 miles as the crow flies,
> considerably more as the walker drives.
Hi Roger
It was Stannah-Sticks Pass-Raise-Whiteside-Lower Man-Helvellyn-
Nethermost Pike-Dollwaggon Pike-Grisedale Tarn-Cofa Pike-Fairfield-
Seat Sandal-Dunmail Raise!
David
Richard Phillips
> At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
> much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin]. It's a horrible lump of
> horribleness and I don't like it.
>
> and I need some advice!
>
> Last time I tried to climb/walk Tryfan I started from the A5 and soon
> found that I could not see the way to go. I think I may have stayed
> too far to the right, as I believe this is a trickier route, and there
> was no sign of a path. I ended up clinging on to a mixture of
> vegetation and rock and cursing the d*mn mountain..... then I gave up.
>
> I am more experienced now, and I am certainly not expecting a
> waymarked, paved path, but are there any obvious navigational markers
> I can use to stay on the easiest route?
>
> I'm not really sure what people mean by The North Ridge. Is that the
> "other path" (marked as a black dotted line on the OS map) which goes
> N/S over the mountain to the W of Heather Terrace?
>
> Also, where is Bristly Ridge? I can't see anything named such on my
> 1:25k OS map but I have read that it's a scramble and I would want to
> find the easiest route to the S off Tryfan.
>
> I'll be heading to Glyder Fach next.
>
> If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
> route and finishing with Tryfan?
>
> Judith
I have a Memory Map "mmo" file which is a GPS plot I took when I did it,
also a bitmap showing it if you haven't got Memory Map. If you email me,
you're welcome to have either. The route was mostly straightforward, but it
was definately a case of following my nose for most of it!
Tom Crispin
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>> Besides, lots of people have died falling off Tryfan, how do you
>>> know they didn't fall off Adam and Eve? If you just find a body
>>> below the cliffs, how would you know how they fell?
>>
>> I expect that any investigation into a body at the foot of Tryfan's
>> cliffs will be able to determine if the late human had fallen from
>> Adam and Eve.
>
>And this information would be published where?
There is some info here from Llanberis Mountain Rescue:
http://www.llanberismountainrescue.co.uk/English/English_home_frameset.htm
- 1 fatality on Tryfan South Ridge - no other incidents on Tryfan
And detailed descriptions here from Ogwen Valley Mountain Rescue, I
have summerised the details of Tryfan incidents below.
http://www.ogwen-rescue.org.uk/incidents/2008.php
- 14 year old climbing Tryfan east face - broken ankle
- Fell runner slipped and banged head on boulder (no mention if the
boulder was Adam or Eve or some other boulder) - cut head
- Girls lost on North Ridge - no injury
- Man slipped on Heather Terrace path - suspected fracture
- Pair lost on West face - they got themselves unlost
- Missing person found dead on East face - suspected suicide
- Fall from North Ridge - No info about injury
- Lost on west face - no injury
- Lost on north ridge - no injury
- Four friends lost somewhere near the cannon - no injury
I've looked through 2007 and 2006, and can find only two other
incidents on Tryfan Summit - a suspected heart attack and a fractured
knee cap. It doesn't say if the heart attack followed a step between
Adam and Eve, or if the knee cap was broken after making the step.
However, on 17 April 2005 a 58 year old male fell 50 ft from the
summit of Tryfan and died. The reson for the fall is not known, but
did he slip after a jump between Adam and Eve?
2004 - nothing on Tryfan summit
2003 - 2 slips on Tryfan summit
2002 - report of rucksack on summit - owner found looking for rucksack
2001 - Dislocated left shoulder on summit - no info. about cause
- Couple reported lost on summit
2000 - lost
- cut head and bruising
1999 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1998 - Fatal aircraft crash - no mention if it flew into Adam and Eve
1997 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1996 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1995 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1994 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1993 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1992 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1991 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1990 - nothing on Tryfan summit
1989 - 1 struck by lightning on summit
1988 - nothing on Tryfan summit
So no reports of people slipping while stepping between Adam and Eve
in 20 years. Reports, some years more detailed than others, go back
to 1961. In the years when reports are detailed I am confident that
it would state if the casualty suffered their injury following a step
between Adam and Eve.
One incident of note is 4 August 1961. It explains something I had
often pondered.
>Just because you haven't
>heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. But even if no-one's fallen off
>the cliff, that doesn't mean no-one's fallen off Adam and Eve. I'm sure
>there must have been minor accidents over the years, but not serious enough
>to warrant a call out.
Perhaps - but pedestrians in London won't always report a minor injury
>There's definitely a risk involved, especially if wet, and if there's a risk
>that something will happen, the law of chance means that it will.
I would never claim it to be without risk. My claim is that it is
probably safer than crossing a London Road.
>> In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
>> including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
>> pedestrians.
>
>How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless comparison.
A better comparrison would with the number of people stepping between
Adam and Eve. Sometimes the queue can be quite long, and certainly
longer than the queue of people at my local road crossing where there
have been two pedestrian accidents that I know of this year.
Paul Saunders
>> And this information would be published where?
>
> There is some info here from Llanberis Mountain Rescue:
> It doesn't say if the heart attack followed a step between
> Adam and Eve, or if the knee cap was broken after making the step.
>
> However, on 17 April 2005 a 58 year old male fell 50 ft from the
> summit of Tryfan and died. The reson for the fall is not known, but
> did he slip after a jump between Adam and Eve?
> So no reports of people slipping while stepping between Adam and Eve
> in 20 years.
Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I sprained my ankle on Kinder Scout getting
down off a boulder once. You won't find that in any MRT report because I
didn't report it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> In the years when reports are detailed I am confident that
> it would state if the casualty suffered their injury following a step
> between Adam and Eve.
And I'm confident that it probably wouldn't state that. I mean, if someone
were stupid enough to jump and fall, then have to call out mountain rescue,
costing the taxpayer thousands to send out a rescue helicopter etc, wouldn't
they be too embarrassed to admit it? A genuine rescue is one thing, but
imagine the scorn if you admitted it was due to being a silly bugger?
And like I said, it's quite possible to hurt yourself and be able to walk
away. The lack of evidence is not proof that it hasn't happened.
> Perhaps - but pedestrians in London won't always report a minor injury
I still don't see the relevance to London pedestrians. It's a completely
different situation.
> I would never claim it to be without risk. My claim is that it is
> probably safer than crossing a London Road.
I've crossed plenty of London roads and I claim that it isn't. Crossing a
road is a completely different kind of risk. It all depends if there's
traffic coming or not. If there's a bus hurtling toward you then it's
insanely risky to try to cross, but if there's no traffic there's no risk at
all. So there's no fixed level of risk in crossing a road. If you cross at
the right moment, when there's no traffic coming, then there's no risk.
People who've been knocked down either haven't been paying attention or they
enjoy taking risks.
