How long does it take to do the Wainwrights?
Paul Saunders
are they all one day walks? Or are there short ones that allow you to do a
few in a day?
Assuming someone did say, three walks each weekend, how long would it take
to complete them all?
And if you did do all the walks in all of the books, could you honestly say
that you'd "done" the Lake District? Or are there other (wild) places worth
visiting that aren't in the books? In other words, are the walks
specifically geared toward fell bagging, or to travelling through and
enjoying the whole of the Lake District?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Jhimmy
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ra6dnS33baCIlojW...@pipex.net...
Not sure about all the Wainwrights books as I've only borrowed some of them
from the library. Wainwright wasn't a bagger, he just liked to walk. He
wrote and drew things that he thought were interesting. I don't think he'd
be able to understand anyone talking about bagging, route times, GPS,
wildcamping...etc.
It took me just under 10 years to complete the Wainwrights, but I wasn't
really fantical. Plus 2001 was Foot and Mouth and I never walked in the
Lakes that year until November. I'm on my 2nd round with a friend and he
wants to complete it by next year (just over 2 years in total).
There's a book by Stuart Marshall that has 36 routes to complete the
Wainwrights. However, some of the routes are fairly big and need long days
in them hills, but all are 1 day routes.
Wainwrights (inc Outlying) IMHO fall far short of the whole ELD. Because
these books weren't designed for bagging, you have some strange hills
missing or named. Darling Fell is missing (clearly a seperate hill), but
Mungrisedale Common is included (a flat piece of ground in the middle of
flattish nowhere).
Jhimmy
sandy saunders
> are they all one day walks?
Well, a rather interesting question Paul! There are 214 Fells in the 7 AW
Pictorial guides, and in theory 214 tops to walk. (Not sure about the (I
think) 111 Outlying Fells, published in a seperate book) However, most
entries of the Fells describe more than one route to the top, so although
214, far more than 214 walk routes could be created covering all 214 tops.
Or is it assumed you are referring to one walking route for each top?
>Or are there short ones that allow you to do a few in a day?
There are many shorter walks, for example in September when it was pretty
foul weather, I went up Great Mell Fell which involved a 3 mile round trip,
with plenty of time then to wander Little Mell Fell opposite.
> Assuming someone did say, three walks each weekend, how long would it take
> to complete them all?
214 - 3 = 71 weekends plus an odd walk left for a Sat or Sunday, making it
72 weekends. (think my maths are correct)
> And if you did do all the walks in all of the books, could you honestly
> say that you'd "done" the Lake District? Or are there other (wild) places
> worth visiting that aren't in the books?
As mentioned above, AW's Outlying Fells book covers the lesser tops on the
outer edges of the Lake District, and I suspect these areas are rather
peaceful and quiet to walk. Often look at the Howgill Fells (part of the
Outlying Fells) heading along the M6 to Keswick, and think some day we
should have a drive out for a day's walking on those hills. They do look
rather nice and 'bumpy'.
>In other words, are the walks specifically geared toward fell bagging, or
>to travelling through and enjoying the whole of the Lake District?
I don't think the books are geared to Fell Bagging, although where there is
a 'ridge' connection to another Fell(s), AW has added a short description to
that Fell(s); the Fells are generally described in isolation.
--
Sandy Saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
'Mountains or Mole Hills, summiting
still brings the same excitement!'
PeterC
Not an answer Paul (I did most of them in the early '70s, by default, then
had 20 years cycling and only started doing some of the Outlying Fells in
March of this year, so >35 years!), bur there's a lot of useful stuff at
http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/EWRegions/Wainwrights.php
The links to maps at the lower R corner are the ones to use. I've printed
the tables to PDF and marked those that I haven't done on the OS Tour 3
map; not accurate but does give the pattern for planning walks. Also marked
the 1:50k maps' boundaries - very useful when handling up tp 5 maps!
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.
Theo
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:Ra6dnS33baCIlojW...@pipex.net...
Surely you aren't considering of doing them unfit as you are.... and leaving
Wales ;-)
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.com
www.theooutdoors.blogspot.com (only in Dutch atm)
Roger Chapman
snip
> Wainwrights (inc Outlying) IMHO fall far short of the whole ELD. Because
> these books weren't designed for bagging, you have some strange hills
> missing or named. Darling Fell is missing (clearly a seperate hill), but
> Mungrisedale Common is included (a flat piece of ground in the middle of
> flattish nowhere).
I had to search for Darling Fell, not having the slightest memory of it.
It seems from Book Seven that AW merely considered it one of the
numerous summits of Low Fell. Inspection of the latest map suggests that
this is another area where AW has fallen foul of the failure of the OS
to identify the high points properly until very recently. What AW claims
is the summit of Low Fell at circa 1360 feet is named on the latest map
as Bield, 412m (1352'). The true summit is some 360m further north and
9m higher. Having said that it is not clear how AW failed to notice the
height difference. True the 1:25000 available to him has (the unnamed)
Bield with a small 1350 contour ring but further to the North is a long
thin but much larger area above 1350 feet.
Mungrisedale Common, at 2068 feet, would overshadow Darling Fell, given
the chance. :-) I wouldn't defend its inclusion, but it, like a good
many of AW's hills is nothing more than a slight rise on a spur ridge. A
more surprising omission, also Book Seven, Is Iron Crag, over 2000 feet
and a SWEAT to boot. Perhaps if AW had started in this area rather than
finished here both Darling Fell and Iron Crag would have chapters of
their own. :-)
The first seven books all have a peak as a focus for each chapter but
the Outlying Fells is different. Here the emphasis is on walks, some of
which avoid peaks and some peaks the walks visit are not included in the
index and are thus not part of the lazy walkers OF completion. I rapidly
came to the conclusion that by the time AW prepared the Outlying Fells
he was going senile.
