grum - Member"How do you suggest it is repaired / maintained?"
OK, maybe with some bigger rocks and less fine gravel, and a bit narrower - so it looks and feels less like a road and more like a mountain path. I'm sure it's not impossible.
Hand cobbled / hand built you mean? Or do you mean not using the fine gravel to bind it? Without the fine stuff the path surface will not be stable.
the first is enormously labour intensive and expensive, the second will not last any time at all.
You helped out with some path repair once and suddenly you are an expert, surprise surprise.
The first option might be initially expensive but is probably more sustainable in the long run surely (which is what you claim to support). What's been done seems more like a quick fix which probably won't last, but when it does inevitably erode and disintegrate there will be several tons of loose gravel everywhere. The guy from LDNP admitted it was 'patching up, rather than full scale restoration.'
The option they've gone for is also much uglier and less sympathetic to the surroundings.
Grum - look at the answer from the people who did it.
I know you are disappointed this has been done but you really need to look at the long view.
As for
What's been done seems more like a quick fix which probably won't last, but when it does inevitably erode and disintegrate there will be several tons of loose gravel everywhere.when its done properly as this appears to be this simply is not the case. a path in my local hills built like this is still there 15 years on without it all being washed to the bottom of the hill. Thats the point of the fine gravel, it binds the surface.
Handbuilding that length of path would be prohibitively expensive.
The guy from LDNP admitted it was 'patching up, rather than full scale restoration.'
The works that are being completed at Walna, are being delivered by highly experienced and skilled LDNP staff. The sub soiling technique is a sympathetic design using locally-won materials forming a well drained, sustainable path using the existing aggregate for its construction and surface. The technique is identical to that used to build many of Lakeland’s pack horse and mining tracks – traditional to the area and in accordance with strict best practice guidelines. Its cambered profile sheds water into the adjacent gutter. The finished track will settle down by up to 300mm - 450mm over the next couple of years and should last at least 15 to 20 years, with appropriate maintenance.
Grum, stop winding him up, he'd only just calmed down!.
As for you, Fergal, stop trying to get a rise.
*looks at OS Map for interesting looking footpaths to ride instead*
I quite like the big cobbles/settes that form the lung busting zig zags up Gatesgarth Pass. They are perfect for pack-horses! And they are a fair challenge to mtb riders up and down. And strangely they are perfect for walking on too!
Courtesy of the much adored Mr Barnes a photo of said cobbles
And unlike stone chippings and their technique this method really does last.
I would perfer not to but if they keep sanitising the bridleways I will be going down the same route as junkyard and grum.I.E. using footpaths. If I wanted to go on a "road" like Walna scar now is I would go to Llandegla.
But Walna Scar is a ROAD! Or at least it used to be.
Ho hum!
Another lovely ride disappears. The scenery is still stunning but the trail is now a sad shadow of what made it special in the first price. Have a look at the film "Find" to see what it once was and why it was such a lovely trail to ride. Every time a route gets improved, it just encourages to ride more cheeky stuff......not that I ever need an excuse for that. Ha! Ha!
What's the story with Nan Bield? Don't tell me they're making a cobblers of that as well now?
How has Moor Lane in Grizedale lasted since the last lot of improvements?
As a walker, I find no pleasure in walking up such routes. Give me a rocky and uneven path in preference every day of the week. If I want to walk on pavements, there's plenty to chose from.
Like I said, Ho hum!
Slightly off topic but maybe their next route to upgrade should be Ben MacDhui? Much too much in the way of loose and rocky trail up there. 
I can't wait to ride Walna Scar after the first heavy frost of the year. Why ride on rocky exposed bedrock when you can ride down a wheel sucking, frost heave covered motorway instead eh? Much more satisfying...........
Last time I went down Nan Bield in the summer there were piles of stone chippings at the top and they'd started to repair fairly extensive erosion damage. Not been down it since.
What's the story with Nan Bield?
They've built up the corners on the switchbacks(kentmere side), TBH its hasn't ruined it and it needed to be done before they got to deep and collapsed.
Interesting thread, and some really good contributions (especially boxelder, rangerbill etc.). Apologies for the extended monologue below – but I was musing this thread earlier...
There is a myth perpetuated (including by some on here) that ramblers and horse riders (for example) are all in support of this kind of work being carried out. This simply isn't the case. Many enjoy rougher tracks, less visually intrusive paths and more 'natural' feeling routes. And this isn't about 'accessibility' either. A friend of a colleague has published some good studies involving blind walkers organisations, suggesting that part of the value they find in being able to use off-road routes is the engagement offered by different and unpredictable surfaces – not merely a uniform road that can be repeated anywhere (albeit amongst some pretty scenery). The fact is that there are a whole range of motivations that make people want to be able to access a particular area or route – and not all will be compatible, all the time.
