Buying Gear Online?

Use our price tool to find the best price on any piece or gear or clothing. Purchases using this tool support cc.com.


Supporting Sponsors






CC.com Blog
Be sure to check out the Cascadeclimbers.com Blog for informative posts and reviews written by knowledgeable members.
Click here to read the blog.
Who's Online
5 registered (Tyson.g, hampshire, Feck, 2 invisible), 97 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Supporting CC.com
Forum Stats
25868 Members
52 Forums
96196 Topics
1124159 Posts

Max Online: 627 @ 12/18/06 12:02 AM
Top TR Contributors
ivan 111
tvashtarkatena 99
off_the_hook 90
danhelmstadter 88
KaskadskyjKozak 87
JasonG 77
telemarker 68
Feck 67
wayne 61
G-spotter 56
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#253315 - 10/05/03 12:59 PM Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
Twin Peaks Twip Report {A picture of Twin Peaks from the north}

The Route: Circumnavigation
Difficulty: BW2, Class 4 scrambling, 5.8 summit pitch (5.9 in boots)
Protection: Cams, cams, cams (mid-size cams being best); 50m rope; rock shoes
The Personnel: Brian (Catbirdseat) and Paul (Klenke)
Start/end point: Perry Creek Trail (Mt. Forgotten Trail), 2100 ft
High point: Twin Peaks, West Summit (5,840+ ft)
Date: October 4, 2003

Approach: (Beckey's route description isn't that good)
Take the Perry Creek Trail for two miles to where it crosses the creek. Leave the trail and continue up the creek. In late season, this creek is supposed to be dry. It is dry, just further up the basin. Don't be fooled by the first 100 feet or so of pools. Shortly thereafter, the creek disappears under the gravelly streambed. From here on to the head of the basin it is actually very easy travel in the dry streambed. You will see Twin Peaks up and to the right. 1 hour to the head of the basin (3,600 ft).

A lower cliff band hems in most of the head of the Perry Creek basin. A steep brushy slope heads directly east from the basin. To the right of this, where the streambed ends, is a rock amphitheater with a narrow canyon that trends up and right. Farther to the right is a semi-vegetated talus acclivity. The route we took to get above the lower cliffs was as such:

Walk the streambed to just before the amphitheater and mount the spur to the right (west) of the narrow canyon. Ascend the spur for about 200 vertical feet. You can scramble rock (exposed to the canyon) or bushwhack mild stunted evergreens until at the base of the lower cliffs. At this point, make an easy crossover to the other (east) side of the canyon then traverse a slightly brushy slope (BW1) eastward for about 100 yards to another canyon with a waterfall (just a trickle late in season). At this second canyon, a low-angle slab gully proceeds eastward for several hundred yards. In some ways, this gully looks like an eroded dike because it runs parallel with the cliffs above. There are two steps in the gully that require one to exit it for brushy slopes on the left (mostly BW2 but can easily become BW3 if not diligent). Once above the second step, the gully widens and becomes more vegetated. In another 100 vertical the gully opens up to the heathery upper basin (just below the centerpoint of the aforementioned photograph). If climbing Chokwich Peak, the saddle above to the east is probably the way to go. 2 hours to here (4,800 ft).

From here, one can go the Beckey way up through the ugly notch between the East and West Summits, or you can take a more solid circumnavigation. After descending via the notch, Brian and I both agreed that the better (more pleasant) approach for the peak is around its west side. In looking at the aforementioned photograph, the following features are visible: the upper cliffs, the upper talus, the lower curving cliff band, and still another short cliff band down and to the right of the summit. The idea is to take the mezzanine ramp between these lower two cliff bands. The ramp becomes a bench and shortly reaches the timbered Northwest Rib of Twin Peaks. Once at timber, turn left and climb up and over the rib or traverse steep heather beneath it until at the small saddle under the northwest corner of the summit cliffs. A stand of trees to the right (south) marks the start of an upper ledge that leads around the largely overhanging West Face to the Southwest Ridge. (I had thought there might be a rock route up this West Face but I was wrong. That was our real reason for going over there. The West Face, in addition to being overhung in many places, is devoid of any cracks for pro. There are incipient cracks which would probably take knife blades, however. Either way, it would be high-5th-class climbing.)

