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

Here's something very simple

 

(N) 96th st-Coney Island Broadway Express. Late nights no service

(Q) remains the same

(R) remains the same, probably extra service

 

(W) Rush Hours: Astoria Ditmars - kings hwy

Middays & Weekends: to Whitehall st

Late nights: to Coney Island via sea beach, replaces (N) service.

(W) Would see service increases to balance out the ridership of Astoria.

 

Astoria Does Not need 2 services, this is what's hurting the (R).

 

Have the locals go to Queens, the Express go 96th st. No merging and the (R) and (W) can stay on the local while the (N) and (Q) stays on the express. 

 

Do this and the amount of delays on the (R) would drop, make the (R) 100% R160's and it'll even drop more. 

 

This would make a lot more sense and there would be no need to extend the (J), have 2 merging points and having 3 lines in one tube.

 

Excuse my language but f**k Astoria, they don't need 2 services. The local is a better option for them anyway since the (W) stops at popular stops along broadway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how everyone's got a plan on how they think they can fix 4th Avenue and the (R) line. I just want to remind all of you we have a proposals thread. If they don't directly relate to the issue being discussed here, please keep the ideas to that thread. We don't need this to turn into an offshoot of that thread where every idea and proposal only tangentially related to the actual discussion here is pasted in this thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I like how everyone's got a plan on how they think they can fix 4th Avenue and the (R) line. I just want to remind all of you we have a proposals thread. If they don't directly relate to the issue being discussed here, please keep the ideas to that thread. We don't need this to turn into an offshoot of that thread where every idea and proposal only tangentially related to the actual discussion here is pasted in this thread.

Oh come on now... You know some folks in here LIVE for these proposals. :lol:

  • LMAO! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh come on now... You know some folks in here LIVE for these proposals. :lol:

*looks at Wallyhorse*

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating!! 

Multiple ideas being brought up from different perspectives while still relating to the (R) train split. It’s obvious that the (R) suffers from being a very long and unreliable route, not to mention it being a Local route using the 46 fleet of the 1970’s. That right there is a recipe for an unreliable service. The Bay Ridge Politicians call for a Split (R) train. So this is what they need. (Note that Broadway would be playing a role in this so if we’re going to gain some operational Optimicy): 

A Lower Manhattan-Bay Ridge Service, since no one is trying to take the (R) from Bay Ridge to Midtown or Queens. That’s what the (D) and (N) trains are for. Let’s Label this route (Z). Under this scenario, Nassau would need many infrastructure upgrades in order to allow a service like this to run. (Particularly Essex Street, but this was previously discussed months ago in the Proposals thread) 

The (N) would be sent to 96th Street with the (Q) and (W) service will continue to Run to Astoria. While this would deinterline Broadway in the process, Astoria may not be convinced with this due to the amount of politics in its area, but the (W) should do fine with just 4 minute Headway’s (or just 15 TPH). During Rush Hours (or just during the daytime), (W) trains will supplement the (N) line from Atlantic Barclays to 86th Street. And During middays (Or just in the evening/night) trains would run its current route with a few City Hall Short turn trips. 

(R) trains would only run from Forest Hills to Whitehall Street with a few City Hall Short Turn Trips. The (R) would also only run from 5:20AM - 12:30AM. 

In case anyone is confused, it’s about high time that City Hall Lower Level gets an upgrade, Whitehall can’t turn that many trains and upgrading the City Hall Lower Level might allow for 2-3 short turns. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Fascinating!! 

