Jump to content
 

Why Would I Choose 00-SF ?


Semi Fast
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why is it I'm reminded of a comedy sketch which depicted a load of old guys sitting around a board room table covered in dust and cobwebs….:-)

 

May have been Kenny Everett?…….

 

How about the membership secretary?

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/join/index.html

 

 

Personal insults are now going rather too far.

 

We hear a lot about the greying of the hobby and most model railway organisations seem to be run by the retired these days but as it happens a majority of the DOGA committee are under retirement age . There are plenty of younger members in the society - including myself . I suspect the age profile is a bit lower than the hobby as a whole

 

And I can't help noticing that pretty well all those posting in support of OO-SF are visibly over 65 and retired . AndyID boasted of having 60 years worth of models - which must put him in his mid 70s at least, The frequent reminiscences about the way things were in the 1970s and 80s  is a tell-tale sign (I was at school then) , as is the apparent ignorance of anything that's happened in OO in the last 15 years, and references about returning to the hobby after 35 years

 

People who resort to ad hominem arguments have generally run out of real ones . The level of self-generated heat in these OO-SF promotion threads is quite striking - especially when it happens with nobody outside the OO-SF "club" posting in the thread for long periods

 

I have a life, a living to earn , and modelling to do. Looking at how much effort is being put into promotional posting on this "standard" I'm driven to conclude most of it's advocates don't have at least 2 of those things to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

And I can't help noticing that pretty well all those posting in support of OO-SF are visibly over 65 and retired .

 

I have a life, a living to earn , and modelling to do. Looking at how much effort is being put into promotional posting on this "standard" I'm driven to conclude most of it's advocates don't have at least 2 of those things to worry about.

I'm definitely a long way off 65.....and all three of "those things" on the go.... :bye:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a life. I am considerably under 67 (expected retirement age as of the moment). I spend time modelling. I am not promoting 00-SF or anything else. I am sick to death of good discussions- arguments, even - being spoilt by those who can't see beyond their own preconceptions. Unfortunately, the forum software won't let me delete the thread. Perhaps that should be fortunately, as it would make me as bad

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The level of self-generated heat in these 00-SF promotion threads is quite striking

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

If DOGA had properly researched the 00 standards and embraced "EM minus 2" as one of its standards, under whatever name it wanted, the matter would have been completely defused and the present heat would never have arisen.

 

00 modellers could now be choosing a suitable standard solely on its merits, instead of across drawn battle lines.

 

Even now I would be happy to change the 00-SF designation in Templot to DOGA-SF or whatever you want.

 

Instead of that of course, whenever 00-SF was first discussed on RMweb it was met with a barrage of abuse. Largely from DOGA.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal insults are now going rather too far.

 

We hear a lot about the greying of the hobby and most model railway organisations seem to be run by the retired these days but as it happens a majority of the DOGA committee are under retirement age . There are plenty of younger members in the society - including myself . I suspect the age profile is a bit lower than the hobby as a whole

 

And I can't help noticing that pretty well all those posting in support of OO-SF are visibly over 65 and retired . AndyID boasted of having 60 years worth of models - which must put him in his mid 70s at least, The frequent reminiscences about the way things were in the 1970s and 80s  is a tell-tale sign (I was at school then) , as is the apparent ignorance of anything that's happened in OO in the last 15 years, and references about returning to the hobby after 35 years

 

People who resort to ad hominem arguments have generally run out of real ones . The level of self-generated heat in these OO-SF promotion threads is quite striking - especially when it happens with nobody outside the OO-SF "club" posting in the thread for long periods

 

I have a life, a living to earn , and modelling to do. Looking at how much effort is being put into promotional posting on this "standard" I'm driven to conclude most of it's advocates don't have at least 2 of those things to worry about.

 

It was very much tongue in cheek, hence the …:-)

 

Apologies if you took offence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Enters stage left and carefully tries to navigate topic back on course. (Smile!)