Of course, jumping from Adam to Eve is not a fixed risk either, it's more
risky when it's wet and windy, and not too risky when dry and calm. The risk
also varies with the individual, it's less risky for people with long legs
and a good sense of balance, more risky for wobbly, short legged people.
>>> In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
>>> including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
>>> pedestrians.
>>
>> How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless
>> comparison.
>
> A better comparrison would with the number of people stepping between
> Adam and Eve. Sometimes the queue can be quite long, and certainly
> longer than the queue of people at my local road crossing where there
> have been two pedestrian accidents that I know of this year.
Again this is not a valid comparison. I've climbed Tryfan 5 times and I've
never seen a queue up there. In fact it was completely empty on 4 occasions.
Only once have I encountered other people up there, on the urw expedition,
and there were only a handful of people IIRC.
Queues to cross roads in London are common, queues on top of Tryfan are not.
There may be a queue on a bank holiday weekend, and on other sunny weekends
throughout spring and summer, but Tryfan is frequently empty or only has a
few people on it.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Roger
from Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> contains these words:
> One incident of note is 4 August 1961. It explains something I had
> often pondered.
Rather an opposite really but in similar vein in Dovedale there is a
route called John Peel, put up by Trog Williams and John Amies in 1964.
AFAIK no holly tree was involved in the fall. :-)
Tom Crispin
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>> And this information would be published where?
>>
>> There is some info here from Llanberis Mountain Rescue:
>
>> It doesn't say if the heart attack followed a step between
>> Adam and Eve, or if the knee cap was broken after making the step.
>>
>> However, on 17 April 2005 a 58 year old male fell 50 ft from the
>> summit of Tryfan and died. The reson for the fall is not known, but
>> did he slip after a jump between Adam and Eve?
>
>> So no reports of people slipping while stepping between Adam and Eve
>> in 20 years.
>
>Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I sprained my ankle on Kinder Scout getting
>down off a boulder once. You won't find that in any MRT report because I
>didn't report it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I expect a great many people sprain their ankle on the step up from
the road surface to the pavement without reporting it.
Your claim is inarguable, and unprovable. You claim that the number
of unreported injuries stepping from Adam to Eve are such that they
make the risk of that step greater than the risk of crossing a London
Road.
>> In the years when reports are detailed I am confident that
>> it would state if the casualty suffered their injury following a step
>> between Adam and Eve.
>
>And I'm confident that it probably wouldn't state that. I mean, if someone
>were stupid enough to jump and fall, then have to call out mountain rescue,
>costing the taxpayer thousands to send out a rescue helicopter etc, wouldn't
>they be too embarrassed to admit it? A genuine rescue is one thing, but
>imagine the scorn if you admitted it was due to being a silly bugger?
OK - of the rescues from the summit of Tryfan how many, from the
reports, are likely to have been caused be someone making that step?
The only real possibility is the fatality on 17 April 2005. None of
the others come close.
>And like I said, it's quite possible to hurt yourself and be able to walk
>away. The lack of evidence is not proof that it hasn't happened.
Again you state the inarguable.
Do you want me to restate:
*On the available evidence, stepping between Adam and Eve is safer
than crossing a London Road.*
>> Perhaps - but pedestrians in London won't always report a minor injury
>
>I still don't see the relevance to London pedestrians. It's a completely
>different situation.
No - not in the context I gave.
>> I would never claim it to be without risk. My claim is that it is
>> probably safer than crossing a London Road.
>
>I've crossed plenty of London roads and I claim that it isn't. Crossing a
>road is a completely different kind of risk. It all depends if there's
>traffic coming or not. If there's a bus hurtling toward you then it's
>insanely risky to try to cross, but if there's no traffic there's no risk at
>all. So there's no fixed level of risk in crossing a road. If you cross at
>the right moment, when there's no traffic coming, then there's no risk.
>People who've been knocked down either haven't been paying attention or they
>enjoy taking risks.
The stats say different.
>Of course, jumping from Adam to Eve is not a fixed risk either, it's more
>risky when it's wet and windy, and not too risky when dry and calm. The risk
>also varies with the individual, it's less risky for people with long legs
>and a good sense of balance, more risky for wobbly, short legged people.
We are talking overall risk here, not specific risks for different
people in different weather conditions.
>>>> In 2007 there were 28,361 reported casulaties on London's roads,
>>>> including 222 fatalities. 5,252 casualties and 109 fatalities were
>>>> pedestrians.
>>>
>>> How many million people live on Tryfan? This is a meaningless
>>> comparison.
>>
>> A better comparrison would with the number of people stepping between
>> Adam and Eve. Sometimes the queue can be quite long, and certainly
>> longer than the queue of people at my local road crossing where there
>> have been two pedestrian accidents that I know of this year.
>
>Again this is not a valid comparison. I've climbed Tryfan 5 times and I've
>never seen a queue up there. In fact it was completely empty on 4 occasions.
>Only once have I encountered other people up there, on the urw expedition,
>and there were only a handful of people IIRC.
I have to admit that my club always stay at Caseg Fraith during the
last weekend in June for club members to have the best chance of
making the Welsh 3000s in daylight. The North Ridge of Tryfan is a
very popular Sunday walk, and the last Sunday in June is a very
popular day on Tryfan.
>Queues to cross roads in London are common, queues on top of Tryfan are not.
>There may be a queue on a bank holiday weekend, and on other sunny weekends
>throughout spring and summer, but Tryfan is frequently empty or only has a
>few people on it.
Yes, I would agree that the number of people crossing at my local road
crossing is greater than the number of people stepping between Adam
and Eve. But as I have stated, there have been at least two injuries
on my local crossing in the past 10 months alone.
Jhimmy
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:grydnVfzLreEvXzV...@pipex.net...
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>Snip it all out<<
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
>
I don't want to get into an arguement about London streets, it's 20 years
since I was last there! However, I agree with Paul about Tryfan. In the
number of times I've climbed it, I have never seen anyone jump between Adam
and Eve, no queues, only 1 person then stood on one of the stones (myself, I
just sat). I'm sure I've climbed it on a Sunday as well as it was as busy as
hell.
I find it impossible to believe that more accidents don't occur on these 2
rocks if the jump is popular, so I wonder if many of the injuries are
minor..ie, scraped knees, shins etc...or just people believing that jumping
from Adam and Eve is popular.
Actually, I wouldn't even attempt it at ground level. What does it prove?
Jhimmy
Paul Saunders
>> Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I sprained my ankle on Kinder Scout
>> getting down off a boulder once. You won't find that in any MRT
>> report because I didn't report it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>
> I expect a great many people sprain their ankle on the step up from
> the road surface to the pavement without reporting it.
Exactly. Only major incidents get reported so the stats prove nothing.
> Your claim is inarguable, and unprovable. You claim that the number
> of unreported injuries stepping from Adam to Eve are such that they
> make the risk of that step greater than the risk of crossing a London
> Road.