As to how long does it take to do the Wainwrights? In my case it took
about twice as long as doing the Munros, having started several years
before Book One was published and not finishing until I was in my dotage.
ISTR reading somewhere that they have been done in a week but I could be
wrong on that. In any case that would be the extreme end of fell
running, not walking as we know it.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Just curious, how many walks are there in all of the Wainwright books? And
>are they all one day walks? Or are there short ones that allow you to do a
>few in a day?
>
http://www.go4awalk.com/walkcollections/walkthewainwrights.php
advertising
"A series of 59 walks that visit the summit of all 214 Wainwright Lake
District fells and mountains"
so 59 days and they're all ticked off!
Personally, whilst I like Wainwright's books, I rarely use them as a
guide for my walking. He didn't much care for scrambling up the rocky
bits, and I think that's the best part. Bob Allen has some better
routes, I think. Also I'm not much of a peak bagger and have zero
interest in climbing all the Wainwrights, or indeed the hills in any
other more or less arbitrary list. (Others views differ of course, good
luck to them I say!).
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
http://www.blacknail.org.uk/
The online organ of the Black Nail Fellwalking and Climbing Club
Mike Mason
"sandy saunders" <sandy.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_8bRm.592$Dl4...@newsfe08.ams2...
small area of fell near Sedbergh ie to the east of the M6 and are out of the
National Park (and are a very good place to walk. Can be busy at times).
AW's Outlying Peaks doesn't have any walks in that area. He does have
several rather farther north and to the West of the M6 round Shap but these
are not the Howgills. They are rather a pleasant area to walk in but can be
a bit wet in places. Have to say that some of the walks in the Outlying
Fells are not the best but others are good.
Mike
Jhimmy
> As mentioned above, AW's Outlying Fells book covers the lesser tops on the
> outer edges of the Lake District, and I suspect these areas are rather
> peaceful and quiet to walk. Often look at the Howgill Fells (part of the
> Outlying Fells) heading along the M6 to Keswick, and think some day we
> should have a drive out for a day's walking on those hills. They do look
> rather nice and 'bumpy'.
>
>>In other words, are the walks specifically geared toward fell bagging, or
>>to travelling through and enjoying the whole of the Lake District?
>
> I don't think the books are geared to Fell Bagging, although where there
> is a 'ridge' connection to another Fell(s), AW has added a short
> description to that Fell(s); the Fells are generally described in
> isolation.
>
> --
> Sandy Saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
> 'Mountains or Mole Hills, summiting
> still brings the same excitement!'
>
>
Interesting you picked up on the Howgills, as Wainwright lived in Kendal
which is not far away from the Howgills. Yet he wrote very little about this
district.
I've been there with a friend to bag all the summits (Deweys) this summer
and failed! Looks like 4 trips are needed as though fairly low in statue,
they are rugged in places. I've decided to cycle Arant Haw as a solo route.
The other route left to do is the far eastern ones, Harter fell, Green Bell,
Hooksey and Kensgriff.
Jhimmy
Jhimmy
>
> ISTR reading somewhere that they have been done in a week but I could be
> wrong on that. In any case that would be the extreme end of fell running,
> not walking as we know it.
Agree, I think it could be done in 7 days, but as you say, extreme. Just
look at the Bob Graham runners and their times for 42 of the hardest and
highest peaks, leaving 6 days for the other 172 easy ones. Plus if they had
a support crew with bikes available for the flat road sections (assuming
that only human powered endevour for the record).
Jhimmy
Alan Dicey
>> In other words, are the walks specifically geared toward fell
>> bagging, or to travelling through and enjoying the whole of the Lake
>> District?
Wainwright was the very antithesis of a bagger, he loved the Lake
District hills and explored every aspect of them, ridges, valleys and
all. Surely you've noticed that the books have one chapter for each
fell, describing all the routes up that one particular named top. A
peak-bagger would have to work hard going between chapters to construct
routes to get as many peaks in one walk as possible.
As a completist, Wainwright tried just about every route to the top of
each of his fells. The Blencathra chapter is illustrative: including
Halls Fell and Sharp Edge (the best and most popular routes today) he
describes routes up each of the five butresses to be seen from the
south, and the combes in between them, both sides and round the back.
Including one "to commend heartily to one's worst enemy".
sandy saunders wrote:
> As mentioned above, AW's Outlying Fells book covers the lesser tops on
> the outer edges of the Lake District, and I suspect these areas are
> rather peaceful and quiet to walk. Often look at the Howgill Fells
> (part of the Outlying Fells) heading along the M6 to Keswick, and think
> some day we should have a drive out for a day's walking on those hills.
> They do look rather nice and 'bumpy'.
AW did a completely separate book "Walks on the Howgill Fells and
adjoining Fells" The Howgills are outside the area of the Outlying
Fells, being outside the Lakeland National Park.
The geography is inconvenient for the peak-bagger, as there are long
deep valleys cutting through the area, separating the fells into
radiating ridges.
Paul Saunders
> There's a book by Stuart Marshall that has 36 routes to complete the
> Wainwrights. However, some of the routes are fairly big and need long
> days in them hills, but all are 1 day routes.
So if you went on a long holiday, even rented some accomodation, you could
bag them all in a month or two, if you were fit enough?
