Any experiences of Nu-flex as a cyclepath surface ??

[gazza_d]

I had a discussion with someone twitter this morning about the proposed resurfacing of the Keswick to Thelkeld rail path.
She and others are strongly opposed to the tarmacing of the path cos it will ruin the rural ambiance of the path. Remember it's an old rail line and next to A66.
Apparently they have suggested a surfacing called Nu-flex as an alternative. I've no experience of it and wondered if anyone here had.
I rather suspect it's a firmer version of what they put down in childrens playgrounds, but could potentially still have enough give to be hard work on a cycle.
Lancs county counilc have surfaced some of the East Lancs cycleway with it [url]https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/major-transport-schemes/east-lancashire-strategic-cycleway-network/latest-news/
[/url]
Product site is here http://www.nu-flex.co.uk/products/

[Vorpal]

It's a combination of recycled rubber, aggregate, and polyurethane.

https://www.highwaysindustry.com/wp-con ... ressed.pdf

If the rubber content is relatively low, it can be a good paving material. The more rubber is in it, the lower the life tends to be, especially if it's in an area where cars can park on it. Like with any other paving materials, the underlayment & thickness are crucial to having a long-lasting surface.

It does have good resistance to seasonal cracking. The Swedish highways agency have been experimenting with it. I will see if I can find some research results.

Edit: I didn't find anything on that particular brand. There are some research papers about recycled rubber & aggregate in new paving surfaces. There seems to have been an EU funded project, and the Nordic countries have also had some sort of collaboration, but I'm not sure how much is applicable.

[ChrisButch]

There may well be other local issues involved here, but the opposition to tarmacing this stretch strikes me as a wee bit puritanical. Although it passes through pleasant woodland, the 'rurality' of the immediate surroundings is already severely compromised by the proximity of the A66, and is defined rather by the more distant views of the fells, which wouldn't be affected by what's under the wheels. And for a local authority voluntarily to put a decent surface on an offroad cycling route is rare enough... looking a gift horse etc?

[Cyril Haearn]

Seems a very bad idea, rubber and chemicals released into the environment

[Vorpal]

Seems a very bad idea, rubber and chemicals released into the environment

Actually, the studies done in the EU were with recycled materials found much lower emissions, both for original application, and repair.

[gazza_d]

there is an online petition which rather gives the game away regarding the campaigners true intentions

As an optional 4-5 mile section of the long Coast 2 Coast (C2C) route only since the 1990s, cyclists' interests should not take priority over other users .This is not a road, but primarily a decades-old footpath where cyclists are allowed and not vice versa and aren't cyclists a type of traffic? Resurfacing plans now give them priority, cycle track standard. Isn't this dangerous on a Multiuser Trail with increased accident risk?

I get the impression they want to keep the trail unattractive to people cycling so that they can enjoy their own dog walking paradise.
It's been a cycling trail for at least 25 years, so this feels like opportunism on the part of some cycle-hating locals who seem to be chucking every excuse and flimsy reason forward, including claims that tarmac is dangerous when wet or icy. I never knew that! Maybe we should stop surfacing roads with the stuff and go back to cart tracks

Work is apparantly progressing now on the path so I hope the NP authority crack on the tarmacing. As the chief exec says in this blog https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/the-blog/blog-posts/looking-forward-to-the-keswick-to-threlkeld-railway-trail, this is a once in an opportunity chance to sort this path out for the future.

[Cyril Haearn]

Surely it could be widened a bit with space for PwDs, people with dogs and PoBs

[MikeF]

There may well be other local issues involved here, but the opposition to tarmacing this stretch strikes me as a wee bit puritanical. Although it passes through pleasant woodland, the 'rurality' of the immediate surroundings is already severely compromised by the proximity of the A66, and is defined rather by the more distant views of the fells, which wouldn't be affected by what's under the wheels. And for a local authority voluntarily to put a decent surface on an offroad cycling route is rare enough... looking a gift horse etc?

A "tarmac" path through a woodland will be a disaster. Tree roots will push through and it will become unrideable. A forgiving surface is needed through woodland.

