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.
Around the Horn

Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

QB local absolutely needs 30. It’s the only way of getting any sort of capacity into LIC that won’t be packed to the gills with riders from further east. It’s also the only way of making a dent in QB express crowding without new construction. If you go for full deinterlining (53 via local, 63 via express) QB local all of the sudden becomes capacitally relevant further out, which basically forces a more equitable load distribution. 

Are the stations between Court Sq and Roosevelt Ave receiving that much development? I'd imagine the (M)(R) have plenty of space during rush hour, though the (E) definitely has no more capacity by the time it reaches Queens Plaza. Unfortunately the 63 St line misses LIC entirely, otherwise the deinterlining would have been implemented from Day 1 and service would be better throughout the system. 

There's a couple of reasonably inexpensive ways to better reduce QB express crowding. The easiest one would have the (E)(F) skip Roosevelt Ave in the peak direction, forcing riders to take the (M)(R) instead and better balance the crowding along QBL. I also agree that full deinterlining would do the trick, and in that case 30 tph would be achievable by having local trains run to 179 St or via a new line under Jewel Ave.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Are the stations between Court Sq and Roosevelt Ave receiving that much development? I'd imagine the (M)(R) have plenty of space during rush hour, though the (E) definitely has no more capacity by the time it reaches Queens Plaza. Unfortunately the 63 St line misses LIC entirely, otherwise the deinterlining would have been implemented from Day 1 and service would be better throughout the system. 

There's a couple of reasonably inexpensive ways to better reduce QB express crowding. The easiest one would have the (E)(F) skip Roosevelt Ave in the peak direction, forcing riders to take the (M)(R) instead and better balance the crowding along QBL. I also agree that full deinterlining would do the trick, and in that case 30 tph would be achievable by having local trains run to 179 St or via a new line under Jewel Ave.

The (E) and (F) skipping Roosevelt has got to be one of the most harebrained ideas I've heard of in a while. It manages to be extremely customer unfriendly, while simultaneously wrecking the (E) at Queens Plaza. This has ramifications for the utility of the Q70 and would slow down many commutes.

QBL needs a transfer at Roosevelt. It probably needs another one at Woodhaven.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 7:42 PM, RR503 said:

Also, it’d force you to reduce (E) and (F) service to 10tph to fit the 20 of (M) service through 53 and 6th local. This is essentially why you can’t move the (R) without reorganizing the rest of the B division. 

They shouldn't have to reduce (E) or (F) service, just supplement the current (M) with a (V) or (U) train which uses 63rd street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 4:42 PM, RR503 said:

Also, it’d force you to reduce (E) and (F) service to 10tph to fit the 20 of (M) service through 53 and 6th local. This is essentially why you can’t move the (R) without reorganizing the rest of the B division. 

In my mind, (R) to Astoria and (W) to Forest Hills could avoid a reorganized entire B division - since it’s essentially just swapping termini.

Kinda feel like the whole “No Yard for the R” thing is an excuse to be lazy since if one actually was needed before the 1986 reroute, the BMT probably would’ve built one.

But...

Because doing the swap does cause a service reduction of sorts on QBL because (W) is supplemental, and in this scenario a (W) to Whitehall and 71st would need to be a primary...

Yeah, I talked myself into agreeing with you somewhat more than in theory.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Kinda feel like the whole “No Yard for the R” thing is an excuse to be lazy since if one actually was needed before the 1986 reroute, the BMT probably would’ve built one.

And where do you suggest building a new yard for the Astoria Line? AND DO NOT SAY OVER THE EXPLOSION-PRONE CON EDISION POWER PLANT AT THE NORTH END OF 31ST STREET!!!!!!

 

All honestly, what needs to happen is to extend the (J) / (Z) from Broad Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street at all times except late nights and extend the (M) and (R) from Forest Hills to Jamaica - 179th Street to turn more trains at a location where ample turning capacity exists (179 has 4 relay tracks on each level and turn around up to 62 trains per hour, 31 on each level). (F) service would be moved off the local tracks east of 71st Avenue when the (M) and (R) operate to make room.

 

this would provide more frequent and reliable service to the (R).

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And where do you suggest building a new yard for the Astoria Line? AND DO NOT SAY OVER THE EXPLOSION-PRONE CON EDISION POWER PLANT AT THE NORTH END OF 31ST STREET!!!!!!

