I’m sure most walkers would rather walk on a rougher, narrow path instead of something you could drive a double-decker bus on too

But once it’s decided, it has to be done to certain standards, including minimum widths.
CrisE – Will do

An interesting thread, and it does concern me that there seams to be a policy of letting the trails get washed out first,rather than preventetive “cheaper” methods of cleaning gullys out or chanelling surface water off the paths in the first place.

Years ago lengths-men were employed to maintain potholes, and water drainage, so that horses and carts could negotiate the high lakeland passes safely, maybe we should all play a part and report errosion to the national parks before routes are badly effected.

The “fix the fells” project do seem hellbent on making Bridleways difficult to ride though, and a classic example is the drainage gullys on Dollywagon.
The walkers/mountainbikers are avoiding the pitching and walking down the sides eroding another part of the landscape for future repair,daft really.

Why build a road wide enough for a landrover from ill bell to yoke (south of High street)when its only a footpath? 😕

Theres no doubt some rights of way need repairing but consideration should be made to all users,and the work done should be relevant to the landscape and done in a sustainable way.

I’m sure most walkers would rather walk on a rougher, narrow path instead of something you could drive a double-decker bus on too.

boxelder – But once it’s decided, it has to be done to certain standards, including minimum widths.

I agree to a certain extent but I think those minimum widths have more to do with the width of the machinery that’s doing the job. Bigger machinery…Quicker job and less man power.

I’m sure most walkers would rather walk on a rougher, narrow path instead of something you could drive a double-decker bus on too.

This is the key for me – I am a walker as well as a biker, and I seriously question how many people walking in the higher fells really want a wide, smooth road to walk on. As above I am quite happy for repair work to be carried out of course but I think it should be sympathetic to the setting as well as the users of the path.

I’m sorry but I despair of the idea that we need to make our precious countryside easy and safe and tame.

Is not what I said at all and to claim that these trails have to remain eroded messes because its “rough, steep, difficult terrain” is fatuous.

Classic straw man. Where did I say it had to stay eroded and shouldn’t be maintained ever?

Agree totally. Walna Sacr and Garburn were built, and extensively used, in the past for foot and hoofed traffic, as the easiest routes between settlements. To claim that they shouldn’t be surfaced is daft.

In the past Walna Scar was surfaced to allow traffic like horse and carts etc – AFAIK it is almost never used for this kind of thing any more and even 4x4s are banned at the moment so why does it need a road type surface?

Seems to me there is a sizeable chunk of folk on here who like to ride wide, loose bouldery tracks at speed – The Beast in the Peak, Walna etc. Prbably nice for making you feel the £££ spent on ‘all mountain’ bikes was worth it. Not a criticism

Definitely sounds like a criticism to me.

It’s probably the fact that even amongst mountain bikers we can’t agree what should be done that contributes to the fact that we don’t really have a voice in these matters. If 5 people say ‘this route is really great for biking’ but one person (like TJ who’s never ridden there) says ‘it’s rubbish anyway’ they will probably listen to the one that shouts the loudest.

Definitely sounds like a criticism to me.

That’s probably because it’s written and you can’t hear it! I’m critical of those riders who will only ride the trails that give them the technical challenge they crave (though WS wasn’t very technical). They’re not bothered about other trails, or the wider cycling/hill going community, so long as what they want to do is still available. I think you’d agree that mountain biking began as a way to get around and through the hills and that padding up and pushing a full sus bike to the top of a pass to blat back down is fairly recent (the fun!) – and I know it’s what the Marin clunker pioneers did.

I’ve had some feedbcak already to enquiries I’ve made and as ChrisE has said in the past the Walna and Garburn situations go back to NERC and the change of status. Walna has been surfaced by the National Park however, to Bridleway standard (not to do with off road vehicles) – according to Bridleway Society.

Grumm – I think you’re fairly local to me. Lets have a group of us meet up with a map to highlight the ‘best bits’ and then I’ll meet up with the ROW officer. PM me if interested (I’m not averse to ragging down passes on a full susser – though may bring a CX bike)

Just sent you an email boxelder.

I’m sorry but I despair of the idea that we need to make our precious countryside easy and safe and tame.

Classic straw man. Where did I say it had to stay eroded and shouldn’t be maintained ever? be made into a smooth metalled surface?

I do feel very strongly that the anti “sanitisation” argument is basically a very selfish one. “We like it rough and eroded and sod any other users”.

I’m not even going to bother – it’s really no wonder the vast majority of people on this forum find you so irritating. I’m sure you’d like to believe it’s because you are boldly speaking the truth that people don’t want to hear, but it’s really not.

Really? I think you don’t like to hear opinions that do not match with your own so as you have no answer to the message you attack the messenger

You did exactly what you accused me of doing.