Multiple ideas being brought up from different perspectives while still relating to the (R) train split. It’s obvious that the (R) suffers from being a very long and unreliable route, not to mention it being a Local route using the 46 fleet of the 1970’s. That right there is a recipe for an unreliable service. The Bay Ridge Politicians call for a Split (R) train. So this is what they need. (Note that Broadway would be playing a role in this so if we’re going to gain some operational Optimicy): 

A Lower Manhattan-Bay Ridge Service, since no one is trying to take the (R) from Bay Ridge to Midtown or Queens. That’s what the (D) and (N) trains are for. Let’s Label this route (Z). Under this scenario, Nassau would need many infrastructure upgrades in order to allow a service like this to run. (Particularly Essex Street, but this was previously discussed months ago in the Proposals thread) 

The (N) would be sent to 96th Street with the (Q) and (W) service will continue to Run to Astoria. While this would deinterline Broadway in the process, Astoria may not be convinced with this due to the amount of politics in its area, but the (W) should do fine with just 4 minute Headway’s (or just 15 TPH). During Rush Hours (or just during the daytime), (W) trains will supplement the (N) line from Atlantic Barclays to 86th Street. And During middays (Or just in the evening/night) trains would run its current route with a few City Hall Short turn trips. 

(R) trains would only run from Forest Hills to Whitehall Street with a few City Hall Short Turn Trips. The (R) would also only run from 5:20AM - 12:30AM. 

In case anyone is confused, it’s about high time that City Hall Lower Level gets an upgrade, Whitehall can’t turn that many trains and upgrading the City Hall Lower Level might allow for 2-3 short turns. 

 

Yeah no, the reason why the (Q) was chosen to go to 96th St instead of the (N) was because riders along the (Q) wanted 96th St service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yeah no, the reason why the (Q) was chosen to go to 96th St instead of the (N) was because riders along the (Q) wanted 96th St service.

What difference does it make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

What difference does it make?

What do you mean what difference does it make? The (Q) was chosen solely because of its ridership patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This disaster of a plan is the only thing I could come up with that would not change the existing infrastructure, but would allow the (R) to run express on Queens Blvd and give it some sort of help with the least amount of merges:

 

(R) Bay Ridge-Jamaica Center 

4 Av Local

Broadway Local (via Montague) (merges with (N) )

Queens Blvd Express (merges with (F) )

 

(W) Whitehall St-96 St 

Broadway Local (Whitehall-Canal St)

Broadway Express (Canal St-57 St) (merges with (Q) )

2 Av Local

 

(Q) Coney Island-96 St 

Brighton Local (merges with (B) )

Broadway Express (merges with (W) ) (via Bridge)

2 Av Local

 

(N) Coney Island-Astoria 

Sea Beach Local

4 Av Express (merges with (D))

Broadway Local (via Bridge) (merges with (R))

Astoria Local

 

(E) World Trade Center-Forest Hills 

8 Av Local (merges with (C) )

Queens Blvd Local (merges with (M) )

*some rush hour trips to Jamaica Center*

 

(F) Coney Island-Jamaica 179 St 

Culver Local

6 Av Local

Queens Blvd Express (21 St-Forest Hills) (merges with (R) )

Queens Blvd Local (Forest Hills-Briarwood)

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


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

This disaster of a plan is the only thing I could come up with that would not change the existing infrastructure, but would allow the (R) to run express on Queens Blvd and give it some sort of help with the least amount of merges:

 

(R) Bay Ridge-Jamaica Center 

4 Av Local

Broadway Local (via Montague) (merges with (N) )

Queens Blvd Express (merges with (F) )

 

(W) Whitehall St-96 St 

Broadway Local (Whitehall-Canal St)

Broadway Express (Canal St-57 St) (merges with (Q) )

2 Av Local

 

(Q) Coney Island-96 St 

Brighton Local (merges with (B) )

Broadway Express (merges with (W) ) (via Bridge)

2 Av Local

 

(N) Coney Island-Astoria 

Sea Beach Local

4 Av Express (merges with (D))

Broadway Local (via Bridge) (merges with (R))

Astoria Local

 

(E) World Trade Center-Forest Hills 

8 Av Local (merges with (C) )

Queens Blvd Local (merges with (M) )

*some rush hour trips to Jamaica Center*

 

(F) Coney Island-Jamaica 179 St 

Culver Local

6 Av Local

Queens Blvd Express (21 St-Forest Hills) (merges with (R) )

Queens Blvd Local (Forest Hills-Briarwood)

This plan spells delay across the board. Not only do you create a bigger merge on Broadway at Canal St, you overuse that switch point to the point where it will fail.

