Garfield, GH, Twins loop. Direction?

[Tahoma]

Friday Im planning to do Garfield, GH, and the Twins in a circuit of some fashion. Originally I'd planned on ascending Garfield Trail and crossing the ridge to the Twins and descending that way. A friend said he glissaded almost the entire Twin trail from North Twin summit down to the river.

Then I wondered if adding a tiny bit of mileage (I'd prob ski in via Beaver Brook access and shorten the road trip) by going up Gale River Trail to the col, shoot west to garfield on the ridge, back to GH, then to the Twins would be best (down Twin trail again).

Lastly I was considering would it be better to do this in reverse, ascending the twins first, getting over the big gain to ST, and then descending off Garfield or GH. I'd love to do the trail ski off garfield, but that will have to wait for a ski touring type of day.

Any opinions on this logistically? Has anyone been on these trails since the most recent snow? I appreciate the input besides my own voice!

 

[peakbagger]

If you do it via the North Twin trail from the Little River road, CW as it get the major river crossing out of the way early when the ice is the strongest. It would really be a bad day to come down off of North Twin and not be able to cross the river.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Safety-wise, I agree with peakbagger - get the crossing over with early. On the glissading front, you can get a great slide from South Twin to Galehead Hut, which in the other direction is quite a rigorous climb... if that matters. Going up Garfield (via the Garfield Trail) is a very pleasant way to gain elevation, and likewise, it's kind to the knees for a descent, although maybe not good for sliding (with a sled and packed conditions, sure...)

Tim

 

[TJsName]

A friend said he glissaded almost the entire Twin trail from North Twin summit down to the river.

The North Twin Trail from just below the scrub until just before the river is a pretty consistent grade and great for sledding. I'm not sure if it's steep enough to glissade in the traditional sense. I'd strongly recommend you take the "whack" east side of the river (the only cross you'll make). Last I knew (2013) there was a very large tree that one could use for crossing if need be. Going that direction will give you a better sled, as most of Garfield's descent isn't steep enough to sustain a sled unless you are in very hard packed/icy conditions. Of course, if you have those conditions, it might be better to ascend the Twinway and sled out N. Twin anyway. If you don't have a sled then I'd go CCW just for the better bailout options.

 

[peakbagger]

Of all the hairy winter time crossings I have done in the whites, the Little River Crossing always gives me the "willies" its rarely frozen completely over with lots of holes from eddys. I don't know if I would do it solo but that's an individual choice.

 

[KV]

Last I knew (2013) there was a very large tree that one could use for crossing if need be.

My understanding is that tree has been dislodged - no longer a crossing aid. Not personal experience, read it in a tr some time within the last 6 months - year.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I did the one crossing in November and I did notice the tree was gone. We had no problem crossing that day, which is not to say that it the reader will be able to cross it now, or at any other time ...

Tim

 

[Wayne]

The descent off Garfield heading to GH generally warrants packing your crampons. Steep hard ice. A friend just started for the Twins first and got turned back by there being no log anymore and high water levels.

 

[Tahoma]

So maybe this idea: up galehead river trail. climb the twins as an O&B, summit GH on way by to garfield. Descend garfield. I like it the more I think about it. Its about 17 total miles (not including roads) which isnt much more than the loop. I have no plans of bringing a sled, but maybe skis.
That would avoid the big water crossings on Twins and it would climb to garfield, decent grade to end the day.

 

[David Metsky]

I have no plans of bringing a sled, but maybe skis.

You'll be carrying those skis for the majority of the day. The ski down from Garfield is fun if the conditions are just right, but otherwise it's mostly survival skiing.

 

[alexmtn]

You'll be carrying those skis for the majority of the day.

Actually, no. On reaching the grt/GRT junction from Beaver Brook, the logical thing to do is to stash the skis, do the GH/Twins out&back on snowshoes, then pick up the skis and either head toward Garfield or bail. Opinions vary, but I really like the Galehead/Twins out&back hike. The incremental distance and elevation gain are minimal (basically just re-climbing 400 not-particularly-steep feet of ST, the scenery and woods between the Twins are very pretty, and the topographical psychology of it works, at least for me. In fact I once did an out&back to GH from Little River Rd and enjoyed it.

However, hauling your skis from the grt/GRT Jct to the GT/GRT Jct likely will not be a whole lot of fun, though the tree-tangle issues aren't as nasty now as they will be when snow depths increase.

In the event you decide to attempt the broader loop, I agree with the recommendation to take care of the water crossing up front. Looking at the current stream flows and the forecast weather and temps, I think your odds for success are good. But one more caveat: if you're going to be solo, the crossing is an especially not-so-great idea.

Alex

 

[David Metsky]

However, hauling your skis from the grt/GRT Jct to the GT/GRT Jct likely will not be a whole lot of fun, though the tree-tangle issues aren't as nasty now as they will be when snow depths increase.

This was my point. The only skiing you will do on this route is down the Garfield Trail. You can stash skis at the hut or at the junction before the hut, but you're still carrying up Gale River (probably, I guess you could ski it but why?) and across the ridge. That's a lot of carrying of skis and boots for a relatively uneventful descent. But a day on skis is still better than a day not on skis.

 

[alexmtn]

. . . That's a lot of carrying of skis and boots . . .

David, done are my days of being in the backcountry with any ski boot that I can't also hike in . . .

Alex

 

[Tahoma]

Im assuming Garfield is packed out, so I was planning on saving the fun ski tour of that for another day. I was mostly thinking of a very light XC set up for entry and exit on the roads and lower grades of GRT and Garfield.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Don't be disappointed if the lower stretch of the Garfield Trail is too thin to ski. For whatever reason, that first section seems to have / hold less snow than surrounding terrain.

Tim

 

[Tahoma]

Don't be disappointed if the lower stretch of the Garfield Trail is too thin to ski. For whatever reason, that first section seems to have / hold less snow than surrounding terrain.

Tim

thanks Tim. Ill keep that in mind. My plan is to take the skis in the car and make my choice by what I find near Beaver Brook. It will also depend on who may be joining me or not.
I was surprised at how much coverage there has been on the Kanc and Pemi wilderness this past week so I was hoping for some decent coverage up there as well. Cannon, Cannonball ridge and Kinsmans also had a lot of snow a week ago, and other than the windscoured apline zone, the Franconia Ridge was holding good snow 2 weeks ago (enough for XC, not for carving). Do you suspect there to be less snow than these areas?