No, that's not my claim. I never said any such thing. You've set up a straw
man here.
I agree that what you wrote above is unprovable, but my claim isn't based on
that. So let's clarify things.
My original comment was this (27th 18:25):
"If you do fancy the jump from Adam to Eve, I don't recommend attempting it
when it's wet."
I also disputed that it's a step and not a jump (17th 21:22):
> While you *could* jump the 1.2m gap, it is nothing more than a step.
"Not if the length of your stride is 1.1m. ;-)"
Note the smiley. Most people's steps are much shorter than 1.1m.
You then insisted that the "step" is *safe* (28th 05:06):
> I expect the drop is at least 30 feet. The drop is what makes it so
> safe - people take exceptional care for what is just a 1.2m step.
I disputed that, stressing that it's not safe *in wet conditions* (28th
23:56):
"It doesn't matter how much care you take, jumping onto a slippery wet rock
is never safe."
So the thrust of my argument is this:
1. It's not a step, it's a jump (albeit a small one).
2. It's risky in wet conditions. Therefore I don't advise attempting it when
it's wet.
You then made a safety comparison with crossing a London road, and started
to construct your straw man (perhaps unintentionally) through the use of
accident statistics, ultimately attempting to disprove my claim that the
jump is risky due to the lack of statistical evidence and the fact that
unreported accidents are unprovable. What a tangled web you've weaved!
My risk claim was never based on unprovable unreported accidents. My risk
claim is based on the following two facts:
1. I've stood on top of Adam and decided not to attempt the jump because I
felt it was too risky, and a totally pointless risk at that.
2. I've crossed many London roads in perfect safety, simply by using the
Green Cross Code principle - wait until there's no traffic then cross.
It's probably worth noting that I took a lot of risks in my younger days and
was no stranger to jumping from one rock to another. I've jumped across gaps
in rocks with far greater drops between them than Adam and Eve. I've done
quite a bit of risky scrambling on Tryfan too. I've got a good head for
heights and a good sense of balance, yet I still think that jumping from
Adam to Eve *when wet* is a risk not worth taking.
Likewise, I've encountered situations where I felt it was too risky to cross
a London road. So I simply walked to the nearest pedestrian crossing and
waited until the lights changed. Unlike Adam and Eve, you can easily change
the risk factor in crossing a road, simply by altering your behaviour.
Note that I've never suggested that the jump is too risky to attempt when
dry. It's not completely devoid of risk, but is it much safer. One thing
I've noticed about the rocks on Tryfan is that they can be quite safe when
dry but very slippery when wet, because they tend to be very smooth rocks.
In fact, it's quite possible that I did jump from Adam to Eve on my very
first visit, but it was so long ago that I really can't remember for sure. I
know it's exactly the sort of thing I probably would have done at the time,
but my memory is too hazy now to be certain. I am however certain that I
declined to risk it at a later date.
> OK - of the rescues from the summit of Tryfan how many, from the
> reports, are likely to have been caused be someone making that step?
Few if any.
> The only real possibility is the fatality on 17 April 2005. None of
> the others come close.
But you're only going on callout statistics, which prove nothing other than
the fact that an unsuccesful jump is not likely to result in death or
serious injury warranting a callout.
When I said it was risky, I didn't claim that failing to make the jump would
cause you to fall down the nearby cliff. The proximity of the cliff is
always mentioned by those who point out the risk, but IMO it's far more
likely that you'd just fall 5 or 6 feet and hurt yourself, or simply slip
and hurt yourself without even falling off.
In other words, there's a risk of minor injury, not likely to warrant a
callout.
>> And like I said, it's quite possible to hurt yourself and be able to
>> walk away. The lack of evidence is not proof that it hasn't happened.
>
> Again you state the inarguable.
It's unprovable, not inarguable.
But although it can't be proved, it's a well known fact that if something
can happen, it will happen. It's the law of chance. If there's a risk of
something happening, it will happen.
The odds of winning the lottery are 13 million to one, yet people regularly
win it. The odds of an asteroid hitting earth are neglible, yet they do hit
earth. Airline companies boast about how rare it is for an aeroplane to
crash, yet they still crash.
It may be unprovable, but the fact that there *is* a risk involved means
that it's highly unlikely that no-one has ever had an accident attempting to
jump from Adam to Eve.
It's like life on other planets. No-one has yet proved that there's alien
life anywhere else in the universe, but it would be ridiculous to assume
that there isn't, simply due to lack of evidence. The fact that there is
life on this planet proves that life is possible in the universe, and if
it's possible, then it's bound to happen.
> Do you want me to restate:
> *On the available evidence, stepping between Adam and Eve is safer
> than crossing a London Road.*
No, I don't want you to restate it, because it's a straw man. Available
evidence does not prove that the jump is not risky. You're trying to
disprove risk through lack of evidence.
There *is* a risk in jumping from Adam to Eve, lack of evidence cannot
disprove that.
>> I still don't see the relevance to London pedestrians. It's a
>> completely different situation.
>
> No - not in the context I gave.
Yes, it is completely different. When crossing a road you can change the
risk by changing your behaviour. You can't change the risk of jumping from
Adam to Eve. You can't wait until there are no cars passing or cross via a
bridge instead or stand at a pedestrian crossing and wait for the lights to
change. It's not a valid comparison.
>> If you cross at the right moment, when there's
>> no traffic coming, then there's no risk. People who've been knocked
>> down either haven't been paying attention or they enjoy taking risks.
>
> The stats say different.
The stats say nothing of the sort. If you cross when there's no traffic
coming then there is NO risk. If you get knocked down by a car then
obviously there WAS a car coming! So if you thought there wasn't but there
was, then clearly you weren't paying attention! Alternatively, if you knew
there was a car coming then you CHOSE to take a risk.
>> Of course, jumping from Adam to Eve is not a fixed risk either, it's
>> more risky when it's wet and windy, and not too risky when dry and
>> calm. The risk also varies with the individual, it's less risky for
>> people with long legs and a good sense of balance, more risky for
>> wobbly, short legged people.
>
> We are talking overall risk here, not specific risks for different
> people in different weather conditions.
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what we're talking about. My very first
comment was "I don't recommend attempting it when it's wet." Moreover, it
was a specific comment for Judith, who I know doesn't like taking risks. In
fact, I should probably have recommended not attempting it in any
conditions.
There is a very big difference between attempting it in the wet and the dry.
The rocks are smooth and slippery when wet. Given grippy boots in dry
conditions, the risk level is probably very low.
Confidence is also a major factor. How is it that some people can happily
scale a vertical cliff face while others are mortified at the prospect of an
easy scramble? It's not because of difference in physical abilities (well it
is a bit), it's primarily down to confidence.
