Any views expressed by any contributor to the Belfry Bulletin, including those of officers of the club, do not necessarily coincide with those of the editor or the committee of the Bristol Exploration Club, unless stated as being the view of the committee or editor.

Club Headquarters

‘The Belfry’, Wells Rd., Priddy, Wells, Somerset.  Tele: WELLS 72126
Club Committee

Chairman:         S.J. Collins
Minutes Sec:     R. Bennett
Members:          R. Bagshaw; D.J. Irwin; M.J. Palmer; N. Jago; T.E. Large; A.R. Thomas; R. Orr.

Officers Of The Club

Hon. Secretary: A.R. THOMAS, Allen’s House, Nine Barrows Lane, Priddy, Wells, Somerset. Tel: PRIDDY 269.
Hon. Treasurer:  R.J. BAGSHAW, 699 Wells Road, Knowle, Bristol 4.  Tel: WHITCHURCH. 5626.
Caving Sec:       T.E. LARGE, 39 Seymour Ave, Bishopston, Bristol.
Climbing Sec:    N. Jago, 27 Quantock Rd, Windmill Hill, Bedminster, Bristol 3.
Hut Warden:      R. ORR.  ‘The Belfry’, as above.
Hut Engineer:    R. HOBBS, Rose Cottage, West End, Nailsea, Bristol.
Tacklemaster:    M.A PALMER. 27 Roman Way, Paulton, BS18 5XB
B.B. Editor:       S.J. COLLINS, Lavender Cottage, Bishop Sutton, Nr. Bristol.
Librarian:           D.J. IRWIN, Townsend Cottage, Priddy, Wells, Somerset.  Tel: PRIDDY 369.
Pbs. (Sales)      C, Howell, 131 Sandon Rd., Edgbaston, Birminham.
Publications:     D.J. IRWIN.  Address as above
B.B. Post:         Mrs. K. Mansfield, Tiny Kott, Little London, Oakhill, Bath, Somerset.

MENDIP RESCUE ORGANISATION.  In case of emergency telephone WELLS 73481



Happy New Year

With the start of another new year, we should like to wish a very Happy and prosperous New Year.


You may have noticed a small but acceptable improvement which has been made to the B.B. in this, its 27th year of publication.  The clarity of the type should be much more then in previous years, and this is due to our having converted the B.B. typewriter to take paper tape.  We hope that members will approve of this small but significant improvement.

Balancing The B.B.

An attempt is made in the B.B. to keep a balance between the various types of articles which we print. The intention is to provide something readable in every issue for every member. Lengthy articles of a specialist nature are only of real interest to a minority of readers; and we try to space these out so that they do not appear too frequently.  Having said all this, readers will perhaps be surprised to find a long article on surveying in this B.B. following hard on the heels of a long article on photography in last month's issue.

The reason for this is that the work published this month represents an advance in its subject and is the result of original work by club members - made possible by the complexity of the Cuthbert’s passage network.  New techniques in the technical side of caving - like new cave discoveries - should be made public as soon as possible.

Even if the work described was of less interest to the relevant specialists than is the case, it would still have been published this month for the rather more mundane reason that the editor has very little else to print.

This is a long standing problem which can probably never be solved to everybody's satisfaction.  One can either have a B.B. of variable size depending on what comes up; or a B.B. of constant size which comes out whenever there is enough to fill it; or a B.B. of constant size and regularity, filled out occasionally with stuff which does not appeal to many members.  Remember, if you want more of a particular sort of article, then you have to provide the raw material.

Crystal Balls Department

The other long article in the Christmas B.B. was intended to be a humorous and far-fetched bit of nonsense suitable for the festive season.  However, we hear that a recent allocation of grants to caving bodies has allocated the lion's share to that dealing with caving instructors.  If we don't watch out, the university of Charterhouse may be nearer to the truth than we like to think!

Are We Friendly Enough?

Tony Johnson's letter makes the point - amongst others that a lot of the things we enjoy have been obtained in the past by virtue of the good relationship which existed between cavers and locals.  One could also cite the case for the converse of this being true - that most of the bad things which have happened to caving (like the formation of various beurocratic bodies) were started because of bad relationships between cavers and locals - mainly in the North.  Although caving is now an accepted part of the local scene, we should still take every opportunity to make and keep good relations with our neighbours of every sort.



