Glasgow Underground

travelpass · Post by **travelpass** » 12 Sep 2005, 22:47

Whats the fastest time for completing the "Clockwork Orange" Glasgow Underground network?

I think me and my frineds did it in about 25 minutes.

Incase anyone doesn't know, the Glasgow Underground is just two oval shaped lines, one going clockwise, the other goig anti-clockwise.

http://www.spt.co.uk/subway/index.html

TheFatBuoy · Post by **TheFatBuoy** » 13 Sep 2005, 08:48

The Melbourne underground system is quite easy to do quickly as well. Just four stations, all in a loop.

That's Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, not the village of Melbourne near Donnington Park, by the way.

PFW · Post by **PFW** » 13 Sep 2005, 09:56

I have a theory that, since one line on the Glasgow Underground possibly runs on the inside of the other, then it must be shorter in one direction than the going the other way.

You could try beating your own time by simply changing direction.

travelpass · Post by **travelpass** » 13 Sep 2005, 17:32

PFW wrote:I have a theory that, since one line on the Glasgow Underground possibly runs on the inside of the other, then it must be shorter in one direction than the going the other way.

You could try beating your own time by simply changing direction.

You know, I never thought of that.

We did the outside Line.

The trains are not as nice as LU trains, and they tend to shake a lot more than the ones on the Tube too.

PFW · Post by **PFW** » 13 Sep 2005, 18:17

Let me know if changing direction works - I might try it on the Circle Line sometime...

Post by **tubeguru** » 14 Sep 2005, 10:12

Well, in theory, inner rail, anti-clockwise is going to be "shorter" by ooh, inches.

PFW · Post by **PFW** » 14 Sep 2005, 11:17

tubeguru wrote:Well, in theory, inner rail, anti-clockwise is going to be "shorter" by ooh, inches.

It probably works out about the same kind of length as the difference between two sets of doors on a carriage, which some people seem to think can make quite a difference (myself included).

juggler · Post by **juggler** » 15 Sep 2005, 23:41

Warsaw's pretty easy too, as is Valencia - these cities with stations only just in the double figures don't know what they're missing

travelpass · Post by **travelpass** » 16 Sep 2005, 00:16

I also bagged a few stations on the Rome Metro this summer.

Has anyone been on it before...very confusing, and the trains are quite dirty and uncomfortable.

I enjoyed it though, the Italian train network seems to run on time, although the trains and stations (on our route anyway Roma Termini-Marino Laziale) were not anything to write home about (even though I did mention them in a postcard to someone

).

The Rome Metro is very quick though, and we seemed to get on without needing to show our tickets (Ã¢â€šÂ¬4 for an all day, all accss pass), same story with the Rome busses.

I think the Rome Metro had 2 lines, although I could be wrong, as the maps were confusing.

barrykas · Post by **barrykas** » 16 Sep 2005, 16:57

tubeguru wrote:Well, in theory, inner rail, anti-clockwise is going to be "shorter" by ooh, inches.

According to Clive's Underground Line Guides the Outer Rail on London's Circle Line is around 40 metres longer than the Inner Rail.

Cheers,

Barry

Fimb · Post by **Fimb** » 16 Sep 2005, 21:40

Well, its starting to look like another trip to Thailand will be on the books next March / April time.. we're both missing our friends, and the island we go to so much that the talk of going again has started.

When we were there last year the Bangkok metro opened, after a crash on its original first day in January 2004..

Its one line.. so, I've *got* to do it really haven't it?! (Though we were planning on going via Kuala Lumpa, so we might have to take a quick detour via Bangkok now!)

http://www.bangkokmetro.co.th/en/home.asp?

Fimb · Post by **Fimb** » 16 Sep 2005, 21:50

Oooooh

KL has one too!! But has a few lines to take into account..

http://www.rapidkl.com.my/rapidbus_route.htm

geofftech · Post by **geofftech** » 17 Sep 2005, 11:58

Yes, I was on the Rome Metro back in last 2003 - and the trains are infreuqent, and dirty. The stations are dimly lit, and ANYONE who dare now has a pop at the London Underground, I merely tell them of how crap the Rome one is - and they soon keep quiet!

Most amusing thing about their system? It's built on the cheap .. rather than tunelling under the main river in the city, it pops up above ground - crosses it on a bridge, and the ducks underground again...

travelpass · Post by **travelpass** » 19 Sep 2005, 19:44

geofftech wrote:
Most amusing thing about their system? It's built on the cheap .. rather than tunelling under the main river in the city, it pops up above ground - crosses it on a bridge, and the ducks underground again...

Yes!

I notcied that too on the way back from the Vatican (St Poerto station I think) to Termin. I was suddenly taken aback when I saw cars and busses out of the window instead of nothing!.

I also notcied on several occasions that the trains left stations before the doors had closed...

G Force · Post by **G Force** » 24 Sep 2005, 18:30

TheFatBuoy wrote:The Melbourne underground system is quite easy to do quickly as well. Just four stations, all in a loop.
That's Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, not the village of Melbourne near Donnington Park, by the way.

Melbourne doesn't have an underground metro system, it just has a railway line that runs underground in the City centre.

geofftech wrote:Most amusing thing about their system? It's built on the cheap .. rather than tunelling under the main river in the city, it pops up above ground - crosses it on a bridge, and the ducks underground again...

It was probably built like that due to waterlogged ground conditions, rather than to cut costs. The Paris metro usually crosses the Seine by bridge, because when the metro was originally built, there wasn't the technology in France to build under the river.

tubechallenge.com

Glasgow Underground

Glasgow Underground

Melbourne Underground

Re: Melbourne Underground

Who is online