 

All honestly, what needs to happen is to extend the (J) / (Z) from Broad Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street at all times except late nights and extend the (M) and (R) from Forest Hills to Jamaica - 179th Street to turn more trains at a location where ample turning capacity exists (179 has 4 relay tracks on each level and turn around up to 62 trains per hour, 31 on each level). (F) service would be moved off the local tracks east of 71st Avenue when the (M) and (R) operate to make room.

 

this would provide more frequent and reliable service to the (R).

See here for LGA Extension: http://www.panynj.gov/business-opportunities/pdf/RFPDOC_54523.pdf

Share this post


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

In my mind, (R) to Astoria and (W) to Forest Hills could avoid a reorganized entire B division - since it’s essentially just swapping termini.

Kinda feel like the whole “No Yard for the R” thing is an excuse to be lazy since if one actually was needed before the 1986 reroute, the BMT probably would’ve built one.

But...

Because doing the swap does cause a service reduction of sorts on QBL because (W) is supplemental, and in this scenario a (W) to Whitehall and 71st would need to be a primary...

Yeah, I talked myself into agreeing with you somewhat more than in theory.

It really just comes down to priorities. There are a lot of ways to reconfigure service in the system that get you more capacity in the system but don't end up maxing out all Manhattan trunks. Given ridership needs, I'd argue it's high time we did use all our capacity, and there's really only one way to do that, which is the oft-proposed (N) to 96, (R) to Astoria, (M) via 63, (K) via 53 pattern. 

10 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And where do you suggest building a new yard for the Astoria Line? AND DO NOT SAY OVER THE EXPLOSION-PRONE CON EDISION POWER PLANT AT THE NORTH END OF 31ST STREET!!!!!!

 

All honestly, what needs to happen is to extend the (J) / (Z) from Broad Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street at all times except late nights and extend the (M) and (R) from Forest Hills to Jamaica - 179th Street to turn more trains at a location where ample turning capacity exists (179 has 4 relay tracks on each level and turn around up to 62 trains per hour, 31 on each level). (F) service would be moved off the local tracks east of 71st Avenue when the (M) and (R) operate to make room.

 

this would provide more frequent and reliable service to the (R).

You'd replace part of ConEd with it, not build over ConEd...

The number of people who think fumigation somehow will work better at 179 is scary. The limit on capacity at Forest Hills has nothing to do with that terminal's physical infrastructure, and has everything to do with the way that terminal is operated. 179 would be no different -- assuming you bump (M)(R) to 30tph, you'd be turning 45tph at 179, which, at 22.5 tph/track, would mean that 179 would need operations reform just as much as Forest Hills, at which point you're really just better off keeping (M)(R) at Forest Hills. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And where do you suggest building a new yard for the Astoria Line? AND DO NOT SAY OVER THE EXPLOSION-PRONE CON EDISION POWER PLANT AT THE NORTH END OF 31ST STREET!!!!!!

Where did I propose building one?

I’ll wait.

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

And where do you suggest building a new yard for the Astoria Line? AND DO NOT SAY OVER THE EXPLOSION-PRONE CON EDISION POWER PLANT AT THE NORTH END OF 31ST STREET!!!!!!

 

All honestly, what needs to happen is to extend the (J) / (Z) from Broad Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street at all times except late nights and extend the (M) and (R) from Forest Hills to Jamaica - 179th Street to turn more trains at a location where ample turning capacity exists (179 has 4 relay tracks on each level and turn around up to 62 trains per hour, 31 on each level). (F) service would be moved off the local tracks east of 71st Avenue when the (M) and (R) operate to make room.

 

this would provide more frequent and reliable service to the (R).

Over the Explosion-prone Con Edison Power Plant at the The North End of 31st Street. 

I all seriousness though, Part of the Con Edison land would have to be sold over the (MTA) if a yard were to be built. And if you're concerned about explosions happening, then you could build some sort of wall to protect the train yard from potential explosions.  

Also, the (R) train is long enough as is so extending it to 179th isn't a good idea. Not to mention that Forest Hills and Jamaica (along with a handful of other terminals) would need to go under some robust reform in order to turn around more than 20TPH. 

As for the (F) being moved to the Express Tracks east of 71st, I'd only support that if Queens were to be fully deinterlined, which I'll explain later in the Proposals thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sending QBL locals to 179 has its merits (so long as the lines are not too long)... I don't really seem fumigation as a reason but instead see it as a way to speed up commute times for people at 179th and eliminate the merge at 75th... sure you would have one at Briarwood now but it could be more manageable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I think sending QBL locals to 179 has its merits (so long as the lines are not too long)... I don't really seem fumigation as a reason but instead see it as a way to speed up commute times for people at 179th and eliminate the merge at 75th... sure you would have one at Briarwood now but it could be more manageable.

