A very scary video

[Cheule]

Bloody hell! Whatever they're paid, it's not enough.

The bit where he reaches the top and looks down is bad enough, but when his mate arrives I was like, "where the hell are you going to stand? get down!"

 

[Globalti]

I used to do a lot of rock climbing; I was always fine with heights until I stood on a belay and turned to face outwards. When there's nothing in front of you to let you gauge your position it suddenly feels very exposed.

 

[CopperBrompton]

One of the things I loved about climbing was the deliciously understated descriptions in British guides.

For the benefit of non-climbers, you generally keep two or three points of contact, moving only one or two limbs at a time, but there are times when 'dynamic' moves are required - that is, you can only complete the moves by using your momentum and keeping going: you'd fall if you tried to make the same moves slowly.

I recall one particular climb that had a traverse comprising three successive dynamic moves, all the while with 200 feet of sheer drop snapping at your heels. It was a bloody frightening section for the grade of climb. The guide book description was: "The next few moves are not without their moments of interest."

 

[swee'pea99]

 AKA 'fill yer pants time'

 

[Arch]

I remember seeing something on telly once about Salisbury Cathedral, which has a red warning light on the top of the spire. The chap who changed it had to climb a wooden spiral staircase, first inside the tower part, then inside the spire bit, with the staircase getting tighter and tighter turning as the spire narrows. Then he opens a little door and sticks his head out, and they cut to a shot from the ground looking up and there was this tiny weeny trap door, right at the top of the spire, and the bloke looking out. Looked terrifying!

After that, he still had to climb out, and up the final section of spire and lightning conductor.

Still, I think he had a harness. Remember John Noakes going up Nelson's Column, and over the over hang, and no harness in sight!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/bluepeter/lesleypetejohn/video/video3.shtml

 

[Globalti]

I've been up Salisbury cathedral spire a couple of times; you are allowed to get up inside the final part of the spire where the stone skin is only a couple of inches thick and is mounted on a wooden armature, reinforced with steel. You stick your head out of a tiny door and gasp at the exposure. It's an amazing building, a superb example of state-of-the-art medieval lightweight stone building technology. The tower was extended several times by successive bishops or whoever and because the cathedral has no foundations, the four pillars at the crossing began to bend under the weight and sink into the ground. When you get to the Triforium level you can look along the sill and see how it dips downwards as it reaches the crossing. The spire has collapsed so the top is a few feet out of perpendicular; the locations of the true centre and the top are marked on the floor.

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia....sbury_Cathedral

You can see the dip in this picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007-05-21_Salisbury_inside.jpg

 

[Arch]

For the opposite of the Salisbury Cathedral exposure experience, visit the Crypt of York Minster. Once you are under the tower, you encounter the massive concrete foundations inserted when it was found that there were cracks developing above. Huge concrete blocks, held together with enormous hex-bolts. Then you stop to think of the weight of what's directly over your head, and you move on, smartish!

I was in town with some colleagues on Tuesday, leafleting, and we ended up at the East End of the Minster, currently undergoing a huge restoration project (the great window had started to bow outwards!). We all stood and watched the temporary lift going up the scaffolding until we were looking more or less straight up, whereupon the effect of the clouds scudding overhead gave us collective vertigo and we all nearly fell over backwards!

 

[Arch]

We're getting smaller and smaller scale here, and getting away from vertigo, but I pass through Chesterfield relatively often on the train, and the spire never ceases to amaze me, simply by still existing!

 

[Arch]

Jeez! According to Wikipedia (usual caveats apply):

"An interesting point is that the spire is not attached to the church building but is kept on by its own weight"

 

[Globalti]

Which spire? Chesterfield or Salisbury?

 

[CharlesF]

On my phone at work, so cant see the vids. My son has left the army to work for a company contructing wind turbines. The first photo we got was of him standing on the very top looking very pleased with himself, his Mum was not impressed; as she thought she wouldn't have to worry with him out of the army.

 

[Arch]

Which spire? Chesterfield or Salisbury?

Sorry, Chesterfield.

I mean, it must weigh a fair bit, and presumably any wind high enough to shift it would be so catastrophic as to rip bits of it off anyway. But still....

 

[postman]

Video has been taken off by some copyright ruling .

 

[CopperBrompton]

Original video is currently available here:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXuzrIN_x2M


According to the link, it's not a copyright issue, more someone discovering the hard way that worms cannot be put back into cans. :-)

 

[postman]

Thank you .What a video
Only job worse than that .

The people who put the tower together .!!!

That must have been awesome .