NCR1

[Glasgow44]

Hi there


I’m just back from a 3 day cycling trip (Newcastle to Edinburgh over 3 days) – mostly using NCR1 cycle route. There were 16 of us cycling. On the 2nd day we were coming into Berwick upon Tweed and the state of the path was ridiculous – it was basically a farm track and you had to cycle in a “groove” which was a bit hairy considering most of us were using road bikes and were clipped in - this is the bit of the path from Beal, through the golf course, then parallel to the coast, through Spittal into Berwick upon Tweed. It speaks volumes that I cycled all the distance from Newcastle to Edinburgh and the only time I came off my bike was on this section. Our cycle leader has emailed Sustrans who are aware and have said that there is a dispute regarding land.


Has anyone else had any experience of this path? For a National Cycle Route, the path is unacceptable and downright dangerous. Thankfully, we had favourable weather – I wouldn’t like to think what it would have been like in bad weather.


J

 

[Ajax Bay]

the bit of the path from Beal, through the golf course, then parallel to the coast, through Spittal into Berwick upon Tweed.

Well done on an excellent ride from Newcastle to Edinburgh - you chose to follow NCN1. Do you think that all NCN Routes should be tarmacced?
In your pre-ride preparation you surely had looked at the parts of the NCN which went off road, eg using http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php
This site gives you a clue: http://www.cyclenorthumberland.org.uk/listing/In-the-tracks-of-the-monks-to-Holy-Island-route2 where it says: "The ride down the coast from Berwick to Holy Island is a scenic delight of the highest order. Unfortunately the standard of the cycle paths is far from acceptable so use a
sturdy tourer , hybrid or mountain bike."
Or had you delegated responsibility for that to someone else? Did they think the track was 'OK'? If not, what excuse did they offer for taking your group of 16 (most on road bikes/wheels) that way? There is a perfectly good alternative route west of the A1, zigzagging through Ancroft on minor roads if you want to stay off the trunk road.
You cannot typify this track as "downright dangerous". You were trying to ride that section on the wrong type of tyre/wheel - and did so entirely at your discretion (with peer pressure to do so, no doubt). If you haven't prepared for these types of track and come across one; just don't ride it. Or ride it, in the spirit of adventure.

 

[mjr]

I remember reading something about that and I think it's a fairly notorious section, worse than when NCR 1 goes seriously muddy and indirect in the Lincolnshire Wolds. The bottom line is that sadly we can't blindly trust Sustrans routes and need to use maps like http://cycle.travel/map which highlight unpaved sections and then check the photos and possibly streetview to decide whether to drag it away. It looks like missing those sections wouldn't add any distance, or 1 mile if I still wanted to visit Berwick - so it's a bit of a mystery why Sustrans don't signpost an all-weather alternative.

By the way, I'm not sure I'd stick to NCR1 for Newcastle to Edinburgh - it's 25 miles longer than the coastal route (NCR1 and NCR76) and 40 longer than the hillier inland route via Kielder - but I hope you enjoyed it otherwise!

 

[mjr]

Do you think that all NCN Routes should be tarmacced?

No but I think all NCN Routes should be all-weather for all reasonably common bike types, so at least 23mm tyres up to 97mm - don't you?

 

[snorri]

It was a bit rough when I traversed that section in 2002, but I can't say I was aware of any danger, it seemed a more pleasant option than the A1.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Trouble is, people's threshold for riding on 'road' tyres (ie <28 say) spans a wide variation of tolerance to road surface. I don't think Sustrans sets the standard as 'all-weather on 23mm tyres. And would this standard allow a gravel track with potholes? If it did, there would be either real challenges of connectivity, or even more convoluted routes (both of which would result in less use/utility). 'Gravel' bike anyone?
I think the underlying problem is that it's not straightforward to access good info on the quality/nature of the off-road sections of NCN routes. I use Google Streetview to 'look' at the tracks, but that can only be where the track leaves the 'public' road (both ends). Access to decent info would allow riders to make decisions (eie bike choice or route choice) in the planning phase of their trips.

 

[cisamcgu]

We rode it on a tandem this summer, 28mm tires, I think.

I was rather too off-road for us really, but we went slow and enjoyed the lovely scenery. We were passed by a few people who were busy complaining and moaning, but then people always seem to find something to whinge about

We had fun

 

[growingvegetables]

In your pre-ride preparation you surely had looked at the parts of the NCN which went off road ...

Hmm - just a sideways thought? It's a sad comment on the NCN that such research should be necessary? It'd be so much easier if this were ... a little more descriptive?

 

[Glasgow44]

Well done on an excellent ride from Newcastle to Edinburgh - you chose to follow NCN1. Do you think that all NCN Routes should be tarmacced?
In your pre-ride preparation you surely had looked at the parts of the NCN which went off road, eg using http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php
This site gives you a clue: http://www.cyclenorthumberland.org.uk/listing/In-the-tracks-of-the-monks-to-Holy-Island-route2 where it says: "The ride down the coast from Berwick to Holy Island is a scenic delight of the highest order. Unfortunately the standard of the cycle paths is far from acceptable so use a
sturdy tourer , hybrid or mountain bike."
Or had you delegated responsibility for that to someone else? Did they think the track was 'OK'? If not, what excuse did they offer for taking your group of 16 (most on road bikes/wheels) that way? There is a perfectly good alternative route west of the A1, zigzagging through Ancroft on minor roads if you want to stay off the trunk road.
You cannot typify this track as "downright dangerous". You were trying to ride that section on the wrong type of tyre/wheel - and did so entirely at your discretion (with peer pressure to do so, no doubt). If you haven't prepared for these types of track and come across one; just don't ride it. Or ride it, in the spirit of adventure.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. If there are going to be National Cycle Routes, these should be able to be used by all types of bike and folks should be able to cycle on them safe in the knowledge that they are of a standard regardless of what bike they are riding.

