Jump to content
 

Plan for first serious layout - need your thoughts.


OnTheBranchline
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 And the peninsula idea - very common in some US layout designs - needs space to get decent radii although in the US they are working to a slightly smaller scale.

 

 

On an assumption that this is a reference to my suggestion, I should clarify I wasn't suggesting a traditional peninsula that has a loop at one end.  Rather I was suggesting a dead ending peninsula, so it would only need to be 2 feet wide or so.  You could then, to allow for continuous running, have a removable section of track to bridge the access area for the fiddle yard and thus on a temporary basis connect the staging and peninsula.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and respond to the comment about tension locks only being any good for fixed rakes.  They are good for fixed rakes, but not only that!  I use them on a BLT on which the primary operation is shunting, with trains being broken down and made up frequently.  I use a shunting pole to lift the hooks in order to uncouple, which I find a simple operation, but it is important to be able to access the stock to perform the operation; the sort of automation that Kaydees can offer is better if there are parts of the layout that you need to shunt in that you can't easily get at to be there in person.  But don't discount tension locks!

 

An alternative to the hook is the 'spade', but good access from the side is essential for this.  Coupling is of course 100% reliable once the bars are all set to the same height.

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both tension lock and Kadee (knuckle) couplers are central buffing and so in theory not designed for use with side buffers.  However, although neither is anyway near prototypical looking the Kadee type are less obtrusive and when used with under track magnets can push back without re-coupling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I agree with others that building a layout this big working solo is only part of the problem. Unless the OP envisages a lot of automation/computerisation of the operation, the design needs to be reasonably simple for it to be operated by one person. That suggests a combination of terminus, continuous run and return loop. That way, it is possible for the solo operator to remain in one place - within sight of the terminus where operations will be most complex. That does not, of course, preclude a second control position for when more operators are available.

 

Given the space available, it may not be necessary to have any hidden sidings at all. They could be brought out into the open in the form of carriage sidings and marshalling yard. But that may impact on the desire to have a rural part of the layout as well as an urban terminus.

 

I would counsel against the suggestion to build as much baseboard as will fit in the space and then design a layout to fit. That is putting the horse before the cart. As regards the main part of the layout, that room arrangement cries out for L-girder baseboard system. And L-girder makes it easy to adjust and adapt as one develops the layout and to have a curved frontage rather than the standard rectangle. L-girder would make it easy to have a temporary fiddleyard which could later be dismantled as the layout progresses.

 

I like Mike's point about single track looking longer. The GW had a few stretches of single track where all types of locos worked, Kingswear being the most obvious. As a solo operator, a single track could be all the OP needs and would greatly simplify various issues that will occur on a narrow site like this. Potentially, given this space, one could have a fairly comprehensive model of the Kingswear branch or at least Paignton to Kingswear.

 

One final point, 48" is a good datum height for the track. But at that height one can not, unless very tall, reach across 30".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 20/02/2019 at 04:40, Joseph_Pestell said:

I agree with others that building a layout this big working solo is only part of the problem. Unless the OP envisages a lot of automation/computerisation of the operation, the design needs to be reasonably simple for it to be operated by one person. That suggests a combination of terminus, continuous run and return loop. That way, it is possible for the solo operator to remain in one place - within sight of the terminus where operations will be most complex. That does not, of course, preclude a second control position for when more operators are available.

 

Given the space available, it may not be necessary to have any hidden sidings at all. They could be brought out into the open in the form of carriage sidings and marshalling yard. But that may impact on the desire to have a rural part of the layout as well as an urban terminus.

 

I would counsel against the suggestion to build as much baseboard as will fit in the space and then design a layout to fit. That is putting the horse before the cart. As regards the main part of the layout, that room arrangement cries out for L-girder baseboard system. And L-girder makes it easy to adjust and adapt as one develops the layout and to have a curved frontage rather than the standard rectangle. L-girder would make it easy to have a temporary fiddleyard which could later be dismantled as the layout progresses.