Round the Southwest Ridge (easy) then scramble heather and ankle brush eastward under the South Face until you arrive at the only significant gully on the entire mountain. This gully has an inordinate amount of talus and blocks strewn below it and one wonders where the heck all that rock came from. 3 hours to here (5,600 ft).

The Climbing: Gear up at the base of the gully. Warning: It is extremely important to climb together in the gully or on its spur margins because trundling is a major problem. It is not necessary to rope up for the lower part of the route. Scramble the mouth of the gully (class 2) to the first little step. A nice little stem move gets you above it. At the next step (harder and mossier), leave the gully for the rock spur on the right. Scramble class 4 (can rope up for this) for 100 feet past two steeper problem sections. The spur comes to a platform where the ledge Beckey mentions comes in from the east. Though we did not go this way, it is surmised that the easiest way to the top might be to continue straight (northeastward) from the top of the gully past some small trees. There is a small notch at the trees. Beyond the notch, the "gully" continues to another, more prominent notch immediately east of the summit. Turning left, one would find a class 4 ridge traverse over a small horn or two. It didn't look all that interesting from the summit.

You can erect a belay at a small scrub pine on the platform or continue up unroped. The gully, which is below you on the left, more or less ends here. A low-angle slab reminiscent of the North Face of Vesper but shorter and reflected rises above the gully. The true (West) summit can be seen up and to the right of the slab. Cross the chossy head of the gully to the base of the slab (class 3). Use the corner dihedral of the slab and adjacent rock wall to place pro. The slab then steepens (easy class 4) all the way to the ridge crest immediately west of the summit. The dihedral remains in play. To complete the climb from the ridge crest would involve about 30 feet of knife-edge class 5 climbing with suspect pro followed by 40 feet of class 4 to the loose, blocky summit.

At about halfway to the crest there is an alcove that is perfect (good anchor cracks) for a belay up the South Face of the West Summit. This alcove is at the base of an east-trending deep open book (an open book that's almost closed). Do not climb this open book! Precariously wedged toilet-sized boulders make climbing in there very dangerous.

The most aesthetic route to the top, provided you can lead 5.8 in rock shoes, is a zigzagging crack directly up the South Face. This pitch is about 50 feet in length. It should be cleaner now that we've pitched off a lot of the loose stuff. However, the summit blocks themselves are very suspect, making the belay station below a dangerous location if they should fall. Brian led this pitch and made it look easy. Mid-size cams sunk well in the crack. The climbing features laybacks, stemming, arm bars, hand jams, you name it. If you like a certain technique, you can probably find a way to utilize it. Even a mantle is possible to get yourself onto the flat summit. Beckey says, "single visits to summit flake." First of all, it's not a flake. Secondly, two (maybe even three) people can safely sit at the summit. The hardest part of the pitch is the beginning right from the belay. The nice thing about this is that, if you fall, you'll simply land on the belay platform a few feet below. You have a diagonal finger crack to hoick yourself up, but foot features are virtually non-existent. Plus, the rock is very smooth, making it quite slick even with rock shoes. And where it's not smooth, it's lichen covered. You have to friction-for-feet the first moves in a butt-out-from-the-rock lieback until you can get your left foot into a small recess. Unto itself, I would rate this first move 5.9. But because it is at the belay platform thus negating any fall factor, it's a non-issue. Once above the first move, it's very enjoyable steep climbing to the top. Anchor possibilities abound once at the summit to bring up your second.

We rappelled back down the South Face (we left a runner up there). Instead of going back via the Beckey access ledge to the Twin Peaks notch, we had to downclimb back to the mouth of the gully. Why? Well, because Brian accidentally trundled one of his boots down the gully (boot booty?). He was trying to clean the summit area. When he chucked off a rock, it careened off a flake (the only flake jutting out from the face) and plunged directly toward his boot. In descending the gully, Brian first retrieved the sock, then the insole. But where had the boot got to? We wondered just how far it might have gone. Perhaps all the way down the South Basin? Well, we found it lying upside down like a dead cow (actually, it is dead cow) at the base of the gully. That was about the only mishap during the day.

