is this walk feasible in a day?

"Adam Lea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going to the Lake District in the last week of May and I was thinking
of
doing a long lilnear walk from Grasmere to Keswick. The route would cross
High Raise, over Grest Gable then following ridges to Honister pass, up
Dale
Head and then walking along a ridge descending gradually to Keswick. Is
this
feasible to attempt in one day, and would this sort of walk give a good
view
of the central fells?

Adam

Some questions?

What's the distance?
What's the height gain?
Hot fit are you, or to be more precise, what sort of walks do you normally
do and in what sort of time?
How competent are you with a map and compass?

As to views, they are a bonus. You've got to be prepared for the fact that
you could be walking in pouring rain and/or cloud and fog with 6 feet of
visibility.

Regards

Bernard

"Adam Lea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going to the Lake District in the last week of May and I was thinking
of
doing a long lilnear walk from Grasmere to Keswick. The route would cross
High Raise, over Grest Gable then following ridges to Honister pass, up
Dale
Head and then walking along a ridge descending gradually to Keswick. Is
this
feasible to attempt in one day, and would this sort of walk give a good
view
of the central fells?

Some walk!

Now, going from Grasmere via:

Easedale Tarn
High Raise
Stakes Pass
Angle Tarn
Great Gable
Green Gable
Grey Knotts
Dale Head
High Spy
Maiden Moor
Cat Bells
then through Portinscale to Keswick

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21 miles
with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
........... on a clear day!

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness, that is
general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
route in one day.

--
sandy saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
email: saunders.sandy at ntlworld.com

'Mountains or Mole Hills ... summiting still
brings the same excitement'

The message <[email hidden]>
from "sandy saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21
miles
with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
........... on a clear day!

Quoted message said:

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness,
that is
general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
route in one day.

I agree with Sandy. This would be a hard walk for the average walker
(but not totally impossible) with a Naismith time of 11 hours. It is
not so much the distance as the total ascent that sets this walk apart
from the average trudge. Even if Adam manages such a walk in one day
unless he is already a hard walker he is not going to be in any shape to
do anything else significant in the next few days.

These days I try and plan walks not to exceed 15 miles and 4000 feet of
ascent and would suggest that that sort of effort would be a reasonable
target for someone younger but less experienced. Regular readers might
remember that if pushed I can manage a tad more.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 34 summits
New - 15 (Marilyns 4, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 19 (Marilyns 5, Sweats 10, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

"sandy saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Adam Lea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going to the Lake District in the last week of May and I was thinking
of
doing a long lilnear walk from Grasmere to Keswick. The route would cross
High Raise, over Grest Gable then following ridges to Honister pass, up
Dale
Head and then walking along a ridge descending gradually to Keswick. Is
this
feasible to attempt in one day, and would this sort of walk give a good
view
of the central fells?

Some walk!

[details deleted]

Quoted message said:

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21
miles with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
.......... on a clear day!

[details deleted]

Quoted message said:

sandy saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
email: saunders.sandy at ntlworld.com

'Mountains or Mole Hills ... summiting still
brings the same excitement'

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I (both aged 58) did the "Buttermere
Horseshoe", just under 15 miles and 6000 feet of ascent in 10 hours,
including stops. We felt fine about doing 10+ miles and 3500 ascent feet the
following day but the thought of 21 miles and nearly 8000 feet of ascent in
one go.... Maybe for the younger ones, but isn't walking meant to be about
enjoyment and not about exhausting yourself for the sake of it?

David

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:23:14 +0100, Roger <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| The message <[email hidden]>
| from "sandy saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:
|
| > As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21
| > miles
| > with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
| > ........... on a clear day!
|
| > Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness,
| > that is
| > general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
| > route in one day.
|
| I agree with Sandy. This would be a hard walk for the average walker
| (but not totally impossible) with a Naismith time of 11 hours. It is
| not so much the distance as the total ascent that sets this walk apart
| from the average trudge. Even if Adam manages such a walk in one day
| unless he is already a hard walker he is not going to be in any shape to
| do anything else significant in the next few days.
|
| These days I try and plan walks not to exceed 15 miles and 4000 feet of
| ascent and would suggest that that sort of effort would be a reasonable
| target for someone younger but less experienced. Regular readers might
| remember that if pushed I can manage a tad more.

Using the rule of thumb that 1000ft ascent = one mile on the level the
suggested route is 28 miles.
Long ago when I was young and fit I did 35 miles in a day, so it should be
possible to the young and very fit.