 

[mjr]

Trouble is, people's threshold for riding on 'road' tyres (ie <28 say) spans a wide variation of tolerance to road surface. I don't think Sustrans sets the standard as 'all-weather on 23mm tyres. And would this standard allow a gravel track with potholes? If it did, there would be either real challenges of connectivity, or even more convoluted routes (both of which would result in less use/utility). 'Gravel' bike anyone?
I think the underlying problem is that it's not straightforward to access good info on the quality/nature of the off-road sections of NCN routes. I use Google Streetview to 'look' at the tracks, but that can only be where the track leaves the 'public' road (both ends). Access to decent info would allow riders to make decisions (eie bike choice or route choice) in the planning phase of their trips.

As far as I know, the current standard for rural non-carriageway routes is in Table H.8 from the Sustrans handbook:
"Sealed surface required on any route within 5km of urban area or 2km of village environment.
Sealed surface required on routes linking villages where school traffic or other utility trips will benefit.
Surface dressed top to bitumen base course may be appropriate.
Use of unsealed surface requires a rigid maintenance plan.
Use of unsealed surface not recommended on paths:
• with gradient steeper than 1 in 20
• shared with equestrians
• where significant run off expected"
There's a reference to document TIN08 which gives more detail on possible surfaces but doesn't seem to have a mudbath option.

Good surfacing requiring more convoluted routes would only be because we don't force cycleways through in this country. Only routes that motorists can use get forced through.

As for decent info, we're gradually adding surface quality/type info to www.osm.org so some routing sites (like cycle.travel) can use it but it's heavy going (hah!)

 

[Ajax Bay]

Thank you @mjr
"Use of unsealed surface requires a rigid maintenance plan." Who/what organisation/body funds the "rigid maintenance plan"?

It's a sad comment on the NCN that such research should be necessary?

I went to your link as the first hit, and when it didn't give me any description of the route (ie surface when not on road) I went to the next hit, and found the quote I used.
I do not think it would be difficult for Sustrans to offer online a simple description of the nature of the off-road surfaces riders might expect, sorted by route number.

 

[mjr]

"Use of unsealed surface requires a rigid maintenance plan." Who/what organisation/body funds the "rigid maintenance plan"?

I expect it's whoever funds or obtains funding for the initial construction, normally the highway authority but very occasionally it's Sustrans for some of their routes on land they bought, but that's a very small fraction of the network.

I do not think it would be difficult for Sustrans to offer online a simple description of the nature of the off-road surfaces riders might expect, sorted by route number.

I don't think it would be too difficult for Sustrans to update their own routes on OSM instead of only putting them on their rather inaccurate private database but apparently it is so what do I know?

 

[growingvegetables]

... the current standard for rural non-carriageway routes is in ...

... sadly, all sorts of negotiations and compromises with councils and landowners, some fruitful, some "less so".

Many years ago, National Route 66 was going to run along the old Cross Gates to Wetherby railway line; blocked by one landowner between Thorner and the A64.

And as for councils - I know bits of the N-S sections of the TPT. Barnsley Council were the lead council - brilliant routes, planning, signage, and construction. Sheffield Council, jealous and p!$$ed off ... cr@p routes, worse planning, and godawful signage. Leeds and Wakefield Councils - basically couldn't be ****d.

 

[DanZac]

Its pretty widely known that most Sustrans routes can be a bit unreliable, tending to follow the safest or quietest traffic free route as opposed to the most direct or rideable, and are aimed at all cycling groups not just peletons of roadies.
Problems arise with lack of prior planning or peoples ability to reroute during a ride. Yes it would be great if all routes were hard surface and traffic free, but whats wrong with either planning to avoid the bits that are dodgy before you leave or whipping the old map out when you come across a bit that your bike or ability can't handle and finding another route around.
Frustrating yes, "downright dangerous" I think not (if your that worried get off and walk), you could have found another route and I suspect anyone on a MTB would have been quite happy with the trail provided, its just unfortunate that on this occasion it didn't fit your expectations, equipment or planning.

 

[Fab Foodie]

To a certain extent I agree with @DanZac and others regarding prior planning, but how much is enough?
I recently rode 130 miles of NCN2 in the full knowledge that Sustrans routes are the 'Curates Egg', but that's a lot of miles to check with streetview etc if you are unfamiliar with the area in question, or a few quid of maps to buy for maybe a one-off journey. On that ride in the cold and dark I did however make a mental note that an hours extra planning might save 2 on the road. Making a detour when you find poor surfaces is again fine but can cost an awful lot of extra miles or walking as I have had to do in the past even on an all-steel Audax bike on 28c tyres.
It would be useful if on the Sustrans website there was a better description of the areas of rough track/off-road and areas that might be avoided/routed around.

Ultimately (and sadly) Sustrans should be used as a guide and not a Bible. This means that for many of us it will still be hours poring over OS and online mapping apps before committing to our routes...which somewhat diminishes the role of the Sustrans route in the first place.