Traverse Closure in Cave Surveying


The several years it has taken to survey St. Cuthbert’s Swallet (1) have taught the authors a great deal about some of the less publicised aspects of cave surveying.  It has also resulted in the accumulation of a considerable body of data concerning cave survey precision.  We encountered problems which the cave surveying literature to date had not dealt with, and we feel that our findings will be of assistance to other surveyors.  This article is concerned primarily with the closing of traverses and this involves of necessity a discussion on compass calibration and the precision to be expected in a cave survey.

At some time, a surveyor will find that he has surveyed a part of the cave by a circular route which finishes at a part which has already been surveyed.  The circular traverse which starts and finishes at the same point is known as a closed traverse.  In many cases, the surveyor will find that there are occasions when several of these closed traverses have been made.  One may say “So what!” but generally, when the calculations have been made, the surveyor will find that - instead of the traverse ending at a point which coincides exactly with the start or with a previous survey point, it will have a slightly different value of the co-ordinates.  This failure to close is known as the traverse closing error.  It will be obvious that two different points in space cannot represent the same survey station, and thus they must be made to ‘close’.  Various methods for closing such a traverse have been discussed elsewhere (2) and so we shall only mention the methods in passing and dwell on the recommended procedure.

Problems really occur when one is faced with a number of closed traverses as shown symbolically in figure (i).  Whereas one can easily close a single or double traverse, the maze type looks and is more complex, Ellis attempts to show how this type of network can be closed, and states ‘…the first thing is to make a subjective assessment, and if any of the traverses are thought to be more accurate than others, then they can be closed first and the others closed on to them.  If all the traverses are of the same expected accuracy, the method favoured by the author is to close the outer traverse and then the inner traverses successively.’ (3).  As the surveying unit is now in general use on Mendip, there is little need to lower the survey grading below the requirements of C.R.G. Grade 6 and so one will have to think of all the traverses as being of the same expected accuracy - or so one would think!  From the results of the St. Cuthbert’s survey, both of the authors have shown beyond doubt that errors will be found in the most unlikely places.  One might think that, because of the difficulty of caving through boulder ruckles that the survey line would display the same lowering of standards for that part of the survey; but it was found that this was not so.  Surveying through such passages tended to make the surveyors more careful perhaps. At any rate, most of the errors occurred in parts of the cave where surveying was easiest.  As a result, it is not possible to assess the accuracy of any section of the survey line simply by relating it to a particular type of cave passage.

At the outset of the St. Cuthbert’s survey, we followed the recommendations current at the time by closing all the traverses as soon as they were completed during the field work data collecting.  These were termed the individual traverses, and then each passage junction to passage junction co-ordinates were joined up in various ways to 'hunt' for any obvious error.  Several errors were found and the offending lines were omitted for all later checks. As the number of traverses increased, subsequently covering the whole cave, this procedure became extremely complex and cumbersome.  However, the St. Cuthbert’s survey network was closed by this method and any section of the framework suspected of containing gross errors was either re-surveyed or fed in to the network at a later date.  Once the main traverse was closed, the remaining sections of the cave were closed in order of accuracy.  Without the help of computers, and only working from notebooks and desk calculators, this process took many hours of work running into a period of just under two years involving 1,500 man-hours!  This procedure caused a considerable amount of unnecessary resurveying. During the later stages of this work, it was found that the northern section of the cave (New and Old Routes) had an exceptionally large error.  This had not been discovered previously as it had compensated with a similar error in the Coral Chamber area, and so had gone unnoticed.  This was due to the fact the closing of the individual traverses was dominant in, the calculations, any other method having been discarded on the advice of other surveyors of considerably more experience than either of the authors.

This discovery of an error in the northern section of the cave showed the unreliability of using traverse closure errors the check the precision of various parts of the survey. It then became obvious that both the authors had missed a very simple way of assessing - with reasonable accuracy - any line survey section in the network.

