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?