![]() |
I am normally a person who does everything by the book, but I do develop strong views if I believe something is not quite right. If your an equestrian the Keswick to Threlkeld Railway Trail (K2T) is one of these places as horses are not allowed on the trail.
On 22 March 2024 we decided to ride the Keswick to Threkeld Railway Trail after discussing the matter with other rights of way experts and decided that this is the only way forward to get equestrians access.
Riding K2T
![]() |
| Going over Latrigg |
![]() |
| Lovely shared use signage by LDNPA as you come down Latrigg |
![]() |
| Horse Shoe Tunnel |
![]() |
| End of trail at Threlkeld end going onto the multi user pavement |
History of K2T and more info of why equestrians are not allowed to use the trail
|
The trail has unique and unavoidable characteristics such as tunnels and bridge, that mean equestrian use is not considered compatible with the design.
I do not believe that any of the tunnels or bridges on K2T are unique if you compared them to other features on bridleways, byways and roads or on other permissive routes. For example Lune Valley Greenway, Lancaster (also a permissive route on a disused railway line with bridges and underpasses), West Windermere Way (other LDNPA trail designated a bridleway), the Monsal Trail, Peak District National Park (permissive routes on disused railway line with long tunnels and bridges), the tunnels on the Thwaite Lane bridleway, Chapham, Yorkshire Dales, the new Gooseholme bridleway bridge, Kendal and new road bridge at Pooley Bridge.
A linear route which does not have particular good connection to public paths and where it does they have pedestrian status only
Taking into consideration the route we rode in March 2024 and viewing the OS map for the area it is clear that K2T does in fact link into the local bridleways and green lane network. Therefore, this statement contradicts what happens on the ground.
Consultation did not identify a need
I am surprised that the LDNPA user policy for K2T is based on a survey conducted on the internet 2018. A return rate of 2300 responses to their online survey was good, but did it captured everyone’s views as not everyone is on the internet especially in a rural areas. We also note that Cumbria Bridleway Society was not consulted as a user group about the project. National Park Authorities have a remit for outdoor access and in particular ‘Access for All’. With this in mind I would have thought that equestrian users would not need to have to request to be included.
K2T is a permitted path, not a bridleway.’
Bridleways have been shared use/multi user paths since 1968 when cyclists were given a legal right to use bridleways under the Countryside Act 1968. In addition, cyclist and equestrian have equal status under the Highway Codes ‘hierarchy of road users pyramid’ for Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). With this in mind there is an argument that bicycle tracks/cycleways should also become inclusive of all users like bridleways.
As the project cost nearly £8 million pounds of public money it would be wise to give the route legal protection by becoming a bridleway or restricted byway. Currently at any time the LDNPA (or the landlord of leased land as outlined below) could stop people using this trail. The legal solution could be one of the following:
- The route could become a bridleway or restricted byway via creation agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980.
- The route could become a bridleway or restricted byway at Common Law.
- Under Section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 a open access linear route could be created for walkers, disabled users, cyclists and horse riders (this is how the new King Charles Coastal Path has been created in places). Section 16 land under the CROW Act also provides land owners with the ability to close a route for a number of days a year, which can be very helpful when needing to do maintenance work.
The LDNPA have indicated that the route cannot have a legal status as the route should always be available to once again become a railway line. However, it should be noted that a lot of the disused railway is now in private ownership and has been built on.
Surfacing - the surfacing is asphaltic concrete which is not an ideal surface for horse riding. The ideal surface for horses is something like wood chips but this surface ranks very low for both pedestrians and cyclists.
I would agree tarmac (or asphaltic concrete) is not the ideal surface for horses, but equestrians use this every day when we go out on the roads (which we must use to access off road riding). I would also state that wood chip is not the ideal surface for equestrians, firstly is is not long lasting and secondly it would be completely inappropriate on a multi user path.
The surface I would of recommended would of been of forest road standard (local quarry stone aggregate surface) similar to that on the West Windermere Way or for a sealed surface Flexipave (https://www.kbiuk.co.uk/flexipave) or Nu-Flex (https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/major-transport-schemes/east-lancashire-strategic-cycleway-network/latest-news/) which are both mixed rubber compounds. Flexi pave and Nu-flex both have some give and are suitable for all users, do not melt in summer, less likely to freeze in winter, are porous, have a low carbon footprint and are cost effective compared to tarmac.
