Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Model Design Errors


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Of course there is always an answer, build it yourself from a kit or scratch build.

 

We have never had it so good. It may be that now is as good as it is ever going to be. Only history will be the judge of that . The ever increasing detail means they become less suitable for children, yet my Hornby locos from the 70s and 80s are perfect in that regard. Also ever increasing cost, driven by the desire for more detail must mean more are being excluded from being able to purchase them in the first place.

 

Having though spent an hour cutting out a window blank, filing it, soldering it on, drilling and then filling to shape it is very tempting. Lol 

 

Just a thought.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Geep7 said:

...

With regard to the 4-TC, I actually think Bachmann didn't do too bad a job on it, at least it looks to be in proportion. I'm not sure how much better they could have done it without making the model too fragile....

 

The cab front windows are a bit too large, mucking up the very recognizable 'face' of a standard BR(S) Mark 1 EMU (or in this case, TMU). They were worse initially and Kernow did try to get them corrected and the end result is better than it would have been. However, I have tried to 'love' the Kernow/Bachmann 4TC, but I just can't quite get over that 'face not being quite right' issue.

 

As regards detail, the wrap round handrail has been done by Heljan successfully enough on their 33/0  and 33/2, and they're not particularly fragile, so it can be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

The cab front windows are a bit too large, mucking up the very recognizable 'face' of a standard BR(S) Mark 1 EMU (or in this case, TMU). They were worse initially and Kernow did try to get them corrected and the end result is better than it would have been. However, I have tried to 'love' the Kernow/Bachmann 4TC, but I just can't quite get over that 'face not being quite right' issue.

 

As regards detail, the wrap round handrail has been done by Heljan successfully enough on their 33/0  and 33/2, and they're not particularly fragile, so it can be done.

In the flesh the front end looks lightyears ahead of the Hornby attempt. I think it's all these hyper-realistic photos that show up even the smallest of errors. Honestly, the moulded on wrap-around handrail doesn't notice at all, unless you really look for it.

 

I posted on my layout thread a front end comparison of the Hornby front-end (As they come, and modified), the Kernow 4-TC and my own scratch-built 4-TC (MJT) a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can re-post it here. I'm not sure any are 100% correct, but I can live with 99%.

 

post-13704-0-31541000-1534752623.jpg.3a4657a9c9f2d2e1a9a90ee679810f17.jpg

Edited by Geep7
Found the image!
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Geep7 said:

...I'm not sure any are 100% correct, but I can live with 99%....

 

Agreed, I don't think any producer, RTR or kit, has got that end right yet. With Hornby's VEP coming out before the Kernow/Bachmann 4TC, I had hoped Bachmann would concentrate on getting the front right, but for some reason, they didn't.

 

I still prefer to have separately fitted handrails, especially a significant one as on the BR(S) Mark 1 units cab front. To my eye the moulded one does look moulded.

Edited by Ian J.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sorry if this seems like I'm dragging the thread off topic with keep mentioning the TC (and other SR EMU's), but wasn't a real TC set laser scanned for Kernow?

 

I was under the impression that laser-scanning meant we would get a more accurate model, but errors still seem to creep in in some models. Is this a case of misinterpreting the data, or taking the wrong dimensions for something (mm instead of inches), or just that the tolerances sometimes translate to a bigger error when shrunk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

I still prefer to have separately fitted handrails, especially a significant one as on the BR(S) Mark 1 units can front. 

I do too, my MJT / scratch TC set has separate handrails, but I can live with the moulded ones on the Kernow version. I guess this just shows everyone has a different bar they set for a model, and if it doesn't reach that bar, it doesn't get in. And that's the great thing about this hobby, we're all different.

 

On a final point about the Hornby Vep, its not just the front end and looks where it suffers, the bogies have this hideous clip-in inside bearing axles. I have had to drill out all the bogies and fit brass bearings and pin-point axles just to get it to run OK, and it's still not running 100%.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
53 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

Sorry if this seems like I'm dragging the thread off topic with keep mentioning the TC (and other SR EMU's), but wasn't a real TC set laser scanned for Kernow?

 

I was under the impression that laser-scanning meant we would get a more accurate model, but errors still seem to creep in in some models. Is this a case of misinterpreting the data, or taking the wrong dimensions for something (mm instead of inches), or just that the tolerances sometimes translate to a bigger error when shrunk?

 

I don't think it was laser scanned, but I could be wrong.

 

I thought Hornby had made some changes to the VEP's chassis for a later run to make it better?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

I thought Hornby had made some changes to the VEP's chassis for a later run to make it better?