Yes, 179 gets a faster ride at the expense of all the local stops. Dunno if that’s worth it, to say nothing of the fact that you’d probably see some dwell increases as people dump for the express at Parsons and Kew Gardens.

I can basically guarantee you that merge performance would change little. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yes, 179 gets a faster ride at the expense of all the local stops. Dunno if that’s worth it, to say nothing of the fact that you’d probably see some dwell increases as people dump for the express at Parsons and Kew Gardens.

I can basically guarantee you that merge performance would change little. 

In fact, this service pattern was already run shortly after Archer Avenue opened. It went down with riders like a ton of bricks.

The main problem with the (F) running local is that slow merge before 75th. Speed that up and riders would hardly notice an all-local service pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot which level of JC has the tail tracks, but is there anyway to expand them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

In fact, this service pattern was already run shortly after Archer Avenue opened. It went down with riders like a ton of bricks.

The main problem with the (F) running local is that slow merge before 75th. Speed that up and riders would hardly notice an all-local service pattern.

They should have made the s/b switch 20mph when they rebuilt it for the FH interlocking upgrade. So, so many opportunities have been missed with those projects. 

Even still, it’s possible to operate good service across that switch. You just need to make sure trains leave their terminals on time, and don’t lose something crazy between then and the merge. 

37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I forgot which level of JC has the tail tracks, but is there anyway to expand them?

Both levels do, and both levels were meant to be expanded down/under LIRR ROWs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2019 at 5:23 PM, Lance said:

On the issue of the actual subject at hand, has there been any news regarding splitting the (R)? While it's nice to discuss the hypotheticals behind potential service rerouting, I'm kind of curious if the MTA is actually looking into the issue or whether it will be buried like the Culver express plans a few years back.

I haven’t seen anything more recent than from two weeks ago. I really hope it doesn’t meet the same fate as the Culver express plans, although in Culver’s case, the MTA actually put out a plan (controversial as it was). For Bay Ridge, they have no plans as of now. The late night (R) shuttle extension to Whitehall is a benefit for overnight riders, but they can only short-turn Whitehall service from Brooklyn during overnight hours, possibly also during weekends. But since weekend ridership is greater, a Brooklyn (R) short-turning at Whitehall won’t be very useful, as it would only have transfers to the (1), the SI Ferry and through-running (R) trains (assuming weekend QBL work doesn’t cause some of those to disappear). A 4th Ave-Nassau service with a much greater number of transfers would be far more effective.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that the MTA will put forth a similar controversial plan for 4th Avenue that creates more problems than it solves. Just spit-balling here, but I can realistically see them proposing to resurrect the Nassau St (R) as a full-time service to/from Bay Ridge while the current Broadway (R) is truncated to Whitehall St to maintain current levels on Queens Blvd and Broadway. As such a plan would obviously lower capacity on the Broadway local on account of an inadequate terminal at Whitehall St, this could put some (W) runs in jeopardy. This would set up a fight pitting Bay Ridge against Astoria, just as the Culver express proposal was vehemently fought against and for by north Culver and south Culver respectively. Once the legitimate concerns and objections come forth, the MTA will claim to revisit the initial proposal, but instead privately shelve the entire idea and nothing will change, except us having to deal with this whole song and dance again in a couple of years.

Should the MTA actually make the requested changes to improve (R) service, they obviously cannot do so by using Whitehall St as the catch-all terminal for local service as that plan is destined for failure. The MTA will have to present an idea that both improves 4th Avenue service while at the same time maintaining the current levels of service on Broadway, Queens Blvd and Astoria.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lance said:

My fear is that the MTA will put forth a similar controversial plan for 4th Avenue that creates more problems than it solves. Just spit-balling here, but I can realistically see them proposing to resurrect the Nassau St (R) as a full-time service to/from Bay Ridge while the current Broadway (R) is truncated to Whitehall St to maintain current levels on Queens Blvd and Broadway. As such a plan would obviously lower capacity on the Broadway local on account of an inadequate terminal at Whitehall St, this could put some (W) runs in jeopardy. This would set up a fight pitting Bay Ridge against Astoria, just as the Culver express proposal was vehemently fought against and for by north Culver and south Culver respectively. Once the legitimate concerns and objections come forth, the MTA will claim to revisit the initial proposal, but instead privately shelve the entire idea and nothing will change, except us having to deal with this whole song and dance again in a couple of years.

