[Closed] Glentress cafe up for lease

Hora for King. Not our king, [s]maybe Uganda or somewhere[/s] Burger King

Nobeerinthefridge - Member

I bow to your superior knowledge NW, as I don't think theres anyone on here as close to what goes on trails wise as yourself.

Oh there is, but they're not internet windbags so they don't share it as much (eh, also as a volunteer I have free voice, I still need to be a wee bit discrete because you hear things you shouldn't, but a lot of the really knowledgable people aren't in a position to share)

Northwind nails it

. And naming no names but the FC guys on the ground knew it too)

so wtf was to blame for the peel farce?

The main reason Northwind and I know anything about what's going on in the background at Glentress is because we're volunteer trailbuilders. The FCS folks who organise the Trailfairy sessions are passionately committed to the trails and MTBing and are happy and keen to talk about the issues. They're part of the FCS and so can't always tell us everything but they can provide far more insight than will ever escape from a bureaucratic organisation like the FCS via formal PR channels.

Please consider that yet another excellent reason for you to come along to the Trailfairies. 🙂 Session dates are up on the [url=

page![/url]

Please don't take this the wrong way but what is discussed in the middle of a forest digging trails isn't all the facts interms of balance sheet/profit loss etc. It sounds like what was discussed then relayed and you are hearing it effectively secondhand.

Unless I saw a FOI/actual data from FC stating where money was spent I wouldn't put providence in this. Sorry.

Its as said above- it goes into a big fund bucket and its allocated out to running costs and expenditure.

Carpark brings in XX and running it/the carpark sharks costs XX

kimbers - Member

so wtf was to blame for the peel farce?

It was ChrisL.

TBH I've no idea, some Project Team that you'll never actually see at Glentress most likely. I'm assuming at least one of them did a dissertation on Low Impact Renewable Expensive Buildings In The Bottom Of A Hole For Some Reason in their MSc.

Some interesting reading here:
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/9390/draft_sg-glentress_masterplan

It certainly seems to make better use of the space surrounding the current Peel facilities and leaves the cafe out on less of a limb.

Some interesting reading here:
http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/9390/draft_sg-glentress_masterplan

It certainly seems to make better use of the space surrounding the current Peel facilities and leaves the cafe out on less of a limb.

Interesting to see the proposed cabin development stuff.

Given the buzzards nest access road is frequently out of action during bad weather, how would they sustain access to the cabins at that time? Tarmac wouldn't solve any problems and given the snow and ice GT gets at winter, I could see that area being inaccessible quite often in winter. It surely makes sense to do it at a lower level, maybe around the ponds.

As a local it's easy to be disappointed by a lack of progress

Just be glad Mabie or Dalbeattie aren't your local haunts!

so wtf was to blame for the peel farce?

The architects presumably, you can buy a book documenting said farce too http://michael-wolchover.com/project.php?pj=95

While I like to see local businesses involved, my symapthy for the current leasees is lessened by the knowledge that the viability of the lease was challenged by Tracy & Emma at the time it was put out to tender. If it was obvious to them, it should have been obvious to anyone else tendering for the contract.

While I like to see local businesses involved, my symapthy for the current leasees is lessened by the knowledge that the viability of the lease was challenged by Tracy & Emma at the time it was put out to tender. If it was obvious to them, it should have been obvious to anyone else tendering for the contract.

Quite true, the question at that stage is however... There are 2 sets of figures, one has been made available for the tender process, the other is a set of privately held numbers that no-one else but one of the tender competitors holds. They have made a bid (the details of which you are not privy too) based on there own figures that they haven't shared with anyone (why would they, they are in competition).
How do you price you tender in this situation? Using the figures supplied or make your own assumptions with very little info and potentially lose out..?

I think E&T did the exact right thing, they bid based on what they knew were realistic figures whereas everyone else was forced to bid using FC's pie in the sky numbers that have never come close to being met.

With the big developments they are usually outsourced to project management companies who then get overly excited architects and engineers involved who see it as a chance to do a landmark building, which invariably leads to a gold plated mess. The people within the organisation who liaise invariably have they're own agendas. The guys on the ground give input that will largely be ignored. In the end it all goes horribly wrong, I know first hand some of the ridiculous ideas that come out in the design stage of this kind of redevelopment and it takes a strong project leader to listen to the local staff and be clear with the designers and management company about what is required.