I'm not sure about that, I have one of the blue ones, that was weathered, I think from the early batch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/06/2020 at 10:50, Ian J. said:

So, yet again it appears a model's CAD work errors have reached pre-production with the Heljan 45 (see that model's thread).

 

I raised the question of why such errors occur in the Accurascale Class 55 thread, but as it was a little hidden there and didn't in any way apply to their model of the Deltic, I thought I would start a thread for discussion of why these keep happening and what practical steps could be taken to avoid them.

 

All the major 'manufacturers', and a few of their commissioners, seem to have this problem. Sometimes a model is made that is pretty much perfect, then the next one is full of issues. Some easy issues get fixed, but basic body shape problems seem to just get into the CAD work, and then, even if pointed out, never get corrected. Why is it such a problem for these things to be sorted out before any tooling is cut? Surely the 'manufacturers' know that a model with errors won't sell as well, while one that is good sells better? An example of a model continually selling - the SJW Class 24. An example of one not selling, the Hornby Mark 2E. There are countless examples of both, from the same 'manufacturers' so I can't list them all.

 

Does it really just come down to setting a budget that's too low, running out of money, and the 'manufacturer' committing to tooling on a design with known flaws, just to save 'pennies' compared to getting it right and making more sales?

 

What are the systematic and systemic issues that need to be addressed to make sure that the errors don't get past CAD?

 

TIA

I presume that you have never worked in a production environment.

Basic human nature means that people will disagree and people will not understand things in the same way when presented with a verbal or written/drawn description of an object.

Some people will immediately recognize an error but others will still not see it is wrong when it is explained to them ten times over.

When I was involved in ultrasonic testing, parts from real situations were used as teaching aids. To hold a part from an aircraft that had failed and to be told that you had to find out why, concentrated the mind. Knowing the history of the part made it rather more than just a lump of metal. One particular item still gives me goose bumps as I write this post and remember what a silly tiny mistake it was with catastrophic consequences.

Now if the designers of aircraft (other forms of transport are available and the same scenario applies) can make errors that get through all checks and into production, not that rare an occurrence, then a model locomotive has no chance of being error free.

In respect of your last sentence no amount of extra checking other than venturing into methods that consume vast amounts of time and money are going to solve the problem. Even then they might not prevent all errors getting through.

At least with model locomotives people do not end up dead when things go wrong.

Bernard

  • Like 8
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎21‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 20:17, Ian J. said:

...Enough of these errors and we lose confidence in the producer entirely (Oxford Rail being an example, Heljan following suit, it seems).

That's unduly pessimistic!

Here's my list of 'shape errors' sufficiently poor that despite the subject being of interest to me I wouldn't buy.

 

Heljan's 47 introduction of 2001. Too wide. It wasn't the 'neat' type 4 that was so obviously smaller than the lumbering Peak and EE type 4, alongside which it looked elegant.

 

Hornby's 30/31 upper cab side insufficiently recessed and incorrectly tapered so it lacks the 'step out to full body width' behind the driver's door window. Just didn't get that key aspect of the look of the thing that I had seen so often.

 

Hornby's Gresley 61'6" stock, very ill proportioned with effect in body side profile so they just don't look right. (Subsequently got it right on the non-gangwayed, so there's hope yet.)

 

Haven't lost confidence in either, because generally they are pretty good on shape on those model subjects they have essayed that interest me.

 

The assessment is made one model at a time. Good enough = purchase. Shape ' not like the real thing and not readily fixable' = wait for a better product.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If a model is the right size and shape, I can always add detail.  If it's the wrong size and shape, then I don't care how much detail it has, my money stay in my pocket.
To stray slightly :offtopic: it's not only design errors.  Assembly errors also creep in.  I am reminded of the entire first batch of "the new, improved" Hornby Stannier brake third coaches were sold with the body the wrong way round on the chassis!  The long footboard was at the "compartments end", and the single short footboard at the brake van end. :laugh:

I also had a Hornby Brighton Belle motor coach that had to be returned because the windscreen wiper was glued-in upside down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I presume that you have never worked in a production environment.

Basic human nature means that people will disagree and people will not understand things in the same way when presented with a verbal or written/drawn description of an object.

Some people will immediately recognize an error but others will still not see it is wrong when it is explained to them ten times over.

When I was involved in ultrasonic testing, parts from real situations were used as teaching aids. To hold a part from an aircraft that had failed and to be told that you had to find out why, concentrated the mind. Knowing the history of the part made it rather more than just a lump of metal. One particular item still gives me goose bumps as I write this post and remember what a silly tiny mistake it was with catastrophic consequences.

Now if the designers of aircraft (other forms of transport are available and the same scenario applies) can make errors that get through all checks and into production, not that rare an occurrence, then a model locomotive has no chance of being error free.

In respect of your last sentence no amount of extra checking other than venturing into methods that consume vast amounts of time and money are going to solve the problem. Even then they might not prevent all errors getting through.

At least with model locomotives people do not end up dead when things go wrong.

Bernard

 

I have to, respectfully, disagree.

 

With regards to individuals not seeing an error, I would expect a professional designer, if shown an error, to be able to see it, accept it, and correct it. If they can't do that, then, IMO, harsh though it might be, they shouldn't be a designer.

 

With regards to checking, if we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we'd never check anything in any industry. In regards to models, some simple, basic checks would not consume vast amounts of time and money, and would catch a good proportion of body and detail errors, enough to satisfy even me. Maybe not everything would be caught, but there are three places where these checks could be done to catch as much as possible: upon completion of CAD; on presentation of 3D print; on presentation of tooling sample. This isn't rocket science, and doesn't need to be unduly onerous. The upshot of such checks is less risk for the product and improved reputation, things worth actual money to businesses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

I would expect a professional designer, if shown an error, to be able to see it, accept it, and correct it

 

Ian, whilst I agree with the statement you wrote it does rely on the information making it to the designer in question in the 1st place? As other threads seem to imply it happens with varying degree's of success but Ben Jones has now said how we can do that for Heljan products.

 

There is an article in a past issue of BRM about Rapido trains and the designers in that case China so rely on the inoformation they are given. Not sure where Heljan and Bachmann are though I think Hornby design in the UK from watching the James May Hornby program a while back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

In regards to models, some simple, basic checks would not consume vast amounts of time and money, and would catch a good proportion of body and detail errors, enough to satisfy even me. Maybe not everything would be caught, but there are three places where these checks could be done to catch as much as possible: upon completion of CAD; on presentation of 3D print; on presentation of tooling sample. This isn't rocket science, and doesn't need to be unduly onerous. The upshot of such checks is less risk for the product and improved reputation, things worth actual money to businesses.

You are assuming that there are designers available to do this. In reality these designers are under pressure to get things ready for tooling kick off and get working on the next model. I don't work on the industry bit I do know of at least one model a manufacturer is very keen to get started but they just can't get a time slot allocated for the work to be done . From what I've been told funds are available but designer's time isn't. So a perfect model of one loco could but the next one back months. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Ian J. said:

With regards to individuals not seeing an error, I would expect a professional designer, if shown an error, to be able to see it, accept it, and correct it. If they can't do that, then, IMO, harsh though it might be, they shouldn't be a designer.

 

With regards to checking, if we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we'd never check anything in any industry. In regards to models, some simple, basic checks would not consume vast amounts of time and money, and would catch a good proportion of body and detail errors, enough to satisfy even me. Maybe not everything would be caught, but there are three places where these checks could be done to catch as much as possible: upon completion of CAD; on presentation of 3D print; on presentation of tooling sample. This isn't rocket science, and doesn't need to be unduly onerous. The upshot of such checks is less risk for the product and improved reputation, things worth actual money to businesses.

There's nothing simple and basic about checking the shape of a toy train, at a rough guess there's maybe a thousand measurements to check; which then begs the question of what to use as the master reference to check against? 

 

As a designer then I correct errors if management deem there is a business case to do so, the answer to that often being 'no'.  A different matter in safety critical work of course.

 

EDIT: actually quick back of a fag packet estimate; if we assume an OO gauge toy train is a block 30cm long x 3cm wide x 3cm high, with a measurement resolution of 0.5 mm that's 36000 dimensions per side 360 per end so about 100,000 measurements total

Edited by spamcan61
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I agree that there are thousands of things that you could measure, but you simply don't need to check every single one.

 

You can group dimensions in a related fashion so you'd only need to check maybe a hundred or so to know that the basic L/W/H and GA were right, and still include a fait bit of checking of detail positions while doing so.

 

Then there are notable risk areas, most models won't have hundreds, let alone thousands, of those in respect to the body shape. There may even be single digit risk areas, which could/would include things like roof curves, cab front shape, etc. For those, if care is taken with a virtual and/or physical 'master stencil/template/gauge' right at the outset, then they should be straightforward enough to check repeatedly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

You can group dimensions in a related fashion so you'd only need to check maybe a hundred or so to know that the basic L/W/H and GA were right, and still include a fait bit of checking of detail positions while doing so.