We descended via the notch between the East and West Summits. The gully below the notch is very ugly, loose crap. Maybe suitable if snow-covered; very irritating and even dangerous if bare--thus our reasoning that the west shoulder approach is better.

Round trip took 9 hours, 30 minutes. It took 2.5 hours to get from the notch to the car, where two post-climb beers patiently awaited their chances to earn their liquid mettle.


_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
Help Support CascadeClimbers

Guide XL Lock Carabiner
$13.56
Save 20%

Want to browse more deals? Check out our price comparison and deal finder tool!

#253316 - 10/05/03 08:13 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
catbirdseat Offline
Elite Sprayforce Team

Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 13214
TRs: 46 Photos: 144
Loc: Costa Mesa, CA
Gol' durn it, Paul! I told you not to tell them aboot the boot!

It goes without saying that with snow on the ground the approach would be very different to this climb. I just talked to a fellow who climbed Twin Peaks in Spring, and they just took the obvious gully straight up and to the right. At present that gully is full of loose rock. Furthermore, the dihedral with the loose blocks would hold snow and be an easy walk up.

I don't suppose that lonesome 5.8 pitch is worth hauling the gear all the way up there, but it was a quality lead, easily protected, and what is more, it's now much cleaner than it was before . If it were a roadside attraction in Icicle Canyon, I'd give it three stars. It would be four stars, but for being only about 50-60 ft long.
_________________________
You don't do an encore if you just played Mahler.

Top
#253317 - 10/05/03 09:19 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
Cpt.Caveman Offline
sprayer

Registered: 04/18/01
Posts: 9633
TRs: 5 Photos: 0
This sounds completely contrived for such a long report. it's interesting to hear about the peak.

Top
#253318 - 10/05/03 11:02 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
HarryMajors Offline
n00b

Registered: 06/19/03
Posts: 28
TRs: 0 Photos: 0
Loc: on the Mountain Loop
Outstanding!! This is by far one of the finest approach and climbing descriptions I have ever read. cc.com is indeed fortunate to have a climber with the initiative, experience, expertise, and writing skills of Paul grace its forums. This is a superb report: accurate, detailed, written with critical analysis and evaluation of the problems encountered, and containing responsible notes of caution to ensure the safety of future climbers. If I were in charge of the next edition of the guidebook --- which I am not, and do not care to be, and which will probably be written by a committee --- Paul would be one of my first choices for that committee.

And there are others out there, as well. Please do not be offended if I have not yet mentioned you. So far, I have just mentioned Lowell, Dru, Forrest, John, and Paul. Eventually I will get around to mentioning and praising others whose achievements and contributions here make cc.com what it is. In my view as a climbing historian, the creation and maintaining of cc.com by Jon and Timmy constitutes one of the most important developments in Northwest climbing during the past 100 years --- right up there with Wolf Bauer's introduction of the Basic and Intermediate climbing courses. Good work, Jon and Timmy! And a belated Happy Birthday cc.com!

Top
#253319 - 10/06/03 08:06 AM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
catbirdseat Offline
Elite Sprayforce Team

Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 13214
TRs: 46 Photos: 144
Loc: Costa Mesa, CA
Quote:

Cpt.Caveman said:
This sounds completely contrived for such a long report. it's interesting to hear about the peak.


I told Paul to cut to the chase. What can I say?
_________________________
You don't do an encore if you just played Mahler.

Top
#253320 - 10/06/03 01:45 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
Quote:

Cpt.Caveman said:
This sounds completely contrived for such a long report. it's interesting to hear about the peak.


Contrived? What's contrived about it? I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I agree it may be long, but it certainly is all true (or based on first hand knowledge 'cuz we were just there).

If you note, with the exception of Brian's boot trundle, there is very little superfulous information in the trip report. In considering the proper length of a trip report to put forth, less is less than more unless more would be less than more...more or less.

If someone wants to use the information for their own beta purposes, then they can cull the unnecessary sentences as they see fit. If I remember something noteworthy in terms of route finding, then I am apt to include it. This is not saying that the way Brian and I went is the best way. It is only a way, therefore a feasible way--especially with beta in hand.

