Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Literally the entire point of supplemental lines is to handle the loads the primary lines cannot sustain alone — they sometimes provide different service patterns, too. 

The (3) exists on weekends basically because the (2) would die without it. Dunno how much time you spend riding the subway, but if you’ve ever ridden the West Side IRT on a weekend sans (3), you’ll find that trains are pretty heavily loaded — to the point where ops suffer. The (3) mitigates those impacts, makes the weekend (4) somewhat more operable, and provides valued service to 145 and 148.  

Supplemental lines are part of the backbone of the system, simply put. Running most lines without them would leave a lot on the plate for primary lines to take care of. The (2) would need to terminate at the (3)'s northern terminal occasionally to not lose service there, and the (MTA) wouldn't be able to scale services very easily without them. If the IRT turns into a mess as it often does, less (3) service could make troubles more likely. The current setup isn't completely optimal, though i wouldn't encourage cutting the (3) by any means. Do you know any current ways to increase off peak service (on any line), by chance?

59 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

I am laughing at you all Ha Ha Ha.

what a troll 😒, reported.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

My original proposal was to cut (3) back to 42 St-Times Sq on Weekends.  (2) and (4) provides further service making (3) stops.

Not that logic is of much importance in this conversation or anything, but discharging (3) trains in the path of (2)s is sure to be a mess. Also, if you have (1)(2)(3) sharing north of 42, (2) gets forced to a 12 min headway, reducing Brooklyn cap under IRT Broadway GO to 7.5tph of (4) + a measly 5tph of (2) (today it’s 5 each of (2)(3) and 7.5 of (4)). What could _possibly_ go wrong?

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Not that logic is of much importance in this conversation or anything, but discharging(3) trains in the path of (2)s is sure to be a mess. Also, if you have (1)(2)(3) sharing north of 42, (2) gets forced to a 12 min headway, reducing Brooklyn cap under IRT Broadway GO to 7.5tph of (4) + a measly 5tph of (2) (today it’s 5 each of (2)(3) and 7.5 of (4)). What could _possibly_ go wrong?

So just like when they have some other Subway lines sharing tracks on Weekends what is the difference? Plus the (2) could make Express stops below 34 St.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

So just like when they have some other Subway lines sharing tracks on Weekends what is the difference? Plus the (2) could make Express stops below 34 St.

You're cutting service basically to a portion of a line and not providing back any service in return, the (3) cut would give less service south and north of 34 and be a bottleneck at the terminal which reduces tph on the (2). The (2) can still run express, but cutting the line makes it harder for the (2) and other IRT lines to run.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

My original proposal was to cut (3) back to 42 St-Times Sq on Weekends.  (2) and (4) provides further service making (3) stops.

Even with the (4) being more capable of handling the Brooklyn leg on weekends, I still wouldn't do it. For one, the (4) also has to deal with two other boroughs, each with heavy loads. Then there's the issue of trying to have trains end about as soon as they reach Midtown on a regular basis (those trains instantly become considerably less useful, along with potential delays by either having a bunch of through-running trains on the same track as dumping trains or shifting the through-running ones to a different track, only to shift them back much later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it was said earlier, we need to stop advocating or proposing service cuts. We already deal with horrendous service levels on some lines, so why do some posters here feel the need to reduce service as a means of fixing it? The system is far from perfect, however it can and should be improved without eliminating lines as a first choice.

Just because someone might think the part time services such as the (B)(C)(M)(W)(3)(5) are “useless”, it doesn’t mean they should be drastically altered, have their service levels reduced, or just discontinued altogether. The lines mentioned above do play important roles.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna be blunt about this, since some of you entertained the behavior that was portrayed.

Any more of that in this thread and folks will get suspended.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some food for thought regarding service cuts: 

(2) 241st-Wakefield to South Ferry via 7th Ave Express.

(3) Current Service

(4) Sent down Nostrand. Runs local in Brooklyn, Express Manhattan. 

 

To make things easier from a customer standpoint, from this point forward the (4) would become the primary Nostrand Line with the (2) as it's rush hour supplement. and the (3) will remain as is with the (5) terminating at Utica during rush hours. This plan means the (5) can be shuttle-ized outside peak periods while both the (2) and (3) are kept to medium distance w/ access to their home yards. Off peak, this will reduce (2)(3) delays and maybe even save on maintenance on the (2)(5) fleet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But then the (3) has to run its entire route 24/7. You’ll also be creating a new merge at Chambers between the (1) and (2). Would you be cutting the (2) during late nights below Times Square as well? 