Because any two stations in the cave must have the same coordinate changes between them irrespective of route chosen, we were able to tabulate the coordinate changes and see at a glance those which obviously contained errors of some form.  An example from the Rocky Boulder Series will demonstrate this procedure fully later in the text.  Although the St. Cuthbert’s survey was not closed using the tabular method (because the main traverse had already been established) the method was used to check our work.  The experience of a complicated network now enables the authors to recommend the following procedures, which will make it unnecessary for any other surveyors to fall into the frustrating difficulties and time-wasting problems that we met with the St. Cuthbert’s survey.

Willcox states that ‘...the core of the problem lies in discovering all the possible closed traverses for a network….’ (4).  In the case of St. Cuthbert’s, this would number 1.5 x 1013 (or 150 million million – Ed.) traverses and when repeat surveys are considered, the number would rise to 1.0 x 1030.  Obviously, another procedure must be looked for!

Why Does A Closed Traverse Not Close?

With the usual instruments used for cave surveying - a liquid damped compass~ a clinometer and a measuring tape, one cannot read the instruments accurately enough to collect precise readings.  All the readings obtained will be approximations.  For example, the compass card is normally graduated in 1 degree divisions, and when sighting through the eyepiece it is not possible to obtain a value better than ¼ of a degree.  Even this value is optimistic and will depend largely on the individual compass. Similarly, the clinometer readings will be of the same order of accuracy and if a good commercial tape is used, measurements will be to the nearest 1" or 0.1 ft.  The catenary effect may be ignored providing the tape is pulled taut before taking the reading. (5).

The greatest source of error is not, however, the readings of the individual instruments, since - provided the reading of the instruments themselves and the actual instruments are consistent, such errors will largely compensate, and with the type of survey we are considering, the Station Position Error can be ignored.  It is thus necessary to consider errors due to factors other than reading the instruments and to station positioning.

Compass Calibration

When a survey is made over a number of trips during which the compass calibration will have changed or, more importantly, when using more than one compass, then care in the compass calibration becomes of crucial importance. In fact under these circumstances, calibration errors can become larger than systematic errors.  Judging by correspondence in caving publications in recent years, calibrating a compass has not been felt to be necessary by some surveyors, but the importance is easy to demonstrate.

First, the theory. Figure (ii) shows the systematic error predicted by Warburton (6) to be statistically probable in a Grade 6 survey with an average leg length of 15 ft.  Also shown are the positional errors caused by 10 and 0.50 calibration errors. It must be noted that whereas the distance axis for the systematic error represents the slope distance of the survey, that for the calibration error shows the plan distance between a point and the start of the survey.

Consider two surveys made with different compasses that both start from the same station ‘close’ at a second point with a plan distance of 1,000 ft. from the origin.  If each of the surveys contains 1,500 ft. (slope distance) of survey line, then the systematic error would be expected to be 9.4 ft.  The error due to a 10 difference in calibration will be 17 ft. and if the error is 50, the total error will be 85 ft.  Since the readings given by two different compasses can be greater than 50, failure to calibrate a compass can introduce tremendous errors into a survey.

Now, from theory to practice.  When the St. Cuthbert’s preliminary survey was being compiled in 1962, Ellis was using the results of several surveyors, using different compasses calibrated (or not calibrated!) in different ways.  It is hardly surprising that he did not find it easy to combine the survey.  More recently, discrepancies were noted between three different surveys of the Rabbit Warren Extension.  Each end of this series is marked, as far as the survey is concerned, by stations which are part of a large network of passages, the co-ordinates of which can be taken as being substantially correct.  A survey by Irwin (7a) and by Ellis (7b) disagreed by a considerable distance when calculated from the same origin in the Rabbit Warren.  When these surveys were compared with Ellis's earlier calculations (1958) the difference was even more pronounced at 22 ft.  The differences are, in fact, due to calibration differences between the compasses used.  It has been shown that the site used by Ellis to calibrate his compass for the 1962 survey is subject to a large magnetic discrepancy due to buried steelwork. Irwin’s survey was used because it is consistent with the calibration used for the rest of the cave.  When the two Ellis surveys are corrected for differences in calibration, the three surveys are very nearly coincident.

Compass calibration errors cannot be avoided entirely, and the need for extreme care is shown by the fact that the closure errors (Fig iii) are slightly greater than those predicted by Warburton (6) which can be attributed to the unavoidable small errors in calibration.

