PDA

View Full Version : what is cumulative ascent and descent on Long Trail?



DavidNH
12-05-2008, 10:16
Hi,

I am wondering if anyone here knows, or can find out, what the cumulative elevation gain and loss is on the Vermont Long Trail? It would be interesting to have the info to compare with other trails just for fun. I know it must be something rediculously high. All the trail does is go up and down!

Thanks,

davidNH

Rockhound
12-05-2008, 10:56
not sure about the long trail but springer is at 3782 elav. and katahdin is at 5267 meaning SOBOs acually lose almost 1500 feet in elavation proving once and for all that they truly have it much easier than NOBOs

Manwich
12-05-2008, 11:29
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/9/0/8/7/vermontlongtrail_original.jpg

Accumulated. height uphill: 7,638 feet, downhill: 7,949 feet

Manwich
12-05-2008, 11:30
Note, Elevation Profile Left-to-Right is South End to North End

Cookerhiker
12-05-2008, 11:46
Something's amiss - I've got to think the accumulated gross elevation is substantially more than 7,638'. Perhaps I misunderstood the question or the statistic but I thought David wanted to know the gross elevation accumulated.

From Jonesville to Mansfield alone is 4,000' and that's a net figure, not incorporating ups and downs in-between such as Bolton Mountain. For example, the LT rises 3,000 from Jonesville to Bolton and then descends almost 2,000' to the Nebraska Notch Trail at 1,780' before rising another 2,600' to the Mansfield Chin. So the gross elevation just using this example is 5,600' without considering smaller intervening ups and downs.

Further south, Rt. 103/Clarendon to the Killington spur is nearly 3,000'. Rt. 9 to Glastonbury Mt. is 2,400'. Kelly Stand Rd. to Stratton Mt. is 1,600'. There are other long ascents/descents further north.

celt
12-05-2008, 12:03
I thought the same thing. Also... the linked elevation profile only covers 25 miles.

rafe
12-05-2008, 12:06
Something's amiss - I've got to think the accumulated gross elevation is substantially more than 7,638'. Perhaps I misunderstood the question or the statistic but I thought David wanted to know the gross elevation accumulated.

I'd say. The horizontal axis represents 25 miles... presumably of some stretch of the Long Trail. Trouble is, the Long Trail is about 10x longer than that.

Cookerhiker
12-05-2008, 12:09
I thought the same thing. Also... the linked elevation profile only covers 25 miles.

I thought the elevation profile was "times 10" meaning for example, 2.0 is really 20. Then the very beginning makes a little sense because the first high mountain is Glastonbury about 20 miles from the south border. But then the map's veracity collapses. It doesn't show Stratton which is higher than Glastonbury. Killington is around Mile 90 but the map shows a flat area less than 1,000'. The map shows nothing above 4,000' so it obviously represents something other than the LT.

Slo-go'en
12-05-2008, 13:01
If you start at the Canadian border and head south, in the first 23.5 mile section there is 5011 feet of gain and 4551 feet of loss, given the bench mark points listed in the LT guide. Considering the LT likes to make you climb over every little rock and bump along the way,(why go around when you can go over!), likely one would have to add another 5 or 10% to those numbers. And this is a relatively "flat" section of the northen part of the LT!

One other little fact, the LT is 268.3 miles long. I91, which also goes from Mass to Canada, is only 178 miles long. Some of that difference is the fact I91 takes a somewhat more direct route, but all lot of that difference is all the ups and downs on the LT!

celt
12-05-2008, 13:54
I thought the elevation profile was "times 10" meaning for example, 2.0 is really 20. Then the very beginning makes a little sense because the first high mountain is Glastonbury about 20 miles from the south border. But then the map's veracity collapses. It doesn't show Stratton which is higher than Glastonbury. Killington is around Mile 90 but the map shows a flat area less than 1,000'. The map shows nothing above 4,000' so it obviously represents something other than the LT.

The profile almost fits the section between Camels Hump and Nebraska Notch. It matches exactly the profile in my Long Trail Guide except for the far southern end. The profile in this thread seems to show the peak on the left being just under 4000', Camel Hump is just over 4000' and that 2000+' slope on the south side doesn't fit. If the distance from the peak is right the trail should only drop 1000'.

I'd still say this profile was intended to be Camels Hump to Nebraska Notch. Everything else fits well and the Duxbury Rd. road-walk is the only four mile flat section of the L.T.

Manwich
12-05-2008, 14:09
I didn't know the length of the Long Trail, I'm completely unfamilliar with it. I checked my collection to see if I had any data on it. Obviously my information is deprecated.

Disregard my elevation profile.

vonfrick
12-05-2008, 14:24
not sure about the long trail but springer is at 3782 elav. and katahdin is at 5267 meaning SOBOs acually lose almost 1500 feet in elavation proving once and for all that they truly have it much easier than NOBOs

hiking is not a state fuction!!

Manwich
12-05-2008, 14:52
Is the Catamount Trail = Vermont Long Trail?

Rainman
12-05-2008, 15:04
Is the Catamount Trail = Vermont Long Trail?


No. Though they intersect in places.

While hiking the LT in 2005 another hiker told me he'd heard a statistic that all the PUDs equal about 70,000 in elevation gain. The way I felt that day I believed him.

Quoddy
12-05-2008, 15:13
I thought I knew where it was listed, but I was mistaken. I just called Jen at the GMC and she said the only place she had seen it was on someone's e-2-e application and she didn't remember the actual numbers. No one else at the GMC today knew either. We both know that it was in the 10's of thousands, but no actual number for each, at least at this time. You're right about the ups and downs... there is nothing like "Vermont Flat".

rafe
12-05-2008, 15:15
... there is nothing like "Vermont Flat".

Oh, maybe a few bits here and there -- south of Pico. ;)

DavidNH
12-05-2008, 15:33
I can say that the Long Trail is about 270 miles long running from Mass border to the Quebec border.

What I was hoping someone could tell me is the cumulative climbing and descent on this trail. I did the trail (in two sections) and I know that most of the way one is going up or going down..and usually straight up and down and often steeply. So this figure would be the sum of all the mountain climbs on the trail..what ever that is.

DavidNH.

Mags
12-05-2008, 16:04
Is the Catamount Trail = Vermont Long Trail?

The Long Trail (http://www.greenmountainclub.org/page.php?id=2) is the oldest, recreational long distance hiking trail (phew!) in the country.

The Catamount Trail (http://www.catamounttrail.org/abouttrail/) is a long distance Nordic skiing trail that intersects, parallels and sometimes shares the same trail as the Long Trail.

Both are in Vermont.

I have thru-hiked the LT twice and think it is a great New England sampler: Above treeline hikes, bogs, deep woods, etc. Great prep hike for the AT IMO as well.

I was playing with the idea of "thru-skiing" the Catamount trail this winter..but I am currently deep in the bowels of corporate America and vacation time is a bit hard to get. :( Hopefully I'll escape it in 2010. :)

DuctTape
12-05-2008, 17:05
As I recall, the end to end guide lists the elevation changes between shelters and points of interest for the trail's entire length, in both directions. So all it would take to figure this out is somebody with a handy E2E guide and the time and patience to add up the math.

Slo-go'en
12-05-2008, 19:35
As I recall, the end to end guide lists the elevation changes between shelters and points of interest for the trail's entire length, in both directions. So all it would take to figure this out is somebody with a handy E2E guide and the time and patience to add up the math.

That would get you an approximate idea, but doesn't count all the little (and not so little) PUD's between the points of interest. I used the guide book to figure out the altitude changes in the last 23 miles, but I'm not going to sit down and do it for the other 9 sections!

fancyfeet
12-05-2008, 19:45
According to "Thru-Hiker's Guide to America" by E. Schlimmer, the LT has approx. 67,500 feet of elevation gain end-to-end.

Mags
12-05-2008, 20:49
I used the guide book to figure out the altitude changes in the last 23 miles, but I'm not going to sit down and do it for the other 9 sections!


Ah...but there are enough stat junkies on this site (and in general) that someone will. That person will not be me. :)

Cookerhiker
12-05-2008, 22:48
According to "Thru-Hiker's Guide to America" by E. Schlimmer, the LT has approx. 67,500 feet of elevation gain end-to-end.

I believe it. No wonder I lost 12 lbs when I hiked it last year (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/www.trailjournals.com/CookerhikerLT07)!

Monkeywrench
12-06-2008, 11:02
Screw the long trail; take the short one!