As for the Brooklyn terminals, you’re really going to need to reconfigure Rogers Junction to make it work without major delays.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the simplest compromise would be to add crossovers west of Nostrand Ave, let the (4)(5) run to New Lots and Utica Ave respectively and the (2)(3) Run to Flatbush. Never have to cross streams so a sick customer on Lex doesn't ripple  to the West side (Southbound) , there appears to space on the Upper Level (uncertain about the lower level).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

Here's some food for thought regarding service cuts: 

(2) 241st-Wakefield to South Ferry via 7th Ave Express.

(3) Current Service

(4) Sent down Nostrand. Runs local in Brooklyn, Express Manhattan. 

 

To make things easier from a customer standpoint, from this point forward the (4) would become the primary Nostrand Line with the (2) as it's rush hour supplement. and the (3) will remain as is with the (5) terminating at Utica during rush hours. This plan means the (5) can be shuttle-ized outside peak periods while both the (2) and (3) are kept to medium distance w/ access to their home yards. Off peak, this will reduce (2)(3) delays and maybe even save on maintenance on the (2)(5) fleet. 

If your goal is to reduce costs from these service changes as another poster pointed out you now have to add extra midnight jobs (extra crews) to run that 24/7 (3) service, and the money from that ‘savings’ from the (2)(5) fleet now has to be used to maintain the (3) lines fleet which uses the oldest equipment in its respective division.

As far as making things easier from a customers standpoint the riders are generally accustomed to the service patterns that are currently ran. What you’re suggesting would literally do the opposite of what you’re trying to accomplish. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked the (5) doing a run that drops out at  Utica I’ll make a manual announcement leaving Barclays S/B about the train going to UA not Flatbush, then another when we get to Franklin only to have people come up to me after we get to Utica do they get to Beverly Road.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for the Brooklyn terminals, you’re really going to need to reconfigure Rogers Junction to make it work without major delays.

We'd be better off reconfiguring that entire stretch of Eastern Parkway, anyway. (The current setup means all spurs heading south, theoretical or otherwise, must come from the local tracks to keep costs down. It also makes practical local short-turns impossible.)

 

5 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Personally, I think the simplest compromise would be to add crossovers west of Nostrand Ave, let the (4)(5) run to New Lots and Utica Ave respectively and the (2)(3) Run to Flatbush. Never have to cross streams so a sick customer on Lex doesn't ripple  to the West side (Southbound) , there appears to space on the Upper Level (uncertain about the lower level).

Emphasis added by me.

It's the simplest, but not necessarily the best, given the infrastructure. (Keep in mind that, in addition to the slow-ass merge/diverge to go between the local and express tracks, the southbound tracks shift slightly to the north, and given that this shift also comes with switches, any potential gains will pretty much go unrealized, as it'll just be like peak 138th Street-Grand Concourse on steroids.)

I wouldn't be so quick to try this, anyway. That'll just come with the MTA trying to make more cuts.

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

(2) 241st-Wakefield to South Ferry via 7th Ave Express.

So we're creating needless branches and further reductions in Brooklyn service, now. Great. That's exactly what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Personally, I think the simplest compromise would be to add crossovers west of Nostrand Ave, let the (4)(5) run to New Lots and Utica Ave respectively and the (2)(3) Run to Flatbush. Never have to cross streams so a sick customer on Lex doesn't ripple  to the West side (Southbound) , there appears to space on the Upper Level (uncertain about the lower level).

Both levels have space for #10 tangential turnouts per this study, so we'd be talking diverging speeds of 20-25mph (which is better than a lot of places in the system). I'd like to see this service pattern run too -- aside from the incident recovery benefits you mention, it gets you more capacity and a pretty significant runtime reduction, both things that lend themselves to either rider-neutral operating cost reductions or cheap service increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Both levels have space for #10 tangential turnouts per this study, so we'd be talking diverging speeds of 20-25mph (which is better than a lot of places in the system). I'd like to see this service pattern run too -- aside from the incident recovery benefits you mention, it gets you more capacity and a pretty significant runtime reduction, both things that lend themselves to either rider-neutral operating cost reductions or cheap service increases.

And is the most realistic outcome, other solutions requiring a knock-down re-do of Rodgers Jct. Which is, of course, political suicide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jsunflyguy said:

And is the most realistic outcome, other solutions requiring a knock-down re-do of Rodgers Jct. Which is, of course, political suicide. 

I can already hear the bloodcurdling screams emanating from Eastern Parkway when we propose needlessly tearing up their street for a few years...