Where did I say

that we need to make our precious countryside easy and safe and tame.

You tried to make out I did, you tried to make out that this old cart track was some remote high mountain pass when actually it was the easiest route between two places. You want it to remain an eroded mess so you can enjoy it despite the fact it spoils it for others

Its all about being sustainable at reasoable cost and providing a path that is for all.

Argh trying not to get drawn into this….

OK, you are actually arguing for sanitisation and creating smooth trails in the name of accessibility for all, even the old and infirm etc, which is precisely attempting to make the more difficult parts of the countryside easy and safe and tame. So not a straw man at all unlike what you said, which is that I was arguing it shouldn’t be maintained at all – which I never did.

The route you have been discussing at length, which AFAIK you have never even been on, goes up to nearly 2000ft/600m – at the top in winter it can be extremely bleak, cold and exposed. It’s not just a gentle walk up a little hill for the vast, vast majority of people – in fact you are the one being patronising and elitist by suggesting that it is.

You want it to remain an eroded mess so you can enjoy it despite the fact it spoils it for others

Wrong again – I already said that for me it wasn’t that great anyway. Your argument can easily be turned on it’s head – you want it to be resurfaced in this way so that others can enjoy it (if anyone actually will enjoy it more) despite the fact it spoils it for some mountain bikers, who are trail users too remember. I’d like to see some evidence (one of your favourite demands) showing that this kind of resurfacing was requested by walkers/a majority of users, and will encourage more of them to use the route.

Yet again – I’m very happy for drainage/resurfacing work to be done, but I think importing vast amounts of gravel to make a wide, smooth fire road type surface isn’t sympathetic to the surroundings, doesn’t last long (and so is a waste of public money) and is of very little benefit to anyone.

OK, you are actually arguing for sanitisation and creating smooth trails in the name of accessibility for all, even the old and infirm etc, which is precisely attempting to make the more difficult parts of the countryside easy and safe and tame.

No I did not – find a quote where I say that. You want the argument to be black and white. I understand it is not.

We actually want the same thing to a great extent- the difference is I understand that the only way to do this without huge cost of hand building a trail is to do it in this sort of way. You need to either hand build / helicopter in materials or use machinery on the ground which requires width and a smoothish surface

How on earth do you think it can be repaired without a gravel surface?

Unlike you I have actually tried to do something about this – organising MTBers to get active in local trail repair so as to get trail repair that is sympathetic to the wishes of MTbers without excluding the vast majority of users

Your attempts to claim this old cart track that exists because its the easiest route between two places as some sort of extreme trail is ridiculous. I have been on it as I have much of the lake district. It will allways have had somesort of surfacing

so – how do you want it repaired? What methods would you use?

Walna Scar Pass is remarkably gently graded for the most part and is also in good repair. It makes you wish more mountain paths were like this.

http://www.jbutler.org.uk/Lakes/Coniston/060414.shtml

I understand that the only way to do this without huge cost of hand building a trail is to do it in this sort of way.

You do? Evidence? Because from what I’ve seen of this type of surfacing if we get another couple of harsh-ish winter it will fall apart again, except this time there will be a load more loose gravel covering everything. Surely it would be more cost-effective in the long run to do some repairs that would actually last. Even the rock armouring with drainage ditches on Dollywagon (which I don’t much like riding either) at least seems like it’s built to last, and is relatively sympathetic to the surroundings.

Walna Scar Pass is remarkably gently graded for the most part and is also in good repair. It makes you wish more mountain paths were like this.

Oh well that proves it then – some other guy said it on some other website so it must be true. What a great argument. Notice though how he refers to it as a mountain path, which you keep saying it isn’t. 😆

The vast, vast majority of people who come to the Lakes don’t walk up into the hills – it can be crawling in Ambleside but if you walk up a hill for half an hour you can often barely see a soul. I highly doubt this is because the masses are crying out to be able to walk up a big wide fire road style path. Again I’d like to see some evidence that this is the case. I’ve never tried to claim that WSR is extreme, but neither is it a stroll round the park like you suggest, and nor should we try and turn it into one.

And again I tell you I have never suggested it should be ” a big wide fire road style path.” You should try read what I posted.

I asked you how you would repair it if you don’t want it done this way – which is to standards developed over years and if done to the standards will last for many years.

boxelder

I’ve had some feedbcak already to enquiries I’ve made and as ChrisE has said in the past the Walna and Garburn situations go back to NERC and the change of status. Walna has been surfaced by the National Park however, to Bridleway standard (not to do with off road vehicles) – according to Bridleway Society.