> Wainwrights (inc Outlying) IMHO fall far short of the whole ELD.
Is the ELD (the official park area) bigger than the books, or vice-versa? Or
do they match exactly?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
>> Just curious, how many walks are there in all of the Wainwright
>> books? And are they all one day walks?
>
> Well, a rather interesting question Paul! There are 214 Fells in the
> 7 AW Pictorial guides, and in theory 214 tops to walk. (Not sure
> about the (I think) 111 Outlying Fells, published in a seperate book)
> However, most entries of the Fells describe more than one route to
> the top, so although 214, far more than 214 walk routes could be
> created covering all 214 tops. Or is it assumed you are referring to
> one walking route for each top?
No, I was referring to the total number of walks. A lot of people here tend
to think in terms of bagging, but as you know, photography is more important
to me than bagging, and the best bagging route is often not the best route
for photographs. Also, there are many things worth photographing besides
summits, like lakes and waterfalls. So I'd want to visit all the interesting
places, not just the summits.
As for bagging, I've always held the view that bagging a summit is not the
same as "knowing the mountain". If you've only been to the summit once via
one route in one particular set of seasonal and weather conditions, then you
don't really know the mountain. To do that you need to explore all the
routes in all seasons and all weathers. And of course, doing that provides
many different photo possibilities that you don't get in a single bagging
walk.
>> Assuming someone did say, three walks each weekend, how long would
>> it take to complete them all?
>
> 214 - 3 = 71 weekends plus an odd walk left for a Sat or Sunday,
> making it 72 weekends. (think my maths are correct)
So that's still quite a long time, even for just the bagging. So getting to
know the area fully would take a lot longer?
> I don't think the books are geared to Fell Bagging, although where
> there is a 'ridge' connection to another Fell(s), AW has added a
> short description to that Fell(s); the Fells are generally described
> in isolation.
I'm still not sure exactly what the definition of a "fell" is. Is it a
distinct mountain rather than just a summit? Do fells contain multiple
summits? If there are distinct routes to each fell, then presumably minor
summits wouldn't count? I'm just wondering how AW would have classified the
Welsh hills for comparison. What would count as a fell and what wouldn't?
For example, there are many insignificant Nuttalls, I presume these wouldn't
count as distinct fells?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Wainwright was the very antithesis of a bagger, he loved the Lake
> District hills and explored every aspect of them, ridges, valleys and
> all. Surely you've noticed that the books have one chapter for each
> fell, describing all the routes up that one particular named top.
No, I don't own any of the books. I've only seen the odd sample of an
individual page. That's why I'm curious about how a fell is defined. Does
every named top qualify as a separate fell?
> A
> peak-bagger would have to work hard going between chapters to
> construct routes to get as many peaks in one walk as possible.
I see.
> As a completist, Wainwright tried just about every route to the top of
> each of his fells. The Blencathra chapter is illustrative: including
> Halls Fell and Sharp Edge (the best and most popular routes today) he
> describes routes up each of the five butresses to be seen from the
> south, and the combes in between them, both sides and round the back.
> Including one "to commend heartily to one's worst enemy".
Well if you bag each fell individually, using one route up and another route
back down (if practical), would that count as a satisfactory walk, or would
most be very short?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Not an answer Paul (I did most of them in the early '70s, by default,
> then had 20 years cycling and only started doing some of the Outlying
> Fells in March of this year, so >35 years!), bur there's a lot of
> useful stuff at
>
> http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/EWRegions/Wainwrights.php
Thanks for that.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Surely you aren't considering of doing them unfit as you are.... and
> leaving Wales ;-)
Not just yet, no! Just speculating!
But I'll have to get up there sooner or later. Given the distance though, it
would take an awful lot of time and petrol to explore the Lake District from
here. I think a much better solution, if it ever becomes practical, would be
to go and live in the Lake District for a while, maybe a year or so. It
would then be very easy to explore the area in depth (assuming good fitness
of course), then move on to another area.
In fact, for anyone not bogged down with family or tied to a specific job, I
think that moving home every year or two would be the best way to get a good
bagging coverage of the country. Just do all the peaks in the local area,
then move to another area. Far more efficient in time and petrol. But
obviously not practical for many people.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> ISTR reading somewhere that they have been done in a week but I could
> be wrong on that. In any case that would be the extreme end of fell
> running, not walking as we know it.
Yes, and as you know, I'm at the other extreme of photo walking, not walking
as you know it! ;-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> There's a website here:
>
> http://www.go4awalk.com/walkcollections/walkthewainwrights.php
>
> advertising
>
> "A series of 59 walks that visit the summit of all 214 Wainwright Lake
> District fells and mountains"
>
> so 59 days and they're all ticked off!
Sounds good, although I'm not a big fan of website subscriptions.
> Personally, whilst I like Wainwright's books, I rarely use them as a
> guide for my walking. He didn't much care for scrambling up the rocky
> bits, and I think that's the best part. Bob Allen has some better
> routes, I think.
I think I've got one of his books. Small hardback book, landscape format,
photo and walk descriptions on alternate pages. Sound familiar?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Roger Chapman
snip
> I'm still not sure exactly what the definition of a "fell" is. Is it a
> distinct mountain rather than just a summit? Do fells contain multiple
> summits? If there are distinct routes to each fell, then presumably minor
> summits wouldn't count? I'm just wondering how AW would have classified the
> Welsh hills for comparison. What would count as a fell and what wouldn't?
