[Wayne]

Hi all

DoC is considering “upgrading” the ladder over the Tararua Peaks. Below is a letter from John Rhodes (he’s a mate of Harry Smith but dont hold that against him – he does excellent slide shows, and excellent journal articles). Anyway, John raises some excellent points about the proposal to replace the present ladder.

I think it would be good if the club made a submission to DoC on this planned upgrade, and to do so it would be great to receive the views from club members – those spoken to about this topic already seem to express similar views to those expressed by John (below). We would grateful to receive any other views (either supportive or opposed, or whatever)

Thanks
Wayne

To: Steve Sutton, Technical Support Officer Recreation
Department of Conservation Wellington Conservancy

25 May 2001

Copies to: Chairman, Wellington Conservation Board; President and newsletter editor, Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club; President and newsletter editor, Tararua Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Hutt Valley Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Masterton Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor South Wairarapa Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Kaumatua Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Upper Valley Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Victoria University Tramping club; President and newsletter editor, Wellington Catholic Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Levin-Waiopehu Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Parawai Tramping Club; President and newsletter editor, Manawatu Tramping and Skiiing Club; President and newsletter editor, Massey University Alpine Club; President and newsletter editor, Palmerston North Tramping and Mountaineering Club; President and newsletter editor, Wairarapa Branch NZ Deerstalkers? Association; President and Bulletin editor, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand.

Tararua Peaks Ladder

Dear Steve

It is with dismay that I read your proposal (letter of 17 May to tramping clubs) to ?upgrade? the Tararua Peaks ladder to a rigid structure of galvanised or stainless steel with two landings and a handrail (or two handrails?)

The Department?s justifications for the upgrade are that:

1. a certain level of safety is ?required? for BCAs (back country adventurers)
2. the existing ladder may be used in severe weather when it could be difficult to stay on it
3. trampers in this area are not expecting a ?technical? climbing trip
4. the Building Act 1992 requires minimum engineering requirements
5. that a ?requirement? exists for landings on a ladder of this size

The Tararua Peaks lie at the very heart of the Tararua range. In clear weather they are visible both from the Wairarapa plain and from the Otaki coast. They give their name to the entire range. For trampers, the Tararua Peaks epitomise the remoteness and ruggedness with which the Tararua Range is associated. A trip involving the Peaks is seen as a challenge not to be taken lightly, and for which conditions, especially the possibility of strong wind or of ice, must be carefully considered.

For the ordinary tramper, the Tararua Peaks present a challenge. That is why we go there.

Now you want to take this challenge away.

The experience of walking on steps with handrails and landings in high winds may readily be had in many places. People who want it can go to Cape Palliser Lighthouse, or to any number of places in the suburbs of Wellington.

Not so the experience of the Tararua peaks, which your department now proposes to bastardise.

Does the Department?s motivation in this proposal spring from its continuing post-Cave Creek safety-mania, and its terror of again being found at fault? I fear so.

Let us take the Department?s reasons for the new ladder in turn:

1. The requirement of safety for back country adventurers. In some cases such a requirement may be said to exist. For example, on the western side of the Southern Alps, DoC maintains bridges so that trampers, climbers and hunters may reach the upper valleys and peaks without undertaking river crossings which even at normal flows would be hazardous or impossible. Such bridges allow access to untracked, steep country where an adventure may be had.

The difference with the Tararua Peaks ladder is that it does not provide access to an adventure; it is the adventure.

How many back country adventurers have told DoC that they ?require? more safety on the Tararua peaks? Few if any, is my guess. I suspect this ?requirement? exists only in DoC?s manual of track and route standards. It?s a problem you created for yourselves. Please do not make it ours.

2. It could be hard to stay on the existing ladder in severe weather. Certainly, and the same is true of anywhere on the Tararua tops – especially places like the east face of Mt Bannister, the west face of Mitre, the Waiohine Pinnacles, the Broken Axe Pinnacles, and even the Beehives. Does DoC propose to instal steps and handrails in these places? Even on broad, flat tops like Tarn Ridge or Cattle Ridge, a westerly gale can throw a tramper to the ground and send him crawling to the leatherwood in the lee of the ridge.

