Cycling UK Forum

This week I tried to follow the number 21 National Cycle Route from London on my way to Brighton. What I didn't realise was that these routes often go across muddy fields, make use of loose graveled tracks and are notoriously difficult to follow. I kept having to back-track as I passed yet another sign pointing me in a completely different direction.

The route is a mix of tarmac roads and off-road tracks, so really only suitable for mountain bikes and hybrids - not bikes like my loaded tourer. Sadly this wasn't evident on the official Sustrans map.

In the end I gave up and bought an A-Z of the South East and followed the B-roads and small A-roads, which was far more enjoyable in my opinion.

I more or less gave up using Sustrans years ago, with one or two exceptions (route 7 parallel to the A9 south of Inverness).
They are fine for horses and mountain bikes, but like caldini, I can't easily use them with my loaded tourer (Galaxy). I find they tend to be meandering and muddy dirt tracks or strewn with stones, and take the long way to get from A to B. I generally plan my tours using an AA road map and follow minor roads.

Can I recommend that you pass these comments on to Sustrans. In my experience the people who run Sustrans tend to have an Ivory Tower mentality and believe in their own propaganda. I gave up on trying to talk to them some time ago, but if enough people continually complain direct to Sustrans about the sub-standard farcilities that they purport to provide, maybe, just maybe, someone in the Ivory Tower will begin to take notice.

I shan't hold my breath, tho...

nigel_s wrote:Can I recommend that you pass these comments on to Sustrans.

Good point. Will do.

I'm also going to be writing to a good deal of people involved with tourism in the town of Battle (site of the Battle of Hastings). There was absolutely no proper parking for cyclists there. There are too many old people about to just leave it chained to some railings - it would be disrespectful to make people step into the road to avoid my bike (Battle is quite a small and compact town). However, there is a massive unused space in front of the site surrounded by park chairs - why they haven't put some Sheffield hoops there is beyond me.

What really annoyed me though was that I was unable to leave a couple of pannier bags in a side room of the visitor centre while doing the tour. The tour involves an interactive audio guide, so handling that and two bags and a helmet would have been a pain in the butt so I declined and left. The reason? - it is a government building and they can't store bags "for obvious reasons". What obvious reasons are that then? Tony and Gordon's paranoia machine? Give me a break!

I've done a few of the NCN routes and some do go thru muddy terrain. Most of the routes are traffic-free and may use disused railways. One of the popular NCN is the C2C from Whitehaven to Sunderland/Newcastle.

Most of the problems with the NCN, is the signing and there is some mis-leading signs in my area. Some have been turned round or the council simply don't have a clue.

I think the best bike for these routes would be a good hybrid, I used my Dawes Kara-Kum on waterlogged NCN track the other day and coped really well. The wheels were 700x37.

There is a Sustrans route about 8 miles long near me that is actually very usefully situated. Unfortunately it varies between tarmac, loose gravel, and off road/mud. I have taken to using the route with my Raleigh Pioneer, but my road bike (Mercian Audax with close clearance guards) doesn't like it at all, especially after rain.

The thing that concerns me most about Sustrans routes is that for the first time user there is little or no indication on what sort of surface you can expect. You have my sympathies Caldini! I wish Sustrans could address this, with more detail on the info leaflets (which in any case seem a bit random IMHO) and stop assuming everyone has thumping great tyres.

I know tarmac costs more, and they are a charity, but mud does not to me constitute a cycle track surface that is subject to general sign posting?!

DavidT wrote:There is a Sustrans route about 8 miles long near me that is actually very usefully situated. Unfortunately it varies between tarmac, loose gravel, and off road/mud. I have taken to using the route with my Raleigh Pioneer, but my road bike (Mercian Audax with close clearance guards) doesn't like it at all, especially after rain.

The thing that concerns me most about Sustrans routes is that for the first time user there is little or no indication on what sort of surface you can expect. You have my sympathies Caldini! I wish Sustrans could address this, with more detail on the info leaflets (which in any case seem a bit random IMHO) and stop assuming everyone has thumping great tyres.