> For example, there are many insignificant Nuttalls, I presume these wouldn't
> count as distinct fells?
The situation is more complicated than that. I suspect that there are a
number of summits over 2000 feet that Wainwright devoted a chapter to
but hasn't the re-ascent to qualify even as a Nuttall. Mungrisedale
Common, an indistinct outlier of Blencathra, is a case to point. However
There are 2 Nuttalls on Blencathra that didn't attract a separate
chapter by Wainwright.
Paul Saunders
> The situation is more complicated than that. I suspect that there are
> a number of summits over 2000 feet that Wainwright devoted a chapter
> to but hasn't the re-ascent to qualify even as a Nuttall. Mungrisedale
> Common, an indistinct outlier of Blencathra, is a case to point.
Ah...
> However There are 2 Nuttalls on Blencathra that didn't attract a
> separate chapter by Wainwright.
But did he mention them? If so, are they still classed as Wainwrights?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Phil Cook
>Jhimmy wrote:
>
>> There's a book by Stuart Marshall that has 36 routes to complete the
>> Wainwrights. However, some of the routes are fairly big and need long
>> days in them hills, but all are 1 day routes.
>
>So if you went on a long holiday, even rented some accomodation, you could
>bag them all in a month or two, if you were fit enough?
>
>> Wainwrights (inc Outlying) IMHO fall far short of the whole ELD.
The Outlying Fells covers everything within the National Park outside
of Wainwright's area. There are a couple outside the LDNP.
>
>Is the ELD (the official park area) bigger than the books, or vice-versa? Or
>do they match exactly?
They don't match. The ELD is bigger than the area Wainwright took as
the core upland area. His area is bounded by straight lines between
the outer ends of the lakes with a couple of tweaks interposing
vertices at Caldbeck and Longsleddale, he also include the proposed
but never built reservoir at Swindale.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Cadair Idris in the mist.
http://www.therewaslight.co.uk
Phil Cook
>This is a bit picky but as far as I know the Howgill fells are a rather
>small area of fell near Sedbergh ie to the east of the M6 and are out of the
>National Park (and are a very good place to walk. Can be busy at times).
>AW's Outlying Peaks doesn't have any walks in that area. He does have
>several rather farther north and to the West of the M6 round Shap but these
>are not the Howgills. They are rather a pleasant area to walk in but can be
>a bit wet in places. Have to say that some of the walks in the Outlying
>Fells are not the best but others are good.
The Howgill Fells are in a different National Park altogether. They
are in the Yorkshire Dales NP.
They are covered in an AW's Walks on the Howgill Fells: And Adjoining
Fells. This book describes walks rather than fells. There is also
Walks in Limestone Country: The Whernside, Ingleborough and Penyghent
Areas of Yorkshire for other parts of the YDNP.
Phil Cook
He probably mentions them but a "Wainwright" is a hill to which he
devoted a chapter in his Pictorial Guide. I'd suggest buying one
volume to see what he does. They all have the introduction that gives
details of the area covered. Whether you go for the originals or the
Jesty updates with "scribblings" is upto you. :-)
They were published in order of easy reach from Kendal so if you are
going to make a start from Wales taking "holidays" book one would be a
good place to start.
Paul Saunders
> He probably mentions them but a "Wainwright" is a hill to which he
> devoted a chapter in his Pictorial Guide.
I see.
> I'd suggest buying one
> volume to see what he does. They all have the introduction that gives
> details of the area covered. Whether you go for the originals or the
> Jesty updates with "scribblings" is upto you. :-)
Do they still sell the originals? I'm not sure whether I'm bothered about
getting the originals or not, I'm not fussed about "collecting works of art"
as such, so the updated versions would probably be more practical. But then
again, I've never been one to precisely follow routes in guide books anyway.
If I do use them (like the Nuttalls book), it's just as a starting point and
I'll modify the route to suit my own preferences. I don't think I've EVER
followed any walk from a guide book exactly.
> They were published in order of easy reach from Kendal so if you are
> going to make a start from Wales taking "holidays" book one would be a
> good place to start.
Logical. Thanks for the suggestion.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Roger Chapman
snip
>> However There are 2 Nuttalls on Blencathra that didn't attract a
>> separate chapter by Wainwright.
>
> But did he mention them? If so, are they still classed as Wainwrights?
As Phil says it is the chapter headings that count.
However AW named one of the two on his sketch map, but then he named
Darling Fell which gave rise to the current discussion.
I have assumed in the past that AW worked from 1:25,000 maps of
sufficient antiquity to avoid copyright issues. Prior to the latest
survey these would have been (mostly at least) indistinguishable to the
maps available until well after the Books were published so when I find
something odd I refer back to the maps I used when I frequented the ELD.
The 1:25,000 map I am looking at now was 1974 copyright but based on the
provision edition with its origins in the 1930s.
The curious thing about the 2 Nuttalls is that neither Gategill Fell Top
nor Atkinson Pike are named on the old map. The former can be inferred,
the summit of Blencathra is Hallsfell Top, but Atkinson Pike is
something the OS have come up with only recently.
Both the Nuttalls are marginal AP 16m on aerial spot heights and GFT a
dubious 21m above the connecting contour. Neither show up as 50 foot
prominences on the old map, indeed GFT doesn't show up at all. AW
however does give GFT about 50 feet in one of his contoured sketches.
But then he gives the same (or possibly more) prominence to the next top
down, Blease Fell, which doesn't qualify as a Nuttall by the slenderest
of margins.