The only other way I see what to do is this:

(R) Forest Hills to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway, rush hours some trips end at Canal St or Whitehall St.

(J) JC to 95th St

This preserves some (R) service on 4th Avenue while giving 4th Av riders a one seat ride to midtown.

Nassau has such Potential and yet is never used to its fullest extent.

  • Thanks 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Yeah no, the reason why the (Q) was chosen to go to 96th St instead of the (N) was because riders along the (Q) wanted 96th St service.

Sounds like you weren’t paying close attention to what I wrote. I said that the (N) would run to 96th with the (Q) as part of Deinterlining Broadway. No where in the context did I say that the (N) would replace the (Q) to 96th, since under this scenario would still force trains to block one another’s paths. (Only difference is that it would be the (Q) instead of the (N)

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're really pitching for this splitting of the R (the Daily News is now covering it)!

Taking away Essex middle (J4) for that will just eliminate flexibility as the J and M will have to merge before the station, rather than allowing transfers in the station.

What you could do is reopen the other side of Canal St. station as the terminal for a new 4th Ave. replacement line. Currently, leaving Chambers St. J1 and 3 head to the former "loop" to the Manhattan Bridge and end, and are replaced by a "new" J1 branching off of J4, the new through track, and a now empty "new" J3 trackbed starting at Canal. 
So you remove the wall blocking J3, along with the branchoff to the new J1, and just run J1 and J3 straight through, with the former "loop" tracks branching off of J1 as J1A and J3A. A new crossover between them will be before the station, and you would have a two pocket terminal for that service. J1 would still continue to Essex. (So you would still have the snowbird layup area around Bowery, and the emergency run around if J4 is tied up for some reason, like they do now using the branchoff). 

It would have the problem of having to cross over the through J, which goes from J1 to J4 leaving Chambers.

Still leaves the problem of where the Queens R would go. Might have to use City Hall lower (which I think would need lengthening). This is then cutting Queens riders off from the last three stations, but to swap with the W, the busier R would get stuck with the single track pocket at Whitehall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Sounds like you weren’t paying close attention to what I wrote. I said that the (N) would run to 96th with the (Q) as part of Deinterlining Broadway. No where in the context did I say that the (N) would replace the (Q) to 96th, since under this scenario would still force trains to block one another’s paths. (Only difference is that it would be the (Q) instead of the (N)

You said " (Q) and (W) would continue to Astoria."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eric B said:

So they're really pitching for this splitting of the R (the Daily News is now covering it)!

Taking away Essex middle (J4) for that will just eliminate flexibility as the J and M will have to merge before the station, rather than allowing transfers in the station.

What you could do is reopen the other side of Canal St. station as the terminal for a new 4th Ave. replacement line. Currently, leaving Chambers St. J1 and 3 head to the former "loop" to the Manhattan Bridge and end, and are replaced by a "new" J1 branching off of J4, the new through track, and a now empty "new" J3 trackbed starting at Canal. 
So you remove the wall blocking J3, along with the branchoff to the new J1, and just run J1 and J3 straight through, with the former "loop" tracks branching off of J1 as J1A and J3A. A new crossover between them will be before the station, and you would have a two pocket terminal for that service. J1 would still continue to Essex. (So you would still have the snowbird layup area around Bowery, and the emergency run around if J4 is tied up for some reason, like they do now using the branchoff). 

It would have the problem of having to cross over the through J, which goes from J1 to J4 leaving Chambers.

Still leaves the problem of where the Queens R would go. Might have to use City Hall lower (which I think would need lengthening). This is then cutting Queens riders off from the last three stations, but to swap with the W, the busier R would get stuck with the single track pocket at Whitehall.