Trampers tend to avoid the tops in such conditions. They certainly avoid the Tararua Peaks! For those who may be caught out, Maungahuka, Penn Creek, Neill Forks and Kime Huts provide refuge till conditions improve.

From DoC?s point of view, the difference between the Tararua Peaks and the rest of the range seems to be that a DoC structure, inherited from the former N.Z. Forest Service, exists on the Peaks. DoC, it seems, therefore feels responsible for the safety of trampers using it.

It is important that the structure be safe within its limitations. That is, it must be strong enough and well enough secured to support the load of a tramper plus pack. If the present Tararua Peaks ladder were to break in use, DoC would indeed be culpable.

However, the safety requirement should not mean that the inherent danger of using the structure must be removed or lessened. Trampers and hunters accept this danger. Notices in nearby huts and at each end of the ladder can point out the danger to those who may be unaware of it. Should an accident occur, DoC would then be no more liable than if one of its structures with a sign advising use by one person at a time, were to collapse as a result of six people jumping on it.

In some South Island conservancies, three-wire bridges have occasioned a similar debate. A certain school of thought wanted to remove them (in the absence of funds for upgrading) rather than accept the possibility that a tramper using such a bridge might fall. Fortunately common sense prevailed and the bridges remained.

3. Trampers in this area are not expecting a ?technical? climbing trip Most trampers understand ?technical? climbing, whether or not they participate in it, to mean climbing on near-vertical, vertical or overhanging rock or ice with ropes, pitons, jumars and other aids. The present Tararua peaks ladder is certainly not in this category.

However, the question of trampers?expectations remains. Any prudent tramper who has not previously done a route will find out about it before entering the ranges. One source of information is Merv Rogers? Tararua Footprints (1996). It warns (p. 163): The Tararua Peak section of the range is quite exposed and presents difficult alpine conditions in snow. It cannot be taken lightly. The book goes on to suggest a feasible sidling route.

Another source is DoC?s own Tararua Parkmap (edition 6, 1997), which says: The Main range of the Tararuas is the remote core of the park, a rugged wilderness ??A highlight of the southern section of the Main Range is the traverse of the Tararua Peaks (Tunui and Tuiti) with the aid of a 20m chain ladder.

Perhaps DoC now proposes to withdraw this map and replace it with one advising: The Main Range of the Tararuas is readily accessible??.The Tararua Peaks may be safely traversed in most conditions on a rigid steel ladder bolted to the rock, with handrails and two landings.

Trampers expect, in the Tararua Peaks as elsewhere, whatever their enquiries lead them to expect. All that is necessary is to ensure that accurate information about the Tararua Peaks continues to be available.

4. The Building Act 1992 requires minimum engineering requirements. This is an issue for new structures only. It does not apply to maintenance of an existing structure

5. There is a requirement for landings on a ladder of this size. The same comment applies.

Get your paranoid fear of liability under control and cease this bureaucratic, safety-obsessed madness! Go back to the engineers? suggestions for improving the existing ladder: more anchors, more toe-room where necessary between rungs and rock, and possibly lengthening. Please do not destroy our experience of this most special part of the Tararuas with a ladder designed for geriatrics, invalids and fairies and politicians.

John Rhodes

Member, South Wairarapa Tramping Club. Former member, Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club, Victoria University of Wellington Tramping Club and Masterton Tramping Club.

54 Kempton St
Greytown 5953

[Peter McKellar]

Please excuse a non member poping in here.

I read this letter with interest. Is there anyplace that we can see these plans for replacing the ladder? Are the plans to only replace the ladder or does it include the wire rope traversing from the bottom towards Mangahuka?

In my opinion, at the moment, the ladder itself is the safest part of the traverse. There are other sections before and after the ladder which are much more dangerous.

Maybe, rather than try and put handrails around the whole thing then the question is, should the ladder be there at all? If you want to go along there, then maybe it should be on nature’s terms.

[Wayne]

Hi thanks for your views

If you are after more information on the ladder, the person at DoC who is dealing with this is Steve Sutton. [his email address is ]

Steve is interested in hearing as many views possible – so best if you get in touch with him.

thanks
wayne

[Peter McKellar]

I emailed Steve and he kindly emailed me jpegs of his drawings. My impression is that they have done quite a good job. The experience of climbing or descending the ladder would probably be very similar to what it is now. It is still a ladder rather than a ramp or platform.