 

I'm thinking of using OO-SF simply because it makes so much sense - well it does to me. Also it appeals as it isn't the preserve of a club or society so should be free of politics and all the gubbins that sometimes go with that sort of thing and we East Anglians are notorious for our independent streak. Think of Boudicca and Hereward the Wake, Oliver Cromwell and so on. Non-conformists all!  (Who said stubborn anti-social troublemakers?)

 

So far as the PECO dimensions are concerned - why doesn't somebody (who wants to know) ask them what the measurements are? They have a technical help section and they answered a question I had about the track centres for HO/OO streamline without any compunction. (it's 2 inches - 50.8mm - their words not mine). I cannot see why they wouldn't tell you and it would save all this measuring and compiling and so forth.

 

I would also observe that if the cost of tooling for new track is high, they had no problem with that if and when they modified the design to narrow the what-not gap mentioned in an earlier post. And I don't know if anybody else has noticed but on new code 100 points the lump that housed the spring has now gone - it's replaced from underneath now which will be a pain if the point is glued down. (I am assuming they are newer I only bought them a week or so ago in plastic wallets)

 

Will now exit stage right and lurk.

Edited by RichardS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal insults are now going rather too far.

 

We hear a lot about the greying of the hobby and most model railway organisations seem to be run by the retired these days but as it happens a majority of the DOGA committee are under retirement age . There are plenty of younger members in the society - including myself . I suspect the age profile is a bit lower than the hobby as a whole

 

And I can't help noticing that pretty well all those posting in support of OO-SF are visibly over 65 and retired . AndyID boasted of having 60 years worth of models - which must put him in his mid 70s at least, The frequent reminiscences about the way things were in the 1970s and 80s  is a tell-tale sign (I was at school then) , as is the apparent ignorance of anything that's happened in OO in the last 15 years, and references about returning to the hobby after 35 years

 

People who resort to ad hominem arguments have generally run out of real ones . The level of self-generated heat in these OO-SF promotion threads is quite striking - especially when it happens with nobody outside the OO-SF "club" posting in the thread for long periods

 

I have a life, a living to earn , and modelling to do. Looking at how much effort is being put into promotional posting on this "standard" I'm driven to conclude most of it's advocates don't have at least 2 of those things to worry about.

 

 

Sounds like quite a few of us are too young to model in 00-sf, at least we cant be charged as armchair modellers. 

 

Gordon

 

I thought it was quite funny and definitely tongue in cheek, still not everyone has a same sense of humour. I have been told I am well balanced individual, as I have a chip on both shoulders. :jester:

 

I think most if not all the 00-sf brigade are quite happy for those who wish to follow a different gauge if that's what takes their fancy, its a free world 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can't help noticing that pretty well all those posting in support of OO-SF are visibly over 65 and retired

 

Cough...20 here...

 

Perhaps people support 00-SF because, I don't know, it works for a sizable subset of people who build their own 00 track? Call me crazy.

Edited by mightbe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

I think most if not all the 00-sf brigade are quite happy for those who wish to follow a different gauge if that's what takes their fancy, its a free world 

Agreed - I'm a member of both the EMGS and S4 Societies.  Given a perfect world (and a preference for Diesels rather than Steamers) I'd adopt EM Gauge.  But the thought, expense and risk of re-gauging my growing collection of RTR Steam Locos (with the odd Green Diesel thrown in) make this a no-no.  For me , 00-sf offers the most attractive alternative; others may have different preferences and that's absolutely fine too.  

Edited by polybear
Link to post
Share on other sites

Polybear

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head, in an ideal world I would also do the same EM for looks and performance. In a perfect world I would model in P4, but I am not willing to invest the time, resources and money.

 

Now as its not a perfect or ideal world 00-sf gives me a convenient alternative, sorry if that greats with some. But if you stop and think for a few seconds, your choice of gauge may great with me, But perhaps I am too polite to criticise your choice, but I reserve the right to defend my choice when its questioned

 

If you are worried about the exposure or 00-sf then why not try promoting your own choice of gauge on a stand alone thread. I am building track today, anyone else doing the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks Andy. One detail that pic shows well is that the rail section used in Peco turnouts does not have any web. Otherwise of course it would not be usable for insert moulding. Or at least, not without a vastly more complex mould tool.