Believing that it's easy to step from Adam to Eve makes it easy. Believing
that it's dangerous to jump from Adam and Eve makes it dangerous. The human
mind is a very powerful thing.
Which probably explains why there are no documented serious accidents. It's
likely that only confident people will attempt it, and most will therefore
succeed. It's also likely that most will only attempt it when dry. The
people most likely to have accidents will most likely not risk it. Those
that do have accidents are probably too embarrassed to make that fact
publicly known.
> The North Ridge of Tryfan is a
> very popular Sunday walk, and the last Sunday in June is a very
> popular day on Tryfan.
Indeed. But with careful timing it's possible to have Tryfan all to
yourself. I once climbed it in the evening after a day of solid rain
(mid-week during the last week of August). Most people were probably in the
pub by then, or had cancelled their plans due to the weather. Fortunately
the strong wind dried out most of the rocks quickly.
> Yes, I would agree that the number of people crossing at my local road
> crossing is greater than the number of people stepping between Adam
> and Eve. But as I have stated, there have been at least two injuries
> on my local crossing in the past 10 months alone.
The mistake is to assume that because the lights say that it's safe to
cross, that you don't need to watch out for traffic. Drivers can make
mistakes too. There are a lot of traffic lights in London, and I once failed
to stop at a pedestrian crossing due to a momentary lapse in concentration.
There was a person crossing at the time, but fortunately he was paying
attention and ran to avoid me.
There's also the issue of drunk pedestrians. We constantly hear about drunk
drivers, but what about drunk walkers? Given that so few people drink and
drive these days, there must be an awful lot of drunk pedestrians walking
home from the pub at night. Surely these must account for a lot of accident
statistics?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
david.wil...@googlemail.com
average 10 road crossings, that's 100,000,000 crossings. Each year
100 die and 5,000 are injured. If 100 people a day jump from Adam to
Eve, and there is a similar risk profile, we can expect a death every
10,000 years, and an injury every 200 years.
David
Paul Rooney
> The message <ue0td4hs2cns19evcf2lcsd1sb8ocqh...@4ax.com>> > I'm staying at Idwal Cottage YH. My original plan was to do all of
> > the 3Ks and bivi overnight but then two things occurred to me: 1. It
> > will be dark from 7pm until 7am and that's a long time to lie on a
> > mountain in the dark; 2: Crib Goch! I'm now going to do circular day
> > walks of the Snowdon area, Glyders and Carnedds (but leave the northen
> > Carnedds for another time).
>
> In which case the obvious route for you is up the main drag from Ogwen
> Cottage.
>
> Incidentally I agree with Jhimmy that you wouldn't like the North Ridge
> of Tryfan. You would like Bristly Ridge even less but that is easily
> avoided on the scree path to the left.
>
We once turned back on Crib Goch because my wife was unhappy with it.
Most of us had done it before, numerous times, but we have an
agreement - if one won't go, we all don't go. There's no pressure to
continue. We'd actually done the scary-ish bits, so we had to retrace
them (-: Such is female logic. Having said that, I've also turned
back in a similar situation in the Alps because I wasn't confident,
although my daughter was all set to continue.
I think Judith (or most mountain walkers) would absolutely love the
north ridge, as long as she/they were in competent company - and
possibly roped.
Going outside your comfort zone, gently, safely and gradually, is a
wonderful thing.
Phil Cook
>Judith wrote:
>> At the risk of upsetting Paul, I would like to start by saying how
>> much I hate Tryfan [that's Triffin]. It's a horrible lump of
>> horribleness and I don't like it.
>>
>> However, I shall be attempting to walk over the top of it next weekend
>> and I need some advice!
>> I'm not really sure what people mean by The North Ridge. Is that the
>> "other path" (marked as a black dotted line on the OS map) which goes
>> N/S over the mountain to the W of Heather Terrace?
>>
>> Also, where is Bristly Ridge? I can't see anything named such on my
>> 1:25k OS map but I have read that it's a scramble and I would want to
>> find the easiest route to the S off Tryfan.
>>
>> I'll be heading to Glyder Fach next.
>>
>> If Tryfan is easier from the S then would I be better reversing my
>> route and finishing with Tryfan?
>>
>I have a Memory Map "mmo" file which is a GPS plot I took when I did it,
>also a bitmap showing it if you haven't got Memory Map. If you email me,
>you're welcome to have either. The route was mostly straightforward, but it
>was definately a case of following my nose for most of it!
A GPS track is only going to put you in the right area. Even a 5m EPE
is going to mean you miss the exact line and potentially lead you into
"serious" territory on the North Ridge.
Richard Phillips
Agreed, but I only offer it as a guide of my approximate route, I'm not
suggesting anyone uses it to micro-navigate on the mountain, but it might be
useful and/or reassuring if used with a map and some common sense!
Pedt
on Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wibbled
>The message <ue0td4hs2cns19evc...@4ax.com>
>from Judith <no.spam.for....@aol.com> contains these words:
>
>> I'm staying at Idwal Cottage YH. My original plan was to do all of
>> the 3Ks and bivi overnight but then two things occurred to me: 1. It
>> will be dark from 7pm until 7am and that's a long time to lie on a
>> mountain in the dark; 2: Crib Goch! I'm now going to do circular day
>> walks of the Snowdon area, Glyders and Carnedds (but leave the northen
>> Carnedds for another time).
>
>
>In which case the obvious route for you is up the main drag from Ogwen
>Cottage.
Depends. If you're making a day of Tryfan rather than trying to do both
Tryfan and two Glyders in one day I'd favour starting from Gwern-y-Gof
Uchaf and going up the wide gully East of Tryfan Bach, walk over the
broken fence by the stile (unless the fence is now repaired and you need
the stile) and, in a few yards, go left to 120 degrees to the stream.
After crossing it, go roughly 150 degrees to the level ground then
roughly East onto the broad Braich Y Ddeugwm ridge. Follow the ridge up
to Drws Nodded then skirt the SW side of Llyn Caseg Ffraith to the
Miners Path.
Miners path to Bwlch Tryfan then, crossing the wall, up the south ridge
to the summit.
Reserve the slog to Idwal Cottage via Llyn Bochlwyd for the return -
even then I'd go West from the outlet of Llyn Bochlwyd and descend to
Llyn Idwal.
Some superb views of Tryfan from Braich y Ddeugwm.
Route not recommended if mist is below the level you'd hit Braich y
Ddeugwm unless you've been there before.
--
Pedt
Gordon H
<64aed9b0-eed0-4458...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Paul Rooney <PaulV...@gmail.com> writes
>
>Going outside your comfort zone, gently, safely and gradually, is a
>wonderful thing.
>
prefer to use the remote control to switch channels.
Striding Edge, Sharp Edge are a long way behind me now. :)
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
Paul Rooney
wrote:
> In message
> <64aed9b0-eed0-4458-ab0c-2d02593e6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Paul Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Going outside your comfort zone, gently, safely and gradually, is a
> >wonderful thing.