 

I like Mike's point about single track looking longer. The GW had a few stretches of single track where all types of locos worked, Kingswear being the most obvious. As a solo operator, a single track could be all the OP needs and would greatly simplify various issues that will occur on a narrow site like this. Potentially, given this space, one could have a fairly comprehensive model of the Kingswear branch or at least Paignton to Kingswear.

 

One final point, 48" is a good datum height for the track. But at that height one can not, unless very tall, reach across 30".

 

Like this? 

Churston

 

What were the other ones?

Edited by OnTheBranchline
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Like this? 

Churston

 

What were the other ones?

 

Depending on your desire to model to scale length this would probably take most of your 33ft....interesting though as it was the junction for the Brixham branch which probably ran a branch shuttle service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2019 at 02:39, The Johnster said:

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit and respond to the comment about tension locks only being any good for fixed rakes.  They are good for fixed rakes, but not only that!  I use them on a BLT on which the primary operation is shunting, with trains being broken down and made up frequently.  I use a shunting pole to lift the hooks in order to uncouple, which I find a simple operation, but it is important to be able to access the stock to perform the operation; the sort of automation that Kaydees can offer is better if there are parts of the layout that you need to shunt in that you can't easily get at to be there in person.  But don't discount tension locks!

 

An alternative to the hook is the 'spade', but good access from the side is essential for this.  Coupling is of course 100% reliable once the bars are all set to the same height.

The need for good access from the side is the issue with uncoupling tension locks,   Peco and  H/D can be uncoupled from above or simply by lifting a vehicle, very important where headroom is restricted on lower level storage roads..

The Tension locks also have a tiny vertical buffing area compared to Peco and to Kadees. They vary in height more than the total vertical area so reversing trains becomes a liability, Hornby Dublo couplings allow reversing of long freights of 20 or more wagons reliably without worrying which wagons are adjacent to which others  Where tension locks score is they don't uncouple when trains derail allowing you to drag the whole train out of a tunnel instead of having to reach in and drag out separate wagons or coaches, which is why I use tension locks in the garden and in fixed rakes, admittedly closer coupled than standard and H/D Peco style indoors on locos wagons and the ends of fixed rakes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Like this? 

Churston

 

What were the other ones?

Churston is a good one because of the loco variety it offered as well as the traffic variety and it good reasonably be compressed without losing too much of its atmosphere.  Bourne End was another example of a junction on a single line although the loop was quite long and the station building was more extensive than Churston, it offers the big advantage over Churston of legitimate mainline diversions and excursion traffic passing through worked by an interesting variety of 'foreign' locos although that was probably mainly post 1948 - including a Brighton Atlantic on one occasion. 

 

Devizes was a non-junction, wide variety of traffic and most types of loco (I'm not sure if 'Kings' were allowed without checking, 47XX were definitely permitted) but it occupied a lot of space with a large yard although it had the advantage of having a tunnel at one end - useful for scenic purposes perhaps?  Again another station with huge potential for handling diverted trains, as happened in the real world. A compressed version of Devizes might not be a bad idea or alternatively take various features from several of these stations and blend them together.

 

Several stations on the Par-Newquay branch come to mind as well and of course they saw big engines in the Summer peak plus an interesting mix of clay and more general freight traffic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

 

Depending on your desire to model to scale length this would probably take most of your 33ft....interesting though as it was the junction for the Brixham branch which probably ran a branch shuttle service.

 

Not quite that bad, measuring on Google gets you 14' from the Kingswear end switch to the road overpass, or about 20' for the complete thing (1,100' / 76.2 and 1,500' / 76.2).

 

Brixham branch did run a shuttle service, later years of steam was a 1400 and autocoach, then class 121 until the end (with a 118(?) on weekends).  The shuttle also moved fish vans off the branch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did big engines get west of Swansea? I would imagine that there's some interesting options out that way. And even if not, it's not a huge leap of imagination to say that the Fishguard boat train (for example) was hauled all the way by at least a Castle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Not quite that bad, measuring on Google gets you 14' from the Kingswear end switch to the road overpass, or about 20' for the complete thing (1,100' / 76.2 and 1,500' / 76.2).