 

Your figures give a check gauge on the main side of 15.01mm and on the turnout side of 14.91mm, in keeping with my previous suggestion that the Peco check gauge is or was 15.0mm. So it seems from Richard's figures that there is indeed a difference in this regard between their code 75 and code 100 products.

 

Given how silly some of the other details are (e.g. the far too short check rails, the bent timber on the exit), the rail fixings are quite reasonable representations of FB baseplates and clips. More evidence that Peco do actually know about track, as seen for example in their bullhead turnouts for 0 gauge.

 

I submit this photo to show that at least some Peco turnouts do use wing rails with a web, though tapered. This is from one of their code 75 turnouts. I don't know about the moulding process.

post-14389-0-42330200-1441440574.jpg

 

For what it's worth - this is my first 00-SF turnout - vee and wing rail parts from a Peco left hand small radius turnout, soldered onto copperclad. I couldn't use the turnout anywhere on my layout so I cut it in half, "made" a LH catch point, and then "made" this. It's not really a bad way to start - the machining on the vee rails lets you use either rail as the nose. Also the notches show how to bend FB rail. The only filing needed is the two point blades and the recesses for them in the stock rails.

 

A casual inspection of this shows why I started my own 00-SF topic, which began asking about bends on the ends of wing and check rails. Nevertheless, this model got me started and I encourage anyone who is reading these threads to spend an evening with a soldering iron and see how you get on. I went on to build six more, and I'm an easy convert to the cause. I arrived here from using Peco for some years (for another post: I'm a long way from retirement) and then a dabble in EM some years ago, not other hand-built 00 standards.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am building track today, anyone else doing the same?

Afraid not - I am taking in the delights of spreading kitchen foil and plasticine over stones from the garden, and pouring plaster casts to make some cliffs. Also, being self-employed, I'm working a while today too. However, you do remind me I might resolder my broken tiebar. This is my only 00-SF snag to date, and for some reason this one has failed twice.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed here too.

 

And yes, I'd also like to see some threads devoted to alternative 'finescale' 00 standards, DOGA or whatever. I'd be genuinely interested to see what people are doing. I certainly won't be criticising them nor rubbishing their choice of standard, good luck to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - I'm a member of both the EMGS and S4 Societies.  Given a perfect world (and a preference for Diesels rather than Steamers) I'd adopt EM Gauge.  But the thought, expense and risk of re-gauging my growing collection of RTR Steam Locos (with the odd Green Diesel thrown in) make this a no-no.  For me , 00-sf offers the most attractive alternative; others may have different preferences and that's absolutely fine too.  

 

For the sake of clarity :

 

- Working to the OO Intermediate standard does not require rewheeling RTR stock. Indeed it is more forgiving of manufacturing tolerances on wheelsets than OO-SF

 

The repeated misinformation on this point, the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the existence of OO Intermediate, the glossing over of the large number of modellers working to these standards , and the presentation of matters to anyone enquiring about handbuilt track  as a straight choice between OO-SF and "playing trains on the carpet" by people who are dismissed as "consumers not modellers" is exactly what generates the friction.

 

(on the latter point I instance the reaction to postings by a long-standing well-known member of DEMU noted for his large fleet of scratchbuilt diesel locos, who's been a long standing member on R|MWeb)

 

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Those comments have really taken me aback.

 

In discussing 00-SF it has never occurred to me that anyone would be unaware of other 00 modelling using handbuilt track. That may explain some of the heat in the argument, which has always baffled me.

 

There must have been many hundreds of such layouts appearing in magazines and at exhibitions over the last 60 years or so. They are nearly all built to the BRMSB 00 track standard (now called 00-BF in Templot and DOGA-Intermediate). Roller track gauges to this standard have been available from Romford/Markits for all that time, and kits and components from suppliers such as SMP/Marcway and in more recent years C&L.

