Unless I've got it wrong, Tranter's Correction table to supplement Naismith is based on the time (in minutes) taken to walk half-a-mile (800 metres) while gaining 1,000 feet (300-ish metres) of ascent.
That criterion, it seems to me, is a useful guide to one's own walking ability and fitness whether or not one uses it to modify Naismith-based timing forecasts.
So I've been poring over maps looking for such a slope with reasonable going underfoot in the Lake District (because that's the area I visit most regularly ATM).
So far the best I've come up with is the lower half of The Band (Great Langdale) which rises from the 150m contour near Stool End to 450 near the point where the slope eases and the pitched path becomesloose stuff. The transition point is a bit indistinct (without GPS) and the distance between the two salient contours is near five-eighths of mile (easy to make an arithmetic adjustment to compensate though).
But does anyone know off hand of a location that meets the Tranter criterion more exactly and which has more readily defined start and finish points?
I did fiddle about with Trantor many years ago, but came to the conclusion it was just more trouble than it's worth. And in the best part of 3 decades of navigating my way around The Great outdoors, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who actually uses them.
I'd just keep an eye on the clock and see how you do compared to Naismith and that should get you an idea of the degree to whih it's an under or over estimate of how you'll do.
I've never met anyone who uses Tranter's variations either.
Naismith's rule has always worked pretty well for me (5km/hr plus an hour for every 600m of ascent). This has the additional attraction of 1 minute per contour line of ascent. With each square on an OS map being 1km across (I allow 1.5km for a diagonal), it is easy to come up with an estimate of route time using only the map.
I go for 2mph whatever the terrain - that's walking cross country or on poorish tracks in Scotland, usually at 12-16 miles a day and with 1200-1800m of ascent. Quite a bit faster in places where paths are good.
That estimation/method seems to work pretty well for my planning.
They are all just a starting point for the estimates anyway, some days I go faster than others, depends on the wind, what I ate/drank the night before, how cold it is (I tend to walk faster in the cold) The best tool is experience IMO, take a look at the map make an estimate, then refine your estimates with experience.
One day when I was feeling particularly Aspergic I took to using Trantors variations. The feeling went away by lunchtime. Naismiths +/- by how I feel on the daydoes for me
One day when I was feeling particularly Aspergic I took to using Trantors variations. The feeling went away by lunchtime.
I wasn't intending to use Tranter for any practical planning - I can barely get my head round the sums and contour-counting in Naismith!
I just thought that particular formula (300m ascent in 800m across the map) might provide a 'standardised' measure of speed and/or ability over a short distance. Obviously that measure would vary depending on the nature of the ground, whether it was at the beginning or end of a long day and so on.
For more general planning, I think that experiences reveals one's personal ability and then ed h's method has the greatest merit - simplicity.
There was a discussion about Tranter's Variations on this forum some time ago.
Apart from the problem of measuring 300m of ascent in 800m, there is also the matter of compensating for other factors. According to the classic definition as outlined in Langmuir's 'Mountaincraft and Leadership', you should drop (only!) one fitness level for a load of 20kg! I can't even imagine carrying such a weight.
I keep records of distance, height gain, weight carried, weather, terrain, fitness, time etc and adjust Naismith's Formula accordingly. But this comes only with experience; I think it unlikely that there is a reliable formula for those new to walking.
I work on or should it be " walk on"two squares an hour <in the Scottish hills> wether parallel or diagonals. By the time you've waded a few rivers,or clambered up and down a few gullies it's about right I find.If you are unlucky enough to be walking LRT's then double it to four squares an hour. Includes brew stops etc. of course.Cheers.
.jpg)