Alan Dicey
>
> Well if you bag each fell individually, using one route up and another route
> back down (if practical), would that count as a satisfactory walk, or would
> most be very short?
>
I'd not use Wainwright to plan walks like that. His chapters are as
complete as he could make them on the individual subjects, but a day out
in the ELD is better planned using a map first to establish a route that
is within your capabilities, then reading Wainwright to see how he
describes your route and the attractions of each peak, notable
viewpoints, places worth visiting close to your chosen track and etc.
You could vary your itinerary to get the best light for particular
views, for instance.
There are many circuits (start and finish at the same place) in the ELD
each of which encompasses many Wainwright peaks.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>I think I've got one of his books. Small hardback book, landscape format,
>photo and walk descriptions on alternate pages. Sound familiar?
>
"On High Lakeland Fells"
also:
"On Foot in Snowdonia"
"Escape to the Dales"
"Low Lakeland Fells"
and a few others.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> They were published in order of easy reach from Kendal so if you are
>> going to make a start from Wales taking "holidays" book one would be a
>> good place to start.
>
>Logical. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
There's a Wikipedia list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wainwrights
Theo
In the past there have been urw members suggesting you should write a book
about photography.
In my mind it's : living in the ELD for a year + hillwalking + photography =
publishing a book about those three put together.
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
Simon Challands
Neil Pugh <ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Personally, whilst I like Wainwright's books, I rarely use them as a
> guide for my walking. He didn't much care for scrambling up the rocky
> bits, and I think that's the best part. Bob Allen has some better
> routes, I think. Also I'm not much of a peak bagger and have zero
> interest in climbing all the Wainwrights, or indeed the hills in any
> other more or less arbitrary list. (Others views differ of course, good
> luck to them I say!).
I'm sort of inbetween. Ultimately I'll end up at the top of every one
(I hate the term "doing" a fell), touch wood, but I'm in no hurry. If
a walk takes me near the top of one that I've not been up I'll divert
if necessary, but I doubt that I've ever decided on going for a walk
just to get up a Wainwright I've not been up before (as opposed to an
area I've not been in before that might contain several). If / when it
gets to the stage where there are only a handful I've not been to that
may change.
--
Simon Challands
Simon Challands
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm still not sure exactly what the definition of a "fell" is. Is it a
> distinct mountain rather than just a summit? Do fells contain multiple
> summits? If there are distinct routes to each fell, then presumably minor
> summits wouldn't count? I'm just wondering how AW would have classified the
> Welsh hills for comparison. What would count as a fell and what wouldn't?
> For example, there are many insignificant Nuttalls, I presume these wouldn't
> count as distinct fells?
My feeling of the word is that a fell is generally a rather
ill-defined term. Any upland area in the north of England can be
described as a fell. Sometimes a fell might contain several peaks, at
other times it might not contain any of note - an area of hill above a
certain village can be named "<Whatever> Fell". It strikes me as a
word that's come from practicality rather than strict definition. A
farmer might describe where his sheep were as Something Fell, for
example. That would often, but not always, be a geographically
distinct feature. In some ways it's similar to place names in towns,
where many are distinct and obvious but others are not.
Wainwright used whatever names he felt appropriate for the chapter in
question, and his decisions about what merited a separate chapter were
in several cases rather arbitrary - a bit like the word fell, I
suppose. Mungrisedale Common is the most often quoted of these, but
not the only example. My theory of it is that he liked Blencathra and
wanted to separate out the dull part (and as padding to get enough
chapters into the Northern Fells book). Sometimes Wainwright has used
the name of a summit to apply to a whole chapter if it's best known as
that, or if there isn't an appropriate name for the whole fell. Other
times he's used part of a fell to apply to the whole (e.g. Long Side).
He generally freely admitted to these inconsistencies. He seems to
have had a tendency, not always strictly kept to, of using
watercourses to define what should form a separate chapter. Sometimes
simply being prominent and well-known was enough (a few chapters
contain words along the lines of "strictly speaking x is part of y").
--
Simon Challands
Paul Saunders
> As Phil says it is the chapter headings that count.
So a fell primarily seems to be a named summit?
AW must have used some logic to decide what was a fell and what wasn't, even
if that logic isn't apparent to anyone else.
Thanks for the other info, very interesting.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
I see. So Wainwright's guides are more like reference works rather than
books of walks? Sounds useful.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
>> I think I've got one of his books. Small hardback book, landscape
>> format, photo and walk descriptions on alternate pages. Sound
>> familiar?
>
> "On High Lakeland Fells"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yfoogcx
Yep, I believe that's the one.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> There's a Wikipedia list here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wainwrights
Thanks.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> In the past there have been urw members suggesting you should write a
> book about photography.
> In my mind it's : living in the ELD for a year + hillwalking +
> photography = publishing a book about those three put together.
Interesting suggestion! A bit much to cram into one book though! Could maybe
make two or three different books out of that. Or maybe a book and a blog?
Definitely some food for thought there, thanks. Will add to my list of
"possible future projects".
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I'm sort of inbetween. Ultimately I'll end up at the top of every one
> (I hate the term "doing" a fell), touch wood, but I'm in no hurry. If
> a walk takes me near the top of one that I've not been up I'll divert
> if necessary, but I doubt that I've ever decided on going for a walk
> just to get up a Wainwright I've not been up before (as opposed to an
> area I've not been in before that might contain several). If / when it
> gets to the stage where there are only a handful I've not been to that
> may change.
