Forum menu
If anyone sees anything like this, take a quick pic and email it to Peak District MTB infoATpeakdistrictmtb.org for our hall of shame.
FTFY
Going downhill, the singletrack on the top of the bank on the left has got quite fun and it's now possible to stay on it all the way to the road gate. Walkers tend to use the field on the opposite side.
Surely the horsey people have had something to say about the state of the main track by now?
Email edited for you!
Thread bump.
Saw a tweet earlier from Keeper of the Peak (@KoftheP) which now seems to have been deleted but it was saying about rocks being taken up there by helicopter.
Last weekend over on the Roych Clough side as it climbs to the main road I'd seen a sign saying "Caution, helicopter activity in this area" but I didn't really link it with resurfacing work.
Anyway, after seeing the tweet I headed up there this evening on the CX. The trail is a river at the moment, it's pouring water out onto the road but it's clear water, no gravel in it. The first part of the climb is all rideable, just small stones then you reach the bits where the babyhead rocks are still firmly bedded in. Loads of exposed bedrock, water streaming over it and then in the little sunken sections, still loads of the rockfill they dumped into it. Almost impossible to ride up, difficult to walk too - now that all the smaller gravel has washed out of it the rocks just turn under foot.
The rut at the edge is mostly rideable. Got up to the Chapel Gate turn off, no sign at all of any rock dumping by heli so I carried on over the summit. The top part is just the same as always, a network of criss crossing ruts on a firm sandy base with numerous puddles. The descent (this may have been on the FP by the way, I might have accidently missed the turn off onto the bridleway - possibly...) was as usual, rutted, grassy, a few squelchy bits of mud.
No signs of any paving stones dropped up there but it might be worth someone checking over on the Chapel Gate side of the ridge.
I'll post some pictures over to Keeper of the Peak on Twitter later.
Wasn't the Heli lifting for the paving slabs of the resurfacing of the Brown Knoll path by the moorlands society? Rushup is still up in the air at the moment according to pdmtb.
Just seen this on the Moorland website about cutthroat consultations ref resurfacing as well.
Thanks for the update
I've ridden down Rushup Edge 2 months ago, didn't think it was a bad descent, but then I never saw what it was like pre surfacing.
[url= http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/news/new-pathway-helps-protect-fragile-moorland ]http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/news/new-pathway-helps-protect-fragile-moorland[/url]
The Brown Knoll path that was referenced earlier. Due for completion mid to late September. Once it's fully paved, it'll mean you can get from Edale Cross right across to Rushup Edge basically on flag-stones, though of course, not on a bike because of the erosion you might cause to the stone paving.
Finally some developments on this
[url= http://peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/103-interesting-developments-with-the-rushup-edge-saga ]Peak MTB Rushup news[/url]
Please complete the DCC questionnaire and have your say
[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/have_your_say/consultation_search/Consultation_search_index/chapel-en-le-frith_byway.asp ]DCC consultation [/url]
Good work on that. Well done on at least making them reconsider their plans, it shows you've made am impact!
As a DCC resident they can be frustrating to deal with. I've now asked 3 times for justification for cycle lanes at the end of my street not meeting national guidance, I have so far received no response!
Shameless bump. We gotta respond to the consultation (see James's post)
Sounds hopefully promising. Thanks to those who battled on this. You know who you are. Tireless work in the background.
I rode up it 3 weeks ago, it's a lot easier to ride up than it was when they first chucked all those stones down. Interested to see what they are going to do with it.
What they do will hopefully depend on your and others comments vickypea
The document suggests to me they are truning it into a flat pack gravel road. Nothing like the stone slabs of Roych Clough
Is rhe view that rhe proposed works whilst far inferior to the original are less cr@p than the current disaster ?
Partly that, in my mind, jamba, yes.
It looks to me like there will be some gravel but that there will also be done pitching like on Roych Clough - like they say.
What's unclear is how much of each surface will be so finding that out is the next challenge.
jameswilliams34- I have responded to the survey. I also wrote to DCC 2 years ago when this kicked off. I couldn't go to the protest ride as I was in hospital.
I seem to remember similar lip service paid to stanage causeway, keeping some of the rock.
Then all they did was flatten it and add a lot of dangerous drainage ditches.
Whwn I think of Roych Clough it's this below. However the planning application picture just looks like a gravel track. I completed the survey an said the works looked rubbsih and would encourage people tomdescend flat out. Perhaps that's not what people would prefer I say.
[img] 
[/img]
The drainage ditches worry me. My concern would be that they install something like the chasms just round the corner on Chapel Gate to save the gravel top stuff from water erosion where it drains off the stone pitching and end up creating something that's actually unpleasant to ride at best and actively dangerous at worst.
I suppose the best case solution is that the whole track was pitched or at least the majority of the top section, which was where the bulk of the bedrock was before, but that's going to be expensive, which means it's unlikely as it doesn't have the National Trail status and funding that the Roych does.
jambalaya- we usually ride up it rather than down, but if they turn it into an ugly flat path with no challenge then I might be less inclined to ride the very popular "Edale loop" and buy lunch in the cafe at Edale.
It's interesting isn't it? They've left a very briad spectrum available to themselves. As it says up there both in the PDMTB and KoftheP blogs (and now RS I notice), more detail is needed to make a call on it.
I would be very interested to know how long the rock has been exposed like that. If it's something that happened over the last 10 years or so, under tramping boots and bike tyres, or has it been like that for decades?
I didn't feel there was nearly enough specific information on their plans, so that's what I said. I think they'll find it very hard to get a balance which allows access for all their user groups without also making descending speeds on a bike dangerously high.
Mr Pea has just said that it was in that condition 30 years ago when he did his D of E, so why are they so keen to suddenly fix something that's been like that for donkey's years and not getting any worse (except perhaps the narrow track up to the side, which isn't really down to the bed rock?
@vicky I ride it as a descent following a Jacobs route Pook was kin enough to share with me 4-5 years ago 🙂
Vicky I made that same point in my response to the consultation doc, told em to leave it alone but continue to restrict motor traffic.
Mods, can we make this thread sticky again at least until the consultation is over?
so why are they so keen to suddenly fix something that's been like that for donkey's years and not getting any worse (except perhaps the narrow track up to the side, which isn't really down to the bed rock?
DCC would state that they want to make the (pretty isolated) trail acessable to all
But in reality it appears they are nervous of people suing them by falling over in the mountains
I also made the point about the bedrock being there for decades with (to my knowledge) very good natural drainage
That DCC "Consultation Plan" isn't a plan, it's a chuffing ideas board! This is what you produce when you're thrashing ideas about trying to come up with a solution, not a solution itself!
A plan should show the locations and extent of the propsed surfacing (not just "we'll do the whole lot however we feel like") have sections demonstrating the differing surfcing approaches being applied, an overall section showing the elevation change and any key features along the length, lcoation of drainage etc etc etc...
Looking at the "existing" photos on the drawing, I can't see what's wrong with it. Also, a "Type 1" surface isn't really suiatable as it is angluar (ie: sharp, bad for horses) stones at <40mm. It's not really a suitable surfacing material... It's meant to go under tarmac roads, and is comparably expensive due to it's testing/assessment requirements (grading, repose angles, frost/heave characteristics) which aren;t that applicable it it's not under 150mm of tarmac!
My consultation response is going to be suitably critical....
Also, "Note 1" on the drawing requires that the drawing be read in conjunction with all other relevant documentation, but I can't see anywhere saying what other documentation is relevant....
[Editied for a large number of typos...]
Keith, have you got expertise in this area? Could you contact Peak District MTB please if so
(info@peakdistrictmtb.org)
Email sent Pook,
cheers,
Keith
Cheers Keith - when i get time I'll be in touch. Your insight could be very useful! Are you a member of PDMTB?
So the drains, which is now their claimed main reason for doing the works...
Unlike Chapel Gate and Stanage the whole of Rushup is sunk in a ditch on both sides. Stanage Causeway drains off onto one side where the hill drops down. They'll have to dig a massive long drainage ditch to channel the water somewhere. Where will that be? I would presume (as Keith says) they should have gone and planned where this would be and checked with the landowner to ensure that they are happy with the run off onto their field, and either narrow the track to allow a parallel drain or dig a massive ditch.
All the ditches on Chapel Gate are full of rocks, there are no plans to fund any maintenance on any of these drains.
It's all bollocks.
Also, I don't understand why they are so concerned with the rocky bit, when a bit further along where the trail splits into one nicely drained rocky/stony path for the walkers and a field for cyclists which is basically a bog with ruts all over it?
True, in fact, once you start looking at it even deeper from an access point of view... (as they used disability access as an argument so I went up there with the local disability access group)
1) There is no car free way to access the track
2) There is no view when you are in the track (this is important if you are doing a short but slow ramble as if it takes an hour to get to the top you want to be looking at a nice view, not rutted bedrock)
3) There is no possibility of a circular route
4) The top sections are too cambered to take a four wheeler
5) Chapel Gate is way too steep and lose and rocky for a safe descent
6) The group could use the money that DCC will spend far more effectively.
I asked DCC to provide "all other relevant information" as referred to on the consultation plan. They've uploaded the pennine bridleway design guidance, which is even higher level than this. Have asked DCC to android that this does constitute all other relevant documents.
Will digest and incorporate into response.
Hey Keith,
That looks good. Did they offer any responses to your specific questions? Did they make claims that the work would be to the spec detailed in this book? That's a lot to live up to.
Keith: this booklet is ace. Could we persuade you to come to our AGM on Thursday at 8pm in hope to discuss it?
Keith (sorry!) got your messages. Will seek further clarification from DCC and share with the members. Thanks
Righto, I've had a further response from DCC confirming that the pennine bridleway guidance does indeed constitute "all other relevant documentation" regrdgin the works.
My worry it that they are applying this bridleway guidance to a BOAT, when the guidance specifically states that it's not for improving vehicular access (Section 1.2.3) and surely DCC have an obligation if carrying out such extensive maintenance to ensure it is suitable for vehicular use? Even if there is a permanent TRO in place now, surely such extensive maintenance should form part of a plan to enable such a TRo to be lifted?
I'm sorry I can't make it up to Hope this week, need a bit more planning time! Maybe your next meeting in a couple of weeks?
EDIT: also, if they are using the guidance they are still proposing two of the least preferred options for surfacing (see table in Section 2.1). so it's not a great start to the use of the guidance, particularly wothout any justfication for those choices (local environment? most suitable for vehicular use? who knows why the decisions are made?)
Initially i think they were working to the premise that it was a highway. We are encouraging them to consider it a bridleway. Much nicer and more sustainable.
Keith, I'm writing to DCC today. If you have any more questions let me know. I will include your comments about surface material. I was going to clarify what gritstone they will use. How should I word it to ensure we get a detailed response about which type is it?
Esther, Keith - suggest you take this conversation offline if possible.
I responded. Warned them of dangers of high speeds going downhill by inconsiderate and/or inexperienced cyclists.
Secretly hoping that they don't touch the singletrack on the south side of the bank and I'll use that going down and the main track going up.
To be honest, using the good work at Roych as an example isn't really going to work on this track because it's about half the gradient. Don't flame me for that comment, I love the outcome at Roych, it'll just be hard to recreate that here.