To sum up, the traverse errors reported in figures (iiia, and iiib) are possible only with great care in compass calibration, when more than one compass is used.

If a single compass is used and the survey is completed very quickly, better closures may be recorded on paper but, whatever closure errors the surveyor reports, without proper calibration procedures the North arrow and hence the alignment of the whole survey will be uncertain.  The surveyor may be unaware of the problem, but anyone who, at a later date, has to survey an extension will certainly find more than his fair share of problems.

Expected Traverse Closure Error For A Grade Six Survey

In 1963, Warburton (6) published two articles in the W.C.C Journal discussing the accuracy of a cave survey, and produced theoretical curves to enable the surveyor to assess the expected accuracy in terms of closure error for any length of traverse. As these curves were based on certain assumptions, they can obviously be used only as a rough and ready guide. They do not allow for human failure in introducing gross errors into the survey and neither the do they allow for the approximate readings gathered from the instruments nor take into consideration the inaccuracies produced by poor calibration.  For the first time ever, a curve is published based on a set of traverses gained from the St. Cuthbert’s survey all to C.R.G. grade 6 and from them on can show from practical experience the expected closure error for a given traverse length. 

Closing A Single Traverse

If the co-ordinates for each station and the end points of the traverse are known, closure of the traverse can take place.  Assume that the beginning of the traverse has the known co-ordinates of E = 0.00, N = 0.00, Ht. = 0.00 but the end co-ordinate differences are N = -1.20, E = +3.60 Ht = -1.80, and there are twenty legs giving a total traverse length of 620 ft., then the traverse closure error is:-

Horizontal error:  = 3.79

Vertical error                                          = 1 .80

To close the traverse, each leg co-ordinate has to be the method shown on page 7:-

Station 1.

N = x

E = y

H = z

Station 2.

N = x +

E = y -

H = z +

Station 3.

N = x +

E = y -

H = z +





Thus the final station will have the full errors applied as corrections and will thus be equal to station 1.  The traverse will then close.


If, as in Figure (iv) below, the circular traverse ABC is already closed by the method described, but a further traverse represented by the line ADB exists, then this can be closed on to the existing traverse by a similar method.

Figure (iv)

Editor’s Note:    Owing to the later receipt of material of a more immediate nature, the remainder of this article has been put back to the February issue of the B.B., in which it will be concluded.



Belfry Keys

In order to make the Tackle Store more easily available to members, a box now exists near the Belfry front door which contains the key to the Tackle store and itself has a Yale type lock.

It is intended to replace the present Belfry door keys with locks which use the same key as this box, so that any member having a new key will be able to get at the tackle store key.

Members having either type of present Belfry key will be able to exchange it for the new key by seeing or writing (enclosing the old key and a stamped addressed envelope) to MIKE PALMER.  Members who want a new key but have no key at present will be required to pay a 20p deposit on the new key.  Mike will be at the Belfry as much as possible during the changeover period. (4th of March is the official day).


'Sett's' talk on winemaking will be backed up by a practical course on the subject, if a sufficient number of members are interested.  It is suggested that the course, which will occupy a number of sessions on Saturdays, would start on March 3rd.  Would those interested please get in touch with Sett (R.A. Setterington, 4, Galmington Lane, Taunton, Somerset.)


As expected BOB CROSS’S letter on the subject of club trips to other areas has aroused a number of replies.  The first is from TONY JOHNSON who was for many years one of the most active members of club both in the caving and climbing activities and who was also one of our most successful Belfry Engineers.

Dear Editor,

I am uncertain whether I have met Bob Cross, but as an older and once active member, I feel that some comment is needed on his letter in the Christmas B.B.  While his overall objective - more club activity - is right, parts of the letter disturbed me and some things horrified me.

Unless one is organising, say, a summer holiday trip with a very relaxed schedule, large parties or parties with a wide variety of primary interests and skills should be avoided - at least until one becomes very skilful in organising them.  Far better to start small.  As groups of regular travellers emerge who know each other's habits and wishes, new members will join them and the gradual increase can be happily absorbed.