 

Brixham branch did run a shuttle service, later years of steam was a 1400 and autocoach, then class 121 until the end (with a 118(?) on weekends).  The shuttle also moved fish vans off the branch.

 

So how about putting a Churston-like through station toward the right-hand end of the 33' section with curve into 'up' fiddle yard.  The branch could be on the other end in front of the 'down' fiddle yard.  As the branch bay platform is on the wrong side for this configuration you might have to mirror the plan or choose another location.  Presumably wagons would be dropped, shunted, and taken down the branch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the salient points have been raised, but I would advise you to think carefully about the pitfalls. A fiddle yard by definition will have numerous turnouts and the track laying will need to be carefully done to avoid derailments, but over a period of time, turnouts will fail and you need to think about how you are going to get into the fiddle yard area to replace a failed tie bar or something similar. That means a much larger access space and a helix could be the answer, but there are several things to think about there.

 

With the length you have available, the temptation will be to run longer trains. Diesel loco's have a much higher pulling power for long trains, whereas steam loco's may struggle on gradients, particularly where curves are involved. Others will certainly have their own views on gradients, but if I were building a helix to take steam loco's and 8-10 coaches, then I would look at a gradient of 1:100. Going back to my school days, you can calculate the radius/diameter of a 1:100 helix quite easily. From experience you will need a clearance of 70mm between layers plus the thickness of the board material. I was using 12mm ply, so the total was 82mm. With a gradient of 1:100, that means a run of 8200mm.

 

Using 2πr to calculate the radius/diameter from the circumference of 8200mm, it will give you a diameter of approximately 2.6m or 8.5', so a pretty large area to find. Of course you may get away with a steeper  gradient, but you will limit the length of trains you will want to run. If you want a separation of 500mm you will need 6 turns, so that's a fair bit of timber to accommodate the necessary curvature.

 

I have learned over the years that less is more and you need look no further than Little Bytham to see how a fairly simple track plan can provide a wonderful viewing/running experience. Filling a layout with track can prove very expensive, but really will take an age, particularly when it comes to ballasting etc.

 

A duck under may seem a good idea, but after numerous times of going back and forth, you body will scream enough. Your knees will soon say enough, not to mention the various cuts and bruises on your head when you have come up too quickly....:D

 

It's a wonderful space to have and you will be able to build something very special, but think about the implications carefully or you will end up in a vicious circle of building and scrapping or eventually giving up. It's taken me over 10 years of building and failing to finally get something running and that only happened once I simplified my whole layout design.

 

You'll have a lot of fun and a lot of frustration, so enjoy the ride...

Edited by gordon s
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would avoid any gradients.  My earlier post suggesting having fiddle yards at both ends should be able to avoid these.  Also I would use sector plates or traversers.  These have no turnouts and are therefore shorter.  I used one on my OO exhibition 35 years ago and once set up to ensure continuity to the active track, work well and prevent incorrect train movement.

 

Also regarding scenery, laying ready to lay track can be relatively easy, depending whether you just pin it down or glue it, but wiring, ballasting and adding structures and landscape can take a long long time.  Don't be put off by this but be realistic about your aspirations.

 

My 2' x 8' On30 'quickie ' layout, the fastest I have ever built, took about three years working on an average of an hour or so per day.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have been thinking about this layout quite a bit.

 

Kingswear does lend itself to a US style multi-level layout.

 

Starting with the terminus on the right hand board, a long but narrow board portraying the single track approach alongside the river and road. Initially to a fiddleyard on the left hand board. Subsequently track up to a higher level (probably via a helix) to either Churston or Paignton and a return loop/fiddleyard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Did big engines get west of Swansea? I would imagine that there's some interesting options out that way. And even if not, it's not a huge leap of imagination to say that the Fishguard boat train (for example) was hauled all the way by at least a Castle.