--
Dave F
Howard Flight was right

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I agree with Sandy. This would be a hard walk for the average walker
(but not totally impossible) with a Naismith time of 11 hours. It is
not so much the distance as the total ascent that sets this walk apart
from the average trudge.

That's just what I've been trying to say to someone contemplating doing
the Yorkshire 3 Peaks without much hillwalking experience. Although
I've never done that one myself and don't usually measure distances or
height gain I can well remember struggling a bit to get up Pen yr Ole
Wen on the Welsh 3000s but then being fine to run the relatively flat
bits after that.

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "sandy saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21
miles
with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
........... on a clear day!

Quoted message said:

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness.

Quoted message said:

These days I try and plan walks not to exceed 15 miles and 4000 feet of
ascent and would suggest that that sort of effort would be a reasonable
target for someone younger but less experienced. Regular readers might
remember that if pushed I can manage a tad more.

Like last weekend?

I remember Ian walking into camp and saying "*/KNACKERED/* , I'll kill
the [censored] who suggested that walk!"

Your version Roger was about the same distance as Ian's - 16 miles
IIRC but with about 5000ft of ascent?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Bernard
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Some questions?

What's the distance?
What's the height gain?

Why answer a question/with/a question ?

The OP wants answers!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, sandy saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Some walk!

Now, going from Grasmere via:

Easedale Tarn
High Raise
Stakes Pass
Angle Tarn
Great Gable
Green Gable
Grey Knotts
Dale Head
High Spy
Maiden Moor
Cat Bells
then through Portinscale to Keswick

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21 miles
with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
.......... on a clear day!

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness, that is
general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
route in one day.

Bernard please note - This /is/ an answer!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Using the rule of thumb that 1000ft ascent = one mile on the level the
suggested route is 28 miles.
Long ago when I was young and fit I did 35 miles in a day, so it should be
possible to the young and very fit.

Were you parents knackered pushing the pram all that way :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"sandy saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Adam Lea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going to the Lake District in the last week of May and I was

thinking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of
doing a long lilnear walk from Grasmere to Keswick. The route would

cross

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

High Raise, over Grest Gable then following ridges to Honister pass, up
Dale
Head and then walking along a ridge descending gradually to Keswick. Is
this
feasible to attempt in one day, and would this sort of walk give a good
view
of the central fells?

Some walk!

Now, going from Grasmere via:

Easedale Tarn
High Raise
Stakes Pass
Angle Tarn
Great Gable
Green Gable
Grey Knotts
Dale Head
High Spy
Maiden Moor
Cat Bells
then through Portinscale to Keswick

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21

miles

Quoted message said:

with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
.......... on a clear day!

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness, that

is

Quoted message said:

general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
route in one day.

Oops I didn't realise that it was quite that much ascent. I'm not sure I
could manage that. I wouldn't even consider doing it if it wasn't a clear
day. After all, who wants to walk for 12 hours in the pouring rain?

It looked attractive at first because it seemed to give a good view of the
wilderness area of the central fells. There is another possible route from
Grasmere that goes up Easedale Gill, over Greenup Edge and descends down a
valley to Rosthwaite to join the Cumbria way. This route doesn't look quite
so interesting though.

Quoted message said:

--
sandy saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
email: saunders.sandy at ntlworld.com

'Mountains or Mole Hills ... summiting still
brings the same excitement'

sandy saunders said:

"Adam Lea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going to the Lake District in the last week of May and I was thinking
of
doing a long lilnear walk from Grasmere to Keswick. The route would cross
High Raise, over Grest Gable then following ridges to Honister pass, up
Dale
Head and then walking along a ridge descending gradually to Keswick. Is
this
feasible to attempt in one day, and would this sort of walk give a good
view
of the central fells?

Some walk!

Now, going from Grasmere via:

Easedale Tarn
High Raise
Stakes Pass
Angle Tarn
Great Gable
Green Gable
Grey Knotts
Dale Head
High Spy
Maiden Moor
Cat Bells
then through Portinscale to Keswick

As a rough route plan on Anquet mapping, the above would be approx. 21 miles
with a total ascent of 7799ft. You would get good views many Fells
.......... on a clear day!

Some undertaking though, and it all depends on the level of fitness, that is
general fitness and mountain fitness. I know I wouldn't consider such a
route in one day.

