I remember meeting up with you in May 2006 on one of your earlier attempts at Keld when you were having problems with your running shoes/boots. Your sack looked more like the container for my lunch! We were sitting eating ice cream, flapjacks etc having reached our destination and you still had miles to go!

That would be the 1st attempt - the 7 dayer. Do you remember the Wainwright look-alike with the pipe? I remember a party sitting nearer to the door - your group were there when I arrived - you rose to leave as I was filling my face on cake lol...
I'd be checking on that blister... yes, it would be either boots or shoes. Probably swapping over there...
Last time there I'd arranged to eat at Park House - the lady kindly offered to do me a bacon and egg baguette. I'd planned on getting there before the cafe opened, but had been slow that morning with lack of bar meal at Reeth the previous evening and the cafe was open anyway as I trudged through...

Mick,
Do you think going low level around the 3 peaks from Claybank Top and the woods above Ing Cross, or missing out Nine Standards would still be considered a viable crossing, if going for the shortest possible time. Or, do you think any route should count so long as the start is RHB and the finish is Bees.
I know basically it's down to the individual, but what are your thoughts.
Dave.

Meant St.Bees of course.

Slogger, I know you didn't ask me but those who know me will know I never mind sticking my nose in!

The nice thing about the C2C in my opinion is that it is not a recognised trail as such. It is all about personal goals. There are alternative routes, and of course AW himself never intended everyone to follow his exact footsteps. The "official" route itself has also changed over time, partly of course because AW included sections that were on private property.

What it means is that the route is different things to different people. The only way to know the "right" route is to look within yourself. For instance, there is a tiny little bit over a style towards the start that most people miss out, but I always insist on doing it for some reason as it would feel wrong not to. I can't explain it - it's illogical as by the time I get well into the route, such minor deviations become less important - such as the alternative routes into Cleater or Moor Row (I forget which) along a newer path with sculptures. I rarely do the high routes but I DO follow the AW route through a sense of tradition. However, I would never suggest anyone that has chosen their own path has "not done" the Coast To Coast. It is about the spirit of AW's vision, not the minute detail.

We all have different aims when we do the C2C. Some would scoff at my attempting to do it within ten days last year and five days this year, arguing that it completely misses the point of enjoying the scenery. The five-day limit I have set this year is one that comes from trying to meet a personal challenge having read the inspiring attempts of others to complete the route within that time limit. The same was true of my first 14-day crossing a decade ago. Likewise there are other "rules" that mean different things to different people. I carry all my equipment on my back rather than using a Sherpa service because somehow that seems like "cheating" to me...yet I would never criticise anyone else for using it or accuse them of "cheating". It is simply a rule I have set myself. For me, the C2C means following any of the "official" routes in a C2C book based on AW's original, carrying everything in a rucksack except my food and not touching any form of transport other than my feet - no lifts to B&Bs or nearby pubs. Nothing. Other "rules" are put in place for each crossing. The last one was tent-only. The next one will be bivi bag only. Whether I will have failed or succeeded come the end will be a purely personal assessment. However, I don't carry my own food - so doubtless there are some out there who consider me a "cheat". Yet I couldn't care less what they think, for one very good reason. And to me this is the sole reliable guide as to whether you have abided by the rules:

There is only one person who truly knows if you have completed the Coast to Coast, and that person is you. If you can look yourself in the mirror and say with all honesty that you have completed the C2C, then you have.

Well said, HackPacker. When, I did the coast to coast last year, I finished at Saltburn by the Sea, although, I had planned to finish at Robin Hood's Bay.

The reason for Saltburn by the Sea, was my backside and shins were sore and painful around the Ingleby Cross. I decided to cut my loss's and walked the Cleveland Way from Ingleby Cross to Saltburn by the Sea.

On this year's coast to coast (7th crossing)I'm setting off from Whitby to St. Bees. I did think of walking on tarmac roads all the way to St. Bees, that I remember on my 1991 crossing, a old couple walked the entire coast to coast on roads and lanes, using a shopper trolley each.

Bivi-bag, sounds fun. I have a Vaude bivi tent, would that do.

I totally agree Hackpacker and Flatlands. The purpose of the walk (and indeed any National Trail) is to achieve a personal goal in a manner suitable to the individual. A walker must set their own objectives and, subject to conditions and ability, if they achieve them then they can feel satisfied that they have achieved their aim. They are there to be enjoyed in any appropriate manner.

Hackpacker,
My crossing last September was done following AWs (often revised) route to the letter.
I directed my questions to Mick because his inspiration for his attempts is Ronald Turnbull who completed his own 5 day crossing some time ago. Ronald had his own ideas on what constituted an ethical crossing based on AWs route and I wondered what Micks thoughts were on this.
My own thoughts were that if I did it again, I too would go East to West by the most direct route, but taking in the normal stopover places, plus Kidsty Pike (the highest point).
Actually it is difficult to miss out the normal stopover places as the route already takes a good direct route, but of course some climbs and descents could be easily missed, hence my question.
Dave.

Any crossing 'viable' if it works... but 'ethical'? a different matter...
I've covered this in the Osmotherl(e)y CP recce thread (page14) and give detailed notes on my choice of route.

Ronald covered the route in 5 days whilst taking notes for his own guide book - hence the 'trot and linger'. He suggests some interesting alternatives which could be seen as improvements to AW's original route as I'm sure when Wainwright devised the route he had overnight accommodation and access in mind - Grasmere for one and maybe the dog leg nearer to Osmotherley. Certainly for me last year (though not among Ronald's suggestions) the footpath after Scarth Nick was handy in getting me to a meal and a route that I would choose in future, though a little work is needed on waymarking the path through the woods after the forestry track is reached... this must fall in SC's territory?! This to me represents an improvement to the original line as the path is delightful - dropping steeply as it does through deciduous ancient woodland. This, of course avoids the summit of Beacon Hill (and the Radio Station) and the wide land rover track down into Ingleby
Even though 'approved', for me a low-level Swale route missing out Gunnerside would be unethical as would skirting Nine Standards of course, but why Mill Bridge if you don't need the youth hostel or Grasmere or the Traveller's Rest - likewise Loft Beck if the weather's good and you don't need Black Sail when you can include the man's last resting place?
I suppose a good rule of thumb is don't use a road where you can use a green road; don't use a green road where you can use a bridle; don't use a bridle where you can use a footpath.

..apologies for the poor quality video, but after 15 hrs that day, I was more interested in the availability of food at the Blue Bell!