I still dont know why we cant send the (N) via Mountague, and the (R) via Nassau/Bridge. This is the reason why 4th Avenue local is so bad, there needs to be frequent service, so why not utilize what we have?

Having the (R) via Nassau/Bridge boosts the TPH on 4th Avenue. The only real issue here would be crossing in front of the (J) and (Q).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eric B said:

So they're really pitching for this splitting of the R (the Daily News is now covering it)!

 Taking away Essex middle (J4) for that will just eliminate flexibility as the J and M will have to merge before the station, rather than allowing transfers in the station.

What you could do is reopen the other side of Canal St. station as the terminal for a new 4th Ave. replacement line. Currently, leaving Chambers St. J1 and 3 head to the former "loop" to the Manhattan Bridge and end, and are replaced by a "new" J1 branching off of J4, the new through track, and a now empty "new" J3 trackbed starting at Canal. 
So you remove the wall blocking J3, along with the branchoff to the new J1, and just run J1 and J3 straight through, with the former "loop" tracks branching off of J1 as J1A and J3A. A new crossover between them will be before the station, and you would have a two pocket terminal for that service. J1 would still continue to Essex. (So you would still have the snowbird layup area around Bowery, and the emergency run around if J4 is tied up for some reason, like they do now using the branchoff). 

It would have the problem of having to cross over the through J, which goes from J1 to J4 leaving Chambers.

Still leaves the problem of where the Queens R would go. Might have to use City Hall lower (which I think would need lengthening). This is then cutting Queens riders off from the last three stations, but to swap with the W, the busier R would get stuck with the single track pocket at Whitehall.

If you're running J1-4 all through, then you could just use J1 and J4 for (J), turn the new Bay Ridge service at Bowery or Canal, and then scoot J1 trains over to J4 for Essex. 

In the long run, I think a rebuild along the lines you present will be necessary -- if only because crowding at Canal and Essex is bad. But until then, I think that just moving the (M) to J1 and installing a new switch may be the way to go. Cheaper, faster, and while it kills the cross platform from the (J) to (M), it allows these Bay Ridge/Lower Manhattan trains to connect more easily with trains up 6th and over the bridge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

You said " (Q) and (W) would continue to Astoria."

 

I was making two different points in the same sentence. You’ve must’ve broken it down in the incorrect order. Didn’t mean to confuse you there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically though, if the (MTA) has any sort of brain when it comes to improving (R) service, they would develop new infrastructure and not have to reroute trains everywhere.

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

This plan spells delay across the board. Not only do you create a bigger merge on Broadway at Canal St, you overuse that switch point to the point where it will fail.

I knew it was stupid.

Share this post


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

So they're really pitching for this splitting of the R (the Daily News is now covering it)!

Taking away Essex middle (J4) for that will just eliminate flexibility as the J and M will have to merge before the station, rather than allowing transfers in the station.

What you could do is reopen the other side of Canal St. station as the terminal for a new 4th Ave. replacement line. Currently, leaving Chambers St. J1 and 3 head to the former "loop" to the Manhattan Bridge and end, and are replaced by a "new" J1 branching off of J4, the new through track, and a now empty "new" J3 trackbed starting at Canal. 
So you remove the wall blocking J3, along with the branchoff to the new J1, and just run J1 and J3 straight through, with the former "loop" tracks branching off of J1 as J1A and J3A. A new crossover between them will be before the station, and you would have a two pocket terminal for that service. J1 would still continue to Essex. (So you would still have the snowbird layup area around Bowery, and the emergency run around if J4 is tied up for some reason, like they do now using the branchoff). 

It would have the problem of having to cross over the through J, which goes from J1 to J4 leaving Chambers.

Still leaves the problem of where the Queens R would go. Might have to use City Hall lower (which I think would need lengthening). This is then cutting Queens riders off from the last three stations, but to swap with the W, the busier R would get stuck with the single track pocket at Whitehall.