 

Here's one such well-known layout which comes to mind:

 

http://mmrs.co.uk/la...wsbury-midland/

 

regards,

 

Martin

 

This , from Martin Wynne, is very much relevant. (It's probably a few thousand layouts over the last 60 years) 

 

Unfortunately the whole thrust of the OO-SF publicity posting on here has been to ignore the existence of these standards and the large body of modellers working to them, and present the choice open to anyone interested in something better than Peco as solely between OO-SF and OO-Fine , with the inevitable claim that the latter is technically flawed and requires complete rewheeling.

 

Bluntly, I hesitate to mention various OO layouts built to these standards for fear of seeing their builders and owners subjected to the sort of personal abuse that has emerged in this thread. But owned and operated by DOGA members on the circuit currently , off the top of my head I can cite Horbury, Kirkby Stephen West, Manston Airport, Borchester Market (currently owned by a long standing DOGA member and former officer, and in running modern RTR and kit built stock on BRMSB track a demonstration of OO Intermediate), Belmont Road, and others. Empingham, built to OO Fine standards by our late Journal editor who died just over a year ago aged 64 or 65 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86812-peter-rumbelow-aka-topaz-r/  is also on the circuit. I believe that members of the Bath Green Park group were members of DOGA during the 1990s , and that probably contributed to the codification of OO-Fine standards. The current editor's home layout, Chesterfield Central has recently appeared in one of the magazines, and I believe is to OO Fine. There are plenty of other layouts to these OO standards built by people outside DOGA (Dewsbury Midland, Leicester S Goods, Charwelton,  Stoke Summit, Hazelbank amongst many others)

 

I've been a DOGA member since the mid 90s,and I recall the process by which the standards were drawn up at that time, though I had no personal involvement with it . Put simply , there were no modellers anywhere working to a gauge of 16.2mm - so no standard for it, just as nobody has ever felt the need to adopt a standard for 17.0mm gauge . 16.2mm gauge is an idea which seems to have emerged from Templot Club and been vigourously promoted on here for the last 5-6 years as the only answer for handbuilt track in OO 

 

As to starting threads about other standards, we've recently seen 2 threads on technical matters in 4mm standards swamped by irate OO-SF supporters and locked. A third thread on a general technical issue of wide application saw a notably proprietorial attitude to the thread by OO-SF adherents. Posts by those working to other standards or coming from other perspectives are routinely met with versions of "this thread is not for you. Please do not post here".

 

The sheer number of OO-SF threads here, relative to the very limited number about other 4mm track standards (including EM/P4) tells it's own story - especially given the relative numbers of folk working to them. It's not a welcoming environment in which to discuss other 4mm track standards, and I've little doubt what would happen if I ever started a thread in here

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm on a different RMWeb to Ravenser. I certainly don't recognise what he's describing - perception is about the point of view, I suppose. Perhaps I should start another thread - "why should I choose DOGA Intermediate?". Just for control purposes.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of clarity :

 

- Working to the OO Intermediate standard does not require rewheeling RTR stock. Indeed it is more forgiving of manufacturing tolerances on wheelsets than OO-SF

 

The repeated misinformation on this point, the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the existence of OO Intermediate, the glossing over of the large number of modellers working to these standards , and the presentation of matters to anyone enquiring about handbuilt track  as a straight choice between OO-SF and "playing trains on the carpet" by people who are dismissed as "consumers not modellers" is exactly what generates the friction.

 

(on the latter point I instance the reaction to postings by a long-standing well-known member of DEMU noted for his large fleet of scratchbuilt diesel locos, who's been a long standing member on R|MWeb)

 

 

This , from Martin Wynne, is very much relevant. (It's probably a few thousand layouts over the last 60 years) 

 

Unfortunately the whole thrust of the OO-SF publicity posting on here has been to ignore the existence of these standards and the large body of modellers working to them, and present the choice open to anyone interested in something better than Peco as solely between OO-SF and OO-Fine , with the inevitable claim that the latter is technically flawed and requires complete rewheeling.