King class didn't run west of Canton shed at Cardiff, although their tenure in S Wales was a very short period.  The two that did run west down to Barry removed some platform edging at Cogan (?).

Castles went all the way to Fishguard and Neyland.  I did see a Castle on an up Boat train at Goodwick in 1961.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

King class didn't run west of Canton shed at Cardiff, although their tenure in S Wales was a very short period.  The two that did run west down to Barry removed some platform edging at Cogan (?).

Castles went all the way to Fishguard and Neyland.  I did see a Castle on an up Boat train at Goodwick in 1961.

Yes,  'Castles' and 'Counties' were regulars in West Wales - Neyland had 4 'Halls', a 'Manor', and a 'Bulldog' at the end of 1947 but by 1951 it had 4 'Counties' and 3 'Halls' while Carmarthen had gained a couple of 'Castles' by 1954 and later had an even larger allocation.  Pre-war of course there had been 'Halls' and moguls with the bigger engines not appearing until later except when working in on some trains.

 

If I had the space and was going for a terminus design Neyland would be hard to resist because of its extremely old-fashioned arrangement of separate arrival and departure platforms with part of the engine shed between them and the departure line running between the shed and the turntable and coaling area, and a sleeping car train to London.  But its very extensive sidings would definitely need to be compressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I add my tuppence based on my own experiences 

 

(a) run away from gradients especially with steam outline , you really need 1 in 100 and even them it has its problems 

 

(2) don’t have hidden fiddle yards , they are a nightmare , in fact any hidden track is so. 

 

(3) don’t go under 30” radius  in OO, preferably don’t do under 36 “ , nothing screams toy trainset more then unrealistic tight curves 

 

(4) if yuh like complex track , fire away , be prepare to spend lots of time building it all. And it can look incredibly toy train 

 

(5) always base your track on some form of derivative of a prototype or have a very good working knowledge of how railway companies planned track , I’ve seen some awful examples of toy train configurations over the years 

 

(6) if roundy roundy doesn’t fit , don’t try and squeeze one in 

 

make the whole thing removable and potentially self standing , you never know .....

 

(7) double the estimated time to build it and add your weight /3 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Junctionmad said:

Can I add my tuppence based on my own experiences 

 

(a) run away from gradients especially with steam outline , you really need 1 in 100 and even them it has its problems 

 

(2) don’t have hidden fiddle yards , they are a nightmare , in fact any hidden track is so. 

 

(3) don’t go under 30” radius  in OO, preferably don’t do under 36 “ , nothing screams toy trainset more then unrealistic tight curves 

 

(4) if yuh like complex track , fire away , be prepare to spend lots of time building it all. And it can look incredibly toy train 

 

(5) always base your track on some form of derivative of a prototype or have a very good working knowledge of how railway companies planned track , I’ve seen some awful examples of toy train configurations over the years 

 

(6) if roundy roundy doesn’t fit , don’t try and squeeze one in 

 

make the whole thing removable and potentially self standing , you never know .....

 

(7) double the estimated time to build it and add your weight /3 

 

And based on my experience:

 

If you want roundy-roundy, and the only way to get it is to squeeze one in, then do so. 

 

If my layout screams toy trainset, then so be it. I have the pleasure of watching trains run by without having to have one hand on the controller to stop them at the end, and then have to run the engine round or push the train back the other way.

 

There's no right or wrong answer to this...

 

(I also have a steeper than 1 in 30 gradient with a sharp curve and happily run short trains up it hauled by steam-outline tank engines).

 

I would agree with being wary of hidden track - everything hidden on my layout is either accessible from the side, or is behind a low backdrop so is hidden but accessible.

 

And as for item 7....it never fails to impress me how little I can get done in a day...

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

And based on my experience:

 

If you want roundy-roundy, and the only way to get it is to squeeze one in, then do so. 

 

If my layout screams toy trainset, then so be it. I have the pleasure of watching trains run by without having to have one hand on the controller to stop them at the end, and then have to run the engine round or push the train back the other way.

 

There's no right or wrong answer to this...

