Longest possible Australian walk with commercial resupply?

[David M]

In the USA people seem to be able to do extremely long walks without food drops because it is possible to go to shops at various points to get food and other supplies.

I was wondering what might be a similar case in Australia?

I spoke to someone this weekend whose brother did the Australian Alpine Trail from VIC to ACT (650 kms) which took 28 days but had numerous food drops from friends etc as commercial resupply was not possible.

It might not be "pure" to resupply at stores but I don't see it as any more impure than food drops. For a purist the only way to do it is either carry, in this case say, a 28 day food supply of food (impossible) or live off the land (and that would be mostly be illegal in Australia as all native animals and plants are protected, and you can't exactly kill and eat the local farmer's animals or eat their crops).

So what do you think?

Regards,

David M.

[vagrom]

I've been told that the Appalachian Trail's northern section is excellent for such "living-off-the-land" resupply. It's excellent when you can work something out like that. SA's Heysen Trail, southern part as far as Burra, offers some scope.
In Tassie, you could walk into the centre of the state at Derwent Bridge by shopping at Penguin, Gunns Plains deli and at Cradle Mountain on the way. No food drops and a fair distance covered, with a solid bus route at the end.
Any others I can think of stand on their wilderness appeal, as you've noted, by being way out in the donga e.g the Larapinta.
The fairly newish Federation system, centred on Daylesford , is probably also a good option.
Bibbulmun: less so, in it's best part down south. Don't know much about that long trail north of Sydney. Possibly a bit too urban?

[dannnnn]

i think foreigners are happier to walk through semi-urban areas than we are. for an australian, going bushwalking means getting as far away from civilisation as possible. for americans, not so much. for the europeans it's almost impossible.

[quicky]

i think foreigners are happier to walk through semi-urban areas than we are. for an australian, going bushwalking means getting as far away from civilisation as possible. for americans, not so much. for the europeans it's almost impossible.

I somewhat agree with the Aussie preference...nothing like getting away from it all for sure....plus....it's relatively easy for us to do that, no doubt . But I'm not so sure about the American/European bit about doing the same. Remember, that the US has some serious thru-hikes, far exceeding the lengths of any popular Australian hike:

- Pacific Crest Trail (PCT): 4,300km (longer than Australia is wide)
- Appalachian Trail (AT): 3,500km (just short of walking east to west Aust.)
- Continental Divide Trail (CDT): 5,000km (this hiker is also longer than Australia is wide)
- North Country National Scenic Trail (NCT): 7,400km (akin to walking from Northern tip of Aust to southern most tip...then back again)
...the list goes on.

...you'd be lucky to emulate those distances in Australia without walking through some town.

Besides, If I was embarking on any one of these mammoth thru-hikes (or the dozens not mentioned), I'd probably enjoy a smidgeon of civilisation too. The interaction in towns probably represents a minuscule proportion of the overall thru-hike anyways, so most of the hike is actually 'getting as far away from civilisation'. Given these distances, it's no wonder they run into towns....I'm sure their motivation for bushwalking is the same as ours....it is for some of my US mates, who for some, are triple crown hikers.

Just sayin'.

[DaveNoble]

I would have thought with modern lightweight gear that it would be possible to carry food and equipment for 28 days without resupply (with a packweight under 25kg). The longest such trip I have been on is 18 days - but that was back in 1986 in Fiordland NZ, where we had to carry a lot of extra gear - heavy tents, stoves and fuel etc.

Dave

[juxtaposer]

It would of course depend on the terrain how long you could go without resupply. Also on the distances intended. Major Clewes was asked in the 30's how long he thought a man could last on one pack through rough country. Ten days he thought. After about ten days you find yourself having to travel very lean indeed. My longest go was 15 days but we were living off a bag of oats the last few. Technology certainly has changed since Clewes' day and 28 might be possible, but the terrain would have to be somewhat sympathetic with not too many long hard days in the mix. Still, amazing to consider that you could get 28 days worth of food in a single pack.

[hikingoz]

Lightweight dry food can be very under nourishing after a couple of weeks, particularly in cold climates. The eventual lack of energy makes it all the more difficult.
I would thing you'd need 15-18kg of food for a month including a spare day or two. A base pack weight of around 8-10kg and you'd be all good.

As far as trips go how about a north south trip starting on the Penguin Cradle track, Overland Track, then into Southwest National Park from lake St Clair, and possibly finish on the South Coast track at Cockle Creek. Ok I missed a few details but I haven't got a map with me. I reckon it would be worth a shot.

[Maelgwn]

I think Heysen trail qualifies. Plenty of stores up until Quorn, 5-7 days to Hawker (no supermarket but a general store) and another 7ish days until the end (with mini resupply at Wilpena), which you could try and time with the bus out of Angorichina.