You claimed no one wanted or would want a well maintained path -well that is someone who does. Thats all it is

I’ve never tried to claim that WSR is extreme

🙄

Grum
goes up to nearly 2000ft/600m – at the top in winter it can be extremely bleak, cold and exposed. It’s not just a gentle walk up a little hill

Grum
reasonably high level mountain passes into a smooth high street so that they are ‘accessible’? I’m sorry but it’s mountainous countryside, by it’s very nature it is rough, steep, difficult terrain.

And again I tell you I have never suggested it should be ” a big wide fire road style path.” You should try read what I posted.

Except that you are arguing in favour of the work that’s been done which is exactly that. You really would argue black is white wouldn’t you.

You claimed no one wanted or would want a well maintained path -well that is someone who does. Thats all it is

No, I didn’t.

And where in those quotes does it say anything about Walna Scar Road being extreme?

Why do you suckers take the bait?

Personally I don’t see Walna Scar as worth the 2hr drive from Manchester. Its ok, just not worth that bloody long climb from the otherside. Who cares if its sanitised?

chakaping – yup, i know, stupid 😳

And great attitude hora – ‘it’s too far away from me to bother with so I don’t care’. I hope they bulldoze your favourite local trails (not that WS was one of my favourites as I keep having to repeat).

im off on my bike to cause some erosion,

Like Grum I very much doubt the making of a path has opened up Walna Scar for access for many people. It must be a small number who can only walk up steep hils if it is smooth.
It would be interestng to see that stats are as to how many new “users” now access the path compared to how many MTB’ers no longer use the route. This is not elitist to suggest there was no point doing it , especially when wlakers access i far greater than ours and now they sanatise the bits we can ride so they can walk …how kind.

We have limited access rights as is and sanitising these routes will only lead to more MTB ers riding footpaths which is hardly ideal.

I see your point but its not a trail. Its a Bridleway and has to serve many different users though. Chapel Gate was santised recently so it just means we cherry pick from the other trails nearby and comeback to it at a later date.

After all there are alot of older walkers who would appreciate a decent trail I bet.

Bridleways works are always going to put some peoples backs up. Ultimately its a difficult balancing act. The main thing to try and keep hold of is everything weathers and evolves. Chapel gate is an intresting there is the Hora line that it has been totally sanitised and ruined because it doesnt fit with what hora wants from a ride. I think it had got to a point where it needed work, for me the changes mean I can now ride something that was unrideable. Although I do still find the water bars tricky because I’m not a master manualer so I have work hard to avoid going over the bars.

On Chapel Gate- I can see why it was sanitised.

Its not fair for say a family out for a ride in the Peaks together using a map to start down Chapel Gate then find its literally unrideable for them almost to the point that its dangerous and could hurt someone.

Why is it fair to a relative small percentage of riders but unfair for any other potential countryside users?

We think about ourselves too much don’t we? After all, horses, leisure/occasional cyclists and walkers also like to have reasonable access.

Therefore I have no issue with occasional sanitisation of a bridleway.

Its about access and enjoyment for all after all.

In the Lakes, I’ve seen a number of examples of bridleways that have been repaired, but the ‘cheat’ track going straight up the hill side has received the work, rather than the still visible track zig zagging up the hillside. Repairing the original zig zag route would help reduce conflict, due to lower bike speeds, would maintain the interest of most mountain bikers who like a technical challenge and would suit most walkers by giving a better gradient, with (hopefully) better footing. Does anyone know why the ‘cheat’ tracks are the one that are repaired?

I’m sure about 10 years ago everyone was moaning about the sanitisation of WS, I could be wrong but it seems now that people are grumbling about the sanitisation of an already sanitised trail?

Why is it fair to a relative small percentage of riders but unfair for any other potential countryside users?

You keep saying we are small but are we?
Ye syou see mor ewalkers than riders but they have all the Bike free routes/footpaths to chose from.As the riding chioices are limited it seem s “fair” to protect a number.
Again I await some sort of evidence that proves that WS will get loads of use from mobility scooters or horses as a result of this change.

I dunno. I don’t tend to see that many cyclists when I’m out. I’ve seen ALOT of roadies but not reems of mountain bikers.

Sat we were out for 5hours in the Peaks and if I’m honest we saw 6 others- and they were all together.

Its not ‘theirs’ and its not ‘ours’ its everyones. So I most certainly wouldn’t want horse riders to be put off riding a route because its badly maintained. Everyone should have access to experience a bridleway at somepoint if they desired.

‘Us’ wanting it as ‘core’ as possible isn’t always fair on other users.

I’ve had a few replies to enquiries now, but the most informative comes from the Lake District National Park. They provided the following info freely and so I’m sure they won’t mind if I share it here:

Hi Andy

Thanks for your query – which has been passed to me as we look after the rights of way in the National Park on behalf of CCC.

