View Full Version : Steep sections?
AllDownhillFromHere
01-07-2017, 23:12
I've been reviewing the PCT elevation profiles on Halfmile's page, and while I'm sure there's small ups and downs they can't show, I'm looking for the gruelling sections. By this I mean the 1000' per mile stuff. For instance climbing out of KM you do about 4000 up in a 17 mile stretch, so there's elevation, but not steepness. How do the mountain sections stand up against for instance places like the Adirondacks, or the Whites? I imagine the pitch and footing are different, I don't think the Sierras got glaciated, so the erosion processes are different, but the elevation profiles don't look similar.
nsherry61
01-07-2017, 23:24
The western states have figured out what a graded trail tread and a switchback are. Out east, the trails are crappy rock pile gaps in the trees that head straight up the hill. In the west, the trails have relatively smoother treads and they engineer the trails with these miraculous things called switchbacks that allow you to go up the mountain (if you can even call these eastern hills mountains) in a reasonable and gentlemanly fashion, albeit at above 10,000 ft at times and instead of being a steep climb from hell up a rock pile for 1 mile and 1000 ft, it is a long steady climb for 7 miles and 5000 ft. . . or something like that. Out east, the trails seem to run along ridge lines over the tops of the mountains. Out west, the trails go much higher, kinda like the mountains, but the trails go around the peaks instead of over them because the peaks are far to jagged and technical to put a trail over the top of in most cases.
The high points of the PCT (not counting Mt. Whitney) are mountain passes (the low points in the mountain ranges). The high points along the AT are the various peaks that the trail goes over the top of.
MuddyWaters
01-08-2017, 09:06
Western trails are stock trails. Graded for horses and mules.
And the occassional llama.
The only two climbs that in the early sections that I remember being difficult were the climb North from Paradise Cafe up to San Jacinto and the climb out of Cajon Pass. Neither were steep, in fact quite frustratingly the opposite. (You hike a half mile and look down to see the trail just 60' below you.) But, it isn't the steepness that is the difficulty. It is the duration, elevation and often the exposure to the sun that make some of these climbs a challenge. Look at the total elevation gain on the two climbs I listed above as well as the climbs out of Belden and Seiad Valley. All of these are very long climbs that take the better part of the day for most hikers. Also you will notice that all of them occur directly after common resupply points and in some cases you will need some of the heaviest water carries. This is what adds the difficulty.
The Sierra passes are whole different critter.
nsherry61
01-08-2017, 09:23
Western trails are stock trails. Graded for horses and mules.
And the occassional llama.
God, how I wish it were the other way around with llamas and occasionally a horse or a mule. Although if the trails were build for llamas, they wouldn't need to be as carefully engineered and graded.
I love horses. But, I really hate the damage stock does to wilderness trails! Heck, I hate the damage they do to urban trails they use. Basically, trail damage by stock anywhere really sucks, even in their own barnyard.
And, for what it's worth, even trails in the west that are build without the expectation of use by stock, are still well graded with smoother tread than most eastern trails, maybe because of the tradition of trails being built to a certain level for stock elsewhere?
nsherry61
01-08-2017, 09:27
. . . Neither were steep, in fact quite frustratingly the opposite. (You hike a half mile and look down to see the trail just 60' below you.) But, it isn't the steepness that is the difficulty. It is the duration, elevation and often the exposure to the sun that make some of these climbs a challenge. . .
I must admit, as a kid, I spend many long hours complaining about how stupid and miserable all the switchbacks were when hiking and backpacking. Now that I am living out east, I complain about how stupid and miserable the lack of switchbacks is.
Hmmm. Maybe it's not the trail, but the hill and the hiker that are the problem?
I must admit, as a kid, I spend many long hours complaining about how stupid and miserable all the switchbacks were when hiking and backpacking. Now that I am living out east, I complain about how stupid and miserable the lack of switchbacks is.
Hmmm. Maybe it's not the trail, but the hill and the hiker that are the problem?
I eased my frustration by reminding myself that that half mile count toward the 2656 miles and I was there to hike the trail that was there, not the one that thought it should be. The descent off Fuller ridge is another head scratcher. That trail wasn't going down anytime fast. But it was quite enjoyable first thing in the morning. The sand crossing at the bottom was a bit less enjoyable until the Ice cold Sunkist under the highway. Then it was fixded.