The current system of ROW/ access legislation/ policy/ practice does not seem to acknowledge this, and rather presupposes that if a user is able to access a route that is all that matters, and the nature of the route itself is immaterial. In fact, judging by my experience, and the views expressed on the thread, the very material of a route is crucial to the experience of many of us. Walkers, fell runners, mtber's, horse riders, climbers and so on all seem to enjoy particular routes for their very difference, rather than their uniformity. Why is it not possible for authorities to have an attitude towards access that celebrates and promotes this diversity, rather than one that suppresses difference and tends towards a misguided understanding of why access is important in the first place?
The difficulty then clearly is how to deal with or manage issues around 'damage' to routes, and the impact that users have on the routes they clearly value. How do you feasibly manage access without infringing on rights or fundamentally changing the nature of that access? I can't help thinking that having a planning system that is based on a notion of limited rights against a backdrop of presumed non-rights (all of course based on reductive and contested historical precedent) doesn't help, as it confers the entire responsibility regarding access to 'authority' and absolves us from any personal responsibility. 'They' provide it, 'we' use it. It seems if they ensure access where legally required to do so they have done their job (regardless of the nature of this or how this is achieved), and as long as we remain legal in our access (regardless of the potential effects of legal or non-legal use), all will be well. It's hardly surprising that this system ends up creating or adding to tensions between individuals, and does little to address the reasons why such intensive and controversial management of access is seen to be necessary.
Anyway, to get back towards the thread...
It does seem bizarre that local authorities can be seen to 'improve' ROW in a (sometimes) heavy-handed manner with little consequence, while at the same time a whole host of groups like Natural England (IIRC?) , John Muir Trust, Mountaineering Council, and Ramblers Scotland are actively involved in working or campaigning against large engineered works carried out by private estates – leading in some cases to prosecution, and in others to the active removal of precisely these types of track road.
John Muir Trust, Mountaineering Council, and Ramblers Scotland are actively involved in working or campaigning against large engineered works carried out by private estates – leading in some cases to prosecution, and in others to the active removal of precisely these types of track road.
Not quite - there is a subtle but important difference. In the case of the walna scar road it is an old route that has been rebuilt to best practices copying how it would have built earlier. The tracks objected to on the highland estates are new ones bulldozed thru the landscape with no thought for its impact.
How many people here are members of CTC or actively get involved in local campaigning groups?
If you don't vote you don't get listened to so stop yer whingin
Not quite - there is a subtle but important difference. In the case of the walna scar road it is an old route that has been rebuilt to best practices copying how it would have built earlier.
But the question is why? It longer serves the purpose it was originally built for.
How many people here are members of CTC or actively get involved in local campaigning groups?If you don't vote you don't get listened to so stop yer whingin
I'm not at the mo but I'm thinking of joining IMBA and trying to get involved in some consultation groups or whatever. Although as the guy from LDNP said they aren't going to consult anyone about work like this anyway.
When I showed Katie the WSR photos she pointed out that the mountain rescue teams would now have more work to do because the "woman in unsuitable shoes" who seems to be the source of most of their callouts will now be able to get further up the hill before twisting her ankle.
To state that the recent Walna Scar route is “copying how it would have been built earlier” is misleading. The most recent improvements have been carried out in the way they have in order to utilise newer techniques that take advantage of modern technologies, and therefore do not rely on skilled and labour intensive methods of management and repair that were the only option in the past. The form of subsoiling, reversal and drainage works being carried out in the way they have at Walna Scar are only made possible by relatively modern machinery, so whilst to imply that this is merely an extension of past practice (how ever valid or arbitrary this might be argued to be as a determining factor) may have some validity within the past decade, it is certainly not accurate within even my limited memory, and certainly not over the lifetime of a route that is centuries old.
bajsyckel
the Lake District National Park.
The sub soiling technique is a sympathetic design using locally-won materials forming a well drained, sustainable path using the existing aggregate for its construction and surface. The technique is identical to that used to build many of Lakeland’s pack horse and mining tracks – traditional to the area and in accordance with strict best practice guidelines.
From the responsible people in charge. I tend to believe them
From the responsible people in charge. I tend to believe them
Ah yes, blind faith in what the people in charge say - I've noticed that as one of your traits on all sorts of other topics.
TJ – I have absolutely no beef with the claim that the type of work carried out can limit drainage issues, and it does have some merits. I also know that this is considered “best practice” - a term which is shorthand for cost-effective/ easily transferable due to employing a limited range of technical approaches in a standardised manner. Indeed, the IMBA recommended spec. for tracks is reasonably close to that seen here, and Walna Scar is only a recent example of countless other instances of 'best practice' seen adopted across the country. However, to claim that the techniques used are “identical” to those that initially created such routes is to pursue an absurdly revisionist agenda – unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.
[edit] In any case, the major issue to me is one that I think a lot of people have been noting, basically, that for many people tracks matter. They are not simply detached from the places through which they pass, and we don't simply happen to use them because we value the areas around them. We value the diversity of experiences that different tracks offer – and that is something that is (IMO) common to all users. This is not an argument against access management, but more an argument that management needs to recognise what sort of access is valuable, not simply view provision of access as an end in itself. Why should we support 'best practice' solutions that revolve around a reductive and limited conception of what our experiences should be, based around the visual consumption of “the countryside” and its contents as spectacle?
