Sunset on Williamson

TRs for the San Gabriel Mountains.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Yesterday Cecelia and I hiked to Mt. Williamson for her birthday and for the sunset. Since it was her special day, I thought, "What the hell? Let's drive the long detour through Tujunga to reach Islip Saddle!" First we stopped at the overlook for Big Tujunga Dam.

DSC00404.JPG


Then we checked out the view of Williamson Rock.

DSC00409.JPG


We caught several rock climbers walking back to their cars, returning from an illegal adventure.

After that we drove to Islip Saddle and prepared for a cold, evening hike.

DSC00420.JPG


The trailhead burned in the Bobcat Fire.

DSC00424.JPG


The South Fork Trailhead looked messy, but the PCT appeared in better condition heading up to Williamson. Still, we kicked many rocks and branches off the tread as we climbed. A few poodle dog bushes remained beside the trail, but it was easy to avoid them. Also I counted three small trees across the trail, one minor wash out, a stretch of moderate rutting, and a few scree sections where the tread is narrow on steep slopes. Overall not that bad for a burn zone.

DSC00438.JPG

DSC00433.JPG


A few trees survived here and there, more so near the summit.

DSC00474.JPG

DSC00485.JPG


We reached the top about an hour before sunset. While Cecelia chilled and took photos, I hurried over to Peak 8244, stole the Sierra Club register and brought it back to Williamson. Maybe you know that the Sierra Club places a register on 8244' instead of the official, 8214' summit. Don't ask me why GNIS and USGS Topo have Williamson at 8214 instead of 8244, but they do. Actually they measure it at 8216' now, and if they ever produce a new map worth a damn, I'll stop using measurements from the '95 series.

What I'm trying to say is, if you're looking for the register, it now lives on 8214, which is technically now 8216. But you better go grab it soon, because, according to the Sierra Club, registers don't live very long on 8214. I guess that's why they put it on 8244, because it gets stolen from the official summit?

The problem is that 8244 is a quarter-mile away from 8214, and some people don't enjoy hiking that much extra distance to find the register. Also, 8244 currently has a patch of poodle dog on its smallish peak, so it's a less preferable hangout than 8214 in my opinion.

In addition to being confusing, Williamson is one of those spots with amazing views all around. That's probably why they call it the Pleasant View Ridge. "Pleasant" is an understatement, if you ask me.

DSC00486.JPG


Even the desert view at dusk is delightful.

DSC00490.JPG


It helps to have neat clouds in the sky as well.

The summit area is nice and flat for relaxing or even camping. We drank hot apple cider and posed for photos while waiting for the sunset.

DSC00495.JPG


Then we bundled up and headed down by headlamp. My car read 45 degrees an hour after sunset, but it was colder on the summit.
User avatar
Girl Hiker
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:46 am

Post by Girl Hiker »

Thanks, it was one of the best sunsets on a peak! The hot apple cider was a bonus.
User avatar
JeffH
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:09 am

Post by JeffH »

I don’t remember Williamson being flat and open on the summit. Now I’ll have to go up there and look again. Thanks to your extra work I get to save the extra walking to sign in.
"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours".
Donald Shimoda
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 3823
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

Pretty flat and open! lol
IMG_6837.jpg
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 3823
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

Happy Birthday Cecelia!
User avatar
dima
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am

Post by dima »

Thanks for the report. Looking at it from Little Jimmy, it looked like it burned pretty bad. Glad to see it's still somewhat delightful
User avatar
Nate U
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:38 pm

Post by Nate U »

Good way to spend a birthday! Most excellent to have the road open again, detour or not.

What about point 8248?

Screen Shot 2023-11-27 at 12.07.41 PM.png
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 3823
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

8248 is just that...a question mark.

Bob Burd described these pts on the map thusly...

"It took just about an hour to reach the summit of Williamson. There are three summits to the mountain, all within 40' of each other, the highest lying at the northwest end. I found no register on any of them."

The Sierra Club acknowledges Mt. Williamson is where it is on the maps (i.e. 8214), but they want the register to stay on 8244 so it doesn't get disappeared as often as it does when it is kept on 8214'...

"The summit is the one given on the topo as 8244'. Another summit 1/4 mile to the southeast is about 30' lower (8214'). The register has been moved back and forth repeatedly. Please keep it on the 8244' summit. While the summit of 8214' is what shows as Mt Williamson on the USGS map, register cans at this location do not last long while those on the higher, but slightly more distant bump last."

I like Bob Burd's description the best "3 summits to the mountain". 3 summits, 1 mountain. The Sierra club doesn't want the register stolen from the named summit so they hide it on the nearby other summit (8244), but didn't want to make people walk all the way over to 8248. Lazy gits.
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Nate U wrote: What about point 8248?
I didn't even notice that. The USGS quadrangles are split at Williamson, so that you have to look at a separate map to see 8248, and I didn't even look around while on 8244. I just grabbed the can and left. But, yeah, I have no clue what's going on at Williamson. Maybe we should do a forum hike up there and permanently rename everything. William (8248), The Wifey (8244), and Williamson (8214). A genuine Trinity of sorts.
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Also, my Garmin BaseCamp map doesn't even show 8248. Odd.
User avatar
Nate U
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:38 pm

Post by Nate U »

When in doubt, GIS it out.

With 10-foot contour intervals, the GIS map actually puts a 8250 ring around both 8244 and 8248, but the ring around 8248 is larger.
Screen Shot 2023-11-27 at 2.30.46 PM.png

FYI contour lines check out for 8216, and indicate the flat top.
Screen Shot 2023-11-27 at 2.32.52 PM.png
User avatar
dima
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am

Post by dima »

The top of Williamson isn't peaky, and those bumps aren't noteworthy. There are some cool airplanes there
User avatar
tekewin
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:07 pm

Post by tekewin »

Great report! The shot of the desert at dusk is cool.

There was a pretty good use trail on that ridge to the north with the plane crash debris. Really nice area of the Gabes.
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Seriously, what am I supposed to do with these 2021 maps that have no spot elevations?

USGS Crystal Lake 2021
USGS Crystal Lake 2021


USGS Valyermo 2021
USGS Valyermo 2021
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Nate U wrote: When in doubt, GIS it out.
Is there a free GIS website?
User avatar
Nate U
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:38 pm

Post by Nate U »

Sean wrote: Is there a free GIS website?
Its the most detailed topo maps of the area I've ever seen! I wish I could get them on my phone's GPS tracker. Props to Dima for originally finding this.
https://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Vie ... NET_Public
User avatar
Nate U
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:38 pm

Post by Nate U »

Sean wrote: Seriously, what am I supposed to do with these 2021 maps that have no spot elevations?

Screenshot_20231128-003025-105.png

Screenshot_20231128-003319-833.png
The latest USGS maps don't have spot elevations anymore? How are we supposed to communicate bump names ?
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 3712
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by Sean »

Nate U wrote: How are we supposed to communicate bump names ?
I suppose they'll all be imprecisely referenced by contour lines, and if necessary narrowed down by directional info. The 8240+ immediately NW of Mt. Williamson. Or, the 8240+ immediately NW of the 8240+ immediately NW of Mt. Williamson. Or, the 8240+ immediately W of the 8240+ immediately NW of the 8240+ immediately NW of Mt. Williamson.

Labelling these bumps on the map will be a pain, but at least we'll understand each other.
Post Reply