1 hour ago, Jchambers2120 said:

As far as making things easier from a customers standpoint the riders are generally accustomed to the service patterns that are currently ran. What you’re suggesting would literally do the opposite of what you’re trying to accomplish. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked the (5) doing a run that drops out at  Utica I’ll make a manual announcement leaving Barclays S/B about the train going to UA not Flatbush, then another when we get to Franklin only to have people come up to me after we get to Utica do they get to Beverly Road.  

Nutty, variable, complex service patterns are an underrated problem IMO. Many thousands of people have to learn the system every year, and what with our interlining and various non-standard runs, we make that task exceedingly difficult. This has human consequences, but perhaps more importantly it has operational ones, too -- seen many a tourist holding the doors while frantically trying to figure out which train they are attempting to board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I can already hear the bloodcurdling screams emanating from Eastern Parkway when we propose needlessly tearing up their street for a few years...

And yet, it's only the main road...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straying away from Brooklyn for a Second, here is another Work In Progress map of mine, which I labeled "Queens Transit Redesign". As you can tell, I'm making this map for fun. But for here, I will only focus on the Subway Aspect of it. Please note that I will not focus on the costs of each proposal as this is a fantasy map. 

The (N) (eventually the (R)) and (W) Trains in my map are extended to LaGuardia Airport. It is self explanatory as to why I put this extension on my map over the LaGuardia AirTrain.\

With Broadway Deinterlined, Queens Blvd will see some service rearrangements too which have been discussed here many times. (E)(F) express and (K)(M) local. The (E) will be the first line in my map to gain an extension, which will be to extend it via part of the LIRR Atlantic Branch until Laurelton. Stops for the (E) will include:

* 108th-109th Avenues

* Linden Blvd

* Baisely Blvd

* Locust Manor (which will be converted for subway use)

* Springfeild Blvd or Laurelton (converted for subway use)

Railroad Park will be converted to a new Yard exclusively for (E) Trains and to make room for a fleet expansion. LIRR Trains whom currently use this Branch would have to be moved to the St. Albans Branch. The Junction before Rosedale would be rebuilt to accommodate such a change.

Farther North, the (7) will be extended to Bell Blvd in Bayside via Roosevelt Avenue and Northern Blvd. This extension should be done as to de-congest the Bus Network around Flushing. Stops will be:

Murray Hill/149th Street

162nd Street

Utopia Parkway

Francis Lewis Blvd 

Bayside-Bell Blvd

In doing this change, the (7) Line could bring some relief to buses like the Q12, Q15, Q15A, Q31, etc. At Flushing-Main Street, the northernmost Mezzanine will have to be rebuilt to accommodate such a change. In addition, the Station can be used as a Short turn location similar to how Mets-Willets Point and Parkchester Stations function. 

As for the (F) Train, The line can be extended north to Queens Village near Springfield Blvd and Braddock Avenue. That general area in my opinion would need to be redeveloped in order for there to be easy access to the Trains and a Seamless transfer between Trains and buses. This proposal will also be done to de-congest Jamaica and to provide relief to the Q43. 

The (J) in my proposal gets a one stop extension to Merrick Blvd/168th Street

This following proposal is pure fantasy and I think I might modify it because I don't like the way it is now:

Phase 3 of the Second Avenue subway as we all know, should go out into Queens in one way or another. The Most Popular ideas are to connect it with the 63rd Street tubes (as the (MTA) originally Planned) and to build a Lower Level at 72nd Street and have it go into Queens Via 79th Street. To be Honest, I don't like either of those ideas. Mainly cause it encourages some interlining and the  difficulties of installing a lower level at 72nd Street Station (despite the fact that it'll allow for more than two services on SAS north of 63rd)

What I propose is to move the SAS Between Second and Third Avenues near 48th Street to to the following

A) Serve as An Express to the SAS North of 63rd (with potential Stops at 63rd and 125th; and then being extended north)

B) To allow for more flexible extensions into Queens. In this case, extend them north through the Queens Bypass and Northern Blvd. 