Perfectly feasible though, even if you're not superfit. Carry a small
pack and wear the comfiest possible footwear. Say 2 mph allowing for
breaks - a 10 hour day. Start at 7 and you'll be coming off the hill
in time for a well-earned evening in the boozer.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dave Fawthrop <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Using the rule of thumb that 1000ft ascent = one mile on the level the
suggested route is 28 miles.

I have several times in the past quoted from research carried out by a
Gordon Waddell on energy expenditure when walking (undertaken in the
early 60s). He came up with the formula:

E = 100(10 + R +2C + 4H) for total energy expenditure over a 24 hour period.

Where R = road miles, C = cross country miles, H = height gained in
1000s of feet and E is in Kilocalories.

On that basis a road mile is equivalent to just 250 feet of ascent and a
cross country mile just 500.

I am not altogether convinced that much of what we do off road could
reasonably be called cross country but it usually requires more effort
than road walking so perhaps an extra term halfway between the 2 is
called for for path walking. Say 100(10 + R + 3P/2 +2C + 4H).

Anyway using the original formula my recent epic (taken as 6 road miles,
12 cross country miles and 5000 feet of ascent with no extra for
Striding Edge) gives 6000 kcals, the Buttermere Round of 15 miles and
6000 feet (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) gives 6400 kcals and the
projected walk of 21 miles and 8000 feet 8400 kcals. By contrast my
target walks (15 + 4 max) are a wimpish 5400 kcals.

Waddells take on energy bands is:

4000 - 6000 kcals - a long tiring day's walk but within the capabilities
of most reasonably fit and experienced people over about 16 years of
age.

6000 - 8000 kcals - a full, strenuous day only suitable for it
experienced people who are in training and willing to spend 12/18 hours
on the move.

8000 - 10000 kcals - an extremely strenuous day necessitating being on
the move for most of the 24 hours; only to be undertaken after several
months of training by fit, experienced people and probably the upper
limit for most mountaineers.

Over 10000 kcals - (the equation is not proven for this range) - only
for exceptional people after very strict training.

Quoted message said:

Long ago when I was young and fit I did 35 miles in a day, so it should be
possible to the young and very fit.

Some popular walks (approximate lengths)

Yorkshire 3 Peaks (4 +20, 5) 7400 kcals
Lyke Wake Walk (40, 5) 11000 kcals
Welsh 3000s (peak to peak) (23 - 10) 9600 kcals
Welsh 3000s (bottom to bottom) (27, 13) 11600 kcaIs
Lakes 3000s (10 + 35, 10) 13000 kcals

I have listed the above walks in what I consider the order of difficulty
which lends some credence to my notion that we usually avoid real cross
country walking. The excessively large figures are also not in keeping
with Waddells range guide. Substituting 1.5P for 2C in the formula would
reduce these figures to 6400, 9000, 8450, 10250 and 11250. That still
puts the Lyke Wake Walk ahead of the Welsh 3000s (peak to Peak) but as I
have never done that in isolation it could well be correct but I would
dispute the notion that the LWW was almost as tough as the W3000s
overall. Perhaps 1.25P would be even more appropriate. And on the basis
of the range guide 11250 seems too high for a walk that must be done by
hundreds of walkers every year.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 34 summits
New - 15 (Marilyns 4, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 19 (Marilyns 5, Sweats 10, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

The message <[email hidden]>
from Phil Cook <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These days I try and plan walks not to exceed 15 miles and 4000 feet of
ascent and would suggest that that sort of effort would be a reasonable
target for someone younger but less experienced. Regular readers might
remember that if pushed I can manage a tad more.

Quoted message said:

Like last weekend?

Quoted message said:

I remember Ian walking into camp and saying "*/KNACKERED/* , I'll kill
the [censored] who suggested that walk!"

No problem, suicide is not a crime. :-)

My original plan was to persuade those wanting a shorter walk to
transport the group down to Patterdale where they could do a circuit
while the rest of us broke away after Helvellyn/wherever to walk back to
the campsite. Needless to say I should have known better. Everyone is
convinced that my suggestions are the hard options, before they opt for
something potentially even harder.

Quoted message said:

Your version Roger was about the same distance as Ian's - 16 miles
IIRC but with about 5000ft of ascent?

I am taking it as 18 miles and 5000 feet of ascent atm. I posted earlier
what it appeared to come out to on Memorymap but I have of course long
since forgotten the actual figures. (Just remembered I didn't delete the
route, only 4716 feet according to Mm. Does anyone know whether this
standard of data under or over represents the true position?).