[Vorpal]

There may well be other local issues involved here, but the opposition to tarmacing this stretch strikes me as a wee bit puritanical. Although it passes through pleasant woodland, the 'rurality' of the immediate surroundings is already severely compromised by the proximity of the A66, and is defined rather by the more distant views of the fells, which wouldn't be affected by what's under the wheels. And for a local authority voluntarily to put a decent surface on an offroad cycling route is rare enough... looking a gift horse etc?

A "tarmac" path through a woodland will be a disaster. Tree roots will push through and it will become unrideable. A forgiving surface is needed through woodland.

I don't know, they seem to manage it ok in other countries. I think that the main issue in the UK is that they use the same base & thickness for all cycle paths, whether they go through woods, or not?

I think that the Dutch and Danes lay it more like a road when they go through woodlands. Of course, they also maintain them.

[Pete Owens]

A "tarmac" path through a woodland will be a disaster. Tree roots will push through and it will become unrideable. A forgiving surface is needed through woodland.

Proper foundations are what is needed.
Even in the UK we are perfectly capable of constructing tarmac routes through woodland so long as they give a toss about the intended users. Neaby example here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6056277,-3.104966,3a,75y,243.25h,70.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg5H38bKspwCS5p9wNixrrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Actually the real problem with tarmac paths through woodland is friction. Tarmac tends to acquire a green slippy surface under the trees that would be cleared by the passage of car tyres on a road. It would be interesting to see how nu-flex performs in this respect.

[Paulatic]

I think I’ve ridden on that stuff, this year, struggling to remember where but was it Fornby way?
Thought I was riding onto loose gravel only to discover it was all glued together and you could lean on the bends.

[ChrisButch]

This is a former railway, so presumably the trackbed it still there? In which case there wouldn't be a problem with treeroots, I imagine, as the trackbed would be sufficient foundation - but I'm only guessing.

[Pete Owens]

Some of it is follows former railway. In some places the A66 uses that line.

I think the place that they are talking about is a bit that was washed away in the floods four years ago. At least part of it was narrow twisty duck-boarding cantilevered out over the river and really wasn't suitable for cycling. It only took a few months to reinstate the A591 that was washed away at the same time - and that involved serious civil engineering.

[MikeF]

A "tarmac" path through a woodland will be a disaster. Tree roots will push through and it will become unrideable. A forgiving surface is needed through woodland.

Proper foundations are what is needed.
Even in the UK we are perfectly capable of constructing tarmac routes through woodland so long as they give a toss about the intended users. Neaby example here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6056277,-3.104966,3a,75y,243.25h,70.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg5H38bKspwCS5p9wNixrrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's not through woodland, it's nearly new, and it looks like a carriageway to me. I don't know if the path/pavement is meant to be for cycles, but there is major fault with the design. There should be a ditch between the path and the slope. As shown the water running off the bank has nowhere to go except across the path bringing with it soil particles an all sorts of débris. Also if that is a cycle path there should be separation between it and the carriageway.

Actually the real problem with tarmac paths through woodland is friction. Tarmac tends to acquire a green slippy surface under the trees that would be cleared by the passage of car tyres on a road. It would be interesting to see how nu-flex performs in this respect.

I think you mean lack of friction. Enough cyclists using a path will clear a path equally well especially as tyre pressures are greater

[MikeF]

There may well be other local issues involved here, but the opposition to tarmacing this stretch strikes me as a wee bit puritanical. Although it passes through pleasant woodland, the 'rurality' of the immediate surroundings is already severely compromised by the proximity of the A66, and is defined rather by the more distant views of the fells, which wouldn't be affected by what's under the wheels. And for a local authority voluntarily to put a decent surface on an offroad cycling route is rare enough... looking a gift horse etc?

A "tarmac" path through a woodland will be a disaster. Tree roots will push through and it will become unrideable. A forgiving surface is needed through woodland.

I don't know, they seem to manage it ok in other countries. I think that the main issue in the UK is that they use the same base & thickness for all cycle paths, whether they go through woods, or not?

I think that the Dutch and Danes lay it more like a road when they go through woodlands. Of course, they also maintain them.

It would be interesting to see pictures. All I've seen are effectively tree free. It's not the thickness that's important, but the proximity of trees and roots.