>
> No doubt, but when seated on my StressLess recliner in the evening, I
> prefer to use the remote control to switch channels.
You could afford a Filipina maid to that for you, surely? My neighbour
has one and reckons it costs less than 40 squids a week.
>
> Striding Edge, Sharp Edge are a long way behind me now. :)
> --
Why?? I've seen older people than you doing both!
Gordon H
<e9eec0a2-d90c-44d9...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Paul Rooney <PaulV...@gmail.com> writes
>On Oct 1, 11:43�pm, Gordon H <Gordon_N...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <64aed9b0-eed0-4458-ab0c-2d02593e6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Paul Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >Going outside your comfort zone, gently, safely and gradually, is a
>> >wonderful thing.
>>
>> No doubt, but when seated on my StressLess recliner in the evening, I
>> prefer to use the remote control to switch channels.
>
>You could afford a Filipina maid to that for you, surely? My neighbour
>has one and reckons it costs less than 40 squids a week.
>
>>
>> Striding Edge, Sharp Edge are a long way behind me now. � � :)
>> --
>
>Why?? I've seen older people than you doing both!
I run out of stamina very quickly these days. The female walking
partner, 11 years younger than I, can now leave me well behind on hills,
whereas 10 years ago it was the other way round.
It's mainly high BP which is the problem, even though it is controlled
well by meds. I inherited that from my parents, but have outlived
them by 15 and 3 years respectively, mostly through dissolute living.
:-)
Paul Rooney
wrote:
> In message
> <e9eec0a2-d90c-44d9-ae9a-c115e58d7...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Paul Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 1, 11:43 pm, Gordon H <Gordon_N...@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <64aed9b0-eed0-4458-ab0c-2d02593e6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Paul Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> >Going outside your comfort zone, gently, safely and gradually, is a
> >> >wonderful thing.
>
> >> No doubt, but when seated on my StressLess recliner in the evening, I
> >> prefer to use the remote control to switch channels.
>
> >You could afford a Filipina maid to that for you, surely? My neighbour
> >has one and reckons it costs less than 40 squids a week.
>
> 8-)
>
> >> Striding Edge, Sharp Edge are a long way behind me now. :)
> >> --
>
> >Why?? I've seen older people than you doing both!
>
> I run out of stamina very quickly these days. The female walking
> partner, 11 years younger than I, can now leave me well behind on hills,
> whereas 10 years ago it was the other way round.
>
> It's mainly high BP which is the problem, even though it is controlled
> well by meds. I inherited that from my parents, but have outlived
> them by 15 and 3 years respectively, mostly through dissolute living.
> :-)
Well I'll have to go another 40 years to live as long as my Dad did,
and I think that's highly unlikely! He was still walking the fells
until well into his 70s. But I drink rather more than he did, though I
smoke less.
I'm still convinced that quality of life is better than quantity, as
it were, but I'm approaching an age when I'll very likely start to
worry about living a bit longer.
Peter Clinch
> I'm still convinced that quality of life is better than quantity, as
> it were
Given the choice of one or the other, yes. But I don't see why you
shouldn't have both...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Paul Rooney
> Paul Rooney wrote:
> > I'm still convinced that quality of life is better than quantity, as
> > it were
>
> Given the choice of one or the other, yes. But I don't see why you
> shouldn't have both...
>
Ideally, you can. But some of us have a lifestyle whose quality is
heavily dependent on things that are very likely to shorten our life
(-:
Actually that's a serious point - there are quite a few activities
that really make you feel alive, but have a significant element of
danger in them.
Peter Clinch
> Actually that's a serious point - there are quite a few activities
> that really make you feel alive, but have a significant element of
> danger in them.
Different sorts of danger though: smoking *will* almost certainly bugger
up your health, climbing will only do it if you fall off unprotected,
and so on.
Gordon H
<9a886928-ebd3-4c26...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Paul Rooney <PaulV...@gmail.com> writes
>
>Well I'll have to go another 40 years to live as long as my Dad did,
>and I think that's highly unlikely! He was still walking the fells
>until well into his 70s. But I drink rather more than he did, though I
>smoke less.
>I'm still convinced that quality of life is better than quantity, as
>it were, but I'm approaching an age when I'll very likely start to
>worry about living a bit longer.
My quality of life is reasonable. I am more of a stroller than a
fell-walker now, but I enjoy doing some conservation work in a local
Country Park, and am learning stuff about flora and fauna from the rest
of the volunteers and wardens.
The longer you live, the greater your life expectancy.
:)
Paul Rooney
> Paul Rooney wrote:
> > Actually that's a serious point - there are quite a few activities
> > that really make you feel alive, but have a significant element of
> > danger in them.
>
> Different sorts of danger though: smoking *will* almost certainly bugger
> up your health, climbing will only do it if you fall off unprotected,
> and so on.
>
That's true. I'd be interested to see figures for so-called extreme
sports though. Also, there's a level in climbing at which there is a
fair bit of danger - Himalayan and Alpine stuff etc. Or maybe it only
seems that way because of well known accidents?
Paul Rooney
wrote:
> In message
> <9a886928-ebd3-4c26-85bd-ba154f876...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Paul Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >Well I'll have to go another 40 years to live as long as my Dad did,
> >and I think that's highly unlikely! He was still walking the fells
> >until well into his 70s. But I drink rather more than he did, though I
> >smoke less.
> >I'm still convinced that quality of life is better than quantity, as
> >it were, but I'm approaching an age when I'll very likely start to
> >worry about living a bit longer.
>
> My quality of life is reasonable. I am more of a stroller than a
> fell-walker now, but I enjoy doing some conservation work in a local
> Country Park, and am learning stuff about flora and fauna from the rest
> of the volunteers and wardens.
Winter's approaching - it'll soon be time to see 'the white hare in
the heather'. As nice a combination of flora and fauna as you could
wish for. Mind you, I did once see a group of fox cubs playing tick
around a foxglove. Now that would have made a good photo!
>
> The longer you live, the greater your life expectancy.
> :)
Ha ha!
Peter Clinch
> That's true. I'd be interested to see figures for so-called extreme
> sports though. Also, there's a level in climbing at which there is a
> fair bit of danger - Himalayan and Alpine stuff etc.
Climbing as in mountaineering and climbing as in rock climbing are, I
think, fairly different in terms in terms of risk. Climbing/cragging is
actually remarkably safe as the seriously technically difficult stuff
tends to be bolt-protected.
And with mountaineering you still have degrees of danger, so K2 is more
dangerous than a "trekking peak" (by quite some margin!) and so on.
For years cave diving was quoted as the most dangerous sport going but
that's no longer the case. The corpses made the mistakes and the
survivors learned from them, and now procedures make it much less
bonkers (not that I'll ever be trying it, mind). But as with
mountaineering, if you don't follow the procdeures you've plenty of
opportunity to total yourself.