Some really good points there and a really balance view from bajsyckel, stuff like that reminds me why STW forums can be worth trawling through.
As for TJ :rolleyes: I honestly wish there was some way to filter you out as even when you're quite possibly right (which I don't believe you are in this case) the way you put it across just grates, to me. Certainly the blind faith in the "people that know" is rather strange to me, but then it is a gambit I'd expect when your argument is based on google 
Personally, if anyone wanted to get involved in stuff I'd look at whatever local trail / advocacy group there might be (doesn't always have to be formal) and at CTC.
bajsyckel
Eloquently put! Chapeau! You've taken the gist of many of the arguments and distilled it into simple terms that hits the nail squarely on the head.
Sanny
Isn't there some balance to be struck which would address drainage and erosion without removing ALL natural features. A natural set of rock steps for example. I'm thinking of a lovely little descent on the way to Great Langdale that had been given this treatment in the last few years.
If you're going to turn these into 'trail centre' type trails then you could work with the natural features rather than trying to remove them completely (which is surely what would have happened when they were originally built and didn't have access to a JCB to flatten the lot)
Eloquently put! Chapeau! You've taken the gist of many of the arguments and distilled it into simple terms that hits the nail squarely on the head.
Agreed, much better expressed than I could have done but I agree wholeheartedly.
unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.
But they built a 'Traditional' trail with those found in the area, that's why they didn't use slate but a material not found in the Lakes instead.
Why should we support 'best practice' solutions that revolve around a reductive and limited conception of what our experiences should be
Very well put.
And of course that begs the question of who "best practice" is best for? The accountant?
bajsyckel - MemberHowever, to claim that the techniques used are “identical” to those that initially created such routes is to pursue an absurdly revisionist agenda – unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.
Pretty pedantic, that... The results are the same as if they used manual labour and stacked-stone drains, just that it's faster. Would you argue that if they don't do it exactly how the original road was built, then there's no merit to doing it almost the same?
Thanks for those supportive comments – glad it was worth reading to someone else at least. Drac – I'm not sure I understand your post. Northwind – admittedly it is pedantic, but I simply don't agree that the results of this 'best practice' can be argued as analogous to previous maintenance (having been involved with consultations and trials of similar 'best practice' ROW improvements elsewhere). But that's to miss the more important point – to designate a route and its desired characteristics by appealing to a given historical point towards which a route is perpetually 'conserved' is a fundamentally flawed approach. Not only is it riven with inaccuracies, it is inherently contestable and any decision will not only be argued to be arbitrary but possibly irrelevant to future use, which is surely what matters.
What I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures. To me, and I believe to a significant proportion of those who use these routes, one crucial part of their value centres upon their difference – we like to use different routes in different ways, not simply because they take us through different places, but because they are in themselves unique, something which the increasingly widespread instigation of heavy handed 'best practice' solutions inevitably reduces. (OK, I've possibly dragged this off topic enough now).
And, like others have said (even as someone who is wary of such things) it is useful to take part in consultations, access forums, local campaigns and so on – if we find stuff like this so controversial and important, we should try to find ways that we can influence the way access and ROW decisions are made.
Drac – I'm not sure I understand your post
There was a claim back in the thread it was built using traditional techniques for the area. Traditional trails in the Lakes used quarry slate waste. But they sell that now for people like me decorate their gardens with. So they've had to use hardcore from another area, not exactly traditional then.
Was chatting to my brother about the bottom of Garburn having the same treatment. How about a mass STW offensive where we build a berm on every corner? 
Drac - Gotcha. Thought you were probably saying something like that.
What I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures. To me, and I believe to a significant proportion of those who use these routes, one crucial part of their value centres upon their difference
A good point, clearly made.
This isn't a road any more - no longer is it's function to be an 'important trade route' between two places - it's used solely for leisure and I don't think the smooth, wide, city-park-style path that's been installed is what (m)any(?) of it's users are really looking for - Walkers, Mountain Bikers or Horseriders. The one exception is probably the local farmers.
We don't restore ruined castles or abbeys to their original condition - we stabilise them and protect them from further deterioration. What's been done here seems to go a long way beyond that.
Drac - ModeratorSo they've had to use hardcore from another area, not exactly traditional then.
Unless I'm missing something, it's locally extracted subsoil not your typical imported kittylitter.
bajsyckel - MemberWhat I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures.
I'd be in favour of that... Trouble it's not very compatible with the english system. Almost all ROWs and bridleways exist only because of their history. If present day needs and desires are to be the driving force, won't that include the present day desire for councils not to maintain and build trails, and for farmers not to have rights of way on their land, etc?
The current system is frankly ridiculous but if you knock out one central timber who knows where the wreckage would land.
Unless I'm missing something, it's locally extracted subsoil not your typical imported kittylitter.
Looks like some sort of crap hardcore to me, if it's subsoil that'll be great in the Lakes with it's long months of continuous dry spells.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