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 34 summits
New - 15 (Marilyns 4, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 19 (Marilyns 5, Sweats 10, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dave Fawthrop <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Using the rule of thumb that 1000ft ascent = one mile on the level the
suggested route is 28 miles.

I have several times in the past quoted from research carried out by a
Gordon Waddell on energy expenditure when walking (undertaken in the
early 60s). He came up with the formula:

E = 100(10 + R +2C + 4H) for total energy expenditure over a 24 hour

period.

Quoted message said:

Where R = road miles, C = cross country miles, H = height gained in
1000s of feet and E is in Kilocalories.

On that basis a road mile is equivalent to just 250 feet of ascent and a
cross country mile just 500.

I am not altogether convinced that much of what we do off road could
reasonably be called cross country but it usually requires more effort
than road walking so perhaps an extra term halfway between the 2 is
called for for path walking. Say 100(10 + R + 3P/2 +2C + 4H).

Anyway using the original formula my recent epic (taken as 6 road miles,
12 cross country miles and 5000 feet of ascent with no extra for
Striding Edge) gives 6000 kcals, the Buttermere Round of 15 miles and
6000 feet (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) gives 6400 kcals and the
projected walk of 21 miles and 8000 feet 8400 kcals. By contrast my
target walks (15 + 4 max) are a wimpish 5400 kcals.

Hmm. That sounds quite a lot. There's no way I could shove 8000+ calories
down me unless I were to drink a kilogram of olive oil or something like
that. I assume this formula applies to people with average metabolisms.

What is the Buttermere horseshoe? Is it Dale Head, down to Honister Pass and
round to High Crag?

Adam

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Phil Cook <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These days I try and plan walks not to exceed 15 miles and 4000 feet of
ascent and would suggest that that sort of effort would be a reasonable
target for someone younger but less experienced. Regular readers might
remember that if pushed I can manage a tad more.

Quoted message said:

Like last weekend?

Quoted message said:

I remember Ian walking into camp and saying "*/KNACKERED/* , I'll kill
the [censored] who suggested that walk!"

No problem, suicide is not a crime. :-)

So it was his fault was it!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your version Roger was about the same distance as Ian's - 16 miles
IIRC but with about 5000ft of ascent?

I am taking it as 18 miles and 5000 feet of ascent atm. I posted earlier
what it appeared to come out to on Memorymap but I have of course long
since forgotten the actual figures. (Just remembered I didn't delete the
route, only 4716 feet according to Mm. Does anyone know whether this
standard of data under or over represents the true position?).

Well I was pulling figures from the air a bit based on my dodgy memory
of what you had said. Going into Ozi+SRTM and adding your route onto
the start of my track gives 17 miles and 5500 feet.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bernard
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Some questions?

What's the distance?
What's the height gain?

Why answer a question/with/a question ?

The OP wants answers!

There are more questions than answers.

We have to use them up somehow :-)

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bernard
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Some questions?

What's the distance?
What's the height gain?

Why answer a question/with/a question ?

Are you aware that questions can help people solve their own problems?

The message <[email hidden]>
from Phil Cook <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember Ian walking into camp and saying "*/KNACKERED/* , I'll kill
the [censored] who suggested that walk!"

No problem, suicide is not a crime. :-)

Quoted message said:

So it was his fault was it!

Well IIRC he introduced Fairfield into the equation when I suggested (on
the ng) that some might want to walk back to base but at that time the
Patterdale start was still an option. I think we will have to blame
Judith for slamming that door shut.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your version Roger was about the same distance as Ian's - 16 miles
IIRC but with about 5000ft of ascent?

I am taking it as 18 miles and 5000 feet of ascent atm. I posted earlier
what it appeared to come out to on Memorymap but I have of course long
since forgotten the actual figures. (Just remembered I didn't delete the
route, only 4716 feet according to Mm. Does anyone know whether this
standard of data under or over represents the true position?).

Quoted message said:

Well I was pulling figures from the air a bit based on my dodgy memory
of what you had said. Going into Ozi+SRTM and adding your route onto
the start of my track gives 17 miles and 5500 feet.

I would have thought that 5500 was overkill. Distressed as I was at the
time even my gps which had faithfully recorded 84 miles only showed
something in the 49s.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 34 summits
New - 15 (Marilyns 4, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 19 (Marilyns 5, Sweats 10, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)