Two SAS Services (which I haven't though of letters yet) and an extended (L) Via 10th Avenue-57th Street, will travel the East river and end up in Queens Plaza South. Each Line will remain underground, but once they reach Queens Plaza, the Station will be built to connect Queensboro Plaza (7)(N)(W) with Queens Plaza (E)(M)(R). Past this point, the SAS Lines and the (L) will go underneath Sunnyside Yards, where a Junction will be presented for one of the SAS Branches to use the Queens Bypass. The Queens Bypass will be built as planned by the 1968 Program For Action (with a few modifications of course), while the other tracks (4 in this proposal) will create a Northern Blvd Trunk Line with Stops At 

48th Street (Queens) to allow for any future development in that area of Woodside/Sunnyside

Broadway to Allow transfers to the (M) and (R) and a new Amtrak/Metro North Station I'm proposing. (Which I'll talk about in another topic)

70th Street

81st Street

94th Street/Junction Blvd

108th Street 

* Beyond 114th Street/Northern Blvd I did not know what to do with the route so I extended this trunk line under Main Street and the LIE/HHE with the following stops. I might change this in the future simply cause I don't like this alignment. 

Main Street. transfer to the (7)

Elder Avenue

Booth Memorial Avenue

Kissena Blvd/LIE

164th Street

Utopia Parkway

188th Street

Francis Lewis Blvd

Bell Blvd. 

A possibility of a New Rail Yard facility could be added along the Long Island Expressway, but since I'm not very happy with the current version of this proposal, I did not add one.  The benefits of this proposal though is it provides Relief to the (7) Line and a LOT of buses, has an easier transfer to the (E) and (M) at 53rd Street as opposed to the current SAS plan, and provides more subway access throughout Queens. 

Any form of constructive criticism is appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pink (Y) 

Atlantic Av (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)

Myrtle Av/Navy St

Flushing Av

York St (F)

E. Bway (F)

Delancey-Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z)

Houston st

8 St

1 Av (L)

3 Av (L)

Union Sq (4)(5)(6)(L)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

6 Av (1)(2)(3)(L)(F)(M)

8 Av (A)(C)(E)(L)

runs via 10 av

18 St

23 St

28 St

Hudson Yards (7)

42 St

50 St

57 St

66 St/Freedom Pl

72 St/Bway (1)(2)(3)

72 St/CPW (B)(C)

72 St/5 Av

runs via 5 av

79 St

84 St

90 St

96 St

102 St

110 St

116 St

125 St

133 St

140 St

148 St (3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Personally, I think the simplest compromise would be to add crossovers west of Nostrand Ave, let the (4)(5) run to New Lots and Utica Ave respectively and the (2)(3) Run to Flatbush. Never have to cross streams so a sick customer on Lex doesn't ripple  to the West side (Southbound) , there appears to space on the Upper Level (uncertain about the lower level).

I’ve agreed with this suggestion (but with the (4) to Utica as now and the (5) to New Lots with the (4) replacing it overnight) only to get flamed for it. I don’t really see how you’d be able to keep the current (2)(5) and (3)(4) setups after Franklin without tearing up Eastern Parkway to put in a junction similar to Columbus Circle (A)(B)(C)(D)  or 36th Street (D)(N)(R) . Even those junctions experience merging delays, especially 36th when the (brownM) ran there. I fail to see how a rebuilt Rogers Junction would be any different.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Even those junctions experience merging delays, especially 36th when the (brownM) ran there. I fail to see how a rebuilt Rogers Junction would be any different.

This bit is IMO really important. Rebuilding Rogers fully is a value negative proposition from an operational perspective — less capacity, more chance for delay. And if you do it per the plan in that engineering study, you’re either forced to add a merge between the (3) and the (4) or preserve the 3 line merge setup, just while using faster switches. Yuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve agreed with this suggestion (but with the (4) to Utica as now and the (5) to New Lots with the (4) replacing it overnight) only to get flamed for it. I don’t really see how you’d be able to keep the current (2)(5) and (3)(4) setups after Franklin without tearing up Eastern Parkway to put in a junction similar to Columbus Circle (A)(B)(C)(D)  or 36th Street (D)(N)(R) . Even those junctions experience merging delays, especially 36th when the (brownM) ran there. I fail to see how a rebuilt Rogers Junction would be any different.

The examples you mentioned happen to have a bad combination of a turnout just outside the station, some sort of slope, and a sharp bend close to the aforementioned turnout, meaning that trains in those areas will be forced to crawl for quite a bit. (The fact that the two mentioned also involve 75-footers doesn't help.)

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

This bit is IMO really important. Rebuilding Rogers fully is a value negative proposition from an operational perspective — less capacity, more chance for delay. And if you do it per the plan in that engineering study, you’re either forced to add a merge between the (3) and the (4) or preserve the 3 line merge setup, just while using faster switches. Yuck. 