 

 

The shapes aren't simple though, complex curves  and subtle slopes abound so the designer will have to check everything thoroughly, which still leaves the problem of what to use as the master reference... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

The shapes aren't simple though, complex curves  and subtle slopes abound so the designer will have to check everything thoroughly, which still leaves the problem of what to use as the master reference... 

 

Thank you for such a selective quoting of my post to make it look like I didn't say something about that...

 

33 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

...Then there are notable risk areas, most models won't have hundreds, let alone thousands, of those in respect to the body shape. There may even be single digit risk areas, which could/would include things like roof curves, cab front shape, etc. For those, if care is taken with a virtual and/or physical 'master stencil/template/gauge' right at the outset, then they should be straightforward enough to check repeatedly...

 

I really think there is a mentality here of 'make it hard'. I feel there needs to be a more open attitude to the possibilities, rather than a 'don't want to do it so make it look as difficult as possible' approach. It feels very 'civil service', like Sir Humphrey in 'Yes, Minister'.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 21/06/2020 at 12:33, AlexHolt said:

As an example the Heljan 009 models are now on their 3rd chassis revision

And that’s exactly where the errors creep in on internet critiques there are only two versions, I have locos from all three batches and there are only two styles ;) 

Experts will tell you this n that but what happens when the definitive expert gives you the drawings and they turn out to be wrong later because they made changes in production and the revision drawings disappeared? A friend makes what’s considered the definitive kit of the W&L coaches and they had to be redrawn and still people debate the accuracy because the works drawings are different to close up photos. Something not apparent in general views. It cost him many hours and we sold off the first batch of etches as freelance versions. He revised them because the whole point was to make some for himself and then cover the costs with the kits. The financial implications are totally different in rtr where profits matter. 

Unless you have very good photos of every variant at useful angles mistakes will still happen and sometimes it gets too far before they’re found with the amounts spent in rtr production so someone makes a decision to go ahead. 
People still get excited by all these Heljan announcements despite the ‘repeated errors’ and then bemoan there’s no proper modelling anymore! How do you tell who’s an expert and who shouts loudest on a forum? I assume everyone who shouts it’s wrong on here also contacted the manufacturer with a polite email illustrated with the issues? I did with the Heljan MW’s and although there was no response some of the issues I identified were subsequently addressed. You can’t win ;) 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

For the Heljan MWs all I expect is that they can negotiate points the spec. claims they can, and that they can couple up to the stock made by PECO — these are simple, easily checkable requirements which haven't been met. As a result Heljan have lost several sales to me—I will not be buying any of their NG products in future.

 

Perhaps if it had been better, the Ffestiniog stock might have been from Heljan and not Kato — looks like a very expensive mistake on Heljan's part…

 

Whatever errors it may or may not have, the Bachmann Baldwin does meet these requirements. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That’s the sensible reaction to vote with your feet if the prototype isn’t that special to you. I’ve had similar reactions to something that could have been a nice to have purchase. When it came to the MW’s though I chose to address the issues as I couldn’t see anyone else doing them instead so it was sort the 10% fault or build from a kit that cost similar. Fixing was faster and much easier because I only had a small percentage of work to do.
This is where fundamental shape errors are the main issue as they require extensive work and blending into the rest. I can live with tiny ones if it’s not something I will notice all the time.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 

I have to, respectfully, disagree.

 

With regards to individuals not seeing an error, I would expect a professional designer, if shown an error, to be able to see it, accept it, and correct it. If they can't do that, then, IMO, harsh though it might be, they shouldn't be a designer.

 

With regards to checking, if we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we'd never check anything in any industry. In regards to models, some simple, basic checks would not consume vast amounts of time and money, and would catch a good proportion of body and detail errors, enough to satisfy even me. Maybe not everything would be caught, but there are three places where these checks could be done to catch as much as possible: upon completion of CAD; on presentation of 3D print; on presentation of tooling sample. This isn't rocket science, and doesn't need to be unduly onerous. The upshot of such checks is less risk for the product and improved reputation, things worth actual money to businesses.

I do not want to get into  naming names and mud slinging on a public forum. However I can assure you that I have in mind some of the largest companies in the world. If they cannot manage to get it right then what chance for us mortals. I have made silly mistakes, the man who never made a mistake never made any thing. We have to accept that at all levels people will from time to time make mistakes or simply have an off day and miss something.

Everything is built to a level of risk, the cost of total accuracy and safety checking is beyond economic possibility. All companies work to a reject level and a "what will the market take " level. Oxford for example set a different standard to Hornby but both aim for a sector of the market. If you are at the top it is very difficult to go down a level and Hornby to their credit tried that route, found out the problems the hard way and sorted themselves out. One major retail outlet has a "perception of our customers" and concentrates on doing what they require rather than aiming to get any better.  Companies introduce procedures and set standards to make a profit and that does not in many cases mean trying  to be the best or to always get it right. I fear you are out of touch with reality.

Bernard, 30 plus years in QA setting up and checking procedures for the world leader in its field.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Ian J. said:

With regards to individuals not seeing an error, I would expect a professional designer, if shown an error, to be able to see it, accept it, and correct it. If they can't do that, then, IMO, harsh though it might be, they shouldn't be a designer.

As I said before the error initially can be a drawing or misinterpretation of one.
The Designer may then bring this up but people higher up decide it’s too much time to waste. It’s not necessarily the designers decision ;) 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I do not want to get into  naming names and mud slinging on a public forum. However I can assure you that I have in mind some of the largest companies in the world. If they cannot manage to get it right then what chance for us mortals. I have made silly mistakes, the man who never made a mistake never made any thing. We have to accept that at all levels people will from time to time make mistakes or simply have an off day and miss something.

Everything is built to a level of risk, the cost of total accuracy and safety checking is beyond economic possibility. All companies work to a reject level and a "what will the market take " level. Oxford for example set a different standard to Hornby but both aim for a sector of the market. If you are at the top it is very difficult to go down a level and Hornby to their credit tried that route, found out the problems the hard way and sorted themselves out. One major retail outlet has a "perception of our customers" and concentrates on doing what they require rather than aiming to get any better.  Companies introduce procedures and set standards to make a profit and that does not in many cases mean trying  to be the best or to always get it right. I fear you are out of touch with reality.

Bernard, 30 plus years in QA setting up and checking procedures for the world leader in its field.

 

I am not sure where I said I believe we can eliminate all errors with checking, either in this thread, or at any time either on this forum or otherwise.

 

I am fairly sure I'm been trying to say here that with some basic and carefully thought out checks we can reduce errors to a level where they are infrequent and rarely repeated, and this can, I believe, be done with a not onerous set of basic checks done at the right times throughout the process. The whole reason for this thread was the issue of repeated errors (and arguably of a similar type, mostly related to body shape) and what could possibly be done to help reduce them.

 

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

As I said before the error initially can be a drawing or misinterpretation of one.
The Designer may then bring this up but people higher up decide it’s too much time to waste. It’s not necessarily the designers decision ;) 

 

Of course, if there are systemic issues at play (producer doesn't want to do corrections no matter what at any stage and just wants to chuck product out into the marketplace no matter what for the least cost possible) then it doesn't matter who's checking, as errors are being let through 'deliberately'. Again, part of the reason for this thread was to try and identify why errors happen, and deliberate systemic issues are one of those.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

Of course, if there are systemic issues at play (producer doesn't want to do corrections no matter what at any stage and just wants to chuck product out into the marketplace no matter what for the least cost possible) then it doesn't matter who's checking, as errors are being let through 'deliberately'.

 

Unfortunately if a business model works then they will do it. As each of the main manufacturers has been accused of it I suspect it’s not some great conspiracy but more errors happen and the cost to scrap it all is considered too much. Each of the major manufacturers has a slightly different decision process for each stage too. 
The big shakeups happen when they have to play catch-up to the other manufacturers. We saw that with Hornby responding to Bachmann initially. We then saw ‘design clever’ get panned and the amount that were discounted suggests they sold poorly too. Bachmann have responded to others too by doing the units they said weren’t viable for years and the foray into NG. Now we’ve seen Hornby take on Dapol/Rails, Hattons and Cavalex in defending their market share. Interestingly they’ve not gone higher spec on the first two of those to compete either.  Dapol and Heljan seem to waver between great and problematic randomly. Even the new boy Hattons ‘the 66 saviour’ have been panned over bits falling off, wobbly mechs and livery details! ;) 
The shape errors are irritating to those that know but while they look good enough to sell there will be people in the companies assessing the risk of low sales vs restarting work from scratch. It’s common in many industries and why construction. And engineering companies often do very nicely out of revisions when they underbid for an initial contract! 
I’ve had locos with serious component and design issues from several manufacturers here and abroad that have ranged from detail and assembly corrections to new electronics and drive units. Interestingly the worst culprits from the US, Switzerland and Germany!
I doubt any set out to make those mistakes but sometimes business decisions take precedence over passionate modelling ones and then it’s up to us to decide with our wallet. 
I balance what needs sorting out against the likelihood of a fix, competing model or scratch/kit built alternative.
So yes I’ve deliberately bought flawed models because of how I perceive the chances of alternatives and so far none of those have been usurped by a better one because they were mostly niche models in the first place. 

  • Like 2
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...