Sustrans routes

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

Quoted message said:

I thought they were largely a leisure thing, a sort of Offas Dyke PAth for bikes. I have done
about 600miles of 6, 5 and the Trans Pennine recently on a tourer and found all the routes to be
roughish but doable, certainly no need for a mountain bike. However, most of the time, with the
barriers and serpentine routes, there is no way that they are transport routes.

That was exactly my experience of them when I did the London-Oxford, Oxford-Derby and Derby-York
Sustrans routes - about 400miles of them. Just the same as above.

Rich

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

RJ Webb said:

I thought they were largely a leisure thing, a sort of Offas Dyke PAth for bikes. I have done
about 600miles of 6, 5 and the Trans Pennine recently on a tourer and found all the routes to be
roughish but doable, certainly no need for a mountain bike. However, most of the time, with the
barriers and serpentine routes, there is no way that they are transport routes.

Precisely - hence "Sustrans" is a misnomer. I mean, it's a laudable effort, but I can see a lot of
families driving to the start of a route then getting their MTBs off the bike rack for an hour's
ride. Not quite what the charity intended, I think. It happens on the Camel Trail in Cornwall,
which generates a fair bit of motor traffic getting people to the start!

Another useful addition would be more distances on the signs. I found route 18 in Kent by accident,
and as it was getting dark and route 18 went exactly where I wanted to go I followed it.
Unfortunately it became very difficult to follow as night fell due to the occasionally very small
route markers, was also much much more hilly than the B road route I had used on the way out.I lost
it completely, and having no idea where I was, followed my nose, eventually finding it again by
accident. And when I finally reached my destination it was 14km longer than the outward leg, and
that was not especially due to having got lost (very peaceful though).

Roger Hainsworth <[email hidden]> wrote:

: When I came past this route late last week (19/9) it was in the process of being re-rolled and,
: though I have not rode it since, just glanced at it from the main N65 cycle track, it looks much
: improved.

Sounds good - I had the same view of it as Stevie when I look at it the other day. Personally I've
never had any problems with Naburn lane itself though anyway.

This matters to me since I'm about to stop cycling in the evenings and will be increasing my commute
to compensation - I'm planning on coming into work via that path a couple of days a week. Doubt that
that new path will lure me of the road though - the really useful bit of that sustrans path is the
bridge over the river which is very useful indeed.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Stevie D said:

RJ Webb said:

I thought they were largely a leisure thing, a sort of Offas Dyke PAth for bikes. I have done
about 600miles of 6, 5 and the Trans Pennine recently on a tourer and found all the routes to be
roughish but doable, certainly no need for a mountain bike. However, most of the time, with the
barriers and serpentine routes, there is no way that they are transport routes.

The idea is that they should be *both*.

Sure, most of the C2C, or the N1 through Northumberland, are not suitable for commuting or
whatever, because there's no towns there and precious few people. But plenty of NCN routes do go
through built-up areas, and could realistically be used for transport routes. Some of these are,
nevertheless, unsuitable for racing bikes.

I can see both sides of this issue. Obviously it's nice to have high-quality smooth tarmac because
you can go a lot faster on it, and use skinny low-rolling-resistance tyres. But high quality
tarmac surfaces are expensive to lay and expensive to maintain and Sustrans doesn't have much
money. I think it's probably better to have 100 miles of railway ballast than two miles of tarmac,
and I think in terms of cost over fifteen years those proportions are probably about right. So it
may well be that we have to accept that for cycle paths, our elegant little skinny tyres aren't
going to work.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait patiently for the RAC
to arrive.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:

: I can see both sides of this issue. Obviously it's nice to have high-quality smooth tarmac because
: you can go a lot faster on it, and use skinny low-rolling-resistance tyres.

I find the better sustrans surfaces (e.g the York -> Selby track) fine on a road bike. It's a sort
of finely crushed and smooth rolled surface. Good for 20mph on 23mm tyres in reasonable comfort IME.

The track we discussed earlier that runs of that York -> Selby track was very, very rough.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Roger Hainsworth said:

Well it does give access directly into the shopping mall car park via the bus exit.

Sure, it's good to provide direct access into the car park, but it's misleading for cyclists who
followed the sign to Fulford, as they might well think that is the best route to Fulford as well.
All it takes is a couple of signs, not much to ask, really...