I noticed something about the Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 proposals (aside from the potential for slightly-less-awkward Manhattan-bound merges and the estimated 1 tph difference). The disadvantages of the latter include addressing Nostrand Avenue's other problem spot, whereas nothing of the sort is even mentioned with the former. What this implies is that Alternative 4 will ultimately be used as a vehicle to be cheap (Nostrand Avenue will still be limited to 18 tph and will be strictly at the mercy of a single Manhattan trunk, weekday (5) service will operate in Brooklyn within the same period of time, (3) service being changed entirely to roughly match, maybe slight bumps in weekend (2) and (4) service to serve the Bronx and maintain 20 tph in Brooklyn...). If nothing else, Alternative 6 would force the MTA to make service improvements without the potential for (long-term) off-peak cheapskate behavior. (Don't think the MTA won't try it, either. While some in there care, others don't, and with the pressure to keep the budget balanced, the cuts will take effect much sooner.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lex said:

The examples you mentioned happen to have a bad combination of a turnout just outside the station, some sort of slope, and a sharp bend close to the aforementioned turnout, meaning that trains in those areas will be forced to crawl for quite a bit. (The fact that the two mentioned also involve 75-footers doesn't help.)

This just isn't true. 59 St has some of the fastest switches in the system with a curve beyond that operators are able to take quickly and still is messy enough that the entire B division is scheduled backwards from it. And not for nothing, but the geometry in the Franklin area isn't some walk in the park either...

1 hour ago, Lex said:

I noticed something about the Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 proposals (aside from the potential for slightly-less-awkward Manhattan-bound merges and the estimated 1 tph difference). The disadvantages of the latter include addressing Nostrand Avenue's other problem spot, whereas nothing of the sort is even mentioned with the former. What this implies is that Alternative 4 will ultimately be used as a vehicle to be cheap (Nostrand Avenue will still be limited to 18 tph and will be strictly at the mercy of a single Manhattan trunk, weekday (5) service will operate in Brooklyn within the same period of time, (3) service being changed entirely to roughly match, maybe slight bumps in weekend (2) and (4) service to serve the Bronx and maintain 20 tph in Brooklyn...). If nothing else, Alternative 6 would force the MTA to make service improvements without the potential for (long-term) off-peak cheapskate behavior. (Don't think the MTA won't try it, either. While some in there care, others don't, and with the pressure to keep the budget balanced, the cuts will take effect much sooner.)

Flatbush is an issue with either alternative, but is easily mitigable whether it be by constructing tail tracks or just routing overflow trains to Zoo Lots. Reading into what is and is not mentioned in an off the cuff engineering study from 2009 is not worth your time. 

I think it'd be beneficial for the forum to see track maps of what is being discussed, so here you go:

xGgNmez.jpg

Look closely at the Manhattan-bound direction in Alt 6 (the one you seem to want): it doesn't get rid of the 3-way merge. Unless you're willing to add yet another merge to the complex (ie have the (3) and (4) enter Franklin on the same track) you're stuck with (2)(3)(5) all running through the area on a single track -- and now they're all platforming together, too. Mark me down as extremely skeptical that this will come close to the capacity delivered by Alternative 4. Regardless, capacity isn't the only way to measure junction performance: as Jsun alluded to above, one of the big issues with Rogers is that it instantly makes a problem anywhere on the A division's express corridors into an issue everywhere else. The better you can segregate services, the better off we are as a system.

These are all tangential points to your main argument, though, and they all have been well established in past discussions. Your main concern seems to be that running Rogers better will...encourage MTA to make service cuts. I hate to break the news to ya, but they can do that either way -- extending the (4) to replace the (3) in Brooklyn is as possible today as it would be with a different service configuration at Rogers. Holding infrastructure improvements hostage for the sake of this sort of paranoia just doesn't cut it. And yes, I know I didn't convince you of anything -- just felt this was worth elucidation. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lex said:

The examples you mentioned happen to have a bad combination of a turnout just outside the station, some sort of slope, and a sharp bend close to the aforementioned turnout, meaning that trains in those areas will be forced to crawl for quite a bit. (The fact that the two mentioned also involve 75-footers doesn't help.)

Brooklyn bound (B) and (D) trains do anything but crawl leaving 59th Street... They can reach some serious speed leaving the station.

The problems on the uptown side have to do with merging not geometry.

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Regardless, capacity isn't the only way to measure junction performance: as Jsun alluded to above, one of the big issues with Rogers is that it instantly makes a problem anywhere on the A division's express corridors into an issue everywhere else. The better you can segregate services, the better off we are as a system.

Frankly you could say this for any merge in this system which is why I personally believe removing as many as possible from the regular service patterns is paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.