...I was there to hike the trail that was there, not the one that thought it should be...
I like this! I'm going to store that one away and remind myself of that thought during the occasional bad climb or descent.
YoungBloodOnTrail
01-08-2017, 22:12
You will never climb 100 feet per mile on the PCT. It's a much different trail than the Appalachian.
You will never climb 100 feet per mile on the PCT. It's a much different trail than the Appalachian.
1,000 feet per mile maybe?
On the other hand, much of the time you will be climbing with 1/2 or less of the oxygen you might have on the East Coast.
Wayne
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The western states have figured out what a graded trail tread and a switchback are. Out east, the trails are crappy rock pile gaps in the trees that head straight up the hill. In the west, the trails have relatively smoother treads and they engineer the trails with these miraculous things called switchbacks that allow you to go up the mountain (if you can even call these eastern hills mountains) in a reasonable and gentlemanly fashion, albeit at above 10,000 ft at times and instead of being a steep climb from hell up a rock pile for 1 mile and 1000 ft, it is a long steady climb for 7 miles and 5000 ft. . . or something like that. Out east, the trails seem to run along ridge lines over the tops of the mountains. Out west, the trails go much higher, kinda like the mountains, but the trails go around the peaks instead of over them because the peaks are far to jagged and technical to put a trail over the top of in most cases.
A few years ago, I would've agreed with you on the east-west thing, but I've lived in the West a while now, and there PLENTY of crappy, 1000-foot-per-mile rockpile trails in the West, too. The trail we hike the most often in my town is a 2,500' climb in 2.5 miles. And the thing about the crappy western trails is that a lot of them are at high elevation. There is not enough oxygen at 12,000 feet to be doing scramble type hiking, but there are plenty of trails here that do that.
As for the PCT, Malto summed it up. I can't think of a single climb on the PCT that would make my list of top 50 worst climbs on the AT. I recall one or two gnarly climbs north of Tahoe, iirc. Nothing awful though. PCT climbs can go on forever, but not at a terrible grade. And you are often enjoying nice views while you are doing those PCT climbs. The worst thing about PCT climbs to me is that you are often big, long climbs while carrying ungodly amounts of food and water. The climb out of Tehachapi Pass wasn't horrible grade-wise, but I think I had 6 L of water and 7 days of food (plus it was roastingly hot), which didn't help.
I don't mind the climbs in the West. I don't mind the horse destroyed sections or the streams that take over the trails occasionally.
What tears me up are the all day long downhills. That doesn't bother me enough to stay away. I'm just mentioning it so others will be aware of the long downhills.
Wayne
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Traveler
01-09-2017, 06:43
1,000 feet per mile maybe?
On the other hand, much of the time you will be climbing with 1/2 or less of the oxygen you might have on the East Coast.
Wayne
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A misconception to be sure. There is little difference in oxygen levels between the east and west coasts despite what CA does or how NJ acts.
*Disclaimer - intended for comic relief not political consumption
nsherry61
01-09-2017, 12:09
A misconception to be sure. There is little difference in oxygen levels between the east and west coasts despite what CA does or how NJ acts. . .
FWIW, the amount of oxygen at 10,000 ft is about 25% less than sea level. I think that is a surprising difference. Sure, not half, but 1/2 of 1/2 as much. In the end it's probably something like 1/4 of 1/2 as much over the average heights of the AT vs the PCT or CDT.
As for politics, maybe the difference in O2 explains the dizzy Californian stereotype? Oh, no, most of the population in southern CA is near sealevel. . . hmm.
4eyedbuzzard
01-09-2017, 12:37
FOr anyone interested, here is Guthook's data and elevation profiles on the steepest sections of the AT, PCT, and CDT http://www.guthookhikes.com/2015/01/what-are-the-steepest-climbs-on-the-at-and-pct.html
Spirit Walker
01-09-2017, 12:54
The only time we had really steep climbs on the PCT or CDT were when a pass was covered with snow. Then we would climb straight up rather than attempt to follow the buried trail. Some of those climbs were very steep.
For the rest, especially on the PCT, the extremely gentle grade was often irritating, because it took forever to go up or down. Yes, it's all part of the overall mileage, but when you're heading toward water or a road and the trail goes up while you are supposed to be heading down, it's frustrating.
Traveler
01-09-2017, 13:08
FWIW, the amount of oxygen at 10,000 ft is about 25% less than sea level. I think that is a surprising difference. Sure, not half, but 1/2 of 1/2 as much. In the end it's probably something like 1/4 of 1/2 as much over the average heights of the AT vs the PCT or CDT.
As for politics, maybe the difference in O2 explains the dizzy Californian stereotype? Oh, no, most of the population in southern CA is near sealevel. . . hmm.
Or just a literacy issue,,,,
You will never climb 100 feet per mile on the PCT. It's a much different trail than the Appalachian.
my side hiking trips down to kings canyon was my hardest hike the canyon was a trip alone.
Turk6177
01-09-2017, 15:07
I can only answer your question in the regards of what I experienced on the John Muir Trail, which is the PCT in many parts. Like you have read above, most of the climbs are mainly switch backs. Having hiked in New Hampshire, Maine and the southern AT, I found the trails out west to be much less taxing when it comes to sheer grueling uphill climbing (Wildcat Mountain coming out of Pinkham Notch visitor center). I would have to believe this is how so many hikers have no problem doing 20 mile days.
HooKooDooKu
01-09-2017, 15:27
On the other hand, much of the time you will be climbing with 1/2 or less of the oxygen you might have on the East Coast.
Does that really make much of a difference once you've had a chance to acclimate?
One of the three worst climbs I faced on the JMT was the steep climb as the trail turns away from Little Yosemite Valley towards Sunrise Mountain at an altitude of ~9,000'.
The climb out of Yosemite Valley the day before was steeper, but it was easier because it was at altitudes of ~4,000' to ~6,000'; the altitudes I'm used to hiking in GSMNP.
But after spending 3 days at altitudes above 8,000', I noticed a distinct improvement in my ability to climb hills.
The only other climbs I had any difficulty for the rest of the trip included The Golden Stair Case and Glen Pass (both approaching a grade of 1,000'/mile).
Had no problems with Forestor Pass and the climb to Mt Whittney.
AllDownhillFromHere
01-09-2017, 15:42
Thats an interesting point, and an issue that eastern hiking generally doesn't have - sometimes you have to make your own trail. Plus I imagine in deeper snow, the safest trail might not be either the steepest or the marked one.
gwschenk
01-10-2017, 11:21
A few years ago, I would've agreed with you on the east-west thing, but I've lived in the West a while now, and there PLENTY of crappy, 1000-foot-per-mile rockpile trails in the West, too.
You bet. Try resupplying over Shepherd Pass or Taboose Pass.
ezabielski
01-10-2017, 17:51
Hands down the steepest section of the PCT is the Eagle Creek alternate in northern Oregon, which isn't actually part of the PCT but almost all thru hikers take it. The connector trail from the PCT to the Eagle Creek area is a ridiculously steep downhill at about -1000ft/mile for a bit on less than great trail. If you go southbound then you'd climb up that, likely with a full resupply. That sounds worse.
nsherry61
01-10-2017, 18:34
Hands down the steepest section of the PCT is the Eagle Creek alternate in northern Oregon . . . a ridiculously steep downhill at about -1000ft/mile for a bit on less than great trail. . .
Yeah, but that section of trail is still nothing compared the AT going down into and then back out from Galehead Hut area in the White Mountains. At least you can call the Eagle Creek Trail a trail. The AT near Galehead is pretty much an eroded waterfall going in both directions.
The PCT is plenty grueling but in different ways than the AT. The total elevation in climbs on the two trails is almost identical (folks used to think that the AT had way more than the PCT until someone GPSed the trails and found out that they very similar in that respect). Climbs on the PCT tend to be much longer but less steep, but way higher. What makes the PCT grueling, as someone above mentioned, are the combined big food and water carries. There is nothing on the AT to even compare with them. One also has to have much warmer gear on the PCT due to the much colder temperatures at night, much higher winds and being way up high. So a consistently much heavier pack. A huge factor is that you are in the sun almost all the time and at altitude too so the sun is much stronger than at lower elevations. One also walks a lot of miles in sand which sort of sucks. And snow. On the PCT you are going to need to hike in the night a lot and very possibly a few times all night. You are going to meet lots of rattlesnakes - just in case that bothers you :) And that extra 500 miles or so is a big difference also. The trails are just different.
AllDownhillFromHere
01-11-2017, 18:16
Interesting data. Given the same elevation but ~25% longer trail, the PCT comes out less "steep" but certainly more effort.
There are many week-plus stretches on the AT between resupplies, and I've heard also anecdotally that you don't ever need to night-hike on the PCT. I guess it's like California itself; everything you've ever heard about it is true.
Interesting data. Given the same elevation but ~25% longer trail, the PCT comes out less "steep" but certainly more effort.
There are many week-plus stretches on the AT between resupplies, and I've heard also anecdotally that you don't ever need to night-hike on the PCT. I guess it's like California itself; everything you've ever heard about it is true.
I don't know why you think there are many week-plus resupply sections on the AT as that is just not accurate. The longest possible one I can think of off the top of my head is the 100 mile wilderness and that would be 4 1/2 days. And it is quite possible to set up a resupply in the middle of it also. The longest resupply on the AT for me was 3 1/2 to 4 days I think and the normal was 2-3 days.
Re night hiking on the PCT. If you were incredibly lucky and hit perfect weather in every desert section it might be possible not to do any night hiking. But statistically it is just not likely. There is enough bad sections that you just have to assume there will be a fair amount of it. Last year I hiked all night 1 time and most of an entire night another time. I avoided a lot more night hiking by starting the day by getting up before daylight and hitting the trail before sunrise. Very early starts on the PCT are very common and way more people hike really early on it than on the AT. Going north from Hiker Town with average weather you would be kind of crazy to hike it in the day time. No one did when I was there. About 20-25 people started trickling out about 4:30-5:00 pm and the herd about 6-6:30. My partner and I left about 5:00 and walked until about 3:30 and napped for 2 hours. At 5:30 we got up and there was a stream of folks still passing us by. We then hiked for about another 5 hours and crashed under a tree until about 5pm again and then took off. We hiked until about 2am. Leaving Tehachapi 2 days later we started at 5pm and hiked until after mid-night (there were a stream of folks going by us for a couple of hours), got up about 5am and took off again. Almost every night when it was hot there were people going past us long after we were camped. If you hit a hot snap in some areas it can hit 110 in the shade - and there is no shade in most of those kinds of places.
But then maybe you were just jerking my chain :)
AllDownhillFromHere
01-11-2017, 20:21
I don't know why you think there are many week-plus resupply sections on the AT as that is just not accurate.
Because I have hiked it, and there were times where I carried 7+ days of food.
Re night hiking on the PCT. If you were incredibly lucky and hit perfect weather in every desert section it might be possible not to do any night hiking. But statistically it is just not likely. There is enough bad sections that you just have to assume there will be a fair amount of it.
Beg to differ. I only did two night hiking sections, and they were both totally voluntary (it was possible to hike during the day--I just wanted cooler weather). One was Hat Creek Rim, and the other was in Washington, where I just wanted to get in a 30 and camp near a water after a late start in the morning. I did all of southern California, including the Aqueduct, during the day. Ditto for my friends and pretty much all of the people I was hiking around. If you start really late in the season, I guess you could get over 100 degrees, but if you start in mid or late April, I doubt it will get much over 90 in southern CA. It will feel much hotter because the sun is killer and there's no shade, of course.
Two simple suggestions to allow you to hike during the da in hot weather: 1) get a reflective umbrella and use it, and 2) take a siesta from like 2-4pm. I napped/cooked dinner almost every afternoon in southern CA on the PCT and on the CDT in New Mexico. This worked great, and even if it was still hot when we started hiking again at 4ish, hiking into the cool evening was always nice.
Turk6177
01-12-2017, 13:30
Does that really make much of a difference once you've had a chance to acclimate?
One of the three worst climbs I faced on the JMT was the steep climb as the trail turns away from Little Yosemite Valley towards Sunrise Mountain at an altitude of ~9,000'.
The climb out of Yosemite Valley the day before was steeper, but it was easier because it was at altitudes of ~4,000' to ~6,000'; the altitudes I'm used to hiking in GSMNP.
But after spending 3 days at altitudes above 8,000', I noticed a distinct improvement in my ability to climb hills.
The only other climbs I had any difficulty for the rest of the trip included The Golden Stair Case and Glen Pass (both approaching a grade of 1,000'/mile).
Had no problems with Forestor Pass and the climb to Mt Whittney.
I would agree. I spent a night in Mammoth and a night in the backpacker campground in Yosemite. I was pretty used to the altitude by Donohue Pass. Some younger hikers who started day one from Yosemite struggled a bit over Donohue. By the time I got to Whitney, altitude was not a factor for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because I have hiked it, and there were times where I carried 7+ days of food.
Well so have I and I lived right next to the AT for about 20 years and have about 4000 miles on it.
If you hiked with 7 days of food it was because you wanted to go much slower than normal or you wanted to skip resupply points. It is as simple as that. Personal choices made outside of what is normal don't really count for saying things like that. People come here with little to no knowledge of the AT and giving info like that just messes them up.
burger
I am glad you were lucky enough to find a time when it was possible and the people hiking with you did the same. I specifically said that was possible. As I pointed out no one in the group I was in tried to hike that section and others last year in the daytime. And we did not see the really hot temperatures which can and do hit as high as 110. Umbrellas or not (I carried one) sometimes it is just not a good idea to be out in the middle of the day. And yes almost everyone does the siesta thing, but that is not always anywhere near enough. I know a lot of folks who have hiked in different years and most of them hit times which required night hiking. A big factor requiring night hiking is the additional water needs of hiking in the day when it is hot. One can easily add several liters of water requirements into a day by doing that. Something that is changing how people hike on the PCT are all the water caches which did not used to exist. Going north from Golden Oak Spring it would have been 40 miles to water before the water were caches put in. People used to have to hike that stretch and night hiking there was essential. In that section I consumed 12 liters of water as we decided to hike early/late and take the middle of the day off. I could not have done that without the water caches - one of which was empty. At the empty cache there was a couple completely out of water with another 9 miles to go to the next one and so I gave them 1 liter of mine and they took off about 9:30 pm to make it to the next. I also had to give someone water in another section who was hiking on a hot day and had ran out water. Two people I knew behind me also had to help that same person with 2 more liters. Temps above 90 in the shade here in the southwest are very common in Apr and May so one needs to expect it. Anyway this just goes to show folks the variety of what is out there and to be ready for it.
You will never climb 100 feet per mile on the PCT. It's a much different trail than the Appalachian.
1,000 feet per mile maybe?
On the other hand, much of the time you will be climbing with 1/2 or less of the oxygen you might have on the East Coast.
Wayne
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wouldn't bet that you'll never do 1000 feet per mile on the PCT. Right about mile 15, from Campo, it starts getting pretty steep, and, if it's not 1000 feet per mile, it's dang close! So if you have that within the first 20 miles, I bet SOMEWHERE along the way you'll be over 1000
AllDownhillFromHere
01-16-2017, 22:30
This is what Ive been looking at (thanks Halfmile and 66!). While it papers over small, short steep sections, the overall grades (even coming from mile 15) are shallow.
https://www.pctmap.net/2015/03/check-out-the-new-elevation-profiles/
AllDownhillFromHere
01-16-2017, 22:32
Cant edit, but found some 500'/mile stretches.
yes. I've only hiked the first section, and there was one other pretty steep climb I remember - and if I remember correctly it was on pavement. But it was only maybe 3/4 of a mile.
Never hiked at all on the AT, but I looked at some of the elevation profile, and some of that looked like you almost need rock climbing gear. I don't think any of the PCT is that severe.
This pretty well answers most of the questions regarding a comparison of this nature for the TC trails.
http://www.guthookhikes.com/2015/01/what-are-the-steepest-climbs-on-the-at-and-pct.html
Crap...just realized 4eyedbuzzard beat me to it. My bad.