Paul Saunders
> Climbing as in mountaineering and climbing as in rock climbing are, I
> think, fairly different in terms in terms of risk. Climbing/cragging
> is actually remarkably safe as the seriously technically difficult
> stuff tends to be bolt-protected.
And scrambling can sometimes be a lot more dangerous because you don't have
the protection of ropes. I've found myself in a few risky situations over
the years.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Bill Grey
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>The corpses made the mistakes and the
>survivors learned from them, and now procedures make it much less
>bonkers (not that I'll ever be trying it, mind). But as with
Unfortunately some people don't learn! :-(
Recently our MRT combined with the local Cave rescue team had to rescue
two cavers - one an Outward Bound Leader and experienced caver with
another caver. They became trapped by rising water in a local well
known cave and had to be rescued by a cave diver who took diving gear in
and brought them out through a sump one at a time. Not a pleasant
experience for a non diver methinks.
The whole episode was brought about by an extremely stupid idea to
venture into a cave known to develop a deep sump considering the very
inclement weather we've experienced in the last couple of months.weeks.
--
Bill Grey
Bill Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
You should have taken more water with it :-)
>
>Paul
--
Bill Grey
Jhimmy
"Bill Grey" <w...@graigroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PQTjrVAr...@graigroad.demon.co.uk...
I once met up and walked alongside a guy who wore bi-focal glasses, every
50th or so step he stumbled on a rock as he kept saying "I can't really see
in these (bi-focal glasses) damn things". The answer to him is he'll never
learn and is a MRT stat in waiting!
The number of times I've heard of cavers going down after rain is (or seems)
increasingly concerning.:
http://www.grough.co.uk/content/view/1126/
Surely it's not rocket science to realise that after heavy rain, pot holes
flood.....mountain paths are slippery.
Accidents do happen, of the many 1000's of steps a person does,
statistically something will happen whether major or minor. People do get
lost. But there's a small number of people who now matter what you say to
them totally ignore or can't understand the danger not only for themselves
but other people.
Jhimmy
Peter Clinch
> Surely it's not rocket science to realise that after heavy rain, pot
> holes flood.....
Almost all of my caving has been in the company of a caving guide of
considerable experience. He watched the weather forecasts very
carefully, had a list of options unaffected by ain up to and including
not going under ground. So it's certainly known in the game to be a
problem, but as you say there's always folk who are sure it won't happen
to them...
Gordon H
<c6a7dbcb-d330-4439...@64g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Paul
Rooney <PaulV...@gmail.com> writes
>
>Winter's approaching - it'll soon be time to see 'the white hare in
>the heather'. As nice a combination of flora and fauna as you could
>wish for.
That brings to mind the last time I saw mountain hares on a trip up to
the B29 on Higher Shelf Stones. They occupied about 5 pixels on the
photos. ;-)
I never did go back to investigate the bleeping noises we heard on the
way back down to the Snake summit.
My last trip was solo and in cloud, to plant a cross OBO some guys in
another newsgroup after one of them died.
There was a helicopter landing as I returned to the car, apparently to
lift paving stones up onto the moor to cover some nasty mud. :-(
>Mind you, I did once see a group of fox cubs playing tick
>around a foxglove. Now that would have made a good photo!
>>
I would never sell gloves to a fox on 'tick'. They are too sly.
>> The longer you live, the greater your life expectancy.
>> :)
>
>Ha ha!
It's true.
My life expectancy is almost certainly greater than yours, in spite of
you drinking more beer than I do. ;-)
Paul Rooney
wrote:
> In message
> <c6a7dbcb-d330-4439-b1bf-800c4254d...@64g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Paul
> Rooney <PaulVRoo...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >Winter's approaching - it'll soon be time to see 'the white hare in
> >the heather'. As nice a combination of flora and fauna as you could
> >wish for.
>
> That brings to mind the last time I saw mountain hares on a trip up to
> the B29 on Higher Shelf Stones. They occupied about 5 pixels on the
> photos. ;-)
Same here. I could have done with a decent camera when I went up there
(I say this at the risk of provoking our resident photographers who
believe it's the person, not the camera, that takes a good snap (-: )
>
> I never did go back to investigate the bleeping noises we heard on the
> way back down to the Snake summit.
> My last trip was solo and in cloud, to plant a cross OBO some guys in
> another newsgroup after one of them died.
>
> There was a helicopter landing as I returned to the car, apparently to
> lift paving stones up onto the moor to cover some nasty mud. :-(
>
> >Mind you, I did once see a group of fox cubs playing tick
> >around a foxglove. Now that would have made a good photo!
>
> I would never sell gloves to a fox on 'tick'. They are too sly.
>
> >> The longer you live, the greater your life expectancy.
> >> :)
>
> >Ha ha!
>
> It's true.
> My life expectancy is almost certainly greater than yours, in spite of
> you drinking more beer than I do. ;-)
I have to agree!
Paul Saunders
>> That brings to mind the last time I saw mountain hares on a trip up
>> to the B29 on Higher Shelf Stones. They occupied about 5 pixels on
>> the photos. ;-)
>
> Same here. I could have done with a decent camera when I went up there
> (I say this at the risk of provoking our resident photographers who
> believe it's the person, not the camera, that takes a good snap (-: )
Cameras take snaps, people (photographers) take photographs. :-)
Honestly, if you use a better camera to take a snap, you'll still end up
with a snap. A higher quality snap, but still just a snap. It's just as easy
to take blurry, overexposed snaps with an expensive camera as with a cheap
one. You'll just get a higher resolution blur! :-)
A good photographer with a cheap camera will take a better photo than a
snapper with an expensive camera. The quality may be as good, but it will
still be a better photo.
Did anyone see the series about photographing Britain a few years ago? I
can't remember the name of it. They gave experienced film photographers a
variety of digital cameras to experiment with (this was back when digital
wasn't as widely accepted as it is today).
Anyway, Joe Cornish was one of the photographers, and he always uses (used?)
large format cameras for the maximum possible quality. In what I considered
to be an insult, they gave him a phone camera to use! (They gave the Canon
1Ds to someone else.) Personally, I'd have thrown it off the edge of the
pier that they were standing on at the time, but he accepted the challenge.
Guess what? He took some bloody good photos with it! Unfortunately the
resolution was so low that those photos would be pretty much useless to
print and sell, but it proved the point about good photographers and crap
cameras.
But back to the case in point. The issue here is not one of camera quality
so much as not having a telephoto lens. That's what you need to photograph
wildlife, a long lens, the longer the better. Some compacts do have quite
long lenses, but you're right, to get the best results you'd need an SLR
with a good telephoto lens for that sort of photography.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Rooney
> Paul Rooney wrote:
> >> That brings to mind the last time I saw mountain hares on a trip up
> >> to the B29 on Higher Shelf Stones. They occupied about 5 pixels on
> >> the photos. ;-)
>
> > Same here. I could have done with a decent camera when I went up there
> > (I say this at the risk of provoking our resident photographers who
> > believe it's the person, not the camera, that takes a good snap (-: )
>
> Cameras take snaps, people (photographers) take photographs. :-)
<snip>
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist!
I accept what you say - I was posting tongue-in-cheek, of course. I'm
not into the technical side of photography, so what I'd really like is
an easy to operate, small, reasonably light camera with a reasonable
telephoto facility. I don't know whether such a thing exists, and if
it does it's probably outside my price range.
Paul Saunders
>> Cameras take snaps, people (photographers) take photographs. :-)
> I knew you wouldn't be able to resist!
> I accept what you say - I was posting tongue-in-cheek, of course. I'm
> not into the technical side of photography, so what I'd really like is
> an easy to operate, small, reasonably light camera with a reasonable
> telephoto facility. I don't know whether such a thing exists, and if
> it does it's probably outside my price range.
Depends what you mean by reasonable. My Canon G9 goes to 210mm, which I'd
class as reasonable, and it's a very small camera. 210mm is hardly extreme
telephoto though.
A quick search throws up the Fuji Finepix S8000fd 8MP. It has an 18x optical
zoom that goes from 27mm to 486mm. That's a decent wide angle for a compact
and the telephoto is as long as most DSLR users have access to.
It weighs 410g, not including battery and memory card (why do they do that?
No-one's going to use it without a battery and card!). So obviously it's not
as light and small as tiny slimline pocket compact, but there's no way it
could be with a lens like that.
Also, 8MP isn't a huge resolution compared to the latest offerings, but as
has been pointed out many times, most people will never need more than that.
It seems to be symptomatic of long zoom compacts that they have fewer
megapixels than cameras with shorter lenses, but as I say, 8MP is more than
enough. At a push you could make an acceptable 20x15 print from that.
Oh, and it's only £309 according to this website.
There are other similar long zoom compacts around if you search for them.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Rooney
>
> Depends what you mean by reasonable. My Canon G9 goes to 210mm, which I'd
> class as reasonable, and it's a very small camera. 210mm is hardly extreme
> telephoto though.
>
> A quick search throws up the Fuji Finepix S8000fd 8MP.
That looks like it will suit me very well. Cheers, Paul.
Paul Saunders
>> A quick search throws up the Fuji Finepix S8000fd 8MP.
>
> That looks like it will suit me very well. Cheers, Paul.
My pleasure.
Don't rush into it though, that was only a quick search, I'm sure there must
be other contenders. Read a few reviews too.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> The number of times I've heard of cavers going down after rain is (or
> seems) increasingly concerning.:
> http://www.grough.co.uk/content/view/1126/
>
> Surely it's not rocket science to realise that after heavy rain, pot
> holes flood.....mountain paths are slippery.
I guess some people don't make that connection. Maybe they think that caves
will be dry because they've got a roof over their heads?
> Accidents do happen, of the many 1000's of steps a person does,
> statistically something will happen whether major or minor.
True, but statistics are averages. The actual risk varies considerably with
the individual and the circumstances. A skilled, well equipped individual
may be quite safe in what may be quite a risky situation for other people.
And some people are so careless and accident prone they can hurt themselves
in situations most people consider to be safe.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Bill Grey
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>I guess some people don't make that connection. Maybe they think that caves
>will be dry because they've got a roof over their heads?
This could hardly apply to a cave leader taking a novice caver into a
well known cave. That was stupidity condemned by other cavers under the
circumstances.
--
Bill Grey
Jhimmy
>> Accidents do happen, of the many 1000's of steps a person does,
>> statistically something will happen whether major or minor.
>
> True, but statistics are averages. The actual risk varies considerably
> with the individual and the circumstances. A skilled, well equipped
> individual may be quite safe in what may be quite a risky situation for
> other people. And some people are so careless and accident prone they can
> hurt themselves in situations most people consider to be safe.
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
>
Statistics are not averages, if so I'd be a winner on the lottery every week
;-) There's variables in steps you take. For example, surfaces, sole grip,
step length, tiredness, wet conditions..etc.
Accidents will eventually happen, but it may be so minor you ignore or don't
recognise it, as in the case (for example) of myself on Slighty Crag, I over
stepped a peat hag and half twisted an ankle. A couple of minutes of rest
was sufficient to rewalk again. Another example (sorry Roger for reminding
you!) Roger Chapman and myself were walking when he twisted his foot on a
simple flat rock that he'd probably have done a thousand times before but if
it had been anyone else I think the MRT would need to have been called.
One of the strange ironys is some careless people don't see any danger in
their actions and get away with it week in, week out! A friend of mine who
walks with me every so often laughs at the way I move on mountains. I never
noticed it or even thought about it before. I tend to use my hands a lot
when descending, even easy descents. I also do other things that "ammuses"
him. But having thought about it, it's simple because I walk alot solo and
I'm extra careful due to that fact.
Jhimmy
Roger
from "Jhimmy" <cobalt...@yahoo.com> contains these words:
> Accidents will eventually happen, but it may be so minor you ignore or
> don't
> recognise it, as in the case (for example) of myself on Slighty Crag,
> I over
> stepped a peat hag and half twisted an ankle. A couple of minutes of rest
> was sufficient to rewalk again.
Now that is a co-incidence (assuming you mean Sighty Crag). Sighty Crag
is in the middle of nowhere and must be one of the least visited summits
in England. Almost exactly two years ago (21/10) shortly after leaving
that summit on a wet and miserable day I stuck a foot down an unseen
bottomless hole. The result luckily wasn't serious but it easily could
have been and it would have been very difficult to have got back from
there under my own steam without the use of both of my legs and
absolutely no prospect of a passing shepherd noticing my plight before I
expired.
> Another example (sorry Roger for reminding
> you!) Roger Chapman and myself were walking when he twisted his foot on a
> simple flat rock that he'd probably have done a thousand times before
> but if
> it had been anyone else I think the MRT would need to have been called.
Who needs the MRT when Jhimmy is there to help? :-)
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.
Jhimmy
<snip>
> Now that is a co-incidence (assuming you mean Sighty Crag). Sighty Crag
> is in the middle of nowhere and must be one of the least visited summits
> in England. Almost exactly two years ago (21/10) shortly after leaving
> that summit on a wet and miserable day I stuck a foot down an unseen
> bottomless hole. The result luckily wasn't serious but it easily could
> have been and it would have been very difficult to have got back from
> there under my own steam without the use of both of my legs and
> absolutely no prospect of a passing shepherd noticing my plight before I
> expired.
>
I had the "almost" accident at approx NY 597 816, as I tried to take a short
cut between Burnt Tom Crags and Sighty Crag, rather then follow the fence.
