FGW Link Class 166 Screenshots

miller2002 · Post by **miller2002** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:27 pm

How bout Stratford Upon Avon They run through to there
Thanks
mark

birminghamnewstreet · Post by **birminghamnewstreet** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:37 pm

Coxster wrote:
LucaZone wrote:hhmmm 3 hours at Reading and not one train wsa for Bicester Town. How often do they run?
Bicester Town services start at Oxford, calling at only Islip.

Birmingham New Street: It's Bicester North that is served by Chiltern Railway's services

I had a feeling it was, but me only using Voyagers i cant venture down there

, i usually stay on the voyager instead of getting of at oxford- i found it boring, banbury i thought was quite nice though, i went for a walk allong the river/canell.

jonathanmlewis · Post by **jonathanmlewis** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:46 pm

miller2002 wrote:How bout Stratford Upon Avon They run through to there
Thanks
mark

Their about 3 London - Stratford Upon Avon trains a day which I think are stopping when the new timetable starts in December

richardpratt · Post by **richardpratt** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:59 am

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/link ... tables.php

See the Bicester to Oxford line and it says which trains run past Oxford, but there are engineering works coming up between Oxford and Didcot.

I had a feeling it was, but me only using Voyagers i cant venture down there , i usually stay on the voyager instead of getting of at oxford- i found it boring, banbury i thought was quite nice though, i went for a walk allong the river/canell.

There were plans to relocate Oxford station near it's ice rink, but that probably won't happen for ages yet. I think FGW Link link as an absolute farce. from the Adalante's, it's just a rebadged Thames Trains, with Â£2 million pounds of funding to change the train vinyls. Why not refurbish the turbo inside and outside?!

Looking forward to downloading the turbo....

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:19 am

They've done alot more than change the names on the trains......

richardpratt · Post by **richardpratt** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:09 pm

I guess so, things will be a lot better when the new intergrated timetable comes out in December. My dad is a FGW Link driver, and he feels that no significant improvements have yet to be introduced apart from the introduction of 180's either. Then again, it's only been a few months since they were in charge.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:36 pm

Most of the changes ive noticed have been with stations. Refurbishing them, improving security, much more stringent ticket checks. the best of all though is reduction in baby beggers!

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:45 pm

Destinations so far loaded onto the model ready for use:

Banbury
Basingstoke
Bedwyn
Gatwick
Hereford
Newbury
Oxford
Paddington
Reading
Shalford

That leaves these still to get:

Slough
Windsor & Eton
Didcot
Redhill
Bicester Town
Great Malvern
Stratford
Marlow
Henley
Greenford

This model should hold the record for msot possible destinations right? hehe

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:39 pm

Uploaded ::

Invalid File ID [10264]

richardpratt · Post by **richardpratt** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:31 am

Great stuff mate, looking forward to downloading it.

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:35 pm

LucaZone wrote:Uploaded ::

Invalid File ID [10264]

Hmmm... I get an Invalid File ID and I can't see it on the UKTS homepage as well...

250787 · Post by **250787** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:03 pm

Thats becuase it hasnt been approved yet.

cheers

Backfoot2002 · Post by **Backfoot2002** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:52 pm

250787 wrote:Thats becuase it hasnt been approved yet.

cheers

it was there yesterday...

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:57 pm

Yes sorry, there was a small naming error in the install file, but when i corrected it, the whole file failed the approval process. So im uploaded a rebuilt zip file now. Should be available tomorrow.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:51 pm

Invalid File ID [10282]