Turning the (R) on Whitehall middle probably would limit how many (R) trains can run, especially if the (W) runs through, like I proposed further back in the thread. During Sandy reconstruction, the (R) had Whitehall all to itself. Still think it’s doable, though.

49 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If you're running J1-4 all through, then you could just use J1 and J4 for (J), turn the new Bay Ridge service at Bowery or Canal, and then scoot J1 trains over to J4 for Essex. 

In the long run, I think a rebuild along the lines you present will be necessary -- if only because crowding at Canal and Essex is bad. But until then, I think that just moving the (M) to J1 and installing a new switch may be the way to go. Cheaper, faster, and while it kills the cross platform from the (J) to (M), it allows these Bay Ridge/Lower Manhattan trains to connect more easily with trains up 6th and over the bridge. 

Would be interesting to see how access to the east (former northbound) platform at Canal would be created if it’s reopened. The current mezzanine is a very small one and it’s only above the west (former southbound) platform. I did have concerns about starting a Bay Ridge service at Essex because of the single track and the northbound  (J) / (M) merge. But based on past discussions on this topic, it sounds like it is feasible to have the Bay Ridge K service start there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 1:29 AM, MysteriousBtrain said:

You had me until you brought up the (M) to second avenue. Cuomo and the hipsters may have won with the (L) shutdown but who is actively going to look for a one seat ride from the east side to sixth avenue as much as a loss of an underwater tunnel with no replacement when lost?

Now that I think about it essex st won't be an active weekend terminal for the (M) but late nights the (M) extension is not warranted.

The reason I do that with the (M) is once it does start running regularly to 96th/2nd, I see many on the UES wanting at least that on a full-time basis (outside of when the (M) currently runs to 71st-Continental) if not in some form on a full-time bases (which was why I originally proposed keeping the (M) as it was currently running on QB and supplementing that on 6th Avenue with a "Orange (T)" that would have become a 24/7 line to 96th/2nd that would have been a supplemental line weekdays and the main line from Metropolitan weekend.  The UES still has enough clout where they could demand such IMO. 

Share this post


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

I like how everyone's got a plan on how they think they can fix 4th Avenue and the (R) line. I just want to remind all of you we have a proposals thread. If they don't directly relate to the issue being discussed here, please keep the ideas to that thread. We don't need this to turn into an offshoot of that thread where every idea and proposal only tangentially related to the actual discussion here is pasted in this thread.

Yes, but this was a specific situation that has blown open because of what pols want.

 

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Turning the (R) on Whitehall middle probably would limit how many (R) trains can run, especially if the (W) runs through, like I proposed further back in the thread. During Sandy reconstruction, the (R) had Whitehall all to itself. Still think it’s doable, though.

Would be interesting to see how access to the east (former northbound) platform at Canal would be created if it’s reopened. The current mezzanine is a very small one and it’s only above the west (former southbound) platform. I did have concerns about starting a Bay Ridge service at Essex because of the single track and the northbound  (J) / (M) merge. But based on past discussions on this topic, it sounds like it is feasible to have the Bay Ridge K service start there.

Didn't there used to be such on the other (now abandoned) side of Canal when that platform was open?  I'm guessing they could build a new entrance across the street on Centre Street and also expand the mezzanine there as well as re-open what as I remember was a crossunder between the two platforms.  They would also need to some work at Bowery. 

Share this post


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

If you're running J1-4 all through, then you could just use J1 and J4 for (J), turn the new Bay Ridge service at Bowery or Canal, and then scoot J1 trains over to J4 for Essex. 

In the long run, I think a rebuild along the lines you present will be necessary -- if only because crowding at Canal and Essex is bad. But until then, I think that just moving the (M) to J1 and installing a new switch may be the way to go. Cheaper, faster, and while it kills the cross platform from the (J) to (M), it allows these Bay Ridge/Lower Manhattan trains to connect more easily with trains up 6th and over the bridge. 

Don't understand that. (For one thing, the (M) is already on J1, which is the only track it can come out on at Essex).

