All in all I think that this has been a good day's work - from Gordon's initial post to a variety of responses. To my mind this is what is best about our Forum - the ability to respond to an issue - whether it be a route query, or, in this case, a more profound concern. The opportunity to engage in debate, and to respect the views of our fellows.

The way this works, though, means that Joe Bloggs winning a place does not affect your own chances of getting a place, because – as others have correctly posited – the Hanwag places are in addition to the 320 already on the event. Aye, it might seem a bit like queue-jumping but it won't actually affect the rate at which you reach the front of the queue, and can actually improve that.

If Joe Bloggs is at number 30, and you're at 29, you'll still be at 29 when he wins his place and he and his walking partner are given places. People will move up the Standby List in just the same way they would if the prize places didn't exist.

If anything, some on the SB List would benefit: if you were at Number 2, and Number 1 won a place, then you'd automatically be moved up to Number 1.

I'm quite chuffed that Hanwag's taken this approach. I had a long chat with their PR Hazel spelling out the fact that while these places are wonderful prizes, there's no way the winners can have any preferential treatment: so, if their experience isn't up to scratch, their place will re-allocated to another entrant. They must also submit their route to the same deadline as the other entrants (because of the lateness of the day, their deadline is the same as that of the first timers) and the route will be thoroughly vetted just like all the others, and bounced back for revision if found wanting.

Apart from TGO Magazine, it is hard to think of sponsors who've put representatives "into the field" as it were: Chris Lines did a half-Challenge for Berghaus a few years ago; Terry Abraham was put forward to represent Rab a couple of years back but had to withdraw due to work commitments… and many old timers will remember Craghopers (and later Berghaus) head-honcho Tony Wood turning up in Montrose with a £10 stuck to his forehead several years running, despite not doing the walk (yet!).

Here's another thought for the melting pot: what kind of person is likely to enter this competition? Who's likely to be lured by such a prize? Who's got the experience and qualifications to fit the bill? Hanwag might just have done a bunch of Standby Listers a marvellous favour!

That inspires another thought… I hope that if any solo Standby Listers win a place they might, in the marvellous spirit of this marvellous event, perhaps marvellously consider inviting another solo standby lister to be their "plus-one"… I'd hate to see marvellous places go to waste!

The existence of the SB List, and the front-loading, is a debate for later. Let's get 2014 safely and successfully out of the way!

I agree with HMP3, this has been a very good debate.

It has also been conducted with good spirit.

I feel content that issues have been well addressed and will not be banging on any further on this.

Thanks for a full explanation, John.

Well said John

This discussion has been long dead now ... but since it is suggested that the topic may be discussed at a future route vetters' meeting, I thought I'd add my thoughts for what they're worth.

2014 will be my ninth Challenge, and the third or fourth time (fourth, I think) that I have got in off the standby list. I have never been on the standby list and failed to get a place.

I have no misgivings about the Hanwag competition. I think it is a marvellous gesture, and well done them. I do think that the turnaround time for winners getting their routes in is rather short ... but this could easily be addressed in future either, as has been suggested, by adjusting the timing of any such competition, or by providing the winners with a few examples of routes successfully followed by past Challengers (graded from "easy low-level" to "really tough Challenge") both so they can see the sort of thing that' sexpected and so that, if they are struggling to plan a route in the time, they can just adopt one of the sample routes (indeed, there is scope for a bit of "engineering" here ... if the vetters have been noticing an imbalance in choice of start points, the sample routes offered to Hanwag winners could be skewed in favour of the under-used start points ...)

As to whether the Standby List has had its day or not, I am a firm advocate of its retention. Fully front-loading would run the risk of over-loading if insufficient Challengers dropped out; and it would change the profile of the route-vetters' workload. I am not sure the change would be for the better.

Having been on the standby list several times, and being in employment, I do not see the uncertainty as an issue. I assume I will be in Scotland in May and plan accordingly. If the middle of March comes and I don't have my place, I just plan an alternative active holiday in Scotland. 7 weeks oughtn't to be too little notice to put something suitable together. And if I stay away from the Challenge area, the accommodation won't all be booked out.

In short, therefore, I think that the standby list is the most efficient way of feeding in the correct number of replacements - neither too many nor too few - for the number of dropouts. The partial front-loading was a desirable adjustment from a route vetting point of view, albeit undesirable from the point of view of those lucky few who CAN drop everything and go at a week's notice. For them, a high number on the standby list was nothing to be concerned about. Now it is a little more so. But even if I were one of them, I suspect that would be a price I would readily pay for keeping the vetters happy by saving them from last-minute vetting chores.

For these reasons, I would be minded ot retain it. I do not think that desire which some people have expressed for absolute certainty as to whether they are on the Challenge or not is a good enough reason to abandon the standby list. Absolute certainty can be achieved, even with the standby list, by simply completing the form to say that if unsuccessful in the primary draw, you do NOT want to go onto the standby list. So, since you CAN have that certainty if you want it ,what argument remains for taking the th estandby list away from those who are willin gto live with the uncertainty for a bit?