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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony

 

The point is taken...but have a look at the industry I come from. Printing.

 

Not all that many years ago, if you needed something like the Poll leaflet (that I guess was what Chris showed you as we don't have 'voting slips' such as in general elections) then you would have either had to write it out by hand or go to a printer to get a comparable result.

 

There, a compositor would set the type, a proofreader would read it and then - after customer OK - a machine minder would print it. It would then need to be cut to size, packed and delivered.

 

I set it up on my computer in minutes and emailed it to many contacts - again, in minutes.

 

That is progress. The only thing likely to remain constant is change.

 

Brian

I wasn't being critical of Chris, or the leaflet, Brian,

 

If that's how it came across, my apologies.

 

My point (obviously fuddled) is I that have no personal need of wish-list polls for RTR items. If I want anything, I'll (like many others) build it from a kit or from scratch (though I'm quite happy to alter suitable RTR rolling stock). 

 

I realise that sounds rather 'elitist', and the 'way' I choose to model railways is not the most common, especially today. I've said before, it used to be more of the norm, when the mags showed railways where just about everything had been 'built', 'relegating' RTR material to 'Proprietary Modeller' status. That's not the case today.

 

What I also mentioned in conversation yesterday was that if I tried my hardest with, say, a SE Finecast Wainwright D kit and gave the finished loco over to the likes of an Ian Rathbone or a Geoff Haynes to paint, the most I could hope for was that it would be the 'equal' of the forthcoming RTR loco. It might not be even that, though the livery would be lovely. Time was, when if one saw a 'lovely' loco running on a layout at a show, one knew it must have been scratch- or kit-built. Today, in most cases, the opposite is true, especially in OO Gauge.

 

The hobby has never been more egalitarian, but it is, to some degree now, at the expense of the kit manufacturers/builders in my view. Such is progress, and you and your team are to be congratulated (in part) on making such wonderful models available to the majority. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thegreenhowards said:

Yes that's the one! I seem to remember we drove it very fast at a set of points that were set against it and the resultant short circuit fried the Portescap...possibly caused by it being fitted with a DCC decoder, although the decoder was fine after a reset.

 

It was actually quite a fortunate accident as you invited me back to get the loco fixed with a spare motor because at that stage dismantling valve gear was beyond me. I learnt enough from watching you repair 60508 and then you teaching me to build 60506, that valve gear is no longer an issue.

 

Thanks again for your tuition.

 

Andy

An ill wind, indeed, Andy,

 

I was puzzled why the Portescap fried (but not the chip) on reaching (at speed) that short circuit situation. The reason being, that I've run a train at speed into exactly the same situation myself; several times, with at least one loco Portescap-fitted. That slow-to-fast crossover is used by the last Up train in the sequence. Despite my writing in bold capitals ENSURE CROSSOVER IS SET TO NORMAL AFTERWARDS on the sequence sheet, do I read it? Of course not, and blithely drive the next Up express in the following sequence with the road incorrectly set! 

 

Could it be that the decoder allowed current through more than without it, for a split second longer, before the short circuit cut-out kicked in? Perhaps an electronics expert will know. I do know that the Helmsman controllers I use are designed for O Gauge, giving more than enough 'juice'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Tony

 

No criticism taken whatsoever. Chris is bolder than I imagined trying to get you to vote!:)

 

I was making the point that RTR models may have an adverse commercial effect on kit makers (and that is highly regrettable) and computers had an adverse effect on many old traditional printing trades. The upside is that computerisation has expanded the market overall. 

 

Brian

 

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

21 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony

 

No criticism taken whatsoever. Chris is bolder than I imagined trying to get you to vote!:)

 

I was making the point that RTR models may have an adverse commercial effect on kit makers (and that is highly regrettable) and computers had an adverse effect on many old traditional printing trades. The upside is that computerisation has expanded the market overall. 

 

Brian

 

Would it be fair though to suggest that while your comparison may apply to kit-makers and old-style printers, does it really apply to the consumers? The leaflet-consumer still gets a leaflet, but if the kit-makers go the way of ink-stained compositors the kit-buyer can't get the kit, and if at least part of the reason for wanting a kit is enjoyment from the process of buliding it the RTR model is no substitute.

Edited by johnarcher
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Apparently not, John,

 

The centre of gravity is exactly between the drivers, and the bogie will be lightly-sprung. The aim is to having it be able to pull an equivalent prototype load - say eight/nine RTR carriages, with ease. I've offered LB as a test-bed (other RTR manufacturers use it) when the first 'production' models are available next year. 

 

Though manufacturers have test facilities and test tracks, they're invariably ready-to-lay systems of little complexity. A layout like LB allows for fast running, over a mixture of hand-built trackwork and Peco. I'm delighted manufacturers take me up on the offer, frequently shooting videos.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony. The photo angle must have fooled me into thinking that most of the metal was in front of the leading driver.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

the front of the tender rests on the drawbar, with the leading wheelset taking no load at all.

Thanks again. That sounds similar to, but simpler than, the Sharman free bogie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Time was, when if one saw a 'lovely' loco running on a layout at a show, one knew it must have been scratch- or kit-built. Today, in most cases, the opposite is true, especially in OO Gauge.

Very true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning John,

 

Every 4-4-0 tender loco I've built (about 15) is balanced in exactly the same way. The bogie has a light spring (to aid road-holding and to apply some pressure to stop the loco 'nodding') and the front of the tender rests on the drawbar, with the leading wheelset taking no load at all. Adhesion is thus improved. 4-4-0s (particularly white metal ones) are notoriously nose-heavy. 

 

1240485484_SEFinecastSchools.jpg.83e7c336e648d80468264083d8a77683.jpg

 

This SE Finecast Schools (painted by Ian Rathbone) has the arrangement, and will pull a dozen kit-built cars with ease. 

 

725355461_BECD1162662.jpg.7c60f5a857e9111965341b2987dc273f.jpg

 

As has this BEC D11 (painted by Geoff Haynes). The inner cab roof on this one is also lined with lead. It's taking a typical, latter-day D11 load, but it'll take three times this. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. Thanks to the moderator for removing my earlier duplicate post. 

Hi Tony

 

What a great looking model the schools class is.

 

I am sure I read somewhere that at one time they were the most powerful  4-4-0 Locomotives in Europe.

 

I always regret that I never saw any of the class running in service. I was just a few months too late.

 

I did manage to see four of the class in store at Stewart’s Lane MPD in early 1963.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited by landscapes
Spellcheck
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

725355461_BECD1162662.jpg.7c60f5a857e9111965341b2987dc273f.jpg

 

As has this BEC D11 (painted by Geoff Haynes). The inner cab roof on this one is also lined with lead. It's taking a typical, latter-day D11 load, but it'll take three times this. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. Thanks to the moderator for removing my earlier duplicate post. 

Hello Tony

Its interesting that you should show this BEC D11 again.  In the process of learning how to line with bow pens and Bob More pen I have resurrected my old BEC D11, built originally about 1975, partially rebuilt in mid-80s and now its being partially rebuilt again purely to be a test bed!  Actually I had already lined the tender before I decided to knock out the coal and rear deck with water filler so I could insert a new deck with the correct shaped water pickup/filler box arrangement! It all came out easily with only one knock as it was a glued model - a sign of the times for me at that stage. The incorrect oval tender buffers have gone and I have also rubbed down the smokebox to remove the rivets to suit my mid 1930s period. 

 

It will never be anywhere near as good a the Bachmann model in accuracy - for a start the tender is too wide and of course the detail is heavy in most places but it will serve its purpose well and hopefully look okay when finished. I'll post a photo or two once its completed.

 

Regards

 

Andrew 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, landscapes said:

What a great looking model the schools class is.

I always regret that I never saw any of the class running in service. I was just a few months too late.

 

The three preserved ones still look pretty good when running!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I wasn't being critical of Chris, or the leaflet, Brian,

 

If that's how it came across, my apologies.

 

My point (obviously fuddled) is I that have no personal need of wish-list polls for RTR items. If I want anything, I'll (like many others) build it from a kit or from scratch (though I'm quite happy to alter suitable RTR rolling stock). 

 

I realise that sounds rather 'elitist', and the 'way' I choose to model railways is not the most common, especially today. I've said before, it used to be more of the norm, when the mags showed railways where just about everything had been 'built', 'relegating' RTR material to 'Proprietary Modeller' status. That's not the case today.

 

What I also mentioned in conversation yesterday was that if I tried my hardest with, say, a SE Finecast Wainwright D kit and gave the finished loco over to the likes of an Ian Rathbone or a Geoff Haynes to paint, the most I could hope for was that it would be the 'equal' of the forthcoming RTR loco. It might not be even that, though the livery would be lovely. Time was, when if one saw a 'lovely' loco running on a layout at a show, one knew it must have been scratch- or kit-built. Today, in most cases, the opposite is true, especially in OO Gauge.

 

The hobby has never been more egalitarian, but it is, to some degree now, at the expense of the kit manufacturers/builders in my view. Such is progress, and you and your team are to be congratulated (in part) on making such wonderful models available to the majority. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

It was a pleasure to meet one of my 'heroes' yesterday, Tony, and I took no offence, either personally or on behalf of the Wish List Poll.  I fully appreciate that an eminent and capable builder like yourself has no need to vote for anything rtr!  Though to help normal mortals who, for example, might aspire to a Thompson Pacific you could vote for them and boost the numbers.

 

Yes it's sad that a rtr model deprives a kit manufacturer of sales though, in this case, I would hope that Wills/SEF amortised their investment long ago.  Of course those kits that have been sold will, naturally, have been bought by those who can build it (or think they can!), or can afford to pay someone else to do it. This is a small percentage of modellers so the availability of a rtr model does make that prototype accessible to the greater majority. It is stating the obvious, I imagine,  that a year after the Dapol/RailsLocomotion models are released, the number of rtr D locos will no doubt vastly outnumber kit built examples in circulation.

 

If the greater choice of rtr these days deters manufacturers from venturing into new prototypes that is another matter. Hopefully they can try to guess more effectively what the rtr boys are likely NOT to produce, though that's perhaps getting harder.  There's certainly a vast choice of prototypes not yet made, not only locos but even more so carriages.

 

I stress this is my posting and not on behalf of the Poll Team.

 

Regards

 

Chris Knowles-Thomas

      

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony

 

No criticism taken whatsoever. Chris is bolder than I imagined trying to get you to vote!:)

 

I was making the point that RTR models may have an adverse commercial effect on kit makers (and that is highly regrettable) and computers had an adverse effect on many old traditional printing trades. The upside is that computerisation has expanded the market overall. 

 

Brian

 

 

The comparrison with computers is a very poor one, as the dominance of RTR models has  shrunk what is avalible to the consummer, it has diminished options not enhanced them. Computers are creative tools in the right hands. RTR models are just products that are coverted and bought and sold. Some will claim that RTR allows other areas of the hobby to improve, it is just not the case. I say, stop wishing for the future and stand up and make it happen yourself.

 

Talking to a wishlister, about wishlists, at exhibitions, has got to be the most boring conversation in the hobby.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Andrew

 

I think you and others are somewhat missing the point I was making but I'll leave it at that.

 

For my own part, I simply cannot 'make models' like I used to because the smell of paints and glues etc have a seriously adverse effect on my disabled wife. Whilst I can can get away with minor amounts of weathering of ready-to-run products anything major is out of the question.

 

Brian

  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Andrew

 

I think you and others are somewhat missing the point I was making but I'll leave it at that.

 

For my own part, I simply cannot 'make models' like I used to because the smell of paints and glues etc have a seriously adverse effect on my disabled wife. Whilst I can can get away with minor amounts of weathering of ready-to-run products anything major is out of the question.

 

Brian

 

Afternoon Brian,

 

That's a great shame about your personal circumstances. I have obviousley missed the point. Do you see wishlisting as a having value in its own right, a mental exercise for those, who through no fault of there own, can't participate in the physical aspects of railway modelling? If so, couldn't 'mental' railway modelling be used in a more creative and perhaps constructive way than making an 'I want' list for the benefit of large manufactures?

Edited by Headstock
add question mark
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Andrew

 

Many thanks for understanding. The upside is I get to ride my wife's 4-wheel scooter and I can't wait to take it out in icy conditions to undertake 'four wheel drifting'! :)

 

The Poll is not for manufacturers. We clearly state in the written purpose that it is for modellers and collectors to indicate to the makers and commissioners what they would realistically buy if made. It is for us to see how we are thinking as a large group (from those who take part). 

 

The makers will make what they feel they can profit from. We can only hope that our results match closely to what they get in emails, phone calls and attendance at shows. Our Results Records show that many items are coming from the upper echelons. And if the 'modelling cottage industry' reads between the lines of the results, they should be able to spot gaps and sneak in with suitable products. 

 

The 'annual event' is not simply wishing. We attach The Guide. We hope that novice modellers will read this and put various items into chronological context to make their voting more effective. There are many who know they want 'green coaches'...but which ones for a 1950s layout? The Guide tries to explain. It has about 100,000 words and over 1800 links.

 

We used to make reference to any item that had a suitable kit, but it was so time-consuming keeping it up-to-date, we had to give up. We do, however, show  a link in each category that will take readers to a list of kit makers etc.

 

We know from emails received that the event makes people take a step back, put their thinking caps on and enjoy getting involved. And we know that there are many who welcome the purchase of ready-to-run as they cannot make models because of injuries, failing sight and various other facts of life that get in  the way.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Wishlist Poll Team)

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Andrew

 

I think you and others are somewhat missing the point I was making but I'll leave it at that.

 

For my own part, I simply cannot 'make models' like I used to because the smell of paints and glues etc have a seriously adverse effect on my disabled wife. Whilst I can can get away with minor amounts of weathering of ready-to-run products anything major is out of the question.

 

Brian

I have understanding and sympathy for your personal position, as to some extent I share it. I am having to re-assess what I can hope to do thanks to the effect of some things on my advancing emphysema. I may be able to continue for a while, maybe using hair rather than air brush, water-based rather than phosphoric acid flux, I'm not sure.

Personally I do lament that decent kits for at least a couple of (quite popular) prototypes I'd want for possible ideas no longer exist, probably due to (not necessarily very good) RTR models being available, but that doesn't imply any criticism of those who want such models, just regret that both options don't seem to be able to co-exist economically.

 

It's annoying, I have never done that much in this hobby, the adult healthy years were mostly devoted to making and shooting longbows (hence the user name), I just dabbled a bit with some Irish 00n3, in the hope that I could come bac k to it properly in later years when trudging round field courses was no longer practical.

Edited by johnarcher
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

It was a pleasure to meet one of my 'heroes' yesterday, Tony, and I took no offence, either personally or on behalf of the Wish List Poll.  I fully appreciate that an eminent and capable builder like yourself has no need to vote for anything rtr!  Though to help normal mortals who, for example, might aspire to a Thompson Pacific you could vote for them and boost the numbers.

 

Yes it's sad that a rtr model deprives a kit manufacturer of sales though, in this case, I would hope that Wills/SEF amortised their investment long ago.  Of course those kits that have been sold will, naturally, have been bought by those who can build it (or think they can!), or can afford to pay someone else to do it. This is a small percentage of modellers so the availability of a rtr model does make that prototype accessible to the greater majority. It is stating the obvious, I imagine,  that a year after the Dapol/RailsLocomotion models are released, the number of rtr D locos will no doubt vastly outnumber kit built examples in circulation.

 

If the greater choice of rtr these days deters manufacturers from venturing into new prototypes that is another matter. Hopefully they can try to guess more effectively what the rtr boys are likely NOT to produce, though that's perhaps getting harder.  There's certainly a vast choice of prototypes not yet made, not only locos but even more so carriages.

 

I stress this is my posting and not on behalf of the Poll Team.

 

Regards

 

Chris Knowles-Thomas

      

It was a pleasure to meet you, too, Chris,

 

Though 'heroes' and 'villains' are often one and the same, depending on your point of view. 

 

It's impossible not to come across as pompous when I say 'Why would I need a wishlist or poll of RTR items?' 

 

As I said yesterday, I was told (by two members of staff) that the likes of an article on building a DJH 'Princess Coronation' was 'no longer BRM material - too high-brow as it were'. It probably came across as a criticism (which Andy jumped on), but I was not able to complete what I wanted to say. This was that magazines have to exist in an extremely competitive market, and, if articles the like of which I've written no longer appeal to BRM's readers, then that's a fact. Such 'complex' articles are unlikely to increase copy sales, it would seem. Other magazine editors might appear to take the same view (though not Steve Flint). The principal reason is, of course, that there is now a wonderful RTR 'Semi' from Hornby. At under £200.00 complete, it's less than half the cost of all the kit components. What's the term (which I dislike, by the way), a no-brainer? 

 

Thus, not only has excellent RTR impacted on what one sees at shows and online but also with regard to articles in mags. Because there's no 'need' nowadays to build the likes of a 'Princess Coronation', then an article on building one is no longer 'needed' itself. 

 

All the above said, Debbie Wood (BRM's new manager) is keen to get more 'constructional' articles in BRM of the type I can supply. I have several in the pipeline. Time will tell if they flop, fail or succeed. 

 

As for Thompson's Pacifics RTR, there's no way I'd wish for one (or any) of those. They're by far the most-popular locos I'm asked to build!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

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

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

 

The three preserved ones still look pretty good when running!

I’ve been working on Stowe at the Bluebell today (as most Wednesdays). Today I painted the new cab roof (the old one had rusted through) and some pipes. It takes a bit longer in 1:1 scale!

 

We hope to be running again before too long!

 

Andy

 

  • Like 6
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chris45lsw said:

There's certainly a vast choice of prototypes not yet made, not only locos but even more so carriages.

 

      

Like a decent Mark I Diag 24 RB for a start...  Clearly they are very peripheral, as there were only 128 of them across all regions in loads of liveries from 1960 to the 1990s, and with few external changes making tooling a bit less difficult than it otherwise might be. And no, they are not the same as an RU.:banghead:

 

And Gresley vestibuled (ie gangwayed) stock that is at least approximately the correct shape. And some GWR or LNER dining cars, and a decent LMS one.

 

Not forgetting DMUs - still waiting for a 104, 120 (or 119) and 116, amongst others. 

 

Not everyone has the time, skill or money to build them (or have them built) anywhere near as well as a good RTR model would be. 

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

11 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Like a decent Mark I Diag 24 RB for a start...  Clearly they are very peripheral, as there were only 128 of them across all regions in loads of liveries from 1960 to the 1990s, and with few external changes making tooling a bit less difficult than it otherwise might be. And no, they are not the same as an RU.:banghead:

 

And Gresley vestibuled (ie gangwayed) stock that is at least approximately the correct shape. And some GWR or LNER dining cars, and a decent LMS one.

 

Not forgetting DMUs - still waiting for a 104, 120 (or 119) and 116, amongst others. 

 

Not everyone has the time, skill or money to build them (or have them built) anywhere near as well as a good RTR model would be. 

 

Evening Robert,

 

Presumably ordinary folk had more time, better skills and more money in the past. Judging by the rate of production of new RTR items over the last twenty years, I wouldn't hold your breath. You will be along time dead waiting for that list to be completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Robert,

 

Presumably ordinary folk had more time, better skills and more money in the past. Judging by the rate of production of new RTR items over the last twenty years, I wouldn't hold your breath. You will be along time dead waiting for that list to be completed.

I will need to live until I'm about 500 to get through my existing list of projects!  I'm still hopeful of a new RB to replace my old Mainline ones and a Cross-Country DMU (which has been announced in 0 gauge).

 

I think in the past standards were not generally as high as they are now. I have seen lots of older kit-built engines and carriages which were probably much better than contemporary RTR items when they were built or where there were no RTR equivalents, that would not stand up to scrutiny today. I built loads of kits of carriages and units in the 1990s but most have been ditched as more recent RTR models are better. I also bought several kit-built engines, all but two of which have now gone as RTR ones have replaced them. The Bachmann 9F compared to the DJH one is a good example, and a recent swap with Tony. I once built a DC Kits Cravens DMU. I now have 10 vastly better Bachmann ones.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I will need to live until I'm about 500 to get through my existing list of projects!  I'm still hopeful of a new RB to replace my old Mainline ones and a Cross-Country DMU (which has been announced in 0 gauge).

 

I think in the past standards were not generally as high as they are now. I have seen lots of older kit-built engines and carriages which were probably much better than contemporary RTR items when they were built or where there were no RTR equivalents, that would not stand up to scrutiny today. I built loads of kits of carriages and units in the 1990s but most have been ditched as more recent RTR models are better. I also bought several kit-built engines, all but two of which have now gone as RTR ones have replaced them. The Bachmann 9F compared to the DJH one is a good example, and a recent swap with Tony. I once built a DC Kits Cravens DMU. I now have 10 vastly better Bachmann ones.

Hi Robert

 

While agreeing with you about the much improved standards of modern RTR models I still like using my older handbuilt models, true they are of a lower standard of detail. What is important to me is they run to a standard I like for all stock, it doesn't fall  off, the hand of Odin is not needed to start locos or units and they capable of hauling a train at realistic speed. When a homemade plastic card diesel is over the far side of the layout it looks like the class of loco it is supposed to be, it is only when parked next to a newer RTR version I see what I didn't add on. The biggest satisfaction for me is it is one of mine not the same as one someone else has pulled out a box.

 

I do appreciate everyone has their own ideals and wouldn't contemplate running Cravens converted from Tri-ang Mk1s next to Bachmann one, let alone a MTK one.

  • Like 8
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

RTR models are just products that are coverted and bought and sold. Some will claim that RTR allows other areas of the hobby to improve, it is just not the case. I say, stop wishing for the future and stand up and make it happen yourself.

 

Talking to a wishlister, about wishlists, at exhibitions, has got to be the most boring conversation in the hobby.

RTR definitely allows some areas of the hobby to improve. Whilst not a regular DCC user myself it has added some significant elements of functionality to change for the better. Peco for instance are highly unlikely to have developed the new bullhead track without the recent improvements we've seen in the fidelity of RTR models. If we were still in 1980's era of Lima pancake motors etc there's unlikely to have been the development of that track market. Some smaller manufacturers are releasing products specifically to enhance RTR products. That was always the case, but it's still happening rather than dying off.

 

Re wishlists, whilst acknowledging their use for RTR manufacturers, regarding discussion of same, definitely on the same page there!

  • Like 3
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...