Although photography is my primary interest rather than peak bagging,
whenever I walk in the hills I feel compelled to walk to the top of
something. It gives the walk a purpose, a definite objective. I hate
wandering around aimlessly with no specific goal. Summits are not the only
objectives of course, often waterfalls are, sometimes lakes can be, but
summits are the most obvious ones and give a sense of completion to a walk
IMO.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> My feeling of the word is that a fell is generally a rather
> ill-defined term. Any upland area in the north of England can be
> described as a fell.
In the same sense as hill, or hillside?
> Sometimes a fell might contain several peaks, at
> other times it might not contain any of note - an area of hill above a
> certain village can be named "<Whatever> Fell". It strikes me as a
> word that's come from practicality rather than strict definition.
Yes, but I was thinking more of Wainwright's definition rather than the
general one.
> He generally freely admitted to these inconsistencies.
So he didn't use a strict logic of his own?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Phil Cook
>Theo wrote:
>
>> In the past there have been urw members suggesting you should write a
>> book about photography.
>> In my mind it's : living in the ELD for a year + hillwalking +
>> photography = publishing a book about those three put together.
>
>Interesting suggestion! A bit much to cram into one book though! Could maybe
>make two or three different books out of that.
How about seven books? :-)
Paul Saunders
>> Interesting suggestion! A bit much to cram into one book though!
>> Could maybe make two or three different books out of that.
>
> How about seven books? :-)
:-)
I have a feeling that might be a little redundant!
There are so many books on the ELD I think that any new book would have to
come from a totally different angle, otherwise, what would be the point?
I should probably concentrate on something concerning Wales first though,
especially since I have enough photos to easily fill a dozen books! :-)
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Roger Chapman
> Roger Chapman wrote:
>
>> As Phil says it is the chapter headings that count.
>
> So a fell primarily seems to be a named summit?
>
> AW must have used some logic to decide what was a fell and what wasn't, even
> if that logic isn't apparent to anyone else.
>
> Thanks for the other info, very interesting.
Well there is some sort of logic in grouping together various ways of
getting to individual summits but so many are in each others pockets so
to speak that if he had been a logical man the construction of the books
may have been very different with each chapter covering a larger area
(as in the Nuttalls books.
I think it is possible that Wainwright had much the same approach as
Munro when separating main summits from subsidiary tops in that he
looked at the appearance from below but he went much further than Munro
in giving credence to very minor prominences. Take Skiddaw for instance.
Skiddaw's main ridge runs approximately N-S with both ends off to the E.
AW devotes 4 chapters to that ridge - Lonscale Fell 2334', Skiddaw
Little Man 2837', Skiddaw 3053 and Bakestall 2189. To the West is a
subsidiary ridge - a further 3 chapters - Carl Side 2420', Longside
2405' and Ullock Pike 2230'. And further off to the west a chapter for
Dodd 1612. Neither Bakestall or Ullock Pike qualifies as a Nuttall
although AW did manage to miss, Sale How (666m)over on the east for
which I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies, or would be if
the Nuttalls hadn't found it.
All these summits would fit in a rectangle marginally over 4km from E-W
and marginally under 4km from N-S. More than a little bit of overkill
there to my mind.
Roger Chapman
> Simon Challands wrote:
>
>> My feeling of the word is that a fell is generally a rather
>> ill-defined term. Any upland area in the north of England can be
>> described as a fell.
>
> In the same sense as hill, or hillside?
>
That's the way I see it. Outside of proper names hill and fell are
freely interchangeable.
Simon Challands
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Simon Challands wrote:
>> My feeling of the word is that a fell is generally a rather
>> ill-defined term. Any upland area in the north of England can be
>> described as a fell.
> In the same sense as hill, or hillside?
Pretty much, although "area of hill" might express it slightly better
than hillside.
>> Sometimes a fell might contain several peaks, at
>> other times it might not contain any of note - an area of hill above a
>> certain village can be named "<Whatever> Fell". It strikes me as a
>> word that's come from practicality rather than strict definition.
> Yes, but I was thinking more of Wainwright's definition rather than the
> general one.
He never gave one. Living in the area it might not even have occurred
to him because the word is used often enough in normal speech. Where
he did use some sort of criteria to define a fell (see below for my
opinion of that) it would probably be more precise than was generally
used, but the word is vague enough for no eyebrows to get raised at
it.
>> He generally freely admitted to these inconsistencies.
> So he didn't use a strict logic of his own?
He often talked about boundaries between fells using watercourses,
commenting on, for example, how Great Gable, despite dominating
Wasdale Foot doesn't actually have any footage in Wasdale Head because
Lingmell Beck and Gable Beck, to either side of Great Gable, meet
before Wasdale Head is reached. Similar comments are use elsewhere to
define the boundaries between fells, even where it makes a less
obvious separation. However, although seeming fairly consistent in
that he didn't use that as the criteria for what merited a separate
chapter - there was no strict logic in that (and what's a stream down
the side of one fell and what's one that separates two was fairly
arbitrary).
I think there was something he mentioned once about having a 1000'
cut-off, although Castle Crag has a chapter and is below it.
--
Simon Challands
Alan Dicey
Yes. In the sense that Wainwright structured his exploration around
relatively small subjects within the Lake District (individual hills,
more or less), each of which was explored in depth.
The overall title of Wainwright's work is carefully chosen:
"A Pictorial Guide to the Lakeland Fells
being an illustrated account of a study and exploration of the mountains
in the English Lake District by A. Wainwright."
An illustrated account of a study and exploration of the mountains - - -
that's the best way to look at them.
