Glad to hear this has been resurfaced. Took a couple of rides along it years ago and it was an unusable bog in places. Sounds ideal for taking the kids out now.

I agree with this, We have loads of muddy crap (which I love) to ride in the area. It will be nice to take the family for a ride along it.

“@Bez – we ride mountain bikes, they are supposed to get muddy. Have you seen the photos, it’s basically been turned into a gravel road.”

What, so the only type of cycling is mountain biking? Come on, don’t be ridiculous. It’s a disused railway. Don’t pretend that getting covered in crap and getting a wheel bogged down 4″ into a bog is totally rad and awesome.

There are fairly few places near there where kids on balance bikes, small bikes, stabilisers and trailers can be taken for an easy-pedalling ride of any length. The trail through Lavant, Alice Holt… not that much else. And Alice Holt’s undulations are a bit much for small kids.

It makes a great route to actually get somewhere, too. The A32 is a horrible road to ride on and this makes a great alternative as part of a commute. There are pubs like The Shoe on the way, there are woods to play in… whichever end you start from, there are destinations; family-friendly ones. Like most disused railways, it’s a fantastic accessible route that serves leisure users, commuters, young and old, all abilities, all fitnesses, by bike or on horseback or on foot.

This daft faux-macho “why on earth would anyone not want to get covered in sludge and have to fish their bike out of a bog” nonsense might be fine for technical descents out of the mountains but it’s ludicrous for disused railways that offer unique opportunities for safe rural transport and accessible leisure.

If it’s “basically a gravel road” then, frankly, that sounds just about ideal.

it wasn’t good mountainbiking before though was it; it was a useful route to get to other biking, which was sometimes tough going because it was so muddy.

as i see it the useful route is now more useful. This needed doing a long time ago imo.

PeterPoddy – Member

Why the need to make it wider? That will increase user conflict no?

I’m sorry but how the hell do you work that out? More space equals less conflict, surely? [/quote]

Peter – wide, flat trails with lots of sight distance leads to higher bike speed. Bikes go faster because they are able to, but walkers stay at their normal pace.

It was: bike speed > pedestrian speed
Its now: bike speed >>> pedestrian speed

This speed differential is often the source of user conflict.

That’s a complex issue – yes, speed plays a big part, but then you start messing around with zones of interaction and perception

One way to try and understand it is that for us, on bikes, nipping past a tree at arms length is ‘normal’ – so we feel little perceived issue passing a walker at the same speed, whereas the walker is more intimidated by the same interaction, it’s very odd, because of course walkers are rarely intimidated by a car going past at much the same distance, very odd!

The Countryside commission did some work that showed that talking about conflict actually seemed to create a ‘false recall’ syndrome – proper remarkable stuff

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/83036

It’s a new Strava segment and I think you should all go hack it to bits 🙄

But only on a fat e bike as part of your commute 😉

So a disused railway line has been gravel surfaced to improve ease of use? Gets my vote (sorry..). Best use of disused rail lines imo is Sustrans-type paths for all the reasons Bez mentions. It looks a bit harsh when first surfaced but will grow in at the edges and look normal in no time.

The Countryside commission did some work that showed that talking about conflict actually seemed to create a ‘false recall’ syndrome – proper remarkable stuff

Good link, worth a read – supports wider paths entirely. Suggests that over 2m between users is still within what they call the collision zone – relating this to bikes and cars in traffic I’d thought 2m was plenty of space.
“We conclude, therefore, that the discussion and
focussing of attention on conflict serves to escalate its perceived existence.” .. applies to so many things I think : )

Arguing from a position of having first hand knowledge rather than second hand information and assumptions?

It’ll never catch on.
🙂
I’ve been following the facebook group closely, tons of photos before and after plus I have experience of the disused railway which runs South from Guildford which was similarly resurfaced.

The work has decimated the route for horses and there are a large number of stables along the route.

@JoeG exactly, the works will mean cyclists ride faster.