 

(I also have a steeper than 1 in 30 gradient with a sharp curve and happily run short trains up it hauled by steam-outline tank engines).

 

I would agree with being wary of hidden track - everything hidden on my layout is either accessible from the side, or is behind a low backdrop so is hidden but accessible.

 

And as for item 7....it never fails to impress me how little I can get done in a day...

Of course rule zero always applies ,

 

but the points I make remain valid, ( and see Gordon of Eastwood towns experience with large steam and gradients ) , layouts packed with track arranged in unprotypical layouts , looks poor in my opinion. often not complex enough , ( because the setback geometry isn’t available) or too complex , where the prototype would have never spent the money for the traffic patterns it intended.  equally many model layouts simply haven’t analyzed the traffic movement needed , space to shunt , loco release issues etc. nor do they pay attention to signaling , wrong line operation etc , resulting in horrific operational “ gaffes “ ( well horrific to me ) 

 

after all arnt we engaged in model railways , ie the model of a railway , rather then toy-trains , which is playing with a toy, yes,  I know this point can be debated, but I firmly beleive we are aiming at the former rather then the later.  In this regard often “ too much “ space generates as many issues as too little. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
On 23/02/2019 at 12:40, Happy Hippo said:

King class didn't run west of Canton shed at Cardiff, although their tenure in S Wales was a very short period.  The two that did run west down to Barry removed some platform edging at Cogan (?).

Castles went all the way to Fishguard and Neyland.  I did see a Castle on an up Boat train at Goodwick in 1961.

The Fishguard boat train was a Canton turn with a Castle, loco changed at Cardiff, and AFAIK the only 'down line' turn that was considered to merit a clean low-mileage loco.  A Brit would be by no means impossible on the job.  Castles ran to Pembroke Dock, Neyland, and Milford Haven as well.  Fishguard shed had Halls.

 

KIngs at Cardiff were only permitted the use of platform 1 on the up and 3 on the down, due to clearance issues over the cylinders at the eastern ends of platoforms 2 and 4..  As Hippo says, they were a short term replacement for the Britannias at Canton, though the shed had been asking for them for years, arriving in 1961when the Brits were all sent to the LMR, and all gone at the end of the winter timetable in '63, replaced by Hymeks which were hardly adequate but nothing else was available until the Westerns started to arrive and the Brush Type 4s made an appearance.  

 

Kings were only allowed to access Canton shed by the main inlet and outlet roads, not carriage siding inlet or outlet or Leckwith ground frame as they were prohibited from those roads over Clare Road bridge and over Leckwith Road bridge.  Their trains had to be brought up from the carriage sheds by pilots for them, and disposed in the opposite direction.  It was common to see one standing on the loco spur off no.1 goods road next to platform 1 at the eastern end, overlooking the Saunders Road station approach.

 

The Milford Haven fish train was another Canton Castle turn, but did not warrant a clean one!

 

If you are looking for places to run big GW/WR locos on express trains with restaurant cars and including the likes of TPO and sleepers, West Wales is more fertile territory than Cornwall!

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Junctionmad said:

but the points I make remain valid, ( and see Gordon of Eastwood towns experience with large steam and gradients ) , layouts packed with track arranged in unprotypical layouts , looks poor in my opinion. often not complex enough , ( because the setback geometry isn’t available) or too complex , where the prototype would have never spent the money for the traffic patterns it intended.  equally many model layouts simply haven’t analyzed the traffic movement needed , space to shunt , loco release issues etc. nor do they pay attention to signaling , wrong line operation etc , resulting in horrific operational “ gaffes “ ( well horrific to me ) 

 

after all arnt we engaged in model railways , ie the model of a railway , rather then toy-trains , which is playing with a toy, yes,  I know this point can be debated, but I firmly beleive we are aiming at the former rather then the later.  In this regard often “ too much “ space generates as many issues as too little. 

 

I don't think this hobby is as binary as that, and we all have things that are a step too far given our interest, abilities, time available, or money.