There are small handrails that are only raised a small distance from the ladder itself. There are two landings, about 1m square and a 1m high rail around them. I don’t think you would be standing there without keeping a firm grip on something.

The whole thing is pretty well attached to the mountain with a number of bolts going at least 1m into the rock.

I personally had no trouble with the existing ladder and don’t think the experence of the Tararua Peaks would be hindered too much by this structure. If the existing one cannot be certified as safe then it needs to be replaced.

The alternative is, should there be a ladder there at all? Do we really want handrails in the backcountry? But I think there is no doubt that this route would be too hard for the average tramper if it were removed completely.

[Andrew]

Peter

I think the issue is whether the “existing one cannot be certified as safe then it needs to be replaced”. In my mind the Building Act requires you to build structures that are safe to the extent that they will perform the function they were designed for and will not pose added danger to the people using it.

I don’t think all structures have to mitigate all natural or inherent dangers. For example bungy jumping platforms are designed to be jumped off – the design suits the purpose and users. Similarly, I think that a ladder along the main range of the Tararuas should more closely reflect the user group and purpose. In this case its is an aid for “backcountry adventure seekers” (or whatever the most recent DoC term is) to go up or down a steep and slippery gut that is in between some very steep and loose sections of natural ridge line. I have not heard of people using this route experiencing troubles with the existing structure except to the extent that railings don’t allow enough room for feet, the tendency for it to rest at an angle across the slope, and it being to short at the bottom. In my mind all these features could be improved by making minor modifications to the existing structure.

I consider the planned staircase (I have seen the plans as well) would set an undesirable precedent for backcountry facilities that would see large amounts of money frittered away on overengineered facilities. There has been no mention of cost to date but I’m sure we’d be looking at something in the 10s of thousands. The irony is that this club has had to push Doc to spend any money on Maungahuka Hut to ensure it remains habitable (new toilet, floorboards, painted, waterproofing, flue) – it was even on the endangered list.

There also seems to be unacceptable risks that a new staircase would lull inexperienced people on to this section of the main range without having enough experience to deal with the long distances and parts of the range before and after The Peaks. Punters might see the main range as an alternative to a Southern Crossing – it isn’t.

Its also unclear whether these initial plans are based on DoC’s own specified plans that it is seeking to have accredited under the Building Code. It seems more likely that these plans are based on the Building Code requirements for fire exits – is it rational to impose the same standards in this environment? Maybe DoC should consider devising its own standard for facilities that assist walkers over steep ground (including ladders and hand cables).

Lets hope we end up with a sensible solution.

[Peter McKellar]

Andrew:

I see your point. My perspective as a tramper is that I take the landscape as it comes. If a ladder is there to assist me then I have to assume that that ladder is safe and I have to trust whoever put it there to keep it safe. If they can’t do that then they should remove it.

I am not an engineer so it is difficult for me to say what is safe and what isn’t. I felt quite comfortable going down the existing ladder, as did all of our party (except for one short person who had trouble getting off the bottom ). There may be others who are not so comfortable. I wonder about the scenario of someone having a panic attack half way down and someone else has to go down and help them. A landing might be quite nice for that. Has anything like this ever happened?

I don’t feel that this proposed structure will change the experience of the Kime to Mangahuka trip too much. It is still a ladder and I am sure some people will still have to take a deep breath before getting onto it. Then there is also the track. I don’t think anyone has said anything about upgrading that and it is hardly a Great Walk so I can’t see much changing.

Good point about the cost. I showed those plans to a friend who is a contractor and while he felt they looked OK, he said he wouldn’t like to have to build the thing. It is going to require compressors, drills etc etc. I imagine they would have to build some sort of temporary platform to act as a base to work from. It may be more appropriate to have a simpler structure, like the current one but with more anchor points etc.

Someone also pointed out that a structure like this is going to have a visual impact. It is probably going to be visible from quite a distance away to the north, so that is something to take into account.

However I think you have to give DOC credit for doing something about it. It would be so much easier for them to just remove it. But they have recognised that it is a tramping route and something is needed there to make it safe.

[Author]

Posts