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

Arthur Clune said:

I find the better sustrans surfaces (e.g the York -> Selby track) fine on a road bike. It's a
sort of finely crushed and smooth rolled surface. Good for 20mph on 23mm tyres in reasonable
comfort IME.

I agree, that surface is good, and is used on a lot of railway paths and some other off-road routes.
(Is there a proper name for that kind of surface?) I would assume it is suitable for racers although
I've never ridden one. I would imagine that it is significantly cheaper than tarmac, too.

What's even better is that after several years, it is still in good nick, and AFAIAA is still the
original surface and hasn't been relaid at all.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

Simon Brooke said:

Stevie D <[email hidden]> writes:

I can see both sides of this issue. Obviously it's nice to have high-quality smooth tarmac because
you can go a lot faster on it, and use skinny low-rolling-resistance tyres. But high quality
tarmac surfaces are expensive to lay and expensive to maintain and Sustrans doesn't have much
money. I think it's probably better to have 100 miles of railway ballast than two miles of tarmac,
and I think in terms of cost over fifteen years those proportions are probably about right. So it
may well be that we have to accept that for cycle paths, our elegant little skinny tyres aren't
going to work.

If you need a mountain bike its not a cycle route its a mountain bike route. A road tyre dosn't need
tarmac a well laid cinder track will do, but that will degrade if heavily used.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

Stevie D <[email hidden]> writes:

I can see both sides of this issue. Obviously it's nice to have high-quality smooth tarmac
because you can go a lot faster on it, and use skinny low-rolling-resistance tyres. But high
quality tarmac surfaces are expensive to lay and expensive to maintain and Sustrans doesn't have
much money.

Don't they also have to be negotiable by horses?

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

Quoted message said:

Don't they also have to be negotiable by horses?

I don't think so. Certainly very few horses use our local part of N6 and I think there are signs
specifically excluding them.

Horses are the Work of Stan and would chew up the surface in days -- especially when wet.

Watching those who do ride there -- there are always some :~( -- it would appear the surface is not
good for them as they always seem to be on the grass verge.

T

AndyMorris said:

Simon Brooke said:

Stevie D <[email hidden]> writes:

I can see both sides of this issue. Obviously it's nice to have high-quality smooth tarmac
because you can go a lot faster on it, and use skinny low-rolling-resistance tyres. But high
quality tarmac surfaces are expensive to lay and expensive to maintain and Sustrans doesn't have
much money. I think it's probably better to have 100 miles of railway ballast than two miles of
tarmac, and I think in terms of cost over fifteen years those proportions are probably about
right. So it may well be that we have to accept that for cycle paths, our elegant little skinny
tyres aren't going to work.

If you need a mountain bike its not a cycle route its a mountain bike route. A road tyre dosn't
need tarmac a well laid cinder track will do, but that will degrade if heavily used.

When I was a kid (which, let's face it, is a long time ago) most bikes had, if not mountain mike
tyres, substantially fatter tyres than modern road bikes, and had substantially chunkier tread. My
first bike also had 28" wheels, but that's another story... Road bikes have, partly as a matter of
fashion, partly as a matter of efficiency, evolved towards ever skinnier and slicker tyres. These
are an extreme type, only suitable to near perfect surfaces. That is, really, why mountain bikes are
so popular: a lot of the places one wants to cycle a modern road bike just won't go.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

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

Quoted message said:

When I was a kid (which, let's face it, is a long time ago) most bikes had, if not mountain mike
tyres, substantially fatter tyres than modern road bikes, and had substantially chunkier tread. My
first bike also had 28" wheels, but that's another story... Road bikes have, partly as a matter of
fashion, partly as a matter of efficiency, evolved towards ever skinnier and slicker tyres. These
are an extreme type, only suitable to near perfect surfaces. That is, really, why mountain bikes
are so popular: a lot of the places one wants to cycle a modern road bike just won't go.

When I was a kid (also a long time ago) our bikes were general purpose work-horses. Specialisation
was limited to 'racers' -- pretty well everything else was a 'roadster' of some form or another.
Roadsters were, of course designed to be rugged, general purpose machines -- so we took them
everywhere.

I still use my Galaxy in much the same way -- never too worried about taking it up a bridle path or
farm track on its 32 mm tyres -- and its done Sustrans & towpath crushed grit on 25 mm boots without
problems (though with a higher puncture count).