With regard to trails northwind hits the nail on the head, just because volunteers build it doesn't mean it has no cost to the FC. I'd be interested to know if anyone actually knows the rough cost of a mtb trail per metre and what you generally have to put aside each year to maintain it as is? If you know that you might understand why you don't get 20km of new trail every year..(especially if you're a selfish cheapskate who thinks others should pay for the facilities you use).

With regard to trails northwind hits the nail on the head, just because volunteers build it doesn't mean it has no cost to the FC. I'd be interested to know if anyone actually knows the rough cost of a mtb trail per metre and what you generally have to put aside each year to maintain it as is? If you know that you might understand why you don't get 20km of new trail every year..(especially if you're a selfish cheapskate who thinks others should pay for the facilities you use).

This is very true and I agree completely, however, the main point of contention with regards to the Peel centre I believe is that the actual level of trail funding (not just bike trails but walking trails also) has fallen far short of what was promised in the tender. The implication being that FC was committed to forest development in order to get to the visitor numbers it quoted in the tender.

I know first hand some of the ridiculous ideas that come out in the design stage of this kind of redevelopment and it takes a strong project leader to listen to the local staff and be clear with the designers and management company about what is required.

Yeah I've worked on a lot of infrastructure projects and it can be hard even for the client to push back against what might technically known as "****" from over-imaginitive architects. I've worked on one public funded development where the architect and client completely fell out, architect throwing toys out the pram at having to meet cost limits, refusing to remove ****y bits... puts everything else behind schedule and costs start spiralling.

what you generally have to put aside each year to maintain it as is

don't know per metre but I think the figure for maintaining Glentress trails is £250,000 per year, which doesn't actually seem that much to me given the cost of machinery.

The poor quality carrot cake ruined the experience for me.

That somewhat goes back to my first point about how they are managed. You'd be amazed how blinkered creative types can be they literally see nothing beyond the car park and shiney buildings and they really need project leaders to reign them in and make sure they provide what is required. You end up with different agendas (even within the FC at local, district, national team and board level) and false promises being made and a general disappointment at the end.

I totally agree that doing swish centre and using that as justification to bump up prices is bollocks. You've got to provide something other than s****y toilets and from what I've seen that is recognised at certain levels within the FC. But if your project goes so horribly over budget trails are an easy option to cut unfortunately.

With the big developments they are usually outsourced to project management companies who then get overly excited architects and engineers involved who see it as a chance to do a landmark building, which invariably leads to a gold plated mess

I made the comment about the FOI request.

I read it originally in two parts,

The person indicated they were going to put in that request
The info came back with I a comment that what the car park revenue was vs the cost of admin, ticketing and stuff, the £ numbers were almost equal, hence, what the car park raised was spent administering the carpark.

Try as I might, I cant find it again using search.... but your comments about validity hold up until its seen..

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/parking-eye-and-fcs

With regard to trails northwind hits the nail on the head, just because volunteers build it doesn't mean it has no cost to the FC. I'd be interested to know if anyone actually knows the rough cost of a mtb trail per metre and what you generally have to put aside each year to maintain it as is? If you know that you might understand why you don't get 20km of new trail every year..(especially if you're a selfish cheapskate who thinks others should pay for the facilities you use).

I dimly recall many years ago Pete Laing telling me that the original bits of the Glentress red cost about £5 per metre, but newer trails such as Kirroughtree (which was brand new at the time) were costing maybe £15-20 per metre, primarily in order to make them last longer before requiring substantial repairs or rebuilding. I think that those figures were for standard sections of trail, i.e. no features or anything like that.

But then again, I was told that while "in the middle of a forest digging trails" so it was probably a pack of lies. 🙂

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/parking-eye-and-fcs

The FOI quoted there suggests not that the entire revenues from the car park are just paying for the attendant/parking eye, only the cash from parking charge notices - the 'fines' for non-payment/overstaying etc (I know they're not fines really).