@ninfan many older walkers don’t hear bikes coming, as for the comment on traffic yes that would be true if you were walking on the pavement protected by a kerb

Jambalaya – very good points there about both hearing impairments and how a kerb, or even a white line, can affect the psychological ‘comfort zone’

Obviously we don’t want white lines and kerbs, but I suspect more could be done to control speed and increase the feeling of security for other users, work in the USA showed really interesting stuff about directionality and sight lines on multi user routes (eg waymarked routes going in opposite directions so that cyclists go in opposite direction to walkers and horses means face to face interaction and a reduction in conflict) – I have also seen some good stuff about the use of small rock or earth chicanes that make a cyclists line choice more predictable and provide a psychological ‘refuge’ for walkers, without the intrusiveness of white lines etc. I am hoping to get a chance to try this idea out on a route in surrey in the future.

Don’t need white lines or kerbs but how about a 21mile long rhythm section/Pumptrack. That will keep the walkers and bikes separated!

relating this to bikes and cars in traffic

Part of the problem in doing this is there’s a big difference between how close is comfortable when you’re doing the passing, compared to when you’re being passed.

When you’re in control, you know where you’re going to be when, and you’re doing hundreds/thousands of calculations in the blink of an eye monitoring and adjusting your path. All fine. When that control is in someone else’s hands, going faster, being heavier and from behind it’s a different story entirely.

I’ve started riding from Waterloo station in London, and it’s been surprising how little room bikes and pedestrians need to be comfortable together if everyone knows what’s happening. There’s a wide (8′-10′?) bike/footpath just by the station. It’s very busy with both bikes and pedestrians – pedestrians have a constant reminder bikes are approaching from behind (partly due to the huge row of Boris Bikes lining the path, partly due to the bikes constantly passing from behind). It’s too busy and there’s not enough space to leave the amount of room you’d normally want to give, but no-one gets cross.

I guess this means personal space expands to fill the space available, so to a certain extent, you can’t win!

TBH horseriders are pretty selfish in my area and generally ride trails in winter that as a result are turned into impassible bogs, even on foot.
These trails I tend to avoid when wet because I know Im going to make a right mess of it. Because I think its the responsible thing to do.

Its also worth asking why the Meon bridleway ended up in such a state in the first place? Perhaps horses being persistently ridden throughout the year coupled with poor winter drainage on an easily damaged track?
Lets face it any former railway track is never going to be a technical ride. In good order they are very useful for encouraging people to travel safely in the countryside away from traffic.
We should remember (as we, as cyclists, are told all too often) bridleways are for EVERYONE), so IMHO the horseriders should shut up and grateful they have somewhere to ride. If even the BHS society says its ok, they havent really got a leg to stand on.

Horses have to be ridden year round, they need the excersize. If mud was a problem a small stip could have been covered in gravel or a boardwalk built. They’ve spent £2 million.

agree with bigyinn on this, across all groups (and I’m including vehicles here) they seem to be the worst offenders for not gash (giving a sh) about what damage they do on their merry way. (I personally find ruts preferable[as I can mainly ride them/generally have a decent base’avoid line] to an unrideable, wheel jamming clag fest of horsed mud/grass that sticks everywhere and makes progress impossible), same applies to walking.

They could (in many places but aren’t) be ridden all year round in such a way as to not trash the ENTIRE path beyond everybody elses use – like if the path is 20ft wide why not stick to one side or maybe, just maybe, if it’s really boggy and muddy to actually self police when they see it beginning to cut up.

Cycling encompasses – kids, trailers, oldies……, – so as a cycle track they really have to build it to enable all to use it imho.

They’ve spent £2 million.

This does amaze me it cost so much!

When 100% we(QECP Collective) estimate the New Blue trail will have cost fro 30 to 40 grand. However I will be built over 4 phases and a couple of years. But will include 2 contractor built sections like the climbs below.