 

Bluntly, I hesitate to mention various OO layouts built to these standards for fear of seeing their builders and owners subjected to the sort of personal abuse that has emerged in this thread. But owned and operated by DOGA members on the circuit currently , off the top of my head I can cite Horbury, Kirkby Stephen West, Manston Airport, Borchester Market (currently owned by a long standing DOGA member and former officer, and in running modern RTR and kit built stock on BRMSB track a demonstration of OO Intermediate), Belmont Road, and others. Empingham, built to OO Fine standards by our late Journal editor who died just over a year ago aged 64 or 65 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86812-peter-rumbelow-aka-topaz-r/  is also on the circuit. I believe that members of the Bath Green Park group were members of DOGA during the 1990s , and that probably contributed to the codification of OO-Fine standards. The current editor's home layout, Chesterfield Central has recently appeared in one of the magazines, and I believe is to OO Fine. There are plenty of other layouts to these OO standards built by people outside DOGA (Dewsbury Midland, Leicester S Goods, Charwelton,  Stoke Summit, Hazelbank amongst many others)

 

I've been a DOGA member since the mid 90s,and I recall the process by which the standards were drawn up at that time, though I had no personal involvement with it . Put simply , there were no modellers anywhere working to a gauge of 16.2mm - so no standard for it, just as nobody has ever felt the need to adopt a standard for 17.0mm gauge . 16.2mm gauge is an idea which seems to have emerged from Templot Club and been vigourously promoted on here for the last 5-6 years as the only answer for handbuilt track in OO 

 

As to starting threads about other standards, we've recently seen 2 threads on technical matters in 4mm standards swamped by irate OO-SF supporters and locked. A third thread on a general technical issue of wide application saw a notably proprietorial attitude to the thread by OO-SF adherents. Posts by those working to other standards or coming from other perspectives are routinely met with versions of "this thread is not for you. Please do not post here".

 

The sheer number of OO-SF threads here, relative to the very limited number about other 4mm track standards (including EM/P4) tells it's own story - especially given the relative numbers of folk working to them. It's not a welcoming environment in which to discuss other 4mm track standards, and I've little doubt what would happen if I ever started a thread in here

 

 

What is your problem ?  I cannot see what miss information is being given. We are building turnouts and crossings that work very well and look good, please note I also build turnouts in 00 intermediate that also work. As far as I can see the only miss information on another similar thread was you miss-quoting me and twisting what I had written, I bought this to your attention and you just ignored it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm on a different RMWeb to Ravenser. I certainly don't recognise what he's describing - perception is about the point of view, I suppose. Perhaps I should start another thread - "why should I choose DOGA Intermediate?". Just for control purposes.

 

 

Now what we could start is Why I do not use DOGA intermediate, then he would have a reason to go off on one. But I seem to find 00-sf modellers to polite to do such a thing as they seem to want to encourage others which ever standards they use

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
there were no modellers anywhere working to a gauge of 16.2mm - so no standard for it

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

That doesn't make sense. A standard is created by arithmetic, it doesn't require anyone to be using it. They can't if it doesn't yet exist. Standards are first proposed, and then adopted.

 

 

16.2mm gauge is an idea which seems to have emerged from Templot Club and been vigourously promoted on here for the last 5-6 years as the only answer for handbuilt track in 00

 

I have posted the history of 00-SF more than once, and it goes back a long way before Templot. I have now put it on the 00-SF Wiki, and you are very welcome to add to it if you wish, or correct any mistakes. It's at: http://00-sf.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_00-SF

 

Templot's first public release was in August 1999, including a listing for 00-SF, which is 16 years ago, not 5 or 6. As a former manufacturer of track and at that time still trading as 85A Models, DOGA could easily have contacted me if it was researching track standards.

 

Templot has also always included a listing for 00-BF, and in discussing 00-SF I have never ignored 00-BF / DOGA Intermediate or its pros and cons.