Did anyone ask FCS where the money from the tickets themselves was going? It's still possible they're getting scalped for the rest by ParkingEye, but hopefully there is some cash coming back to them.

AFAIK that was the only FOI and I pointed out in that thread exactly what you've now repeated. Chinese whispers again.

Yup that's correct. FCS still get the 5 quid from the PCN which goes in the pot with the other money generated via parking (paying to use facilities) charges. The other 20 quid pays for the admin of the system. The money that people put in goes back to the sites, those who dont pay cover the cost of checking and enforcing themselves.

If you turn up to an FC car park and put your money in the machine it doesn't get siphoned off to some 3rd party private business.

Standard poorly informed opinions passed of by whiney middle aged cockbags as fact strikes again.

I suspected the FOI claim was an stw "fact" aka myth.

Standard poorly informed opinions passed of by whiney middle aged cockbags as fact strikes again.

😆 these threads really bring them out. Though I will happily whine about the layout of the Peel development. I do think we are lucky to have any of this at all though.

True, but I think FC managers ask them for these big flagship projects. I wonder how much of it is down to not enough women in top jobs at FC? (i.e. There's a lot of willy waving going on)

I wonder if it's a case of the system being loaded in a way that the only way to get funding for things is to make it part of one of these grand designs? Apply for £50k of funding for a trail project, and you'll get f'd off at the high port - tag it onto a £5m Eco visitor centre and it's high fives all round.

If there was no penalty or threat of penalty how many people would pay to use the carpark?

The FOI- I'd love to see facts and a FC link.

On the TripAdvisor review(s) about filth and mud. I wholeheratdly agree. Would you go and see in a pub post ride with filthy boots and arses? So why should any outdoors cafe be different? Often than not these riders have just finished smashing out a bit lap and their car is within reach. Why can't they get changed then go into the cafe? I've seen the muddy seats myself. It's grim. A nice building with people not giving a hoot for others.

As I say I'm out. Mtb'ers really don't help themselves.

Though I will happily whine about the layout of the Peel development.

Go for it. Just remember that the local guys get the short end of the stick just like the private businesses on site and have to make the most of it with limited resources.

I tend to use the cafe between laps and that seems to be fairly common. I've never been made to feel unwelcome regardless of how minging I am, and the finish and furnishings reflect the main customer Base. Anyway, exactly how many TripAdvisor reviews mentioned this as an issue?

They used to have a sign at the door saying basically "muddy arses welcome". Maybe they still do? You stop seeing things so I don't know.

The Hub had character. And the food was better that the current place. But what the new place does well, is it gives non bikers a place to chill and have a coffee, read a book, use the wifi while their husband/son/wife/daughter/parent goes for a spin round the red loop. I met my parents there last week. They are not bikers in anyway shape or form. The building is light and fairly clean and comfortable for non bikers to use. The Hub wasn't.

The food could be improved, but the idea is there.

Car Parking, I would happily pay £80 a year for a car pass that could be used at all FC sites in the UK. This would mean 16 visits a year to brake even, based on the £5 a day charge. However each FC site is run as a different cost centre apparently, so this won't work, according to the FC!! Not on,y would they have the cash up front, it would save bikers and visitors the hassle of finding change etc ( that the cafe at GT won't even give )) and may give them more business than they would otherwise have had, as people want to get value out of the pass, which may in turn lead to more cafe trips etc.

Could we not bring back the staff from the Hub and put them into the new fancy building? Wouldnt that keep most people happy?

So which trails are fully open then? there seems to be permanent diversions in place, this seems short sighted to me, surely encouraging more use of an extensive trail network is the way forward, rather than logging for little return, does this not have a knock on effect ie numbers and revenue for the greasy spoon!.

Logging has to be done when the trees are ready. It's just a reality of forest trail centres.

You have to actively manage the forests for various reasons, you cant just put bike trails in and totally ignore it. If they did this you wouldn't be able to ride anything eventually. I'm not typing an essay about it on my phone but it does need to be done. Should be information on various FC sites as to why if you really want to know.

And you can't work around people on a harvesting site as people tend to be dumb, hence the closures.

