Jump to content
Steve K

British Outline 'HO' - what's the story?

Recommended Posts

??? posted on Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:35 pm

 

Only 4 weeks after the event, I got around to photographing my latest Fleishmann acquisitions, the blue Warship and set of 3 matching Bulleid carriages from Gaugemaster. Looking at the information of the fixed rakes of these coaches, it seemed the smallest collection I could reasonably get away with was 3 - two of no.5148 (3rd+baggage - Semi Open Brake Third), and one of 5146 (1st+3rd - Corridor composite CK), so this is what I did.

 

One nice thing about these models is that they come with carefully thought-out accessories: blanking plates for the corridor connections at either end of a rake, and transfers for a selection of set numbers for the same. All coaches and locos also have interchangeable couplings - small centre-sprung tension-lock types, and what I assume to be the standard Fleischmann "grab" type (not sure of the technical term!).

 

Anyhow, although most of these pictures were included in the recent dedicated "Fleischmann Warship" thread, it's probably appropriate that I post them here as well, in what is, after all, a thread I started to chronicle my own dabblings in HO.

 

I thought that my green loco was a bargain at ??45, but the ??25 I shelled out for Glory was almost embarrassingly low!

 

file.php?id=87981

I would claim that the track was made to Proto 87 standards, but I think that some of you might rumble me.

 

file.php?id=87982

I hope you'll agree that these are handsome beasts! Note the two types of coupling supplied. Headcodes light up in the direction of travel, but in proportion to the loco's speed - reminds my of my old dynamo-powered lights on my bike...

 

 

The problem with "H0" is many manufacturers take serious liberties with scale. I recently read a Railway Modeller report from the 1970s on a Rivarossi 2-6-0 made to 1:82 scale.    There is something very wrong with those Warships.  Studying a lot of photos of the prototype reveals the loco should not tower over the coaches. The crease in the bodyside should align with the cant rail on the coaches, again it has to be nearer the Trix 3.7mm foot or 1:80 than 1:87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with H0"

These are models over 40 years old, how good are double o models of this age? I have seen Triangle model coaches that are very silly as they are stupid short.

If you consider that H0 scale has been very consistent since the likes of meat man and Rivarossi started to use 1/87 scale , then H0 just looks better and can many makers products all mixed together.

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with "H0" is many manufacturers take serious liberties with scale. I recently read a Railway Modeller report from the 1970s on a Rivarossi 2-6-0 made to 1:82 scale.    There is something very wrong with those Warships.  Studying a lot of photos of the prototype reveals the loco should not tower over the coaches. The crease in the bodyside should align with the cant rail on the coaches, again it has to be nearer the Trix 3.7mm foot or 1:80 than 1:87

The main fault with the Warships is that they sit far too high on the bogies which was probably done to fit an existing mechanism and to allow it to go round train-set curves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with H0"

These are models over 40 years old, how good are double o models of this age? I have seen Triangle model coaches that are very silly as they are stupid short.

Tri-ang produced scale length Mk.1 coaches from 1961, now over 55 years ago, so those 1950s era shorty models pre-date even Playcraft/Jouef.

The problem with British H0 models, particularly locomotives, has been width. With overscale wheels, tighter than scale curves and, if steam, over wide valve gear combined with the fact that the British loading gauge is around a foot or more narrower has meant that almost every commercial British H0 loco has been compromised, either made too wide (e.g. Playcraft NBL type 2, as wide as the Hornby 00 version) which throws the proportions out, or a larger scale (e.g. Rivarossi Royal Scot, variously described as 1:80 or 1:82, but definitely not 1:87). Perhaps the expensive Japanese brass models didn't suffer this fault, but they were never going to be mass market. The only more recent 'British H0' model was the Jouef Eurostar that Hornby briefly marketed. I assume that one was actually in proportion, though being an EMU it stood the best chance of being scale round the bogies. You then run into the problem of what to run it with that is a. the same scale and b. appropriate for the era & area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chance of a future for British H0 if there's a manufacturer brave/foolhardy (delete as you see applicable) to take it on. HS1/HS2 is openening up more of Britain to continental loading gauge. Eurostar (though some now being withdrawn) and Cl.66 (Has an authentically British version in H0 been done?) are there already, plus I would assume at least some of wagons that run through the tunnel. Sticking with diesel and electric traction and with today's finer wheel standards there could be an opening for accurate H0 in this very recent British railway era.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lima cl33 was a bit overwide I think, but the coaches and wagons are correct size as far as I can tell. The Lima steam 4F was simple but not too wide. When looking at what was offered 40 years ago, yes it is really that long, then you must compare it to other products of the time, pre Mainline and Airfix.  The old Playcraft range was a bit of a mash job, with height of HO , and width of OO, but the Playcraft coach bogies are actually pretty good for the age, certainly better than the ones Lima used. If you look at a lot of so called continental HO models you will find non scale adjustments to both width and length.