Stay in one spot, together - yes~ that’s important but again, remember that a large camp can very easily produce conflicting habits and practices; can fragment the trip, or can delay it and discourage it so that in the end little is achieved.

Try and make trips regularly.  This will overcome one of the problems of organisation and notification, as people will become aware subconsciously.  With the B.E.C., this is particularly important.  Any organisation requires tact, and with the individuals who form the backbone of the club, the subconscious approach is often the only way.

Perhaps the monthly North Wales climbing trips of the early '50's best exemplify this approach.  These weekend motor cycle trips, up the old A38 and A5 went on winter and summer, with the regulars usually joined by a small group of casuals.  Never large in numbers, these trips remain probably the most successful and ambitious (by the standard of the day) long series of trips in the club's life.

Now for my worries. Surely B.E.C. types have always been proud of their self sufficiency?  What they hadn't got, they begged or borrowed, or saved for and bought - and for most people, money was scarcer tharn it is now.  To suggest that the club should now subsidise members by the purchase of tents, primuses etc. is wrong.  I fear that we should have subsidised transport next.  With the high upkeep and running costs of a potentially excellent H.Q., now more than ever is the time to re-kindle the old self help attitude which seems tragically to have died with the old Belfry.  Believe me, it can give one quite a sense of achievement to do or to obtain something which at first sight appeared to be beyond reach, by one's own efforts.

What really frightened me about Bob's letter though is the reference to ‘bargain eggs’ and ‘burning half the furniture.’  They may have been jests, but they didn't read like it.  Now the B.E.C. may have had a reputation for being 'sharp' and 'on the make' where reasonably possible; but to my knowledge never at the expense of the people whose area we had come to enjoy - whether this was Mendip or elsewhere.  The friendly relations we had with the majority of local people on Mendip did not just happen.  They were the result of long conscious effort, and some reprimands.  Please remember this.  If it wasn't for our ability to have been able to talk to Tim Cunane and others against this background of friendship, you would not now have your access to Cuthbert’s - neither the entrance nor the cave.

Unless you treat local people with fairness and respect you can too easily finish up with the sickening relations that have developed in parts of the North.  These are the warning signals for Mendip - so beware! I know that you often need to wear stout boots, but please remember that such boots can often cripple the wearer - the club.  Leave your jackboots in the cupboard and think as you travel about, particularly about some of the folk you meet who, for some reason or other, cannot be as mobile as you.

Yours Sincerely,            Tony Johnson.

Our next letter on this subject is from TIM LARGE - our Caving Secretary - who also has some firm comments to make…..

I have read with interest the letter from Bob Cross in last month's B.B., but have to disagree with him on several points.  He says that in his opinion the lack of club trips off Mendip is due to the apathy and lack of skill of the Caving and Climbing Secretaries.

Let's take the bit about apathy first.  While I have been Caving Secretary, I have regularly advertised club trips both on and off Mendip.  Some have been successful while others have had to be cancelled owing to lack of support. Still others have been run with very poor attendance.  A few of the trips looked like this on the day:-

7.11.1971          Cuthbert’s, photographic trip.  Arranged at the request of club members.  Nobody turned up. Sorry, One person did.  A Wessex member!

12.12.1971        Cheddar caves, requiring prior arrangements which cost the club money. Two people turned up.

15.4.1972          Stoke Lane Slocker.  Three people attended out of a club which has 200 members.

Bob refers to the apathy of the caving sec.?  Surely he is wrong somewhere!

More recently, on October 14th 1972, a club trip to G.B. was arranged - again no support was forthcoming and the trip was cancelled.  If it is not possible to get support for local trips, what hope is there for getting support for trips further a field?

In the November B.B., I wrote an article which laid out briefly the problems I have been faced with regarding club trips, and also a list of the various access arrangements to help members who are interested in caving.  I also asked for suggestions for trips etc.  From our entire membership I have received ONE reply!  Do you still say the apathy is on MY side, Bob?  As for the bit about skill, I'm not sure what Bob was referring to, but I dare say he will clarify that some day!

ALL the club trips I have organised have been advertised WELL IN ADVANCE in the B.B. and the Belfry with details and my address, so that anyone who was really interested could get all the information for the trip.