Now I have other bikes -- including a hardtail MTB -- I can choose which to use when -- and the MTB
would not be the bike of choice for our local Sustrans path -- the Galaxy or the hybrid are much
more suited.

Indeed, the MTB is probably the bike I would consider most specialised (and yes, its also a
Specilized) in its applicability. Its great when things get rough (forests, mountains etc.) but its
a bit of a pain to pop to the shops or even to push along a Sustrans path.

If Sustrans etc. maintain a standard suitable for a tourer or hybrid with, say, 28 mm tyres or wider
(25 or even 23 with care) then I don't see a problem. A light road bike is designed for blacktop --
so its unreasonable to expect to use it everywhere else.

T

Quoted message said:

I still use my Galaxy in much the same way -- never too worried about taking it up a bridle path or
farm track on its 32 mm tyres -- and its done Sustrans & towpath crushed grit on 25 mm boots
without problems (though with a higher puncture count).

Still my only bike, and I survived a mixed bridleway and road run round Monmouthshire yesterday.. It
was hedgeclipping central, but I got away with it.

I have yet to meet any Sustrans surfaces that are a problem.. Plenty that are slow, but nowt to
worry the wheels.

Richadr Webb

martin said:

Don't they also have to be negotiable by horses?

Only if they are designated as bridleways. If they are simply off-road cycle routes, with no other
status as Rights of Way, they are not allowed to be used by horses.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

In message <[email hidden]> Stevie D

Quoted message said:

Arthur Clune said:

I find the better sustrans surfaces (e.g the York -> Selby track) fine on a road bike. It's a
sort of finely crushed and smooth rolled surface. Good for 20mph on 23mm tyres in reasonable
comfort IME.

I agree, that surface is good, and is used on a lot of railway paths and some other off-road
routes. (Is there a proper name for that kind of surface?)

Hoggin I believe.

Paul Luton

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

I'm pleased to say that I rode the Naburn to York track today and it's now got a good surface.
Pretty much the same as the main York/Selby track and it was fine on a road bike with 25mm tyres.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

"Stevie D" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't they also have to be negotiable by horses?

Only if they are designated as bridleways. If they are simply off-road cycle routes, with no other
status as Rights of Way, they are not allowed to be used by horses.

Ah, that'd be why one of the sections between Bristol & Chepstow isn't tarmac when all the others
are. I'm not sure I'd generally be in favour of "improving" bridleways but that bit was a bit too
muddy and rutted to be much fun before Sustrans got their hands on it.

Andy P said:

Ah, that'd be why one of the sections between Bristol & Chepstow isn't tarmac when all the others
are. I'm not sure I'd generally be in favour of "improving" bridleways but that bit was a bit too
muddy and rutted to be much fun before Sustrans got their hands on it.

A dirt surface such as on the York-Selby path (cinder track?) should be OK for horses, and is good
for cyclists and walkers as well; a great compromise between the needs of different users. The
alternative, if it is a very well used path and there is sufficient space, would be to have a tarmac
bit and a dirt bit.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

Quoted message said:

A dirt surface such as on the York-Selby path (cinder track?) should be OK for horses, and is good
for cyclists and walkers as well; a great compromise between the needs of different users. The
alternative, if it is a very well used path and there is sufficient space, would be to have a
tarmac bit and a dirt bit.

IMHO, mixing horses and bikes on the same path is Not A Good Idea, unless you're sure it will be
used only by the most sedentary of cyclists and the most well-bred of horses. Been on several
stretches where there's sufficient room for segregation, but only one wide general purpose path,
full of the inevitable potholes, skittish horses and sleepwalkers...

Perhaps Sustrans could better spend their limited budget on campaigning for proper cycle paths,
instead of building their own.

Mark van Gorkom.

Mark van Gorkom said:

IMHO, mixing horses and bikes on the same path is Not A Good Idea,

Which is exactly what bridleways are used to permit. Usually on much less suitable tracks, narrower
and without adequate surface, and certainly not enough room to pass horses comfortably while moving
and without either party having to stop or deviate from the path.

It is essential that cyclists, pedestrians - everyone! - is careful around horses, but as long as
the law allows them to share the same space, we have to find the best way to let them get by.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________