Elevation
Can someone Tell how much elevation do you gain ups and downs on each one of the trailer? the AT, CDT, PCT?
In order to understand the terrain of the trails
Here's a start:
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/content....oss-by-Section
AT: 470,000'
PCT: 314,000'
CDT: 374,000'
Source: An old Backpacker Mag article.
"Throw a loaf of bread and a pound of tea in an old sack and jump over the back fence." John Muir on expedition planning
Hmm. Intriguing that the shortest and lowest-elevation of the three has so much more up and down. I'd not have guessed that.
I always know where I am. I'm right here.
FWIW: Your total elevation gain actually provides very little insight into the terrain of the trails. The trails are vastly different in length of climbs, actual elevation (not cumulative), trail tread condition, steepness of trails, etc.Originally Posted by Kiteman
Further, depending on how you calculate the total elevation gain, numbers change significantly. If you count elevation gain in a way that includes every little 20 foot up and down along the trail, you could have a trail with lots of little "mole hills" measure more elevation gain than Mt. Everest. Conversely, if you calculate elevation gain as how much you climb over every mile segment of a long trail, your mole-hill trail might show virtually zero elevation gain while Everest's elevation gain would stay pretty much the same.
You run into this specific issue when comparing trails like the PCT and AT. The AT has lots of littler and steeper ups and downs. The PCT has a much more engineered trail tread with longer and steadier climbs and descents. I've seen "accurate" numbers for the AT from below 300,000' of elevation to more than 500,000' of elevation depending on the calculation method. Conversely, because the PCT has fewer short ups and downs, its elevation calculations vary less, ranging typically from the high 300,000's to the high 400,000's. In 2014 the PCTA published "New data shows 489,418 feet of elevation gain". In contrast, the AMC claims the AT to be 515,000' and the PCT to be 315,000.
Do you sense that maybe there is some bias in which of the various "accurate" elevation numbers each group publishes?
Ultimately, the long, high, climbs on the PCT (and CDT, I assume) are surely much more arduous than any of the climbs on the AT. But, the AT has short trail sections that are practically straight up with horribly rough tread or really more like no tread at all, just rock jumbles, one after the next, that are much worse than any sections on the PCT that I've been on or heard about.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
Well said.
On the AT you have a lot of sections where you go up 100', down 100', up 100', then down again. Short and steep. Over a day you may climb and descend 5000' over 20 miles. On the PCT you would have 5000' uphill over 15 or more miles, followed by 10 miles downhill. The grade for the PCT is gentler, since it's built for horses, but some of those long climbs can feel interminable. The standard for the AT is supposed to be 500' per mile, but there are sections that are much steeper (i.e. the Whites in NH and parts of Maine). On the PCT the maximum is 500' per mile, with 200-300' per mile much more common.
The AT is not to be underestimated.
My hike - AT 2015, parts 1-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfn7hrAi_oc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2uTdmQWIt8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Db0vDaSA2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHkQZ9lNDgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQrrfdQh610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzR1sXRXBqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21MkRUzhtic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L7IxHxxhoc
My earlier research shows right at 500K elevation gain for the AT, which jives nicely with the 470K shown below. Never researched the PCT and CDT, but I've always assumed less than the AT, so those 300-400K numbers seems reasonable. I've always assumed these numbers include smaller ups/downs, even fairly small ups/downs, perhaps not the teeny-tiny (say, less than 10-20') ups/downs, which are very difficult to track.
I agree, sections I've done of the PCT and CDT take significantly more overall effort than anything on the AT in terms of energy, partly because of the thinner air I might point out; even fully acclimated, less oxygen means more effort for the same vertical climb.
But having hiked all over the west for 35+ years now, and having completed the entire AT, I have to say the toughest actual trails I've ever been on are along the AT in NH and southern ME.... those kicked my butt! Thankfully, short, at least, but ridiculously steep! I was humbled.
Not only that, but arguably the toughest mile of any TC hike is the Mahoosuc Notch--elevation pretty much zero on the map.
But then again, very little can compare to the snowmelt-swollen creek crossings in the Sierra in June on a NOBO PCT thru. Or climbing the snow cornices over the passes between those creeks, or postholing the descents in the afternoon sun on severely sun-cupped snowfields.
Desert hiking, route-finding, and chasing the seasons on the Western trails pose a different set of challenges than elevation gain, too. They all certainly have their challenges. (And the CDT has grizzlies!)
"Throw a loaf of bread and a pound of tea in an old sack and jump over the back fence." John Muir on expedition planning
Yes, there was an outstanding study done.
NOBO CDT total elevation gain-457340 ft
NOBO CDT total elevation loss-457770 ft
NOBO PCT total elevation gain-753190 ft
NOBO PCT total elevation loss-752160 ft
and (once again)
NOBO AT total elevation gain-628900 ft
NOBO AT total elevation loss-628620 ft
So: NOBO Triple Crown gain-1,839,430 ft
NOBO Triple Crown loss- 1,838,550 ft
Check out out starting at post 53
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...+cdt+elevation
Ayep. It's a hum-dinger. A lot of them are called PUDs. But then, the whole trail could be considered one big PUD.
Malto, those numbers put the average grade of the PCT on a par with AT (roughly 280 ft/mile). By comparison, have you hiked the Wonderland Trail? It's one of the steeper Western trails (no horses or bikes) and its average grade is about 250 ft/mile. The Colorado Trail is "only" 180 ft/mile. I don't believe those PCT numbers above.
"Throw a loaf of bread and a pound of tea in an old sack and jump over the back fence." John Muir on expedition planning
There's about two hundred feet of elevation gain going southbound through the notch. Having done it nobo years ago and sobo last summer, that short vertical gain made a difference. It's easier to jump down from one boulder to the next, than clawing your way up that mess. There was one place last summer where I definitely needed a hand-up from my hiking buddy. The rocks were wet and slippery and I couldn't get a hand hold or foothold to pull myself up.
The descent off Wesser Bald, northbound. There must be eight or ten mini-humps on the way. Each time, you drop 100 feet, and then ascend 80. Drop 150, gain 130. They go on forever. And when they finally end, it's steep drop down to Rufus Morgan shelter and US 19. Not my favorite day on the AT but forever etched in memory.
Yes, I hiked the wonderland trail and would agree that it seemed steeper on average than the PCT. There was additional data that used to be on that thread and a lot about the methodology that was pretty convincing that the number was pretty good.
I'm skeptical of reaching absolute conclusions comparing total elevation change of all the three TC trails. I'd particularly take with a grain of salt total elevation gains and losses of the CDT as there are so many acceptable alternates(thank God!, sincerely hope that never changes and future generation CDTers don't increasingly succumb to cookie cutter let's hike someone else's CDT hike approaches, I have my doubts though). The exact CDT route thru-hikers take vary widely potentially having pronounced effects on total elevation gain and loss. There are basically an infinite number of CDT routes with new routes being devised by the creative annually. Even the PCT has some aceptable quite worthy alternates. IMHO, this comparing and contrasting trails ad nauseaum especially in regards to micro analyzing elevation change and setting the AT atop the pedestal as the standard by which other trails should be judged often leads to narrow minded pissing contests, um rating systems, that can be problematic and limiting. It's happening here.Don't box me in.
The fact remains, the PCT (or the bits of it I've seen) is much better graded, in general than the AT. There has to be a reason why typical hiking speeds (miles per day) are significantly higher on the PCT than the AT. It's graded for horse travel, after all. The AT is also a lot older, and some of the gnarliest bits of the AT predate Benton Mackaye's bright idea.
Guthook has interesting data on relative grading and slopes...
http://www.guthookhikes.com/2015/02/...t-pct-cdt.html
Guthook's numbers from a 2015 article:
Overall elevation gain/loss on Appalachian Trail: 917,760′ over 2185.3 mi (avg: 420’/mi)
Overall elevation gain/loss on Pacific Crest Trail: 824,370′ over 2668.8 mi (avg: 309’/mi).
Overall elevation gain/loss on Continental Divide Trail: 917,470′ over 3029.3 mi (avg: 303’/mi).
and the link, showing the five steepest climbs on each:
http://www.guthookhikes.com/2015/01/...t-and-pct.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