I dimly recall many years ago Pete Laing telling me that the original bits of the Glentress red cost about £5 per metre, but newer trails such as Kirroughtree (which was brand new at the time) were costing maybe £15-20 per metre

A more realistic and genuine figure for Kirroughtree would be doubling (and then add some more) of your initial estimate, it took a lot more work and expense than initially thought to build the Kirroughtree trails due to the terrain and underlying subsoil but they did a bloody good job as they still ride and hold up very well to the abuse and weather all these years later

Yeah but no but, riding through clear fell doesn't have the same charm,riding through a mature forest is nice, so thinning is a good thing, i think the FC should really look at the bigger picture, there is a lot of industrial scale planted forest, writing off a relative small area for recreation would not be a bad thing, it is publicly owned afterall.

I'd be interested to know if anyone actually knows the rough cost of a mtb trail per metre and what you generally have to put aside each year to maintain it as is?

Thanks scotroutes, that's cleared the FOI memory up.

Build cost wise £25-35 per metre is pretty standard depending on grade and quality of finish.

A maintenance free MTB trail is the stuff of myth. They always need maintaining - act off god instances like windblown roots plates, standard maintenance like deberming, resurfacing eventually if only due to 30000 sets of tyres going over it a year, springs that appear after heavy rain etc. 10% of build cost per year is the standard figure that we worked to and gets banded around.

So a 20km red trail at £25 per metre is 500k to build and over its initial life of 10 years will cost about £1 million. Hopefully that gives people a bit of an idea as to the costs involved and why you don't get new trails every year.

These are baseline figures, building big rock features, tabletops etc prepare for the price to double and more.

riding through clear fell doesn't have the same charm,riding through a mature forest is nice, so thinning is a good thing, i think the FC should really look at the bigger picture, there is a lot of industrial scale planted forest, writing off a relative small area for recreation would not be a bad thing, it is publicly owned afterall.

Riding through clearfell isn't great but the reality is there are many reasons why things happen like they do. A lot of thinning does take place, but you probably don't even notice. Some crops are still clearfelled, these are probably more densely planted crops. Thinning opens up lots of problems like windblow as the remaining trees have grown in a sheltered environment and suddenly have a load of wind blowing them over or snapping them. You'll also notice in some areas that have been clearfelled of aesthetically unpleasing timber crops there has been more sympathetic replanting.

The reality is you are riding through a commercial crop, which was planted to be a crop and not designed to be nice to hang around in. Luckily given the history of Glentress there are a lot of much nicer areas of woodland than just super dense sitka, if you look up as you go up the climb past go ape there are some impressive trees, it's just like being on a speeder bike on Endor 😉

Glentress hasn't been built on a sustainable model for any of it though...targeting a very finite number of visitors - tourists - the funding has been granted around all of that which although gives access to potentially huge pots, it does limit what you can do with it.
Rather than admit mistakes, they do what every public-body does and that is power-packed for more control and sell a 'new' idea to everyone so they think it is progress.
Rather than fixing what they have they prefer to keep going making the same mistakes just on a grander scale...
Good luck to anyone and everyone who wants to get in bed with the FC - whatever it is will fail (which is unfortunate) due to power and control hunger from FC.
I saw this way back at the start of the century when I was volunteering at GT, even then the signs were obvious it was going to fail to deliver the promises. However back then it was smaller and larger gaps between the fails.
Yes, I'm jaded but after so many years of watching the FC ruin so many good things (across all of Scotland and a few times at various sites), it is impossible to see any good on what they do.

whiney middle aged cockbags

If the cafe was decent people wouldnt begrudge the parking fee

People begrudge paying parking everywhere. Nonpayment at Glentress was higher back when the Hub was there, so maybe that proves the new place is better? Or, not. People begrudge paying at Drumlanrig and it has 2 cafes and a blimmin castle.

Del - Member
whiney middle aged cockbags

that's Mr. whiney middle aged cockbag to you.

I was on a course recently that met in "what should have been the cafe" at the top of the hill. As a building it was no better than the cafe,actually a lot worse . Really just a standard box inside and surprisingly small, so that appeared to be a design fail too.