See this list:

http://www.heysentrail.asn.au/heysen_tr ... ectory.php

[nq111]

I would have thought with modern lightweight gear that it would be possible to carry food and equipment for 28 days without resupply (with a packweight under 25kg).
Dave

Interesting.

I must eat too much . Working on 700g of food a day for 28 days, 3 litre water (I would need to be resupply with water at lunch unless very cool and easy walking) and with cool/cold weather gear my pack calculates at 34kg. That is about what I carried the first time I did the Overland track (poor student at the time).

Warm weather gear would reduce this slightly. Of course water supply would be the big issue - so much easier if regular water resupply opportunities.

So 28 days seems possible, though the first week or so could be rather tough going.

[Turfa]

The Bibbulmun Track is the longest one that springs to mind that you could walk & resupply in towns along the way. 1000'ish km and it passes near enough towns to resupply at least once per week.
Those trails in the US don't necessarily go right through lots of towns. The AT goes right through a couple in it's 3500km length, but mostly it is a decent hitchhike into town to resupply ( & then hitch back to the trail) so it's not quite as convenient as many people imagine. And sometimes the resupply options are not very good. I had to do one 4 day section on the food that I bought from a dodgy backwoods service station............ (so what vintage is that egg salad sandwich ????)

it helps a lot if you are not fussy about food.........

[Gusto]

I would have thought the Bicentenial National Trail would be the longest. http://www.nationaltrail.com.au/

I know people who have done the AAWT with out food drops. He hitched into Mt Beauty and back.

[madmacca]

AAWT is doable without caching - resupply at Thredbo and at Mt Hotham (just 4 and 2 km off the trail). It would require carry 8-12 days food, depending on your speed.

I had an idea the Bicentennial National Trail was supposed to be doable at about 5 days between towns. Can anyone confirm this? Of course, some of those towns may have pretty small shops with a very limited range, and you may have to either carry additional specialised items from larger towns, or mail them to yourself Poste Restante and collect at the local post office agency.

Long range walking does require a reasonable knowledge of nutrition. Fat contains 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein are just 4 calories per gram, so you probably want to shift to a diet that is slightly higher in fats than normal. 700 grams a day is not a bad planning figure, but if you are looking to maximize range and keep it up for weeks on end (where running down your body's reserves is not a sustainable option, then you may want to aim at trying to cover more KM's each day and carry 800 g/day as being more weight efficient overall.

MM

[nq111]

Long range walking does require a reasonable knowledge of nutrition. Fat contains 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein are just 4 calories per gram, so you probably want to shift to a diet that is slightly higher in fats than normal. 700 grams a day is not a bad planning figure, but if you are looking to maximize range and keep it up for weeks on end (where running down your body's reserves is not a sustainable option, then you may want to aim at trying to cover more KM's each day and carry 800 g/day as being more weight efficient overall.

Yeah, interesting stuff - can't say I have been out longer than about 10 days so the considerations you raise haven't been valid to me.

What do you think is a good energy budget per day for really long walks? I work on 15,000KJ/ day (so targeting 2,200KJ/100g average - helps that I really love very high fat foods ) for normal week long walking.

I imagine the normal walking diets that serve people like me well for a week or so in the bush wouldn't be so great after many months as well. Would make planning even harder once you think more seriously about nutrition (as well as the energy density, palatability, preparation ease that we normally consider).

[wayno]

depends on your weight, and how heavy your footwear is, you can waste a lot of energy wearing heavy footwear.
15000 might be ok for a smaller person if the footwear isnt too heavy, but it varies from person to person as well.. how much do you normally eat.
the bigger the calorie deficit of food expended to eaten the hungrier you are going to get and you might find your energy dropping.
coconut fat is good stuff. doesnt go rancid like most vegetable fats and easier to digest than animal fat
it takes ten times as much water to digest fat as it does carbs and four times as much as protein, so i'd watch your fat consumption if you're on limited water supply....

[madmacca]

it takes ten times as much water to digest fat as it does carbs and four times as much as protein, so i'd watch your fat consumption if you're on limited water supply....

Yes it's true that one of the reasons that fat is lighter per calorie is that it doesn't have the extra molecule of water bonded on.

But let's think this through for a minute in the context of a 7 day trip (in the context of a long trip in this thread). Let's assume that you can save 100 grams per day of food by going to a higher proportion of fats, and that the entire difference is due to water, requiring an extra 100 grams of water per day. In the worst case scenario where you pass just one water source a day and must carry the entire 100 ml, this means you save 2800 gram days of food (700 + 600 + 500 + 400 + 300 + 200 + 100 = 280), at a cost of 7 x 100 = 700 gram days of water. So a net saving of 2100 gram days.