Well-Known Member
The videos do help a little, let me see if I got this-
...TRT is different from DdRT because the climber is using two small diameter ropes acting as one SRT line in a single device...
I can see using 2 foot ascenders and not needing a knee ascender, what else does this get you?

with the advantage of being able to separate the two lines at your anchor point...
In most anchor configurations shown the dual lines are dependant on each other for counter weight accept for the girth hitch config, what is the advantage of having one 8mm line attached to me, and a second line hanging slack from the same anchor point? Or do they both stay in my device, and split above it to separate redirects for positioning?

..there are a bunch of anchoring configurations. Being on a continuous loop is genius." Very much a work in progress for myself.
In the examples shown I am not seeing a continuous loop, just 2 small lines going from a single anchor point, to a single device. Earlier there is a picture of what looks like two parallel anchor points with a floating carabiner between them bringing both lines together and down to a single device, is this what you are calling a continuous loop? If so what are the advantages besides the floating carabiner hang point?

Sorry for all the questions, just trying to clarify what makes TRT besides just SRT with 2 smaller ropes.


Well-Known Member
TRT has been done many times before, for sure, with different kit and minor configuration, but the essence remains to combine specific advantages of two techniques into one system. Those techniques being SRT and DdRT. If we go into the acronyms of some groups, we could say SRS (Stationary Rope System) and MRS (Moving Rope System).

Climbers around the world have found the benefits of SRT in light of ascent, and natural redirects, but with certain stationary anchoring methods, the ability to remotely retrieve and relocate is non-existent.

Beforehand, many of those climbers climbers were enjoying the benefits of remotely retrieving and relocating anchor points. This would have been done with the use of an independant SRT system for 1:1 access, or simply slugging through a slow hip thrust or "granny lock" ascent.

TRT is accomplished by isolating a limb with a line that is made of of 2 separate lengths connected end to end. When that connection is located at the limb, the choice of belay is made. This can be 2 means of belay (one on each line [think: a pair of prusiks]), or a single belay device (one capturing both lines [think: footlock prusik]).

When John Provenzale found the Rope Runner, we all know he was a steadfast user. When he experimented with loading two thinner lines, this was a stroke of beauty. It was the first means of TRT with a modern belay tool. My guess is the experimentation led to setting retrievable redirects, which in turn led to the floating anchor.

The practicality of all this may vary, but the fact remains that TRT is the one means of climbing that combines the most highlighted aspects of our two most useful techniques. So, imagine yourself somewhere other than the day to day 70' Oak tree prune, where most any system is great, and put yourself at the base of a several hundred foot conifer, where the plan is to access the crown and then move on through several other trees before coming down. You'd certainly be wanting 1:1 ascent, and no doubt be wanting remote anchor retrieval.

Now, take that above mentioned scenario and try to imagine how it could fit into your day to day. You might be surprised. You also may be surprised when you discover how light and compact your kit is for such a capability and rope length.

Cheers. Essay over.
I like the trt setup for certain trees & especially when I put the rope in small bags keeping the rope tidy but when I've done large trees & had a lot of rope it can get abit messy with all the thin twin line .. how do others find rope management??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well-Known Member
A huge pain with lots of rope on the ground. Most normal climbs I found using both ends of a 150' rope much easier to manage than two separate 150 footers.


Well-Known Member
The ability to create a suspension point anywhere along a line created by two opposing points up in the top of a tree. I think this is the big selling point for TRT, though I have yet to try it for myself.

Extrapolating from this, if you were to set up two such systems in the same tree, in effect creating a DRT-TRT system, you could create a suspension point anywhere within the area defined by the four tie-in or primary suspension points. I hope what I'm trying to say makes some kind of sense.



Well-Known Member
Me too. I just don't see the value, BUT when I see smart climbers say how great it is, I know it is I DON'T GET IT versus it has no/little value. ;) Willing to learn...
D x D et al, Oceans gave a great description a few posts back describing the values of TRT, that of it being stationary and the ability to retrieve the system from wherever the climber is and by themselves.
A dead-wooding job in 2015 made me wow at the system. Cryptomeria are not easy to throw-line into and pose considerable risk for access but one tree was all it took and after this it became a traverse job. The TRT was super nice to be able to work static re-directs, 1:1 ascent for the long stretches and stationary system shone for the gazillions of little branches that the rope inevitably ran against. And of course that I could traverse across to the next group of trees and then pull out my anchor.
The Runner works better with the 16mm/8mm oblong shaped rope cross-section. It releases like a dream. Holding said oblong above the Runner offers a pronounced difference in ergonomics compared to a single round leg.


Active Member

Fully aware that Daigenta-Noen seemingly has endless experimentation without any definable objective... Despite this, I think this may be the first time I've seen the ABDB TRT. I also know that in this video, it seems a floating anchor point wasn't used, still - more possibilities...
Last edited: