1. The EASTERN FELLS
2. The FAR EASTERN
FELLS
3. The CENTRAL FELLS
4. The SOUTHERN FELLS
5. The NORTHERN FELLS
6. The NORTH WESTERN
FELLS
7. The WESTERN FELLS
The Lake District Fells
The Lake District - click on map for any area
Or click here to jump to an alphabetical list of fellsAny list of peaks which claims to be definitive will be disputed by somebody, the famous Munros in Scotland (summits over 3000') being a case in point. The list has been revised so many times, with additions and deletions, that one would think the mountains themselves were moving. In reality, of course, they haven't risen or dropped an inch in the hundred years that the list has been around, remaining totally oblivious to the debate, and they'll still be there long after Munro's list has been forgotten.
For the purposes of this site, I've used the 214 fells which are described in the seven guides written by AW Wainwright as a starting point, though many other tops are referred to in the text. Although he used no specific criteria as to which fells to include, his division of the fells into seven separate geographical zones divided by natural features such as valleys and passes has been adopted by many later guidebook writers. The only real flaw with this system is that the very valleys that form the boundaries of each book are often those where many walkers will be based. This means at least two books would usually be needed for most valley-based trips, to cover either side of the valley base. (Click here for a summary of which books would be recommended for any given centre)
Wainwright himself never compiled a list of his fells for publication, nor did he suggest them as the basis of a round, though this has become popular. There are some fine fells which he omitted, although a later book, "The Outlying Fells", rounded most of them up.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE LAKE DISTRICT FELLS
Click on any fell for hyperlink
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z
A note on heights:
To make this site as useful as possible to the most visitors, I've used both the imperial and metric systems side by side in most cases. I might make the site exclusively metric at some point in the future, though I'd be interested to know what people thought of this.
There are several advantages to the metric system. When out on the hills, the map will be metric, so it makes sense to think that way. The grid squares on the map are equal to one kilometre, which is 1000 meteres. Given that Britain's highest mountains are around the 1000m mark, one can visualise the scale height of the summit in relation to the ground. For example, the Scottish Munro Sgurr Breac is exactly 1000m high; therefore, on a 1:25,000 map (4cm to the km), one could imagine it as standing four centimetres proud of the page.
The imperial system, however, seems to be more in keeping with the long tradition of hillwalking. For example The Munros have their basis in imperial measurement, and when converted into a metric framework there becomes an arbitrariness about them - surely if Munro was compiling his list today he'd choose a 1000m contour rather than what would seem a totally arbitrary 914m. Of course, the imperial system is no less scientific than the metric system, and when it comes to measuring height the smaller unit of the foot is actually more than three times as accurate as the metre.
Personally, I still tend to think in feet when it comes to measuring mountains, but I find it easy to calculate the conversions in my head whilst on the move. For somebody taking up hillwalking for the first time, I'd say there's no advantage to using the imperial system these days and advise them to just use the metric system.
1.
The EASTERN FELLS
2. The FAR EASTERN
FELLS
3. The CENTRAL FELLS
4. The SOUTHERN FELLS
5. The NORTHERN FELLS
6. The NORTH WESTERN
FELLS
7. The WESTERN FELLS
HOME PAGE
WILD CAMPING
LAKE DISTRICT FELLS
TRIP REPORTS
PHOTO INDEX
LINKS