Should the MTA actually make the requested changes to improve (R) service, they obviously cannot do so by using Whitehall St as the catch-all terminal for local service as that plan is destined for failure. The MTA will have to present an idea that both improves 4th Avenue service while at the same time maintaining the current levels of service on Broadway, Queens Blvd and Astoria.

The simplest way, in my opinion is two options:

Having the Nassau (R) come back during rush hours only, while short turning some regular (R) trains at City Hall or Whitehall St

OR

Having the (R) run to Astoria the way it did, the (N) to 96th St, and the (W) to Forest Hills from Whitehall or Gravesend.

You could also just have the (R) and (W) run to Astoria and have the (G) replace the (R) on QBL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lance said:

My fear is that the MTA will put forth a similar controversial plan for 4th Avenue that creates more problems than it solves. Just spit-balling here, but I can realistically see them proposing to resurrect the Nassau St (R) as a full-time service to/from Bay Ridge while the current Broadway (R) is truncated to Whitehall St to maintain current levels on Queens Blvd and Broadway. As such a plan would obviously lower capacity on the Broadway local on account of an inadequate terminal at Whitehall St, this could put some (W) runs in jeopardy. This would set up a fight pitting Bay Ridge against Astoria, just as the Culver express proposal was vehemently fought against and for by north Culver and south Culver respectively. Once the legitimate concerns and objections come forth, the MTA will claim to revisit the initial proposal, but instead privately shelve the entire idea and nothing will change, except us having to deal with this whole song and dance again in a couple of years.

Should the MTA actually make the requested changes to improve (R) service, they obviously cannot do so by using Whitehall St as the catch-all terminal for local service as that plan is destined for failure. The MTA will have to present an idea that both improves 4th Avenue service while at the same time maintaining the current levels of service on Broadway, Queens Blvd and Astoria.

To be fair, Lance, Whitehall isn't the only available terminal for s/b Broadway -- you have City Hall lower too. That said, running just to Whitehall basically means you're not gonna get more than 8tph on Lower Broadway, which in turn means that all the ridership gains that that segment has made against the (4)(5) will come to naught.

I think that the juxtaposition of this proposal with the PCAC's fantastic report on Broadway service couldn't be better -- on one side, we have a well meaning but misinformed proposal, and on the other, a detailed report with really solid recommendations on how to improve service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:37 PM, RR503 said:

To be fair, Lance, Whitehall isn't the only available terminal for s/b Broadway -- you have City Hall lower too.

Not without work though. Right now, the lower level is in no shape to act as a terminus for anything except relaying trains, meaning some service would discharge on the tunnel platforms at Canal St and relay down to the lower level, possibly creating a Forest Hills-type situation there.

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:37 PM, RR503 said:

I think that the juxtaposition of this proposal with the PCAC's fantastic report on Broadway service couldn't be better -- on one side, we have a well meaning but misinformed proposal, and on the other, a detailed report with really solid recommendations on how to improve service. 

We're in agreement here in regards to the PCAP recommendations. I was just putting forth the idea the MTA would be likely to consider based on what they did for the Culver line, mostly because it's apparent they never had any intention of actually implementing express service there. Put forth an idea nobody likes and let the people decide for themselves that the current service is "better" than the alternative. It's a well-worn playbook.

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 1:36 PM, Lawrence St said:

Having the Nassau (R) come back during rush hours only, while short turning some regular (R) trains at City Hall or Whitehall St

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't a lot of the complaints in regards to non-rush hour service? The (R) tends to run fairly smoothly during peak periods when maintenance and construction work are minimal. Off-hours is a different story, what with the scheduled 12 minute weekend intervals on top of slowdowns due to continuous Queens Blvd work. Bringing back the Nassau St (R) as a rush-hour only route will be ineffective if the problems are outside that time window.

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 1:36 PM, Lawrence St said:

Having the (R) run to Astoria the way it did, the (N) to 96th St, and the (W) to Forest Hills from Whitehall or Gravesend.

You could also just have the (R) and (W) run to Astoria and have the (G) replace the (R) on QBL.

The (G) returning back to Queens Blvd as a replacement for any service there is a non-starter. The only reason why the (G) stuck around as the primary Queens Blvd local for so long was due to a lack of available options. 53rd Street was maxed out by the (E) and (F) express service while the Broadway-Queens Blvd service was normal hours only until 1987. With three river crossings connecting to Queens Blvd today, riders will not put up with a non-Manhattan service that replaces a much more usable line.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Not without work though. Right now, the lower level is in no shape to act as a terminus for anything except relaying trains, meaning some service would discharge on the tunnel platforms at Canal St and relay down to the lower level, possibly creating a Forest Hills-type situation there.