Contractor section:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/qdknLJ]Untitled[/url] by scottgolfgti, on Flickr

Collective hand made section:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/quPDi5]Untitled[/url] by scottgolfgti, on Flickr

Hmm, figures I had read was £400k earmarked, of which around 2/3 was on drainage and surfacing works, the rest on tree felling, signage, interpretation, gates, barriers, car park etc.

For a 17k route that’s a very low cost per metre

Given new forest national park were going to spend £ 1.3m of cycle facility grant (ie the same tranche this came from) resurfacing a tarmac road used by cars, and actually got away with spending shed load more of it on resurfacing car parks and building a toilet block, I would say well done to SDNP…

Horses wreck Thackley woods, but the paths which are footpaths dont get barriers put up, as there are lots of stables in the area that use the woods to connect, if it were motorbikes then I would expect the REME building barriers to stop them

But the track is fine if its now usable by everyone, its a flat track after all.

Ned, what I meant was that 2m is plenty to me when on my bike being passed by a car so its interesting to read that walkers may be less comfortable with that amount of space when passed by a bike. I’d expect it to be similar or proportional to speed and size of passing vehicle.
You’re right about it varying, bike lane users in Europe particularly seem happy with less space and are more used to it.

Horses have to be ridden year round, they need the excersize.

yes, but what is annoying is that most times that you see horses out they are not really being exercised, they are just plodding along whilst their owners socialise and have a jolly time.

And the responsible thing to do when the bridleway is mud is to stick to one part of it, not ride the horses over every inch of it, possibly widening it, and making it impassable for everyone else – and I am talking walkers mostly as a bike can get through most things easier than a walker can…

If walkers would just get it through their thick heads that the sounding of a bell is just an indication of a cyclists presence, rather than a request to get out of the way as most of them seem to think it is, which then leads to them side-stepping and turning round, etc, then more of us would happily use bells.

But as it is relying on my hope hubs to be noisy enough is far safer for everyone.

And it is nearly always the types that moan at you for not having a bell that would have done the side-step shuffle into your path if you had rung a bell.

Perhaps one way to get things through “walkers’ thick heads” (?!) is to slow down and say “hello”. Not sure how I should get that idea into “cylists’ thick heads” though 😉

Perhaps one way to get things through “walkers’ thick heads” (?!) is to slow down and say “hello”.

but why do you need to slow down – if you rang your bell to announce that there was a bike behind, and the walker continued to walk in their previous direction, then you could pass easily without slowing down.

TurnerGuy – Member

but why do you need to slow down (?)

often, it’s the nice thing to do: their idea of a suitable speed/passing distance may well be different from ours.

(it’s the commuting thing again, you may feel perfectly happy squeezing through a gap that you wouldn’t want a car to ‘give’ you)

Erm.. this is turning a bit sour for what is a very small section of a disused bridleway that now caters for a few more folk..

DOn’t ya think ?

* iscunfuddled *

Perhaps one way to get things through “walkers’ thick heads” (?!) is to slow down and say “hello”.

Usually works for me. Although it of course invites the odd idiot to say ‘Where’s your bell?’, as if it’s the method of alerting them that matters rather than the alert itself.

C_G – is that the byway at Farleigh Wallop you’re referring to? Has it been done recently? No doubt I’ll be heading down it at this weekend’s Cliddesden Trailtrax.

the same thing was done to a section of the ridgeway near to watlington a few years ago, and for a bit it was almost unridable, loose gravelly awful. Now, you be hard pushed to know where it starts and finishes…well, apart from in winter when all of sudden it goes from the somme back to useable bridleway again…

I’m sorry but how the hell do you work that out? More space equals less conflict, surely?

Pete – can’t help feeling that the extra width will encourage cyclists to go faster. Depending on the number of horses using the trail it could become dangerous and, in my experience, not everyone knows how to behave around horses.

C_G – is that the byway at Farleigh Wallop you’re referring to? Has it been done recently? No doubt I’ll be heading down it at this weekend’s Cliddesden Trailtrax.

offthebrakes – possibly, am referring to the bridleway that starts at Cliddesden SU634483 and finishes at 626475. It does however then change into a byway and finishes at 622467. Actually it must be at least 6 years ago that it was decimated. Bear in mind for your Trailtrax that the byways in the vicinity certainly will be well used by mx’ers. It’s a nice pleasant area though. 🙂

Oh ok, I know the bit you mean. Not sure I’ve ridden it in it’s previous state if it was 6 years ago, so I probably won’t notice a change!

Love the area, should be running dry and fast for Sunday 🙂

If you slow down you should see some good displays of bluebells! Have fun. 🙂

If walkers would just get it through their thick heads that the sounding of a bell is just an indication of a cyclists presence, rather than a request to get out of the way as most of them seem to think it is, which then leads to them side-stepping and turning round, etc, then more of us would happily use bells.

This is why walkers and cyclists should be taxed and have number plates.

TurnerGuy comes across as too grumpy and not safe on the trails!

Has anyone actually ridden along the trail in question? No-that wouldn’t be very STW to base an opinion on actual knowledge would it 🙄

Its an old railway line. In places it was an absolute quagmire. In others it was totally blocked with fallen trees.

Since the work, we now have a few sections gravelled to aleviate the bogs, making the whole route useable to the majority of users. The rest is still original hardpack earth/gravel.

The fallen trees have been removed. The vegetation has been trimmed back to the embankments making the full width useable again.

In short, it is how it should be. And to be honest no more than a useful link to more interesting places unless you’re taking teh kids for a pootle or walking a horse.

And as a mixed-use route, all users should treat others with respect whether on same or different modes of transport. The End.

Yes, rode it last week.

40mpg has it spot on, it has never been an ‘interesting’ route but the recent changes have improved accessibility and i saw buggies and kids cycling on it than previously. The cutting back looks a little stark now, but will recover in a couple of months

Has anyone actually ridden along the trail in question? No-that wouldn’t be very STW to base an opinion on actual knowledge would it

Not all, clearly; but check 2nd post page 2.

Agreed though, it was needed and once given time to recover a bit of a more natural look will be a ideal for it’s intended use. Constant width down there is also a good thing.

As an aside, reading the thoughts on extending north and reopening the tunnels – could be a clash of cycling agendas. A few years ago Nike poured money into building in the tunnels for a invite only competition/film – Nike 6.0 tunnel jam.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgAAMAEJvaU[/video]

It’s still there – you just need to know someone with keys (and where the entrance is).

Morning all,

Firstly sorry for the post and run, been so busy recently I forgot I’d posted.

Just a quick update with new information and to address some of the comments..

Most importantly nobody is suggesting that access to the Meon Valley should not be available for all. Also this is not solely a horse rider argument against the work on the trail, there are many cyclists, walkers, runners, dog walkers etc who have come together on this. In fact from what I understand more cyclists turned up to the meeting at Wickham last week than any other user group.

Yes okay there were some comments very early on where there was some opinion that cyclists have cycle paths etc, but it’s been underlined that cyclists (particularly off road) are restricted to many of the same trails as horse riders. Certainly nobody was advocating riding horses on a cycle path, that was more of a rhetorical point being raised by some.

One of the main points is the surface, which appears to be compacted recycled railway aggregate. For those that do not know about horses such a hard surface can cause concussive foot/leg injury even at a walking pace with and without horse shoes. There have also been complaints from runners about the firmness and cyclists (remember we can’t all afford a full bouncer 😉 ) it’s certainly not just “the horseriding section have caus[ing] a storm in a tea cup”. It seems to be littered with metal railway objects too, expect punctures a-plenty.

Someone mentioned that people should have gotten involved from the start if they wanted their “interest covered”. Fact is that following a freedom of information request Hants Council and South Downs NPA rushed through the consultation to meet the deadline for getting the available funds from the DoT. They spoke to a tiny percentage of people, and transpires that very few locals or indeed parish councils knew to what extent the proposed “maintenance” was to take.