 

I think this is best exemplified by the reactions to the ProtoThrottle(1) in the US market.  It apparently has 2 basic reactions when real engineers try it - they either love it for how accurate it is and how close it brings them to the real thing, or they hate it for the exact same reason and they want to have fun with their trains and not have it just like at work.

 

Even allowing for selective compression and other tricks, for most of us the layouts we can fit/afford at the end of the day have to provide enjoyment.  Unless your main enjoyment is the building of the layout that at some point means operating it, and how many of us with 30 to 60 minutes to go and "play" with our trains would accept going down, running one train, and then sitting there for the rest of the time because in real life the next train wouldn't appear for 3 hours?

 

So most of us make compromises that, while "unrealistic", increase the enjoyment of our hobby.

 

(1) - http://www.protothrottle.com/

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/02/2019 at 05:28, OnTheBranchline said:

Hi everyone,

 

So in the basement of our house, there is a large room that is about 33' by 20' (barring the area for the stairs/small storage room under the stairs. Naturally, I thought a layout could be worked into this space. I haven't invested a lot of time/effort in learning any track illustration software (I have downloaded SCARM and AnyRail but I have barely used either), so it's on good old paper for a start. Note: It's not quite drawn to scale but you should get the idea. Also note, the measurements on the outside are for the layout, not the length of the wall.

 

Basically, it's a n shape (or a C shape) with a straight instead of a curve. There would be a fiddle yard underneath the whole layout and the fiddle yard would be connected to the main level by a hidden line on a gradient which spans most of the 33' long section (I run steam so I need as low a gradient as possible). The hidden section would have one line going down and one line coming up. I considered a helix but I decided that a helix would be too large in order for steam to work.

 

On the left side, I was thinking of a terminus mainline station but with a loop that runs around the outside and behind the station (hidden by a hill/rocks/etc). On the right side, I was thinking of a loco shed that also has a loop which runs around the outside and behind the loco shed (hidden by a hill/rocks/etc). In the middle would mostly be scenery, a through station, perhaps a passing loop. The loops are a requirement as I want to have the ability to watch the trains to go and not worry about them running past the stopping blocks. I have not decided on the station or the loco shed will be based on but it will be

 

In terms of width, I was thinking that 2 1/2' is the widest I would want to go if in case I need to reach for a derailment.

 

Does this plan seem reasonable or is there a better way I could use this space? I've tried not to be quite over elaborate with my plans.

 

Please keep in mind that I have never built a proper layout before and I'm sure I have a lot to learn. Given the size of the layout, I'm also sure that this will not be a cheap layout but something that can be worked on over the years. I might have to build it section by section rather than try to do it all at once with baseboards and track and nothing else.
 

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

 

PS: I haven't shown the plan to my wife but I'm sure that she would prefer it not to be too big and too intrusive in the room (i.e not come out too far from the wall).

 

1582827171_LayoutRoughDraft.jpg.b208a8101aa940c67af26713d84f8e37.jpg

 

I think in your situation, I would look to widen the bottom part of the left hand baseboard to 4' (possibly on a folding section) to fit a double track reversing loop (it would still be possible to reach the entire board by reaching in from the end. At the right hand end, I'd look to angle the baseboard with eitheran access space or some 'dead baseboard' in the top right corner. At this end, I would have a 6-8 platform terminus to represent 'Paddington', with six main lines curving on to the long baseboard and passing Ranelagh Bridge stabling point. Further on, two of the six lines would diverge, representing the Birmingham lines, and split into 6-10 fiddle yard roads. The other 4 lines would continue in front of the fiddle yard, curve round on to the left hand baseboard, pass through a small station (Hanwell? Taplow?), before converging to two lines, doubling back behind the backscene and splitting into the other end of the 6-10 road fiddle yard.

 

This way 'Bristol' trains would depart and come back as 'Birmingham' trains and vice versa. As there would be no need to uncouple and remarshall trains in the fiddle yard, the whole layout could be operated singlehandedly from the 'Paddington end'.

 

No continuous run though, unfortunately.

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...