The ground was wet and soggy. I just stepped over a small ditch, but my foot
rocked on a hard part (maybe a stone) and my full weight caught my ankle.
It was good job I had my main walking boots on, rather then a pair of
lightweight fell books or trainers.
I agree it's a desolate area and from Christianbury crags I couldn't find a
path, nor do I think there was one for the long walk to Sighty.
Jhimmy
Paul Rooney
> It was good job I had my main walking boots on, rather then a pair of
> lightweight fell books or trainers.
I think we should stop accepting that boots prevent ankle injuries.
They don't. It's a myth. The only boot that will do this is a ski
boot. Flat soled (and heeled) trainer-type shoes are far and away the
safest footwear for your ankles, unless you have some medical problem.
Paul Saunders
>> True, but statistics are averages. The actual risk varies
>> considerably with the individual and the circumstances.
>
> Statistics are not averages, if so I'd be a winner on the lottery
> every week ;-)
No of course not. I phrased that wrongly. What I meant was that statistical
averages (averages of how often something is likely to happen) don't apply
to the individual.
So for example, the stats may say that on average, one accident will occur
every 1000 miles, therefore if 100 people walk 10 miles each, one will have
an accident.
From that you might conclude that each person has a 1 in a 100 chance of
having an accident. But since some individuals take more risks than others
and some are more careless, the risk will be higher for some and lower for
others. For one individual the chance may be 1 in 500, for another it may be
1 in 20. It may be 1 in 100 for everyone as a whole, but individuals are not
everyone.
> One of the strange ironys is some careless people don't see any
> danger in their actions and get away with it week in, week out!
It's not irony, it's misperception. It's all due to the laws of chance. Just
because someone is careless or takes inappropriate risks doesn't mean that
an accident will happen. There's still a big luck/chance factor involved
(like a roll of a die).
Let's say that a careful person has a 1 in 6 chance of having an accident
(just to use the die example), while a careless person has a 4 in 6 chance.
So if you roll a 6 you'll have an accident, if they roll a 3, 4, 5 or 6
they'll have an accident. You do two walks together. You roll a 3 and a 5,
they roll a 1 and a 2. Neither of you has an accident.
The reason you think it's ironic that they took risks and got away with it
is because you're not seeing the big picture. You only saw two die rolls,
and they got lucky both times. Maybe you do a few more walks together and
they roll a few more 1s and 2s. Still within the bounds of chance. But if
you rolled the die 600 times, they'd have roughly 400 accidents. Okay, it
may be only 350 accidents, or it may be 450 accidents, but it would be
roughly 400 if you rolled the die often enough. But for just a few die
rolls, it's perfectly possible that they'll roll only 1s and 2s quite a few
times. It's well within the laws of chance.
And when you only see a small part of the picture, it seems that these
people are unusually lucky. But given enough walks, their luck will run out
and they will have more accidents than you. It's just that you don't see
enough die rolls to see the big picture.
Obviously my example isn't representative of the actual odds of an accident,
which will be far less than that, even for people who take risks.
Did you or anyone else see Derren Brown doing a programme about betting on
horse races a while back? He explained some of this stuff. In the programme
he did a live demonstration of flipping a coin 10 times in a row and getting
heads every time. Statistically that's highly probably, but according to the
laws of chance, if you flip a coin often enough, it's highly likely that it
will happen. In fact, he explained at the end that they'd spent an entire
day filming him flipping a coin thousands of times until he eventually did
get 10 heads in a row.
So, some people may seem to be unusually lucky, but you're only seeing a
small part of the picture. Statistically, people who take risks will have
more accidents than those who don't.
> A
> friend of mine who walks with me every so often laughs at the way I
> move on mountains. I never noticed it or even thought about it
> before. I tend to use my hands a lot when descending, even easy
> descents. I also do other things that "amuses" him. But having
> thought about it, it's simple because I walk a lot solo and I'm extra
> careful due to that fact.
Same here, I'm always very careful when I'm on my own. But unlike you I tend
to become careless when I'm walking with other people, because of that extra
"safety net". That's probably why I sprained my ankle when walking with a
group of experienced hill walkers all armed with GPS and mobile phones! Way
too big a safety net and I got way too careless!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> On Oct 10, 2:25 am, "Jhimmy" <cobalt_blu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It was good job I had my main walking boots on, rather then a pair of
>> lightweight fell books or trainers.
>
> I think we should stop accepting that boots prevent ankle injuries.
> They don't. It's a myth.
When I sprained my ankle, I was wearing boots.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Jhimmy
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d86dnYqBda2nRHLV...@pipex.net...
> Jhimmy wrote:
>
>>> True, but statistics are averages. The actual risk varies
>>> considerably with the individual and the circumstances.
>>
>> Statistics are not averages, if so I'd be a winner on the lottery
>> every week ;-)
>
> No of course not. I phrased that wrongly. What I meant was that
> statistical averages (averages of how often something is likely to happen)
> don't apply to the individual.
>
> So for example, the stats may say that on average, one accident will occur
> every 1000 miles, therefore if 100 people walk 10 miles each, one will
> have an accident.
>
> From that you might conclude that each person has a 1 in a 100 chance of
> having an accident. But since some individuals take more risks than others
> and some are more careless, the risk will be higher for some and lower for
> others. For one individual the chance may be 1 in 500, for another it may
> be 1 in 20. It may be 1 in 100 for everyone as a whole, but individuals
> are not everyone.
>
If you use proper statistics (ie, phd maths) You'd be suprised at how
accurate they can be! It's not as simple as an average, although, laughably,
the average in the lottery is 7, 14, 21, 28, 25, 42 give or take a few
percentage points.
Yep, you might be right one that one. I was born with blinkers or jealously
;-)
>> A
>> friend of mine who walks with me every so often laughs at the way I
>> move on mountains. I never noticed it or even thought about it
>> before. I tend to use my hands a lot when descending, even easy
>> descents. I also do other things that "amuses" him. But having
>> thought about it, it's simple because I walk a lot solo and I'm extra
>> careful due to that fact.
>
> Same here, I'm always very careful when I'm on my own. But unlike you I
> tend to become careless when I'm walking with other people, because of
> that extra "safety net". That's probably why I sprained my ankle when
> walking with a group of experienced hill walkers all armed with GPS and
> mobile phones! Way too big a safety net and I got way too careless!
>
Totally agree on this one, Paul, when I'm with a group I always forget to
check where I am, simply because someone always tries to navigate and I
follow the group instinct.
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
>
Alan White
<PaulV...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think we should stop accepting that boots prevent ankle injuries.
>They don't.
I've broken both fibula just above the ankle(on separate occasions)
while wearing boots. I've since wondered whether the restriction on
movement provided by the boots contributed to the breaks.
--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
Walks and Treks:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks