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

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just had a query from Jonathan Wealleans regarding the LRM J6, one of which he's building. 

 

He's found the article I wrote about it in the BRM 2011 Annual, but I told him a fib. I thought I'd not had to make new rods but I was wrong. They didn't match the frames. 

 

Thus, out of more general interest, and since J6s have been popular of late, I include the build-sequence here.

 

444866099_J601.jpg.84e7cb0fcf7eee7a1c5b4bff10f24e87.jpg

 

1843368237_J602.jpg.b0d229a0679d1edbf88ddee771c840f5.jpg

 

41243085_J603.jpg.a33c01c6b5e571e6f30d92099a09353f.jpg

 

2057053168_J604.jpg.bb5295b354dec9b07c739bea68b20bd5.jpg

 

214268286_J605.jpg.a866c7335c898d17a9faca17f8195451.jpg

 

983944217_J606.jpg.ecdcf5f12cb645603bc8121a36b796c4.jpg

 

718776312_J607.jpg.cc1077af239d7fa6b499e006a4458682.jpg

 

734772557_J608.jpg.f3a60d9b42fd7205a8c280a50c31e64c.jpg

 

1114603002_J609.jpg.2d1c455de0fa8dc4b5a206c331bdfb0b.jpg

 

1392900926_J610.jpg.d1d09712b11fead18a9fbab65609abfd.jpg

 

1518732294_J611.jpg.cc3a313da50a9d6da7329a7c3558c70a.jpg

 

100785330_J6tender01.jpg.4cfd48e189b25f54dd7b208911f00bf4.jpg

 

266851675_J6tender02.jpg.a2928bfbe519d1a6ab892cd785e51f5d.jpg

 

1192573651_J6tender03.jpg.18fd52203d141b1d416c363b14776f91.jpg

 

1031785307_J6tender04.jpg.855a8a7208f8577b43e30edd1454cb32.jpg

 

1907744886_J6tender05.jpg.562ca783226f78acd8c3f9c089b55980.jpg

 

603143902_J6tender06.jpg.f021dbfbe15c6e35ebbf58223e604abf.jpg

 

660694281_J6tender07.jpg.00726d357545dc3e9f3a98b2fe2284a5.jpg

 

804662244_J6tender08.jpg.8485652e357aa0d3f9ee4a9218043519.jpg

 

1109373850_J6tender09.jpg.2d0664576e959e7969fe83ccb03c16ba.jpg

 

1691068561_J6tendertenderballasting.jpg.4f6a3d41f9f11e381d9da49be7e1346c.jpg

 

725692542_J612.jpg.6ab34af6c322a5e8ab87c036f463f064.jpg

 

1047835328_J613.jpg.c3e1ea49ca9dbccec43542c4709406ef.jpg

 

783408287_J614.jpg.92b8d03242053da096df8748f7b1cda1.jpg

 

882709245_J615painted.jpg.f0b8a2b070a4b1484b0e09925e0c7043.jpg

 

I think I dropped a few constructional bloopers along the way.............................

 

 

Just superb 

 

David

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Just superb 

 

David

That's very kind of you, David,

 

However, I've photographed many 'superb' models; creations of the greats - the likes of Beeson, Holt, Ure, Hayes, Dunhill, Marsh and so on. 

 

What I do is adequate for 'layout work', in the general scheme of things - not for a glass case existence (not that the works of the greats always live in glass cases - they work as well!).

 

I think we have to be careful as to how we describe some modelling one sees. While praise is due (and I hope, in fact I know, it's given on here) it should not be too effusive.

 

Of course, the works of the 'greats' can be daunting, even overwhelming in comparison with personal modelling (I know), but there's still much to be said for having a go and doing things for oneself. 

 

Which is what (I hope) Wright Writes encourages.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks to Tony for taking the time to post these pictures (and for producing the build article in the first place - then remembering where it was after I went through all my back copies of BRM searching for it.  It didn't occur to me that it might be in an annual).

 

I will post something on my own thread when I have something worth looking at, but for the moment Tony's confirmed that there is a discrepancy between rods and frames (I enlarged the bearing holes in the appropriate direction to eliminate the difference) and also tipped me off that there is no sideplay if you put the axle bearings with the shoulder outside in the usual manner.  I put the front and rear ones in with the shoulder inside and thinned down the centre ones.  I substituted Romford axle bearings as the supplied ones were so large I'd have reamed out almost all the backing material in the cutout in order to get them to fit (mine will not be compensated).   At the moment we have a rolling chassis with footplate and that's pretty much where we stop this weekend.

 

Readers of my thread will also have seen me go down the same path as above with the tender - putting the front coal plate where the instructions and drawing suggested, then having to move it after looking at photographs of the period I'm modelling. 

 

We should be grateful that technology allowed me to email Tony this afternoon (I only started the kit about 4 pm), receive a reply in very short order and then be examining these pictures on the same evening.  It can be a marvellous thing.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The J6 is finished,

 

It's taken much longer to complete than normal (over a fortnight!). Not that the actual hours of construction were longer, it's that there were interruptions. 

 

976808917_SEF-Nu-CastJ609.jpg.76d3f5a9c70d1371a2860da1e41392be.jpg

 

1733933030_SEF-Nu-CastJ610.jpg.e89718168b415a3c469cbc222ab5f17d.jpg

 

In the end I changed the drive for one of DJH's latest motor/gearbox combos. Though the 'box frames protrude further than the original, there's no visible gear wheel. Painted matt black, it's much less-obtrusive, and it's so much quieter. 

 

Seeing the whitemetal and the etched J6s together does make me think that the etched one gives a much crisper result.

 

Something is puzzling me on the NuCast J6. On the top photo, all looks nice and square and straight but on the lower view, it looks as if the cab is leaning backwards. Is it an illusion caused by the camera lens?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Seeing the whitemetal and the etched J6s together does make me think that the etched one gives a much crisper result.

 

Something is puzzling me on the NuCast J6. On the top photo, all looks nice and square and straight but on the lower view, it looks as if the cab is leaning backwards. Is it an illusion caused by the camera lens?

It's not an illusion, Tony,

 

My camera doesn't do illusions.

 

What's happened is that I've just plonked the body on the chassis, rather than screwing the major components together. I think the whole loco body is leaning to the right in the bottom shot. 

 

That said, I've got many pictures with locos displaying out-of-kilter cabs!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The only time I ever saw any Haymarket-based locos, they were always clean. 

 

They were either on 'The Elizabethan' or running-in from Donny Plant. 

 

Of course, visitors from Tyneside were usually very dirty. I assume you have a few?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony

 

Yes I do have a few Tyneside based locomotives that were regular visitors to Haymarket, but as far a Pacific's are concerned this is as dirty as they get from my collection, Hornby A4 60023 Golden Eagle which originally started out as 60018 Sparrow Hawk.

 

Regards

 

David

60023_IMG_0838B.jpg

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Tony Wright said:

It's not an illusion, Tony,

 

My camera doesn't do illusions.

 

What's happened is that I've just plonked the body on the chassis, rather than screwing the major components together. I think the whole loco body is leaning to the right in the bottom shot. 

 

That said, I've got many pictures with locos displaying out-of-kilter cabs!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

There have been photos produced where a wide angle lens has caused things that are straight and square in reality to look as though they are not, which is what I was getting at.

 

I remember having great battles with one or two kits, especially whitemetal ones. Casting was not an exact science for some of our kit makers (although others seemed to get better results than others) and parts that at first glance looked straight and square didn't when the parts were soldered together.

 

I think that is why I generally prefer etched kits. Thinner edges look better and and if a part was drawn the right shape and size, it generally comes out that way on the etch. You don't get the shrinkage and warping that can come with the casting process.

 

It was one of Roy Jackson's pet sayings. Build it straight, build it square. Once you have done those two, it makes the rest so much easier!

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

It might be something to do with the shape of the casting, Tony.  I've not long finished a NuCast one and from some angles mine looks out of square as well.

Thanks Jonathan,

 

It might well be slightly out of square.

 

And, as has been said many times, the camera is a 'cruel' critic.

 

I think I'm with Tony Gee in preferring the look of etched kits, though, from my own point of view, I much prefer mixed-media kits such as those produced by DJH. With most of those, one gets castings where it's most appropriate (boilers) and etchings where they're best (cab and tender sides, smoke deflectors and so forth). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

40 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

There have been photos produced where a wide angle lens has caused things that are straight and square in reality to look as though they are not, which is what I was getting at.

 

I remember having great battles with one or two kits, especially whitemetal ones. Casting was not an exact science for some of our kit makers (although others seemed to get better results than others) and parts that at first glance looked straight and square didn't when the parts were soldered together.

 

I think that is why I generally prefer etched kits. Thinner edges look better and and if a part was drawn the right shape and size, it generally comes out that way on the etch. You don't get the shrinkage and warping that can come with the casting process.

 

It was one of Roy Jackson's pet sayings. Build it straight, build it square. Once you have done those two, it makes the rest so much easier!

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

'Build it straight, build it square. Once you have done those two, it makes the rest so much easier!'

 

That might be the reason why he dismantled that A2/2 body I built for him!

 

Regarding camera distortion; it can happen, especially where a wide-angle lens has forced the perspective. However, I don't employ a wide-angle lens for most of my photography. If something is 'banana-shaped', then it is. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for showing your improved RTR Pacifics. They certainly look the part to me. I assume your Bachmann ‘Boswell’ is based on 60130? If so, I’m not surprised you’re not happy with the haulage. I have generally found the earlier Bachmann A1s to be inferior in haulage terms compared to the later offerings. The ones with the decoder socket in the tender are particularly strong (although I appreciate that will just annoy you - sorry!). My own 60130 and 60123 (based on 60158) are limited to 8-10 coaches.

 

I have been experimenting today, just to make sure that I could back up my claims. I don’t have 14 all metal coaches spread over all my rakes, let alone in one. But I do have 10 metal sided coaches with white metal bogies in my Elizabethan. So I combined that  with my Newcastle rake including the all metal Ex silver Jubilee triplet (which you sold me ex Gamston Bank). This made a pretty heavy 22 coach rake.

I’ve stuffed my latest A4, 60007 - Sir Nigel himself, with as much lead as possible and tested it out on this rake. It could just about pull the rake out of the fiddle yard (with some wheels slip), but the coaches derailed on my curves, so I had to shorten it to provide a proper test. Here is a video showing Sir Nigel in action on 17 coaches including the 10 Elizabethan Thompsons, the metal triplet and four plastic coaches. 
 

 

 

I hope most would agree that that is a pretty respectable performance. I appreciate that such information is of little relevance to Little Bytham with your fantastic stud of kit built Pacifics, but I hope that it is reassuring to others who, like me, rely on RTR to bulk out our express steam fleets. 


A4s are probably the easiest because of the amount of space for lead within the body shell, but other Pacifics can achieve results which are almost as good.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for showing your improved RTR Pacifics. They certainly look the part to me. I assume your Bachmann ‘Boswell’ is based on 60130? If so, I’m not surprised you’re not happy with the haulage. I have generally found the earlier Bachmann A1s to be inferior in haulage terms compared to the later offerings. The ones with the decoder socket in the tender are particularly strong (although I appreciate that will just annoy you - sorry!). My own 60130 and 60123 (based on 60158) are limited to 8-10 coaches.

 

I have been experimenting today, just to make sure that I could back up my claims. I don’t have 14 all metal coaches spread over all my rakes, let alone in one. But I do have 10 metal sided coaches with white metal bogies in my Elizabethan. So I combined that  with my Newcastle rake including the all metal Ex silver Jubilee triplet (which you sold me ex Gamston Bank). This made a pretty heavy 22 coach rake.

I’ve stuffed my latest A4, 60007 - Sir Nigel himself, with as much lead as possible and tested it out on this rake. It could just about pull the rake out of the fiddle yard (with some wheels slip), but the coaches derailed on my curves, so I had to shorten it to provide a proper test. Here is a video showing Sir Nigel in action on 17 coaches including the 10 Elizabethan Thompsons, the metal triplet and four plastic coaches. 
 

 

 

I hope most would agree that that is a pretty respectable performance. I appreciate that such information is of little relevance to Little Bytham with your fantastic stud of kit built Pacifics, but I hope that it is reassuring to others who, like me, rely on RTR to bulk out our express steam fleets. 


A4s are probably the easiest because of the amount of space for lead within the body shell, but other Pacifics can achieve results which are almost as good.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Good evening Andy,

 

the thing is, there's lots of space in an A4 to stuff lead, a real K3 could quite easily handle that train (or even22 carriages) without too much bother, could the RTR model?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gordon s said:

Bit late to the party for 2-8-0's, but I have been playing catch up for a few days. An O1 built by Graham from a Little Engines kit, but I've added some cosmetic changes. There is as much lead as I could get into the body and it now weighs in at 560gms. Amazingly the tender alone weighs 180gms and I have added any weight there at all. I'm surprised the small Mashima motor moves it at all, but low gearing and great grip from the overall weight means it will pull anything I can throw at it.

 

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect pony wheels on the front, Tony. I took on board what you said and have now fitted the correct wheels from Alan Gibson. Had a minor problem with a few sparks flying once I fitted them. Graham had wired the whole loco with a live chassis, so it picked on one set of driving wheels, with the opposite side on the tender and front pony truck completing the circuit. I hadn't appreciated at the time of ordering the existing pony wheels had a live side and the new wheels are fully insulated. In the end I removed the wire connection to the post truck and all is OK. To make up for that, I've hard wired the tender, rather than the live stud/wiper that was there before. It runs a lot better with that permanent connection and hasn't suffered at all for losing the front pick up point. At some time in the future I will have it rebuilt to a fully insulated chassis, but that will require new wheels and a rebuild of the valve gear, so way beyond my basic skills.

 

After much deliberation, I had to make a start on weathering stock, so started with the vans. They've come out OK, but still need some additional work to provide a little variation. Still miles behind most on this thread, but I am enjoying the slow but steady progress.

 

 

 

Good evening Gordon s,

 

the little engines O1 builds up in to quite a nice model in the right hands, yours looks very neat. I have to say though, you have an infestation of stunted LMS vans behind the drawbar, nice weathering though. There is an incredible irony in that the vans with the tallest sides of any other type, have been cut so short by the manufacturer. The tooling is getting on a bit, perhaps older than the little engines kit?

Edited by Headstock
stop clogging up the thread with repeat pictures.
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Andy,

 

the thing is, there's lots of space in an A4 to stuff lead, a real K3 could quite easily handle that train (or even22 carriages) without too much bother, could the RTR model?

Fair question - I did say that A4s are the easiest!

 

I think the answer is probably not, but it would still do a quite respectable job. I may have a play tomorrow if I find time. I do know that the motor in a Bachmann K3 is pretty strong because I have put a white metal body on the Bachmann chassis and it will haul my 45-50 wagon coal train as shown here.
 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thegreenhowards said:

Fair question - I did say that A4s are the easiest!

 

I think the answer is probably not, but it would still do a quite respectable job. I may have a play tomorrow if I find time. I do know that the motor in a Bachmann K3 is pretty strong because I have put a white metal body on the Bachmann chassis and it will haul my 45-50 wagon coal train as shown here.
 

 

 

 

 

Evening Andy,

 

your coal train will not be equivalent to the train in the video, weight, drag, rolling resistance etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2020 at 06:52, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Anyway, if I try to be honest, I'm not particularly interested in owning what just about everyone else can own (if they have the cash) with regards to model railways. 

 

 

I’ve mentioned this before, but that is how I feel now about the Hush Hush. Before Horny announced the model of the W1 it was exactly like the real thing, ‘Hush Hush’. If you went to a show or watched a video on YouTube of a LNER layout, you’d get a real kick out of seeing a W1, as not everyone had one, just like the real thing. Now that every man and his dog will have one, it won’t feel like the hush hush. That’s why I’ve ordered only the original build of the W1 and I’m sticking to ordering the rebuilt parts of Graeme King and making my own from a Hornby A4. 
 

Apologies for putting my two bobs worth in and I hope that made sense, it always make sense in my head but not when I type it out. 

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

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Gordon s,

 

the little engines O1 builds up in to quite a nice model in the right hands, yours looks very neat. I have to say though, you have an infestation of stunted LMS vans behind the drawbar, nice weathering though. There is an incredible irony in that the vans with the tallest sides of any other type, have been cut so short by the manufacturer. The tooling is getting on a bit, perhaps older than the little engines kit?

 

Sorry to say Andrew, my knowledge beyond the basics is somewhat limited, but can you tell me a little more without clogging up Tony's thread. When I was weathering the van bodies, I did see that some were lower than others, but assumed that's the way they were in real life. Having Googled a bit this morning I did see a reference to old Mainline tooling, so is that what you are referring to?

 

There is just so much to try and take on board as you get deeper into this hobby. The transition from a train set to a model railway is a huge step and a never ending pool of learning.

 

I'm probably more relaxed about these things, but I do try not to make such fundamental errors...:D

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, gordon s said:

 

Sorry to say Andrew, my knowledge beyond the basics is somewhat limited, but can you tell me a little more without clogging up Tony's thread. When I was weathering the van bodies, I did see that some were lower than others, but assumed that's the way they were in real life. Having Googled a bit this morning I did see a reference to old Mainline tooling, so is that what you are referring to?

 

There is just so much to try and take on board as you get deeper into this hobby. The transition from a train set to a model railway is a huge step and a never ending pool of learning.