 

The biggest hurdle for anyone contemplating British HO, is finding chassis small enough, but any manufacturer could sort that out if there was serious interest..

I am playing around with British HO at the moment, using my 3D print design skills to plug big hole in the hobby. . Putting the correct scale models on what is actually HO track, and it does look better proportioned. We have all got used to the under gauged effect of OO. I also model OO, but then, who can ignore all those lovely models.

 

One thing I have noticed, and it might be another reason why some are not prepared to try HO, is that British trains are smaller than Continental ones. It does mean that you can fit a little more into the same space.

 

If you want r2r British HO, then the Hornby/Rivarossi USA tank loco is a good start. The Roco diesel shunter is very similar to BR 08 diesel, but may be closer to a class 11. You might be able to justify some American diesels, such as GE44, as they fit the loading gauge.  For chassis the Bachmann(formerly Mainline) J72 chassis works out at same size as many standard 060 tank locos, and I will be interested to see how the new version turns out. The Bachmann 03 shunter chassis is a good one as well. I used it to fit an Austeriy/J94 loco.

Wagons can be designed(I have already done a BR 16T coal wagon) for 3D printing, as can coaches.

Edited by rue_d_etropal
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chance of a future for British H0 if there's a manufacturer brave/foolhardy (delete as you see applicable) to take it on. HS1/HS2 is openening up more of Britain to continental loading gauge...

 Had the early 1990s 'new entrant' to the UK model railway market - almost simultaneous with the opening of the Channel tunnel - made the decision to make all post steam models in HO, it might just have 'flown', because they had the capability to offer something new which would have knocked all the then existing OO product into a cocked hat. Didn't happen then against very poor competition, and with the advantage of truly low cost Chinese manufacturing available to secure its UK beachhead with predatory pricing: so not a hope now.

 

As already mentioned UK steam has to stay with the OO compromise if it is to be commercial RTR standard to run on set track. Practically all of the locos have wheels inside splashers just for a start, and the result is hybrid scaling where width at footplate and below is 1:76. Teh Rivarossi Royal Scot is permanent testament to what happens if it is attempted.  (It's the dirty little secret of HO, a great many HO steam models are necessarily inaccurate for the same reason. Well engineered mechanisms, excellent detail and finish, but significantly deviating from prototype appearance: forced by the need to fit in the commercial mechanism parts and retain small radius curve capability.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HO manufacturers have often taken a flexible (or they might say pragmatic) approach to scale. Although HO is 1/87, many carriages were made to a length equivalent to 1/100 scale (and some still are) while Fleischmann decided that rather than bite the bullet and convert from 1/100 to 1/87 for carriages they'd invent a new scale of 1/93 length. Some HO models were made to a scale of 1/80 (which funnily enough is Japanese J scale HO). They have often played with width dimensions to allow locomotives to operate on curves while maintaining a prototypical body-bogie gap or making steam engine drives operable.