Keep in mind, that the track numberings appear reversed on this line, because it's really a northbound extension of the original line whose northern terminal was Bway ferry or Essex St. but then curved back southward when extended past Essex and Bowery, so that it's chained so that on Centre St. J1 is actually the northbound local (not southbound), and J4 is the southbound "express" (not northbound). J4 is what the (J) currently uses Queens boud from Canal to Essex, and J1 is the "bypass" through the closed half of Canal. J2 is what the Manhattan bound (J) uses. So why would the (J) use 1 and 4? You would keep the (J) on the same platform (2 and 4) where it is now, and then use 1 and 3 for the new service.

I had originally thought running the (J) all the way on J1, and then putting the old switch back, so it can still access the middle (J4) at  Essex to not have to share J1 with the (M), but  think this other idea is better.

Edited by Eric B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Don't understand that. (For one thing, the (M) is already on J1, which is the only track it can come out on at Essex).

Meant to say keep the (J) on J1. My bad.

44 minutes ago, Eric B said:

 Keep in mind, that the track numberings appear reversed on this line, because it's really a northbound extension of the original line whose northern terminal was Bway ferry or Essex St. but then curved back southward when extended past Essex and Bowery, so that it's chained so that on Centre St. J1 is actually the northbound local (not southbound), and J4 is the southbound "express" (not northbound). J4 is what the (J) currently uses Queens boud from Canal to Essex, and J1 is the "bypass" through the closed half of Canal. J2 is what the Manhattan bound (J) uses. So why would the (J) use 1 and 4? You would keep the (J) on the same platform (2 and 4) where it is now, and then use 1 and 3 for the new service.

The thought with J1 and J4 is that you're not gonna need two pockets to turn this Bay Ridge service, so may as well consolidate your tracks in a way that allows trains turning on J3 easier access to South Brooklyn-bound tracks when it comes time to install a properly placed switch Then you'd have the (J) on J1 and J4 and turning trains on J3, which'd save you the difficulty of crossing in front north of Chambers. 

All this said, I still don't follow why we shouldn't be just sending this to Essex middle. Yeah, (M) loses cross platform, but Bay Ridge/Lower Manhattan gains xfers/consistent xfers, and we don't have to spend so much money in the near term. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


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

Don't understand that. (For one thing, the (M) is already on J1, which is the only track it can come out on at Essex).

Keep in mind, that the track numberings appear reversed on this line, because it's really a northbound extension of the original line whose northern terminal was Bway ferry or Essex St. but then curved back southward when extended past Essex and Bowery, so that it's chained so that on Centre St. J1 is actually the northbound local (not southbound), and J4 is the southbound "express" (not northbound). J4 is what the (J) currently uses Queens boud from Canal to Essex, and J1 is the "bypass" through the closed half of Canal. J2 is what the Manhattan bound (J) uses. So why would the (J) use 1 and 4? You would keep the (J) on the same platform (2 and 4) where it is now, and then use 1 and 3 for the new service.

I had originally thought running the (J) all the way on J1, and then putting the old switch back, so it can still access the middle (J4) at  Essex to not have to share J1 with the (M), but  think this other idea is better.

Does the <R> have to continue all the way to Essex though? I think Canal or Bowery would be a sufficient terminal since it intersects with the (4)(5)(6)(A)(C)(2)(3)(J)(N)(Q)(R)(W)(Z) .

Canal allows <R> riders to switch to the (R) and without modifying Essex.

Edited by Lawrence St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Does the <R> have to continue all the way to Essex though? I think Canal or Bowery would be a sufficient terminal since it intersects with the (4)(5)(6)(A)(C)(2)(3)(J)(N)(Q)(R)(W)(Z) .

Canal allows <R> riders to switch to the (R) and without modifying Essex.

Canal <R> means modifying Canal, though. Running to Essex means better transfers from Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan to Williamsburg, Myrtle, 6th. 

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.