The Original Route. P151 Langdale 2013.
There are errors in the description that have persisted for a long time (1989, 1999, LDR 1, LDR 2).
Also I think that the guidebook writers have not considered carefully enough the situation of a Severe leader, whose second may be less experienced or less confident. On Pitch 2 the severe leader is going to want to place protection at the start of the traverse along the ledge and also part way along it. If the original pitches 2 and 3 are combined, as in the 2013 guidebook, a lot of rope drag is inevitable.
For a 3* severe on a popular crag you need to consider the situation of a severe leader, pushing the boat out, when the description is written.
The fact that the errors have persisted for so long suggsests that the route may not have been checked for the 2013 guide, so why change the climb from 4 pitches to three without checking that this is a good idea in practice? (1989/1999 4 pitches, 2013 3 pitches).
Errors in the description (2013 guidebook)
P1 OK
P2 ‘Climb the pillar on good holds’. This is wrong, the pillar starts awkwardly with balance moves using very small handholds. Once the good hold above is gained a mantleshelf move is required to stand on top it. This mantleshelf is mentioned in LDR 1 (2003) but is put in the wrong place.
Once above the mantleshelf there are indeed good holds. From the top of the pillar there is a step up to reach the ‘Long Ledge’, where protection may be needed for the second. Langdale 1989, 1999 and LDR 1 all continue along this ledge to belay at the large pinnacle. Which is the correct thing to do, if you do not wish to struggle against rope drag.
P3 in Langdale 1989, 1999 and LDR 1 are then all correct.
Langdale 2013 combines these pitches P2 and P3.
P3 in Langdale 2013 is incorrect. It says ‘go straight up for 4m’ when in fact from the ‘group of ledges’ the route follows the obvious rising diagonal line (well polished showing it is well used), until beneath a groove, there you move up a few metres (possibly 4m but more likely less 2-3m), then ‘move left to a ledge under a bulge’. The guidebook has left out a significant part of the pitch. This pitch, the original P4 is quite a long pitch, more than 20m, if you were tempted to run P3 and P4 together on 50m ropes is is very possible that you would run out of ropes. A suggested description will follow.
This appears to be a case of the guidebook writers changing a description simply to combine pitches, without considering whether it is a good idea in practice.
Route Feedback: The Original Route
Posted by: Ken Daykin, 07.06.2024
How’s this Ken?
The Original Route 61m S ★★★ An excellent route taking a clean line of natural weakness. Start at the lowest point of the buttress, 5m right of a large tree.
1 12m Follow well-worn rock up leftwards and either pull into an awkward crack which is followed to a good ledge below a fine narrow pillar, or continue up left onto a ledge from where a quartzy wall leads to the same point.
2 15m 4a The pillar is initially awkward with small holds followed by a mantelshelf onto its top. Step up to a long ledge (protection) then continue left to a large pinnacle; belay.
3 34m Move back right then climb the wall trending slightly right to a group of ledges. Follow a conspicuous rising line to a groove. Move up then left under a bulge then across left to climb a steep section to reach easier ground.
Steve
Thanks. I intended to post my suggested description but then forgot. I made notes directly after climbing the route but did not note down how far back the final belay is. This could affect P3 in your description.
In the above p2 the mantleshelf is not onto the top of the pinnacle it is onto a good hold. From there good holds lead to the top of the pinnacle.
The problem with your p3 above is that I noted that the pitch described a p4 in 1999 is quite a long pitch, much more than 20m (30m?). Combining the p3 and p4 (from 1999) as above potentially makes a 44m or longer pitch, leaving very little rope to reach the final belay.
This is why I suggested that the 1999 description is better.
My Suggested description:
The Original Route 61m S ★★★ An excellent route taking a clean line of natural weakness. Start at the lowest point of the buttress, 5m right of a large tree.
1 12m Follow well-worn rock up leftwards and either pull into an awkward crack which is followed to a good ledge below a fine narrow pillar, or continue up left onto a ledge from where a quartzy wall leads to the same point.
2 15m Climb the pillar. The start is on small holds but soon a good hold is reached and a mantleshelf move onto this is needed. Continue up to a long ledge (protection) and follow this left to a large pinnacle belay.
3 14m Move 3m back right from the pinnacle and climb the wall above, trending slightly right to a group of ledges.
4 30m(?) Follow the obvious line of weakness rightwards, until below a groove. Move up this a few metres then move left to a ledge below a bulge. Step left and continue straight up on small but good holds. This leads to easier ground and the top.
I forgot to add up the pitch lengths. I think it now comes to 71m (?) not 61m.