 

I'm probably more relaxed about these things, but I do try not to make such fundamental errors...:D

 

Good morning Gordon s,

 

The annoying thing is that unscrupulous manufactures are selling these ancient bits of tooling, often on a newer chassis, as a premium product and at a premium price! I shouldn't nock yourself out too much, even the mighty TW has come a cropper of the stunted LMS van. I include an image of real LMS  and LNER vans that displays the distinctive tall sides and flatter roof profile of the real things. Airfix/ Dapol produce a more acceptable version, of the many thousands produced, it remains the only RTR LMS van.

 

LMS and LNER van profile.jpg

Edited by Headstock
add space between text and image.
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for showing your improved RTR Pacifics. They certainly look the part to me. I assume your Bachmann ‘Boswell’ is based on 60130? If so, I’m not surprised you’re not happy with the haulage. I have generally found the earlier Bachmann A1s to be inferior in haulage terms compared to the later offerings. The ones with the decoder socket in the tender are particularly strong (although I appreciate that will just annoy you - sorry!). My own 60130 and 60123 (based on 60158) are limited to 8-10 coaches.

 

I have been experimenting today, just to make sure that I could back up my claims. I don’t have 14 all metal coaches spread over all my rakes, let alone in one. But I do have 10 metal sided coaches with white metal bogies in my Elizabethan. So I combined that  with my Newcastle rake including the all metal Ex silver Jubilee triplet (which you sold me ex Gamston Bank). This made a pretty heavy 22 coach rake.

I’ve stuffed my latest A4, 60007 - Sir Nigel himself, with as much lead as possible and tested it out on this rake. It could just about pull the rake out of the fiddle yard (with some wheels slip), but the coaches derailed on my curves, so I had to shorten it to provide a proper test. Here is a video showing Sir Nigel in action on 17 coaches including the 10 Elizabethan Thompsons, the metal triplet and four plastic coaches. 
 

 

 

I hope most would agree that that is a pretty respectable performance. I appreciate that such information is of little relevance to Little Bytham with your fantastic stud of kit built Pacifics, but I hope that it is reassuring to others who, like me, rely on RTR to bulk out our express steam fleets. 


A4s are probably the easiest because of the amount of space for lead within the body shell, but other Pacifics can achieve results which are almost as good.

 

Regards

 

Andy

That's very impressive, Andy,

 

If ever proof were needed that an RTR loco will pull, that's it.

 

And, yes, BOSWELL was ex-KESTREL. With a little added weight its haulage-capacity was 'adequate' for the lighter trains. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

7 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

I’ve mentioned this before, but that is how I feel now about the Hush Hush. Before Horny announced the model of the W1 it was exactly like the real thing, ‘Hush Hush’. If you went to a show or watched a video on YouTube of a LNER layout, you’d get a real kick out of seeing a W1, as not everyone had one, just like the real thing. Now that every man and his dog will have one, it won’t feel like the hush hush. That’s why I’ve ordered only the original build of the W1 and I’m sticking to ordering the rebuilt parts of Graeme King and making my own from a Hornby A4. 
 

Apologies for putting my two bobs worth in and I hope that made sense, it always make sense in my head but not when I type it out. 

You need never apologise for putting your two bobs' worth in, Jesse,

 

It does make sense (where else but in your your head?), and I feel exactly the same way. 

 

It could be a kind of 'modelling arrogance' on my part, but I must admit I've been miffed at shows when Stoke Summit was exhibited from time to time. Miffed when folk commented that we must be keeping the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in business, with all those ER Pacifics on show. I got fed up of explaining that none was present!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It could be a kind of 'modelling arrogance' on my part, but I must admit I've been miffed at shows when Stoke Summit was exhibited from time to time. Miffed when folk commented that we must be keeping the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in business, with all those ER Pacifics on show. I got fed up of explaining that none was present!

I used to get the same thing, on a smaller scale, when someone would look at my scratch-built model of Dunster signal box and say something like "You've made a good job of that Hornby signal box".

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a similar note regarding ‘armchair experts’. Once when I was showing at a classic car show a bloke told his young that my car was a Ferrari, I wish.  It’s actually a Lotus and is badged accordingly. I just let it pass, I couldn’t be bothered. I think sometimes it’s a good job I don’t hear some of the comments at exhibitions.

Regards ROBERT

553E1D1D-96EE-4BFB-83ED-B437A8F487AD.jpeg.055db0c706e16f1ae8f8a80f957a3232.jpeg

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Miffed when folk commented that we must be keeping the likes of Hornby and Bachmann in business,

 

Graham Varley built a lovely Ivatt 2 from the Comet kit for Thurston.  When he came out to shows with us, if someone asked about it and we felt like winding him up, we'd comment loudly that it was a super detailed Triang model.   It never failed.

  • Funny 16
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...