For all that, until about 15 years ago HO was so far ahead of OO it wasn't funny in every way. I still have Roco models bought in the 1980's that I run alongside the latest models from LS, ACME, Roco, Rivarossi, LE etc and which still cut the mustard. How many OO models would you be able to say that for? Centrally mounted all wheel drive with flywheels, fine pantographs, buffer beam detail, flush glazing, separately applied details, fine printing, close coupling arrangements with NEM boxes etc etc, all things which were par for the course for European HO in the 1980's when I got into European HO. The only weak link was a fixation on pizza cutter wheels. Of course at that time prices were a lot higher but the product was just in a completely different class.

Now OO has closed the detail and finish gap (though not the DCC functionality gap and I still find HO applies more rigorous quality control) but in many cases the price gap has also closed. Looking at the prices for the Bachmann air-con mk.2's they promise to be as much or more than good European HO coaches such as the ACME Eurofima and Grand Comfort coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HO manufacturers have often taken a flexible (or they might say pragmatic) approach to scale. Although HO is 1/87, many carriages were made to a length equivalent to 1/100 scale (and some still are) while Fleischmann decided that rather than bite the bullet and convert from 1/100 to 1/87 for carriages they'd invent a new scale of 1/93 length. Some HO models were made to a scale of 1/80 (which funnily enough is Japanese J scale HO). They have often played with width dimensions to allow locomotives to operate on curves while maintaining a prototypical body-bogie gap or making steam engine drives operable.

 

I've seen the Piko cheap "Corails" . 1/100 in length, 1/87 in height, and the windows are therefore completely wrongly proportioned (hence my inverted commas). They look awful - totally unconvincing if you've ever seen the real thing - and far worse than Hornby's "shorty" Mk3s. At least the windows on those were correctly proportioned - there was just one too few

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the Piko cheap "Corails" . 1/100 in length, 1/87 in height, and the windows are therefore completely wrongly proportioned (hence my inverted commas). They look awful - totally unconvincing if you've ever seen the real thing - and far worse than Hornby's "shorty" Mk3s. At least the windows on those were correctly proportioned - there was just one too few

 

At one time that was pretty much the norm for HO coaches. I remember when Roco started making true 1/87 coaches and what a transformation it was. At that time some modellers paid serious ££££££s to buy ADE coach models which were superbly modelled and 1/87 but not cheap. Although ADE did their coach models in knock down form to make them a bit cheaper than the RTR versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri-ang produced scale length Mk.1 coaches from 1961, now over 55 years ago, so those 1950s era shorty models pre-date even Playcraft/Jouef.

The problem with British H0 models, particularly locomotives, has been width. With overscale wheels, tighter than scale curves and, if steam, over wide valve gear combined with the fact that the British loading gauge is around a foot or more narrower has meant that almost every commercial British H0 loco has been compromised, either made too wide (e.g. Playcraft NBL type 2, as wide as the Hornby 00 version) which throws the proportions out, or a larger scale (e.g. Rivarossi Royal Scot, variously described as 1:80 or 1:82, but definitely not 1:87). Perhaps the expensive Japanese brass models didn't suffer this fault, but they were never going to be mass market. The only more recent 'British H0' model was the Jouef Eurostar that Hornby briefly marketed. I assume that one was actually in proportion, though being an EMU it stood the best chance of being scale round the bogies. You then run into the problem of what to run it with that is a. the same scale and b. appropriate for the era & area.

 

Sadly it is true that a lot of modern mainline Continental coaches were modelled too short to 1:100.

But compared to British ones, modern Continental  coaches are longer even compared to BR MkIII stock.

A typical modern Continental coach such as a UIC-X type (the usual German stile postwar coach) is 26.4m (nearly 87' in Imperial !) long so in 1:87 it works to 303mm that is a full English foot.

 The sort of coach that Triang tried to model such as a mark1 coaches  was only  64' (19.5m) long which works out to 224mm long in 1:87 and 256mm (say 10") in 1:76. They were expected to travel round 15" (381mm) train set radius, but the longer UIC-X coaches had to be shortened to 26.4/100=264mm long to go round the same tight curves. Indeed you can find for example that Lima's UIC-X coaches (and similar 26.4m stock) was shortened to 265mm but the shorter British coaches could be still be scale length even in 1:76!

 Actually a lot of older continental stock is shorter than 26.4m in reality and more easily to be made to scale 1:87 length. For example VSOE CIWL prewar sleeping cars tend to be more easily to scale length.

 But if one has the space for a model railway and not a toy train set and you are prepared to use no radius below 2' (600mm) on the mainline then you can run scale length coaches which are 303mm long!

  The results look better overall.

 

  Instead at the other extreme of length the typical short British goods wagon can be run almost buffer to buffer without the modern devices to move the couplings apart on sharp model curves. Not like old unmodified Lima 1973/76 British HO

 

  Admittedly NEM standard wheels have higher flanges (pizza cutters) and are wider than NMRA RP25 but the tendency is to go for finer wheels nowardays. It means that track has to be laid better with gentler changes of gradients.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see in the April "Continental Modeller' Nürnberg round up an HO scale British 7-plank PO wagon being introduced by Heris, in the shape of one of the Societe Belgo-Anglaise des Ferryboats ferry wagons.

  As we know, cross Channel (using ferries) traffic is not a new thing. In days past it was wholly wagonload with variety.

 Indeed if Heris goes ahead and are willing to sell just the underframe and/or the unpainted wagon there is scope for modifications.

 

  I find this site rather interesting as it shows cross channel wagons though the various ages.

 Inspiration for manufacturers to get a beginning also to appeal to both sides of the Channel.

 

 http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/4-rstock/04arstock9.htm

 

 I think the main argument for OO 1:76 on 1:87 track is legacy as a lot of modellers and collectors have stock from their childhood and their fathers and grandfathers.

 

 Living 10km from one of the ex-Hornby factories (not Lima but the other one) I understand the need for consistent over scale 1:80 or 1:82 models.

 But that is more those with already a large 1:80 collection but not if one starts from scratch. You might as well start the right scale and standards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the trail of War time locomotives such as the USTC S160 (2-8-0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class and the USTC S100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S100_Class I think these could be possibilities for British HO:

 

The G.C.R. 2-8-0 Robinson class the LNER O4  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROD_2-8-0 could be an interesting class as it operated on the Continent in both wars.

  Also some were sold later on and even preserved in Australia where 1:87 is the norm.

It had external main motion and internal distribution thus making it easy to model and with wide splashers.

 

Also the Riddles WD 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 classes which don't have the problem about splashers.

The same for the J94 0-6-0T.

 

For modern power sadly Vitrains power  decided to pull out of making a class 92 given the dilemma on scale. See my post on Vitrains.

Their importer wanted 1:76 but no use for French modellers ! They couldn't affort tooling for two scales.

 

Certainly we could have repaints of class 66 locos (Mehano for example).

 

Also class 86 (known as class 450 in Hungary) and class 87 still known as class 87 in Bulgaria.

 

Also class 20 of which some went to France plus train to former Yugoslavia in the 90s.  The narrow body not a uniquely British feature. 

 

For coaches the MkIII sleepers could be done as some worked in Denmark.

 

In other words go for something that operated on both sides of the Channel for a start.

Edited by FNM600
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  you are right ! 

Please look at :http://www.limabritishho.co.uk/LBHO-Home.htm 

 Sad story ! See my other posts about it. 

  If the 1st one doesn't work, try this one:

http://www.limabritishho.co.uk/LBHO-Home.htm

 

Re: A/C's  well I got banned for suggesting on a high profile thread on the Hornby wish list that they could do some items in 1:87 such as repainting the RivaHornby USTC S100 in SR or BR colours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S100_Class .

 I got the wrath of the OO 1:76.2 4mm fraternity !

 So I had to restart and be more careful not to offend the collectors with lots of 4mm 1:76 stock from their childhood and fathers.

Edited by FNM600
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the window of opportunity for British HO passed when the quality of OO RTR took off. In the 1980's and 90's a good HO supplier could have offered products on a completely different level and the difference in quality would have been great enough to make OO modellers really considered making the scale switch. Roco were encouraged to do it by their UK dealers and apparently seriously considered it but it never happened. Lima could have done it if they'd offered their high end HO level of detail and mechanism but RIKO decided British modellers were tightwads and they stumbled across the idea of making models instantly collectible by releasing 56,000 limited editions a year all of which were variations of the same group of liveries made priceless by the inclusion of a cheap looking limited edition certificate. Lima was the company that annoyed me, probably unfairly as it was down to RIKO's decisions, but Lima really could have offered us models similar to those we got in the early 00's but instead offered us pancake motors and moulded details at the same time as they were making models to compete against Roco for other markets. Now if we got HO it's correct the gauge/scale discrepancy but that'd be about it and most British modellers can live with that compromise. Those that can't already do EM or P4 and rather than trying to change us to HO it'd probably be easier to offer ready to use EM or P4 track and engineer models for easy conversion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these could be possibilities for British HO:

 

On the trail of War time locomotives such as the USTC S160 (2-8-0), USTC S100, G.C.R. 2-8-0 / LNER O4  Also the Riddles WD 2-8-0 and 2-10-0, and the J94

 

Class 92, class 66, class 86, class 87, class 20, and the MkIII sleepers could be done as some worked in Denmark.

 

In other words go for something that operated on both sides of the Channel for a start.

I would say they are possible subjects for mainland European HO, which British HO users might find attractive; and of course the two highlighted in red have HO models and are augmented by the 08.

 

What they do not constitute is a coherent collection of items from which a collection or model railway broadly attractive to the majority of potential UK purchasers can be assembled  The golden rule of UK model railway product: there shall be Gresley pacifics. It is not possible to make these in HO both looking externally correct, and able to run on set track curvature, with current RTR standard parts. If it is externally correct in appearance P87 standards of curvature will apply in short. (Disbelievers are invited to try and assemble such.)

 

It's interesting that Fleischmann's HO probe was the Bulleid coaches, but mysteriously accompanied by a Western hydraulic. Had they done the original condition Bulleid pacific, either species, which is possible in commercial RTR HO thanks to no outside valve gear or splashers; they might just have got a different outcome.

 

 

I think the window of opportunity for British HO passed when the quality of OO RTR took off. In the 1980's and 90's a good HO supplier could have offered products on a completely different level and the difference in quality would have been great enough to make OO modellers really consider making the scale switch...

I have no idea if Bachmann even considered UK HO, and Heljan were dissuaded despite intending to enter the UK market with HO product. That either or both could have turned out post-steam traction models in HO to a better standard than the contemporary OO competition is in no doubt.

 

But that boat has long sailed. I believe the real window of opportunity was the opening of the Channel tunnel: 'there's rails between the scale zones' etc. and Bachmann's entry to the UK market was well timed for it. The low cost manufacturing in China of the time would have enabled a cut throat pricing strategy to carve great holes in Hornby and particularly RIKO/Lima's OO market shares, and had it gone ahead by now 'everything' D+E would be in HO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Fleischmann's HO probe was the Bulleid coaches, but mysteriously accompanied by a Western hydraulic. Had they done the original condition Bulleid pacific, either species, which is possible in commercial RTR HO thanks to no outside valve gear or splashers; they might just have got a different outcome.

 

 

 

 

I believe that this was the original intention of Fleischmann but their British excursion was terminated before their plans could come to fruition leaving them with a mismatched locomotive and coaches in an isolated scale for the UK market. The Warship looks basic and crude now, but compare it with contemporary OO models and it must have been a terrific model in its day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with "H0" is many manufacturers take serious liberties with scale. I recently read a Railway Modeller report from the 1970s on a Rivarossi 2-6-0 made to 1:82 scale.    There is something very wrong with those Warships.  Studying a lot of photos of the prototype reveals the loco should not tower over the coaches. The crease in the bodyside should align with the cant rail on the coaches, again it has to be nearer the Trix 3.7mm foot or 1:80 than 1:87

 

I agree that these Warships aren't quite spot on, though I don't think that particular photo accurately shows the relative heights of the locos and carriages. Taking what you say, though, it's probably just as much the case of the carriages being a touch low as it is the locomotives being high. And, as another has already mentioned, if the Warships could be made to sit a little lower on the bogies, then the match would be quite reasonable.