 

But the point about 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate which you refuse to address is that it is not suitable for narrow kit wheels such as EMGS, Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc., and only marginally suitable for Romford/Markits and then only if unprototypical sharp-nose vees are used. Various claims are made that drop-in on crossings doesn't matter, or isn't significant, but as everyone who has tried it knows full well, it does happen and it is objectionable to most of them. Especially on the longer crossing angles in curved crossovers and elsewhere which builders of handbuilt track like to use.

 

So just to make it clear, here is a statement again which I have made many times:

 

If you use only RTR wheels, DOGA Intermediate is absolutely fine and there is no need to use 00-SF. Other than for the improved appearance of the narrower flangeways.

 

I repeat. If you use only RTR wheels.

 

If you use narrower wheels it is a matter of arithmetic, not opinion. They will not be fully supported across the crossings and will bump. They don't do that on 00-SF.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If you do a Google search for "DOGA fine layout" you get nothing, and refining the search to "DOGA fine layout rmweb" gets just one ("Bitton") plus of course loads of explanations and comparisons with 00-SF. And, the DOGA intermediate standard doesn't seem to share much common ground with commercial track like Peco.

 

It seems to me, 00-SF is a natural progression from 00-BF and from EM, but not from either of the DOGA standards. Perhaps this is another reason to choose 00-SF.

 

(I want to write to the DOGA, but their web site gives no address)

 

- Richard.

 

I made this post with sincerity and thoughtfulness - and I've now made a mental note to never again mention the DOGA on the rmweb.

I've also realised, I don't need to write to them; and indeed, I most certainly don't want to.

 

It is said a week is a long time in politics, but 24 hours is plenty here.

 

- Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is it just me or is there a degree of unwarranted paranoia present in some of theses postings? Not to mention elements of ageism.

 

I really just don't get it, a few modellers sharing their experiences of a particular interest and we're a bunch of wrinkled, crumbling, cult members intent on world domination. I think I must have missed something somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin - your post noted, - the "push" has come more from your followers than yourself and I think part of what is happened is that you haven't quite realised from the inside how the

 

Hi Ravenser,

 

That doesn't make sense. A standard is created by arithmetic, it doesn't require anyone to be using it. They can't if it doesn't yet exist. Standards are first proposed, and then adopted.

 

 

 

 

Welcome to OO, I'm afraid. There have been OO modellers and modelling for very many years - but the cry of "there are no standards for OO" has been endemic for decades.

 

 When some people set up a society to address this problem , and sought to produce standards codifying coherent internally consistant figures which would be suitable for the different groups of modellers in OO , they simply didn't come across anyone working to 16.2mm gauge , despite about 5 years of widespread consultation with OO modellers. Nobody in the many many hundreds of past and present DOGA members has ever mentioned a 16.2mm gauge or ever worked to it. Why adopt  a standard for which there is no demand?

 

On the other hand , there was a big demand for a wheel standard for modern RTR to be defined , and the manufacturers pressed to adopt it. There was also overwhelming support for that standard to be RP25/110 . And there was a demand for a proper track standard for OO track that would match RTR properly. That was also drawn up.  There was also a need for standards to be published to cover handbuilt track. People were working with products from "finescale sources" with no defined standard or coherent definition

 

( I joined in the early days because it all sounded like a good idea and was strongly supported in print by Iain Rice in a piece for MORILL so I remember the history)

 

It's all about producing a datasheet with a coherent set of standards for modellers already working in that area of fineness/standard to use

 

DOGA was always going to define several standards for different groups in OO. (The key development was finding that the track standard defined for RTR wheels actually matched the practice of most people handbuilding OO pointwork)

 

It's just not sensible to start defining standards when there is no user base for them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made this post with sincerity and thoughtfulness - and I've now made a mental note to never again mention the DOGA on the rmweb.

I've also realised, I don't need to write to them; and indeed, I most certainly don't want to.

 

It is said a week is a long time in politics, but 24 hours is plenty here.

 

- Richard.

 

 

As DOGA have a stand at a number of shows including Ally Pally, St Albans and Peterborough you don't need to write to them. One of the layouts I mentioned, Belmont Road , will be at Shenfield  in 2 weeks - that's close to you

 

There is a scale society for OO ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...