Conflict between users - The LDNPA say 'there is clearly a conflict between the use of the trail by horses, pedestrians and cyclists'.
This I would say is a perception of the LDNPA and was stated without evidence.
Natural England the government body who is responsible for providing advice on outdoor access states 'For cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and others, shared use routes are an increasingly important resource, providing sustainable transport links and car free travel to and from the wider countryside. That they are safe, and are perceived to be safe, is a key factor in their promotion, though there is a view that when different users (eg. cyclists and walkers) share routes, it leads to conflict. However, this research found that conflict is a rare occurrence. When it occurs, structural issues (eg. width and maintenance of the route) are important factors. Route owners/managers should be developing within user groups a ‘culture of thoughtful and tolerant use’. A Code of Conduct should focus on the rights and responsibilities of all user groups in order to reduce ambiguities concerning issues such as right of way, passing etiquette, the meaning of bells, control of dogs, and the speeds that should be adopted for safety and courtesy.The policing of shared routes would ensure that users know they are actively managed. Shared use routes should have information panels at their access points detailing the Code of Conduct as well as the contact person in the responsible agency for maintaining the route and to whom comments, complaints and reports of conflict should be directed' (https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/83036 )
Furthermore from a freedom of information request (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/jo_harris ) to Cumbria County Council, the LDNPA and the Peak District National Park Authority (who manage the permissive route known as the Monsal Trail https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/places-to-visit/trails/monsaltrail) there have been no reported incidents on Rights of Way or multi user trails with horses.
As stated above as bridleways have been shared use paths for walkers, cyclists and horse riders since 1968 it is not surprising that when we rode K2T all we were met with were smiles.
Insurance – The advice the LDNPA have received is if the trail has not been designed for use by horse riders, and there are some elements which are not possible to alter to ensure safe use, it is not advisable to allow horses to use the trail. The LDNPA insurers used the example of signage; in their view, signage is not likely to be sufficient as it may not be seen or adhered to by riders, likewise although gates would be a physical barrier these would have an impact on other users. The underwriters of their insurers provided further comments about risks of the authority knowingly opening a route to horses and increasing the risk of more Public Liability claims and increased insurance costs, even if the risk improvements were implemented in full. They also raised concerns that signage and other physical improvements would not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of being sued. For this reason, the LDNPA does not consider that the opening the trail for equine users outweighs the potential increased liability risks and costs associated with implementing it.’
One of the best ways to mitigation again any risk is to make K2T a legal route. A right of way such as a bridleway or a linear Section 16 CROW Act land have a lower public liability. It is noted that the LDNPA have stated this is not a option as outlined above and therefore each feature could be risk assessed.
Looking at the features on K2T and comparing this to Sustrans Traffic-Free Routes and Greenways Design Guide it is clear that K2T may not of been designed for cyclists either. By looking at the below table and information we must conclude that the LDNPA must of risk assessed the route for cyclists. K2T does have ‘cyclists slow down’ signs at the entrance of every bridge and therefore we must deduce this is part of the measures to mitigate the fact that the parapets are not 1.4m high (as advised by Sustrans).
The guidelines from both British Horse Society (BHS) and Sustrans is that such features should not be a barrier to access and should be mitigated against. BHS outline that that these requirements are guidelines only and often due to the nature of a site parapets are more than acceptable if they are lower. Locally this has happened recently on the new road bridge at Pooley bridge (2020) where the parapet heights are 1.1m high and Gooseholme Bridge, Kendal (2022), which is a new bridleway bridge and has parapets of 1.4m high. Once you start to look at the height of parapets whether they be new or older bridge structures your will observe that parapets are rarely 1.2m or 1.8m high.
Horse riders would not be put at any more risk than any other user if they were allowed to use the route and other users would not be put at any more risk by welcoming horse riders onto the trail, which is the case on other permissive railway trails as listed above. Maybe the LDNPA should look to change their insurance provider in line with Lancashire County Council or the Peak District National Park Authority who have similar permissive trails.







.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)


.jpg)







%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)






Comments
Post a Comment