Alan Dicey
"Fell" is a Northern word, coming from Nordic origins (fjall), and, in
my lexicon at least, meaning a general upland area, a high moor, and
not necessarily anything peaky at all. Wainwright uses it as a
catch-all term, without any precise definition.
Wainwright was a Romantic, in capital letters, and took a Romantic view
of his beloved fells, wanting to explore every aspect of them, and
record it for later perusal at his leisure. His recording of routes of
ascent should be read with that in mind - the books were crafted
primarily for his pleasure, recording his exhaustive explorations in a
structured way.
A more prosaic peak-bagger would have recorded their expeditions based
on point of departure, or by ridges and circuits. Walter Poucher did
just that, producing one-volume guides to Lakeland, Scottish and Welsh
peaks; but his passion was photography, and his guidebooks almost a
sideline to his photographic collections.
Alan Dicey
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Interesting suggestion! A bit much to cram into one book though!
>>> Could maybe make two or three different books out of that.
>> How about seven books? :-)
>
> :-)
>
> I have a feeling that might be a little redundant!
>
> There are so many books on the ELD I think that any new book would have to
> come from a totally different angle, otherwise, what would be the point?
Well, love of it would be one, but not very marketable I suppose. I can
think of a couple of aspects that I've not seen explored
photographically yet, there must be more.
> I should probably concentrate on something concerning Wales first though,
> especially since I have enough photos to easily fill a dozen books! :-)
Emphatically, yes!
Martin Richardson
> And if you did do all the walks in all of the books, could you honestly say
> that you'd "done" the Lake District?
I have done all the Wainwright summits - however, not all the routes
up them. I did the majority back in the 80s .i.e before GPS, internet
and online maps etc. so I bought a one-inch flat map of the Lake
District and have drawn on it a black line showing every walk/cycle/
kayak journey I have ever done there. Much of the map has a resulting
spider's web - in places the lines have hidden the original OS
produced feathures. Other parts away from the fells the lines are
spaced out. However, there only a few small areas where there are no
lines - mainly in the south of the National Park around the
metropolitan areas of Windermere and Kendal - actually I lie about
drawing lines for every walk as I have obviously not included trips
from the car to shops or ATMs.
Many people (of the non 'serious' walking variety) who say they are
going to the Lake District do not mean the area where the hills and
lakes are - they mean they are going to Grange over Sands, which is
not even on the 1" map. I can't say I have done the LD as I have not
really been to G.o.S without getting out of the car.
If you did all the Birketts you might have possibly done more.
Martin Richardson
> In message <Ra6dnS33baCIlojWnZ2dnUVZ8qudn...@pipex.net>, Paul Saunders
> <p...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes>Just curious, how many walks are there in all of the Wainwright books? And
> >are they all one day walks? Or are there short ones that allow you to do a
> >few in a day?
>
> There's a website here:
>
> http://www.go4awalk.com/walkcollections/walkthewainwrights.php
>
> advertising
>
>
I hate www.go4awank.com with a vengeance. It always come up in Google
searches when you put in the name of any hill and offers sod all.
Rodders
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ra6dnS33baCIlojW...@pipex.net...
> Just curious, how many walks are there in all of the Wainwright books? And
> are they all one day walks? Or are there short ones that allow you to do a
> few in a day?
>
> to complete them all?
>
> And if you did do all the walks in all of the books, could you honestly
> worth visiting that aren't in the books? In other words, are the walks
> specifically geared toward fell bagging, or to travelling through and
> enjoying the whole of the Lake District?
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
>
Just Watching Naylor's Run about record breaking fellrunner, the legendary
Wasdale shepherd Jos Naylor, he did it in 7 days aged 50!
His other fell running achievements include:
* Pennine Way: 3 days and 4 hours
* The Lakes, Meres and Waters circuit of 105 miles in 19 hours and 14
minutes
* 1973 The Welsh_3000s - the 14 peaks of Snowdonia
* 1986 (age 50): completed the Wainwrights in 7 days
* 1997 (age 60): ran 60 Lakeland fell tops in 36 hours
* 2006 (age 70): ran 70 Lakeland fell tops, covering more than 50 miles
and ascending more than 25,000 feet, in under 21 hours.
Rodders
FenlandRunner
> are they all one day walks? Or are there short ones that allow you to do a
> few in a day?
Paul, living in the flatlands it took me approximately six years.
With many walks you can complete five or six Wainwrights and if
feeling very fit can complete something like the Ennerdale Horseshoe
when close on twenty Wainwrights can be visited. However as Roger
stated, Jos Naylor visited every Wainwright and returned to his
starting point, Moot Hall, Keswick in just over seven days.
If moderately fit and you had a month at your disposal I think that
all 214 could be achieved.
>
> Assuming someone did say, three walks each weekend, how long would it take
> to complete them all?
>
Three walks each weekend - that must be easily 10 Wainwrights, so 21
or 22 weekends.
> And if you did do all the walks in all of the books, could you honestly say
> that you'd "done" the Lake District? Or are there other (wild) places worth
> visiting that aren't in the books? In other words, are the walks
> specifically geared toward fell bagging, or to travelling through and
> enjoying the whole of the Lake District?
You'll have visited all the high places, bar Black Combe.
And since completing I've reverted to just visiting the same higher
fells - e.g. Skiddaw and Helvellyn. So 'bagging' all Wainwrights is
good that it got me to visit the entire area of the high fells and not
concentrate on the favourites, although I doubt many people really
enjoy High Tove or Armboth Fell.