Then there’s the cost, again following a freedom of information request it transpires that a cheaper option to improve drainage and resolve dangerous trees and overgrown foliage was not taken. Instead they opted for the most expensive option including 19km of aggregate and the associated works involved. The chosen option also has £65,000 allocated to signage.

Yeah okay, by any standard the Meon Valley is not a technical trail and certainly it’s not Rushup Edge (who remembers the outcry when the local authority attempted to flatten that and the other examples that appeared in that thread?). But there’s a dangerous president being set by local authorities, the Meon Valley used to be a nice sheltered little plod along used by many to link between other trails and now it has all of the charm of a B road. Lets hope that the SDNPA does not start applying the same sort of work to the South Downs Way, although the did concrete a section in West Sussex a little while ago it seems. And those saying it’ll grow back, sure the shrubbery probably will but they axed a lot of mature trees, those will take decades to come back.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words, if this isn’t soulless I do not know what is:

In places the Meon Valley has been reclassified as a Restricted Byway to allow for carriages, seeing as the trail is now 3m wide and carriages are almost 2m it’s certainly going to increase conflict on the trail. Incidentally the BHS representative who approved the surface work is a carriage driver, read into that what you like but the current surface directly contradicts their advice on bridleway surface.

To the person who pointed out that there are “considerable amount of bridleways in Hampshire”, yes you’re probably right. However Hampshire is pretty sizable, 1,455 square miles in fact. To try and put some context on that that statement is a bit like saying “Bike Park Wales has closed down but there are plenty of other trail centers in the UK just use those”. However you can’t just undo a couple of QR and take a horses legs off and throw it in the back of the car (not everyone has the luxury of a horsebox). Looking at an OS map bridleway is pretty slim pickings that doesn’t rely somewhat on the Meon Valley to link it up. Then you’ve got areas locally that are permit operated, Forest of Bere charges £55 annually per person for horse permits which is nearby. Manor Farm Country Park also permit run.

So to summarise, this is not just a horse user argument. The trail has been ripped apart to essentially lay almost a B-road, making it unsuitable for one or more of the main user groups to make it suitable for “everyone”. The work was not consulted correctly, hence the surface used is not very good (there is also some debate if the drainage work is adequate too, as the cut foliage has been pushed down into the ditches).

I’m a cyclist, not a horse rider for what it’s worth and if anyone has any questions I’ll do my best to answer them.

Cheers

the Meon Valley used to be a nice sheltered little plod along used by many to link between other trails and now it has all of the charm of a B road.

give it a couple of years, it’ll all grow back.

One of the main points is the surface, which appears to be compacted recycled railway aggregate. For those that do not know about horses such a hard surface can cause concussive foot/leg injury even at a walking pace with and without horse shoes.

Given the fact that the route is a former railway line would this not by definition have been the underlying surface anyway?

One can imagine that, over time, this has collected leaf litter and grassed up, and one can only imagine that it will do so again…

Then there’s the cost, again following a freedom of information request it transpires that a cheaper option to improve drainage and resolve dangerous trees and overgrown foliage was not taken

That seems a little disingenuous, since it was clear that that although that option was ‘best value in terms of long term spend’ it was rejected because “although the route will be safer, it will not be at its full potential and therefore will not be used”

neilgates that is along post but I still think this is a good thing. Its to soon for complaints about the “Suface type”. Give it a winter or two it will look/fell very different.

The maid difference is now more people will have access to that Meon valley path which is a good thing!

“considerable amount of bridleways in Hampshire”, yes you’re probably right.

There are 100s of bridleways more fun to ride than the old railway line ever was.

To try and put some context on that that statement is a bit like saying “Bike Park Wales has closed down but there are plenty of other trail centers in the UK just use those”

It’s absolutely nothing like that really though, is it.