I mean yes, but if you’re not going to fix relay terminal ops, you may as well throw up your hands and move to Seattle — getting that right is essential to function. 

With you on the rest of your post, though — off peak is the basket case here. That battle (maintenance reform and associated frequency adjustments) is much, much tougher than any service change though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were wondering how the (R) was doing this morning

D18gPtVXgAE48ig.jpg:large

Mind you the scheduled frequency should be every 6 minutes

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

In case you were wondering how the (R) was doing this morning

D18gPtVXgAE48ig.jpg:large

Mind you the scheduled frequency should be every 6 minutes

If I saw that, I'd walk to 59th Street for the N.

Share this post


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

We're in agreement here in regards to the PCAP recommendations. I was just putting forth the idea the MTA would be likely to consider based on what they did for the Culver line, mostly because it's apparent they never had any intention of actually implementing express service there. Put forth an idea nobody likes and let the people decide for themselves that the current service is "better" than the alternative. It's a well-worn playbook.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't a lot of the complaints in regards to non-rush hour service? The (R) tends to run fairly smoothly during peak periods when maintenance and construction work are minimal. Off-hours is a different story, what with the scheduled 12 minute weekend intervals on top of slowdowns due to continuous Queens Blvd work. Bringing back the Nassau St (R) as a rush-hour only route will be ineffective if the problems are outside that time window.

Re-implementing the post-Sandy split (R) exactly as it was done in 2012-14 would certainly be a plan nobody likes compared to the current (R) service. The MTA would be foolish to propose that. After reading several articles about it, plus the comments, I’d like to think that even the Congressman and his fellow Bay Ridge pols have modified their position somewhat and would be in favor of a 4th Ave Local train that goes somewhere in Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel, be it Trinity Place/Broadway or Nassau/Centre. They probably just don’t want it to go to Forest Hills and be susceptible to all the problems that line has, plus all the seemingly endless weekend G.O.’s. Just as foolish would be to propose extending the (J) or implementing another Nassau St service to replace the (R), while terminating both the (R) and (W) at Canal/Whitehall. Hopefully, the MTA won’t try proposing that either.

I feel the best remedy would be one Broadway train and one Nassau train serving as the 4th Ave locals. Both aren’t needed 24/7, but I definitely agree that any Nassau St line that serves the 4th Ave local stations should run more than just during rush hours. I like running the (R) between Bay Ridge and Astoria 24/7 best because that would facilitate de-interlining Broadway at 34th Street. But I feel like that would limit the need for a supplemental Nassau train because then the (R) would no longer be subject to QBL-related troubles and would no longer have the (N) cutting in front of it at 34th or Prince. 

My next best option would be to have a brown (K) service to/from Essex replace the (R) as the main 4th Ave local train with the (W) functioning as the secondary 4th Ave local and the (R) getting cut back to Whitehall. Though because the (R) runs more frequently than the (W), that could force some (R) trains to end at Canal because they may not be able to turn them all at Whitehall. But I don’t think that necessarily makes this plan a non starter.

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

In case you were wondering how the (R) was doing this morning

D18gPtVXgAE48ig.jpg:large

Mind you the scheduled frequency should be every 6 minutes

I’m not surprised at all...

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

In case you were wondering how the (R) was doing this morning

D18gPtVXgAE48ig.jpg:large

Mind you the scheduled frequency should be every 6 minutes

This is at Bay Ridge Av Forest Hills-bound though, so most likely the problem is that they didn't get to send a train out for whatever reason. If it was in a more understandable context, like Bay Ridge-95 St bound during the PM rush, then those waits would most likely be due to everything that we've been discussing. It is fairly common, however, for certain trips to not be sent out. Or there could've also just been an EMS situation, which would probably better explain this. At least Bay Ridge Av riders have the benefit of the (N) being within walking distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

This is at Bay Ridge Av Forest Hills-bound though, so most likely the problem is that they didn't get to send a train out for whatever reason. If it was in a more understandable context, like Bay Ridge-95 St bound during the PM rush, then those waits would most likely be due to everything that we've been discussing. It is fairly common, however, for certain trips to not be sent out. Or there could've also just been an EMS situation, which would probably better explain this. At least Bay Ridge Av riders have the benefit of the (N) being within walking distance.

I dont get why in the event of the (R) being late why they dont send a SB (N) down to 95th St to fill in the gap. I understand at times this would cause a big gap along Sea Beach but the (N) runs more frequent so one train wouldnt hurt.

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.