 

As it is, I only have the green Warship now (which, in the plastic, is quite a handsome thing), and I sold the Bulleid stock with the blue & yellow one, so my only real problem is whether the remaining loco and my various cl.33s look right with Lima MkIIs!

Edited by Steve K
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said there's no Ho in England. Obviously they didn't look hard enough. He even has a house:

 

The House of Ho

Fitzrovia 1 Percy StreetLondon W1T 1DBEngland (Fitzrovia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although  - whisper it - many HO steam models of European prototypes are selectively built 'elastically' to anything up to 4mm/ft in width. This is an inescapable consequence not of the motor element of the mechanism, but principally of commercial wheels that are positioned inside splashers, and outside rods that have to clear overscale crankpins and the like. And just as with the Rivarossi HO Royal Scot, if you know the prototype the resulting distortion from accurate appearance is just as ugly!

 

Which is part of the why of P87.

So, a clear cut choice, OO with the wheels too close together or HO with the cylinders too far apart (and other dimensions juggled about to disguise them).

 

P87 is, in terms of space required for anything other than a straight line layout, almost as disadvantaged as P4 when compared to OO.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a go at British HO, well over 10 years ago, now. Partly because I like to model out of the mainstream, but UK HO is a very lonely furrow indeed. I gave it up when my attempts to get a Class 14 body kit going, to fit the Roco V60 chassis, came to nothing, despite being a member of the British HO Society at the time.

When Heljan were looking to enter the UK market they proposd an HO class 37; obviously once they did some market research they worked out they'd sell far more UK models if they were 4mm, not 3.5....

 

No surprise that the modelling done in S is better than in HO - it's a much finer set of standards. From what I gather, it's almost the only Scale that doesn't need a "finescale" option..?? (eg P4/4mm, S7/O, P87/HO) as the whole gauge-to-scale issue is accurate in the first place...??

IIRC, when the HO Heljan Class 37 was mooted, they invited pre-orders and set a target of a mere 750 spread over four different liveries. It was not reached and the rest is history.

 

Despite being fully committed to OO, I registered for one, considering it would constitute a landmark model for any collection and retain its significance long into the future. What proportion of the British HO community did likewise, I wonder? Presumably there were less than 749 of them.

 

The problem with transforming any non-commercial scale to a commercial one is that its existing adherents will have established attachments to diverse prototypes and eras.

 

The only way to get things moving is to convince enough of them to buy what is offered on principle and worry about whether they want the specific model afterwards.

 

John  

Edited by Dunsignalling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone suggested Wiki can be updated..

Also I am trying to do my bit by producing HO scale models using 3D printing. The Heljan idea probably failed because it was the wrong loco at the wrong time. An HO scale Flying Scotsman or Mallard, might actually get more interest, as they are the big sellers in OO and N gauge. If done to continental standards, it could incorporate lighting etc as standard, maybe smoke and sound. Add in a 3 rail AC version, and you are linked to another big market.

I am a bit dubious about the claim that British models could not be designed to go round standard curves. As far as I can see, the Hornby/Rivarossi USA tank loco is not overwide, and works on standard track. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is rather like last year's thread on Hornby [not] doing TT gauge again; nice idea but it's not going to happen. The only likely prototypes are locos which also ran in Continental Europe. Which, apart from 66s included 56, 37, 58, 20, EM2 as well as the 350hp shunter, and a fair number of steam types including Austeriities and S160s. Which is quite a variety, but I can't see it being commercially viable.

 

Dava

Edited by Dava

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw loads last time I was near Kings Cross.  ;)

 

 

Getting back to taste and decency I've got to agree. I think the ship has sailed a very long time ago. You may get a few dedicated modellers like you do with S and TT. But I don't think you will be getting a commercial range of RTR British HO models anytime soon.

 

 

Jason

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.