Sometimes I write trip reports for fun and include humor. Sometimes I'm in the mood for just factual content. Clearly, the latter was the case for the Twin Peaks TR.



Harry: thanks for the plaudits. I especially appreciate them coming from someone such as you, whose writing skills are clearly superior to mine.
_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
#253321 - 10/06/03 03:32 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
Al_Pine Offline
addicted to cc.com

Registered: 03/14/02
Posts: 437
TRs: 1 Photos: 1
Loc: Seattle
Quote:

klenke said:
Precariously wedged toilet-sized boulders






Top
#253322 - 10/07/03 04:44 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
Some pictures from that day:
Upper Perry Creek
Perry Creek Headwall

Stillaguamish Peak
Sperry & Vesper
Mt. Dickerman
Mt. Forgotten & CBS

More may be posted next week as soon as I get the next film roll used up and developed.
_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
#253323 - 10/07/03 09:32 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
PONCHO&LEFTY Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 07/26/02
Posts: 225
TRs: 0 Photos: 10
Loc: woods on White Horse Mt.
ick, summitpost
I guess it has its place though
The ratings and point system are stupid
Glad to see lots of pictures however!
_________________________
http://nwpics.com

Top
#253324 - 10/08/03 09:40 AM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
Yeah, I kind of agree with you regarding summitpost's ratings and point system thing. However, I've tried to decipher whether these have some inherent value that is hard to put in plain terms. That is to say, does it compel people to use the site more so than if it was just a mountain info and pictures depository? For some, probably. For others, such as myself, not really. The only thing the point system does is kind of give you a sense of where you stand amongst others on the website in terms of volume contributed. It's kind of like the post # that increments every time we make a post on cc.com. That really has no value either. So, it's the same thing really.

Now that sp.com no longer has a registration requirement to view mountain pages and pictures, I will use it unabashedly for picture link purposes (as I did in my previous post). I use summitpost to create mountain pages and deposit pictures. I occassionally write TRs and create mountain routes. I also respond/comment on pictures. There are some good people over there. It's just a different world from this world. All the rest of their stuff doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather not sign their summit registers, for example. And I never use their bulletin board.

I will be adding a Mt. Triumph page over there in the next day or two.
_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
#253325 - 10/15/03 05:07 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
#253326 - 12/02/03 08:02 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
klenke Offline
spray'prentice

Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 3756
TRs: 28 Photos: 610
Loc: On the redactor tractor
I'm not trying to bring this back to the top. I just wanted to add the following link for archival purposes...

I found this trip report for Twin Peaks: http://staff.washington.edu/gregm/twinpeaks.html
In particular, the 7th picture shows the fantastic knife-edge ridge we didn't take to the summit, the practically vertical face for the 5.8 crack on the right, and finally the steep dihedral with the loose blocks in it that I backed out of. They apparently went up this dihedral (8th picture). The ninth picture shows the view looking directly up the 5.8 crack.

I quote: "The vertical rock seen above was marbled with zig-zagging cracks and would have made some excellent top-roping, but it started to rain." Looks like they called it a zigzag crack too. But, we didn't top rope it!
_________________________
Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Top
#253327 - 12/02/03 08:04 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
Cpt.Caveman Offline
sprayer

Registered: 04/18/01
Posts: 9633
TRs: 5 Photos: 0
what's to say some dude didnt find it in the 70s.

Just kiddin'

Top
#253328 - 12/02/03 11:06 PM Re: Twin Peaks Twip Report (10/04/03)
catbirdseat Offline
Elite Sprayforce Team

Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 13214
TRs: 46 Photos: 144
Loc: Costa Mesa, CA
Is this fellow the same gregm of cc.com? I recogized the names of some of his friends, such as Phil Fortier and Dave Burdick as also being cc.com folks.

That one photo of the summit block in profile is pretty cool looking.
_________________________
You don't do an encore if you just played Mahler.

Top



Moderator:  chucK, mattp, Off_White, snoboy, To_The_Top 
© 2000-10 cascadeclimbers.com · Cookies · Board Rules · Mark all read ·
Powered by UBB.threads™ · Pimped by: Chinooktc · Top