To quote Bob’s letter on another point.  ‘It is not good’, he says, ‘to have a little elitist group going off in twos and threes.’ In any club, there will always be a small group of very keen bods, who become more competent and fitter than the average club members and who naturally tackle the more difficult caves. Why should they, of all people, be discouraged?  On the contrary, we should be doing all we can to foster the true spirit of adventure – the desire to ‘see round the next corner.’  Isn’t this what started the Shackletons, Scotts and Hilarys of this world?

In any case, all club trips are normally aimed at the average club member.  In cases where this has not been so, it has been stated.  I do agree with Bob on one point.  All trips should be well planned, but here we are up against that nasty word again – APATHY.

As for Bob's mention of transport; camping, cooking etc. there is really no problem here for a group of keen lads with plenty of group spirit.

As Caving Sec., I see my role as that of somebody who collects all the various bits of information together on things like access arrangements, sorts out a caving programme – and leaves the rest to YOU.  After all, for most members, caving was the thing that they joined the club for, so they should get on with it.  I am not going to spoon feed anybody.  By the time that bods join the B.E.C. they should have got past the stage where they need a nanny so if members want club trips, then it’s up to them to pull their weight.  That’s what belonging to a club is all about – helping one another; mucking in; whatever else you may like to call it.

On looking through the caving log, I see that the majority of the caving is done by the same handful of people - and I understand that this is usually the case.  These people probably fall into Bob's definition of 'elitists' but they would probably be the only people fit enough to do some of the strenuous caves elsewhere in the country.  They do such caves by organising small private groups and they are usually opposed to the idea of including everyone on their trips because such people might not be fit enough or competent enough to take part.

So if people want to cave off Mendip, they ought to cave locally as well so that they can maintain the necessary fitness and expertise.  In any case, there's plenty to do on Mendip if you look around.  I don't expect there is a single member of the club who has done everything on Mendip, so what are you waiting for?  As Bob says, 'Get deep down to things.'


Tim Large.

Our final letter is on a rather different point, and comes from ‘Mr’Nigel Taylor.

Dear Editor.

A considerable amount of time has been spent at the last few committee meetings in discussing Belfry security and also the Tackle Store and its associated costs.  I have an idea that I should like to put forward.  Why not spend the estimated and proposed £60 on flooring the Belfry Attic?  This idea has several advantages:-

1.                  It would make a good dry and damp proof storage area for the club tackle.

2.                  It would bring the tackle under the same roof as most of the other club activities.

3.                  Access to tackle would be to B.E.C. members only, as the rules dictate and only one key would be required.

4.                  It would bring tackle-making into the heart of the Belfry.

5.                  It would already be in line with a proposal to floor the attic.

6.                  An attic tackle store would add to the insulation of the Belfry with consequent saving in fuel bills.

Howver, I must stress that this should not result in the old Belfry (Alfie's stone hut) being allowed to deteriorate, as it is the base for the M.R.O.  The present tackle shed could be used for fuel storage and for storing construction and digging gear.

"Mr" Nigel.

Editor's Note:     As Nigel knows since he wrote the above, the dilemma of the locks and keys has now been sorted out, and the £60 has (or is highly likely to be) cut down to £30 for the lockers.  However, thoughts such as these on improving our resources are always welcome.



Dates for your Diary

B.E.C. Club Trips.

Tuesday evenings from January 30th - Digging in Cuthbert’s.  Meet at the Belfry at 7.00 p.m.

Saturday February 17th DAN -YR-OGOF.  Leader Alan Coase.  Contact TIM LARGE if you want to go.

N.B. Alan is leading working trips into the cave fairly often and is willing to take members along.  Ring him mid week evenings if you want to go the following week end.  His number is WINTERBOURNE 774802.

Saturday, February 24th.  RHINO RIFT. Leader Tim LARGE.  Meet at the Belfry at 10.30 a.m.

Saturday, March 24th.  SOUTH WALES - Leader MIKE PALMER . This trip is in conjunction with the Friday Night Club.  Details are set out under this heading later.

EASTER - Yorkshire - programme to be announced later.  See Roy Bennett for details.

Friday Night Club.

These are privately arranged trips to which members are invited.

Friday, February 23rd - Cuthbert’s - meet at 7.30 p.m.
Friday, March 9th - Swildons - Meet at 7.30 p.m.
Saturday, March 24th – S. Wales - meet at Penwyllt at 9.30 a.m.

Joint B.E.C. and S.M.C.C. Weekends.

These are privately arranged Yorkshire trips to which members who want a strenuous weekend are welcome.

Saturday, 10th February.  Lancaster – Easegill.
Sunday, 11th February. Magnetometer Pot (Weather permitting).  For Details see Roy Bennett.

There will also be trips to the Lake District and to Scotland this year by a few B.E.C. members.  Anyone who is interested should contact MIKE PALMER for details.  Everyone Welcome.  The main details and dates so far arranged are:-

LAKE DISTRICT - Camping at Boot. 20-23rd April inclusive.  Main objectives; Walking, Canoeing, Drinking.

SCOTLAND - Camping at the Grampian Caving Club H.Q. which is just inside Ross and Cromarty.  9th - 17th June inclusive.  Main objectives Walking, Canoeing and (you've guessed it, Drinking.)

Members' Names and Addresses

New Members: -

798. P.E.K.Palfree, 10 Maynard, Clutton, Nr. Bristol.
799. B. Mills, The Old Bakery, West Harptree, Bristol BS18 6EA
800. M.D.Taylor, 115 Kennington Ave, Bishopston, Bristol.
801. B. Lewarne, Mount Gould Crescent, Mount Gould, Plymouth PL4 9EX, Devon.
802. P. Gibson, Doreena Rd, Elburton, Plymouth, Devon.

Changes, omissions to previous list, etc:

M.Hannam, 14 Inskip Place, St.Annes ,Lancs.
Miss D.S. Bowden-Lyle, P.O.Box 15, Iganga, Busoga, Uganda.
Mrs. C. Coase, 5 Mandalay Flats,10 Elseimer Street, Long Jetty, New South Wales 2262, Australia.
Mr. T. Hodgson, Urb Montesel, Rincon De La Victoria, Malaga, Spain.
Mr. F.G. Darbon, P.O. Box 325, Vernon, British Columbia, Canada.
D. Cooke-Yarborough, Lot 11 , McKay Crescent, Orange, New South Wales, Australia.

We have no record of the present address of R. Brown previously of 33 Green Court, Luton. If anyone knows his present address, please let Alan Thomas or Kay Mansfield know.

It’s a Small World!

We are told that when Clare Coase, after some sixteen years in Australia, decided that she really ought to investigate joining a local caving club - she is still a B.E.C. member of course - the club that she picked on was that run by John Riley. It seems that wherever you are, you can't get away from the B.E.C.!

In Committee

The February meeting of the Committee waded its way through a very full agenda involving several points of general policy, which led to full discussions.  One of these was the general agreement that if a club officer made a profit, this money must be passed to general club funds unless the officer concerned has had permission to spend it.  The situation regarding the various regional and national bodies was also discussed - of which more next month.

Two applications had been received for the Hon. Treasurer's Assistant later in the year.  These are from Barry Wilton and from Alan Kennett.

It was agreed that 'Mr.' Nigel Taylor should be appointed as Assistant Hut Warden in the absence of Jock Orr.  He has Not been co-opted to the committee.  This opportunity is taken to advertise for an Assistant Hut Warden as agreed at the last A.G.M, in case this should prove necessary in the future. Any applications to any member of the committee, please.




Monthly Crossword – Number 30




















































































3. Cave H.Q.?. (3)
6. Wintery water. (3)
7. See 5 down.
8. 2 down and awkward rise give Mendip cave (8)
10. Survey points in the railway tunnel? (8)
13. Across strike.(3)
14. Cave on the far side of the sump? (3)
15. Before, long ago? (3)


1. An essential load underground, though not a heavy one, presumably. (5)
2. Stock a local example. (4)
3. I let ‘e itch!  Found oddly underground. (9)
4. Trip to the old city? (4)
5. Estimate of time 7 across (1,1,1)
9. Making use of. (5)
11. Measuring or protecting device in caves. (4)
12. Welsh cave. (4)
12A. Uneven feature of flood damage. (4)

Solution to Last Month’s Crossword