I know tarmac costs more, and they are a charity, but mud does not to me constitute a cycle track surface that is subject to general sign posting?!

I could be wrong but I think Sustarans have the enviable position of being able to take the credit for creating the routes but not have the responsibility for maintaining them. Maintainance is the responsibility of local councils, private land owners and the like.

Sustrans essentially does all the negotiation of access rights which might explain some of the convoluted routes.

I've cycled the W2W, C2C and Hadrians Cycle routes and found them to be perfectly useable on a fully laden Dawes Galaxy even on the unmetalled sections that were former railway routes.

Sustrans are an "enabling" organisation, not the builders or maintainers.

They identify the routes, suggest standards and then it is up to the local Councils to do the rest.

That's the theory anyway. Sadly the reality is a lot different. In my area in particular some ex-railway routes were built but with nothing in place for future maintenance. The local authorities didn't want to know about taking on maintenance responsibility. Sustrans don't have the resources to maintain them.

vernon wrote:
I could be wrong but I think Sustarans have the enviable position of being able to take the credit for creating the routes but not have the responsibility for maintaining them. Maintainance is the responsibility of local councils, private land owners and the like.

Sustrans essentially does all the negotiation of access rights which might explain some of the convoluted routes.

I've cycled the W2W, C2C and Hadrians Cycle routes and found them to be perfectly useable on a fully laden Dawes Galaxy even on the unmetalled sections that were former railway routes.

I'm a Ranger on part of Route 1 in County Durham and Stockton-on-Tees. It is all ex-railway line. The part in County Durham is good in all weathers. As you cross into Stockton-on-Tees area it is muddy, narrow and near impassable in wet weather. I understand the frustratuion of users but it is not Sustrans fault as we only monitor and sign the track and are dependent on the Councils for the rest.

It's one of these things where it would be enlightening to be able to see now, how things will be in a few years. I fancy there will be some really well-used roofrack-cycling leisure routes, some overgrown tracks (these are appearing already) and some signs pointing down country lanes in places like North Norfolk where people will wonder, 'What's all that about?'

(Can anybody point to any cost-benefit analysis on the lines of how many extra miles have been cycled? Particularly utility, rather than roofrack-cycling?)

Sustrans do serve a purpose but cant do everything for everyone.
It is sad when people are so disapointed with your route that they decide to abandon it. Many of us rangers are annoyed about parts of the route and powerless to improve it.
However once or twice a year there will be a workcamp when VOLUNTEERS spend a week surfacing or otherwise improving a small section of track for you to use. So if you are really concerned you could contact Sustrans and volunteer to help out at one of these work camps, they would be delighted to have the help!

Some bits of the route are over private land with the owners permission and the surface is "take it or leave it".
Sustrans are far from perfect and are better suited to recreation than transport in many cases. However if they had a government budget comparable to the road network then things would be different.

As meic and byegad so eloquently demonstrate, the "cycling infrastructure" of this country has been sidelined to an insignificant charity which few have heard of and maintained by unpaid volunteers. The car-centric Highways Authorities must be laughing up their sleeves. Those who live in more advanced and enlightened nations in the rest of Europe must just goggle in disbelief.

"Hell" and "handcart" are words which spring to mind...

nigel-s

Very perceptive.

(When I think about Sustrans, I tend to get bogged down with things like the centralised prescriptiveness, their unintentional promotion of roofrack cycling, and so on. They are really just side issues. The fact that they have given the Govt., an excuse for doing virtually nothing is the big one.)

meic

Your comment about volunteers has a slight hint of 'put up or shut up.' When I see gangs of volunteer drivers patching the motorway I'll join you with my shovel. Or perhaps people who don't pay road tax should be grateful for muck tracks.

I gave up on Sustrans years ago. I used to cycle (with camping equipment) from Cambridge to the York Rally, via the Humber bridge, on a Mixte hybrid. I found that it was much easier to use your brains, read your maps and work out your own minor road route.

Other peoples ideas of where you ought to go are not always best for you.