Glentress cafe up for lease

Again with the gay jibes. Have you got something you want to get off your chest?

Wasn’t aware there was a previous one for there to be an ‘again’ to be honest.

But it is one of the reasons why people that own toilets don’t generally leave them open unattended during the quiet hours, especially heated ones with showers.

Id always pay a parking fee and use the cafe at any trail centre as I know it (in theory) goes back into the trails

however

the comment about parking in GT over the Peel was by someone eating their too as there was much nicer food available elsewhere

and several of the peel centre tripadvisor reviews are from random tourists complaining they had to pay 2 quid to park and then pay over the odds for some unpleasant tea and cake surrounded by muddy mtbers etc

if the FC want to turn the Peel into an attraction in its own right as well as an mtbing cafe theyeve got their work cut out

Im not advocating screwing over the FC im pointing out that after using 8.5m in taxpayer pounds they are loosing money because the Peel’s not as good as it shouldve been

“Whenever I’ve used a trail centre I’ve paid parking and used the centre cafe. It helps everyone.”

Thats my point. FC charge to ride the trails that the locals built around here…. its no trail centre not even close.

If FC continue to take the piss – then ill take the piss…. FWIW i always prefered to go down , stay for the weekend at Kalzie bunkhouse. Leave the car and ride out onto the SUW @ innerleithen and ride over to selkirk for coffee and cake for then back up and over in a figure of 8 loop for the decent back to inners for cake and coffee…. more of my money into the local economy than into the FC coffers to piss up the wall on grand un needed gestures.

Yeah, but it felt like the prices were all higher at the Gloucester one.

And I couldn’t find the pie counter.

Prices are all higher at the Tebay one too now. They’ve jumped the shark IMO. I love my middle-class food as much if not more than the next man but I saw a loaf of bread there for £9. £9!!!!

It was massive but it wasn’t made from solid gold.

What is it you actually want out of the cafe’?

Surely the same level of service, and attention to detail they receive at home isn’t too much to ask for?…..

Judging by the deleted posts, more like this

‘d never tell you what to do, but if you don’t like the food, don’t eat it and if you don’t like car park charges, don’t park there.

I think the point would be that many people would more than happily pay the parking fees if they believed the money was going back into either the trails or the forest management in general, however they begrudge it much more when that money is instead having to pay primarily for the construction and maintenance of a hugely expensive white elephant of a poorly designed and badly run visitor facility, alongside the enforcement of the parking fees.

I think they also suspect that were the visitor facility not quite so expensively built and badly designed, then the food might be better, and the rental payments on the cafe might be lower, allowing for more realistic prices. My own experience of the FC would be that there does tend to be something of a veer towards the ‘gold plated taps’ option whenever the public purse is underwriting a CapEx project.

Which makes my point even more focused and right. They are providing riders with a place to park the car, use of a toilet and they maintain the trails that that we all ride yet some say ‘£4 to park, sod that I’ll park outside and ride in thus being a parasite’. In addition visitor figures (and future funding) may be dependent on carpark receipts. Or how it affects funding or decisions.

Again, I point you in the direction the FOI request mentioned earlier – there appears to be none of your 5 quid going into the trails whatsoever.

But do carry on reading half of a thread then jumping in half cocked.

oh, and Trailrat+1

however they begrudge it much more when that money is instead having to pay primarily for the construction and maintenance of a hugely expensive white elephant of a poorly designed and badly run visitor facility, alongside the enforcement of the parking fees.

I see, take your point. Clearly I don’t go there and probably never will.

But..

Has to be said..

It ain’t anyones decision but the FC where they put their money. Unless there is some pressure group being formed with interested parties offering up support and assistance..

Could someone post up the FOI link or raw data with it. Not cut n paste a unlink/verified body of text. The only link that I can see(?) is to a generic FB FCs page.

Isn’t it upto FC what they do with the carpark money? Does Perspil spend your powder money in one area? Do you have a right to demand where it’s spent. You’ve had a service, used it. Move on.

It ain’t anyones decision but the FC where they put their money

Whose money?

where did the money for the Peel Centre come from?

Could someone post up the FOI link or raw data with it. Not cut n paste a unlink/verified body of text. The only link that I can see(?) is to a generic FB FCs page.

I’d be interested in seeing this too, I suspect it’s an stw myth but there may be something it’s all based on.

H1ghland3r – Member

Ok, possibly overstated the situation there.. Having said that how much of what has been done was funded by the FC rather than done specifically for events of by volunteers.?

Most of it. The “event” trails all have FC involvement at some level and practically none are built purely for events- they give it impetus but they’re all built into the big scheme, which has been all about expanding the appeal. The biggest develpments- five year plan and b side- were commissioned and built by the FC, yes with volunteers (us, and the college, mostly) but that’s nothing new. And everything within the park is approved, snagged and then maintained and kept safe by the FC (or closed afterwards- and even then, bellends will create work for the FC by reopening closed trails)

And Carl’s Lane and all the other link trails are pure FC, as is Berm Baby Berm which I think falls into the timescale. And the new skills area and pennel’s vennel rebuild, both of which are kind of shit, but still examples of investment (even with pennel’s vennel closed by windblow)

Now this isn’t anything like as much as I’d like to see; the trailcentre itself has stood pretty much still, and that’s just not enough because stuff wears out. And there’s persistent rumours that it’s going to get worse. But at the same time they’ve worked hard and been very succesful in expanding the appeal of the centre.

Just to wrap it up; GT still has a good basic package. One of the best blues, an ever-popular red, and a kind of underrated black, plus the jumps etc. All more or less the same as they were 5 years ago. As a local it’s easy to be disappointed by a lack of progress there but the new user experience is still fantastic.

But now, it has a whole new string to its bow, the new trails have enabled it to host world class events. But also to cater to a whole other group of riders- it used to be a lot of people “grew out” of glentress but now you can see world champions on the #enduro trails, the offpiste network used to be just a wee addition but now it’s a thing in its own right that attracts a different group of riders- or rather retains them. And that’s pretty good. I’ll be leading a group around glentress and the golfy in April that are only coming because of the EWS link- they’re in town for 4 days, riding trails, eating food and booking accomodation and all that, and if it wasn’t for the “event trails” they wouldn’t be.

kimbers – Member

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.

hora – Member

Which makes my point even more focused and right. They are providing riders with a place to park the car, use of a toilet and they maintain the trails that that we all ride yet some say ‘£4 to park, sod that I’ll park outside and ride in thus being a parasite’. In addition visitor figures (and future funding) may be dependent on carpark receipts. Or how it affects funding or decisions.

Hora for King. Not our king, maybe Uganda or somewhere. Parking’s a pretty complicated argument, people seem to think “It’s not all money for the trails” is compelling but that’s not really how it works. Money goes into the bucket and comes out of the bucket. It may not be your £5 note, is all. But every freeloader is an argument against investing in a place.

We get a brilliant deal from the FC. Parking simply doesn’t pay enough for the trail centres. That’s not an argument you ever want to make, we want funding to be as separate from the revenues we provide as possible because we don’t provide enough to justify it. Lucky for us, this isn’t how it works but people keep demanding that it should be.

TBF the real problem under it all is just how these things are funded; FC makes a loss on mountain biking, it always will.It’s inevitable that it’s always in line for cuts. Even attempts to monetarise it and keep some of the mtb spend in their pockets are difficult, and outside their core business. Meanwhile, the actual benificiaries- us, yes, but also local businesses, councils etc- contribute less than they should. If GT was to fall into terminal decline it’ll rip the arse out of the MTB tourist industry in the area and undo a decade’s hard work, and when the businesses that have benefitted all these years close up they’ll shake a fist at the FC for not giving them enough free lunches. The whole proposition’s screwed and it’s a minor miracle that it keeps going at all

IMO.

(I won’t say a good thing about the Peel redevelopment, there isn’t really anything; we got a halfdecent facility for the price of 2 world class facilities, it’s a total **** up. I remember seeing the plans and instantly saying “Why is that down there” and “Where’s the rest of the parking”, it was that obviously a bad idea. And naming no names but the FC guys on the ground knew it too)

For my fiver, I’d be quite happy if it was split equally between

– adequate, decent parking – within view of the café preferably
– Facilities – café, toilets etc
– Trail maintenance/expansion.

And a big sign explaining all that at the pay station. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, is it?.

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.

Hora for King. Not our king, maybe Uganda or somewhere 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 Facebook 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 **** 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 swanky 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

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 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.