With regard to Walna Scar, we have been looking after this route for many years now, and are constantly having to try and restore it to a fit condition for use for everyone who has a right to use it, namely – walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. Much of this has been patching up, rather than full scale restoration.

The main problem was that the track in places had developed over time into a bowl shape which just funnelled the water down its length, stripping path materials and depositing them into Cove Beck. Its damaged state was a danger to some users, and restricted access to local emergency services such as Mountain Rescue (as well as the owners of the surrounding land).

We also have an obligation to ensure that the path surface and drainage is maintained. In many places rainwater run-off is unchecked, meaning soil is washed away, exposing the sub-soil and bare rock, filling reservoirs with sediment and interfering with fish breeding. The higher rate of run-off can also contribute to flooding further down the catchment.

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.

You ask about possible future changes, and this raises a number of interesting points.

· Firstly you ask about potential upgrades to byways (BOATS) – well, this is a possibility for the Park Head Road – but it is more likely to become a restricted byway (see next point). However, even it became a BOAT – it doesn’t mean that we would automatically ‘improve’ the route. Basically, the standard required for this type of bridleway in the fells means that they will be usable by 4x4s. So, there’s little real difference in the quality of surface. At the moment there’s no actual planned work on Park Head Road.

· Garburn Pass has recently been confirmed as a Restricted Byway – which is a route open to all traffic except motorised vehicles. Basically this means everything up to horse and carts. Again, the standard we would look to see routes such as Garburn Pass are the standards suitable for an all-purpose bridleway used by walkers, horse-riders and cyclists.

· So – any potential changes to the legal status is not likely to impact upon the maintenance regime.

Of interest to me is the question of consultation over changes. With regard to physical alterations, it is not our standard practice to consult user bodies when carrying out our basic statutory duties. Mainly because it is just that – a duty, and something we have to do. However, we do consult widely when carrying out legal changes to the rights of way network – such as creations, diversions, and modifications. I am aware that the cycling community is under-represented in these consultations (we consult CTC only), and would like to rectify this. So, through this e-mail, I wonder if IMBA (or you) could let me know if they/you would like to be consulted on legal changes to the rights of way network – and if so, whom should we contact.

If there are any other bodies that you can think of that you feel would help or benefit from being consulted – then please do let me know.

Reading about the way in which the work has been carried out, I’m hopeful it will become a decent descent within a couple of years, and will remain rideable uphill (the way I always seem to do it) for longer.
I’ll aim to get out and have a decent look soon.
I’m going to reply about the consultation too, if anyone would like to become involved – my email is in my profile. I’m certain we can’t change a great deal just yet, but small acorns and all that.

Nice and clear answer, cheers Boxelder.

Good work Boxelder..

Thank you boxelder for sharing that.

Grum – I think you should read it and aknowledge that that trail is being repaired in the best way and understand why it is.

Grum – I think you should read it and aknowledge that that trail is being repaired in the best way ignore TJ’s comment as it will wind you up, and understand why it is will.

Though I don’t entirely disagree with either of you.

Ach – you are probably right boxelder and perhaps I owe Grum an apology for being a wind up………. Its been a long hard day

I’ve never found Walna Scar that special. Compared to Parkamoor/Nibthwaite which we usually do before riding round the lake and pushing up to it, and the fun bit off to the right by the car park. it was always just something to ride down.

Grum – I think you should read it and aknowledge that that trail is being repaired in the best way and understand why it is.

Let’s hope so eh? Having seen previous efforts and the mention of ‘patching up’ I remain to be convinced though.

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.

I’m still not sure why we are still building mine cart track across passes like this though.

While you have to give LDNP credit for a swift and detailed response (and boxelder for getting it), it’s not hugely encouraging IMO. If I’ve read it rightly then Garburn is going to get similar treatment at some point soon, they don’t consult about this kind of resurfacing work and have no plans to.

Ach – you are probably right boxelder and perhaps I owe Grum an apology for being a wind up………. Its been a long hard day

Aw, come here and have a cuddle big boy.

I’ve never found Walna Scar that special. Compared to Parkamoor/Nibthwaite

Totally agree – just did that Nibthwaite descent yesterday and it’s fantastic. I wonder what the chances are of that getting gravelled over? What is the status of that section?

A stream.

Hmmmm. Echo comments above – well done to boxelder & LDPA for the fast response. However, I do find the response worrying, that the objective is to have BWs usable by walkers, horses and cyclists. Presumably this can only result in a greater number of sanitisation projects.

Oh well I’ll stick to the footpaths I guess! (Indeed I would actually – selfishly I suppose – oppose upgrade of footpaths to BW status if sanitisation is a risk)

One of the best bits….gone.. 🙁

You probably genuinely could drive a mobility scooter up there now. 😯

Aw man that’s terrible. And it looks bloody awful. I do hope garburn isn’t next 😥