Slightly disagree with a previous comment. The Wainwright guides are
very good for using to put together a series of fells as AW kindly
lists ridges to adjacent fells.
> Paul
> --http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Alan Dicey
>
> Slightly disagree with a previous comment. The Wainwright guides are
> very good for using to put together a series of fells as AW kindly
> lists ridges to adjacent fells.
>
Ah, that would be me. I still think that, although you can link
peak-to-peak using Wainwrights descriptions, I wouldn't plan a days
walking like that, I'd want the big picture provided by the OS map,
which is how Wainwright planned his own walks.
Paul Saunders
> Paul, living in the flatlands it took me approximately six years.
> With many walks you can complete five or six Wainwrights and if
> feeling very fit can complete something like the Ennerdale Horseshoe
> when close on twenty Wainwrights can be visited.
No chance of that just yet!
> However as Roger
> stated, Jos Naylor visited every Wainwright and returned to his
> starting point, Moot Hall, Keswick in just over seven days.
If and when I ever "do" the ELD, I'll be "photographing" the ELD, not
setting any speed records! :-)
> If moderately fit and you had a month at your disposal I think that
> all 214 could be achieved.
I suspect that your definition of "moderate" probably equates to my current
definition of "very", but even if I could do them all that quickly, I'm not
sure I'd want to. Aside from wanting to savour the experience, I'd need to
select suitable weather conditions for the photos, so that's bound to take a
lot longer than racing around the area in all weathers.
>> Assuming someone did say, three walks each weekend, how long would
>> it take to complete them all?
>
> Three walks each weekend - that must be easily 10 Wainwrights, so 21
> or 22 weekends.
To be picky, when I said walks I was referring to the walks in the books,
rather than simply summit bagging (which seems like a shortcut since you
wouldn't have to do all the paths). But are Wainwright's routes arranged as
"walks" or are they simply a comprehensive description of every path?
I'll be honest though, just bagging the summits and picking the most
convenient paths would certainly be the quickest and easiest way of doing
it.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
FenlandRunner
> rather than simply summit bagging (which seems like a shortcut since you
> wouldn't have to do all the paths). But are Wainwright's routes arranged as
> "walks" or are they simply a comprehensive description of every path?
>
> I'll be honest though, just bagging the summits and picking the most
> convenient paths would certainly be the quickest and easiest way of doing
> it.
I freely admit that some of the most enjoyable walking (IMHO) can be
found not at the summit but the delightful valleys; for example,
Fusedale, Grisedale, Slades Beck and Gasgale, to name four!
Merry Christmas
Paul Saunders
> I freely admit that some of the most enjoyable walking (IMHO) can be
> found not at the summit but the delightful valleys; for example,
> Fusedale, Grisedale, Slades Beck and Gasgale, to name four!
Are there any/many good waterfalls in the ELD?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
FenlandRunner
>
> Are there any/many good waterfalls in the ELD?
>
Not compared to Wales!
Five of note;
Scale Force (172 ft) Crummock Water *found it difficult to get a good
photo*
Aira Force (70 ft) Ullswater *most popular as NT*
Stock Ghyll Force (70 ft) Ambleside
Stanley Ghyll Force (60 ft) Eskdale
Lodore Falls (40 ft) Borrowdale *again popular - as close to road*
David
Simon Challands
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> To be picky, when I said walks I was referring to the walks in the books,
> rather than simply summit bagging (which seems like a shortcut since you
> wouldn't have to do all the paths). But are Wainwright's routes arranged as
> "walks" or are they simply a comprehensive description of every path?
The seven main guides give details of various routes up the fells (in
the case of a few minor fells just providing quick notes). These
generally take the form of a page (Googling should reveal a few
examples). There may be more than one route on a page, depending upon
the fell and how practical that is (including minor variations).
There's also normally a small section showing what ridge routes there
are. Most of the routes are fairly straightforward on paths, but there
are some off-the-path ones (although a good number of those have
turned into paths now, thanks to being in Wainwright).
His aim appears to have been to describe most of the distinct ways up
most of the fells.
The Outlying Fells describes walks.
--
Simon Challands
mechanic
> FenlandRunner wrote:
>
>> I freely admit that some of the most enjoyable walking (IMHO) can be
>> found not at the summit but the delightful valleys; for example,
>> Fusedale, Grisedale, Slades Beck and Gasgale, to name four!
>
> Are there any/many good waterfalls in the ELD?
Look out for "A Naturalist's Guide to Lakeland Waterfalls throughout
the year" by Mary Wells (pub. Westmorland Gazette 1985+), there are
three (or is it four?) in a series.
--
mechanic
Phil Cook
>In message <EOGdnVyQu-coSq7W...@pipex.net>
> "Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> To be picky, when I said walks I was referring to the walks in the books,
>> rather than simply summit bagging (which seems like a shortcut since you
>> wouldn't have to do all the paths). But are Wainwright's routes arranged as
>> "walks" or are they simply a comprehensive description of every path?
>
>The seven main guides give details of various routes up the fells (in
>the case of a few minor fells just providing quick notes). These
>generally take the form of a page (Googling should reveal a few
>examples).
The new Jesty editions have "look inside" on Amazon. Indeed if you
look at the Western Fells you will find all of the Base Brown chapter
apart from the first page, there are even a couple of drawings of
waterfalls; Taylorgill Force and Sourmilk Gill.
>
>The Outlying Fells describes walks.
Suitable for hillwalkers in their dotage. :-)
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Look out for "A Naturalist's Guide to Lakeland Waterfalls throughout
>the year"
IRTA Naturists...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker