daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 10th, 2009, 07:38 PM   #781
disturbman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 7

The Pato might be ugly and a patch work of "nationality" but it works prety well.

When comparing (HS) systems it will be more pertinent to look at their "funcionality". By that I mean:
- authorized speed
- frequencies
- price
- where are located the stations and if they are easily and well connected to their hinterlands.

Meaning the overall level of services, the first two being in my opinion the most important. The last ones giving an idea of the penetration of the system.

Speaking about California HSR. The system needs to be able to run to true HS. I know they aimed for 220mph but it's still unclear wether it will be possible on the major part of the route. References to speed up to 125mph, wich will cost a lot less to implement, are still poping. Anyway, the plan to the presend day is very good but there is still some uncertainties where as it will be built like proposed or not.
disturbman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:02 PM   #782
Matthieu
Administrateur
 
Matthieu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tarbes, the capital of the world
Posts: 15,271
Likes (Received): 5688

I'm not saying it's shit, it's not! But then the cutting edge systems are the very latest models by Siemens and Alstom really. One of the factors that will be determining in the USA, more than in France for example, is power consumption will be very important in a country where fossil energy sources are so dominant and in this domain trains using an electric propulsions (small engines below the trains) would certainly be most interesting than mechanical ones (two big engines at the front and the back). Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).

In Morocco, they took a very interesting stance on HSR. Of course they're buying older TGV (not AGV) Duplex, but they join that development with a massive solar power plant near Oujda to help fueling the trains (among other things). No offense to our American forumers but when a country that was traditionally considered developing is investing seriously in such modern technologies while clean energy and public transportations struggle to get funding in the USA you can tell there's something odd.
__________________
"To erect a tall building is to proclaim one’s faith in the future, the skyline is a seismograph of optimism."
Jean Nouvel
Matthieu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:32 PM   #783
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).
Not so fast, Matthieu, je t'en prie. Those are the "automotrices" with distributed power units. (Incidentally, Siemens's prototype is called Velaro, not Valero.) Trains with an electric propulsion, as you say, are produced in almost every European country, and high-speed EMUs in at least five.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:42 PM   #784
Matthieu
Administrateur
 
Matthieu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tarbes, the capital of the world
Posts: 15,271
Likes (Received): 5688

I was talking of the propulsion (or traction) not the energy source. You can have a mechanical propulsion electrically powered. Which is the concept of most trains today (even the JetTrain uses alternators). The AGV or the Velaro (my mistake) are using and electric propulsion and electrically fed. A comparison with ships is that ships can be nuclear powered and still use a mechanical propulsion (like the CdG or the Nimitz class) or can be fueled with gas and use an electrical propulsion (take for example anything that uses azimuth thrusters).
__________________
"To erect a tall building is to proclaim one’s faith in the future, the skyline is a seismograph of optimism."
Jean Nouvel
Matthieu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #785
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

D'accord. Some posters on this board appear to be getting a bit iffy about what they perceive as US-bashing, so I guess I'd better go easy on what I have to say now. (It's also a cultural thing: In Europe everbody is kicking about each others' nations all the time. In a politicially correct culture one should shut up unless one has something positive to say...)

One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley.

Finally, one last word from me to those posters here who object to spending tax payers' money on railway lines. I am myself a thrifty Scandinavian "trapped in France" and I have to confess that I'm less of a "prestige hunter" than many of the people surrounding me. That said, I also believe that public money, if at all, should be spent on future generations rather than destructive purposes. Let's take an example: The war in Iraq has so far cost US taxpayers more than 600 billion US. Therefore...

...show me one person who holds that the US cannot afford to pour, let's say, 60 billion US of public money into railways over the next couple of years and I'll show you a very nasty person indeed.

Last edited by hans280; October 10th, 2009 at 10:19 PM.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 10:05 PM   #786
He Named Thor
Just kidding.
 
He Named Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beautiful Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
You know people never appreciate what's there

The reality is that I can fly across a couple states in 3 hours in a ordinary plane departing from any modest airport in small cities and larger towns. These towns and cities of course are all linked by 4 lane paved highways carrying Wal-mart trucks loaded with crap I buy to live a comfortable existance.

I mean, I really want quality regional rail in urbanized regions and high speed in places where air travel is congested, but I think in the end the US will come out better for not entering a pissing contest over expensive flashy infrastructure and increasing the national debt. Come on, you don't think Obama will be prez forever--IMO the way US politics work is a reactionary right wing candidate will be elected next and cut everything, leaving whatever paltry progress made so far in the lurch.

Likewise in the end I bet China's greatest investments in their infrastructure will be mundane stuff that people find useful, like extensive 4 lane highways in the most rural of areas. Hell, power lines running to places where 30 years ago things could have passed for being 3000 years ago. Think about it.
I agree with some of what you said there. This certainly needs to be planned out well, and with the midwest HSR network (the only one I am familiar with) I think it is.

Most of the network is kept relatively short. Chicago to Madison, or St. Louis, those sort of distances. I think Chicago to Cleveland is the longest there. Those are the distances where HSR is going to be very competitive. They'll be faster than driving, and competitive with flying when adding in check-in times.

Generally with these distances too you'd be getting a small regional aircraft. Trains are generally much more spacious and comfortable.

Also, small airports have distinct drawbacks. Most of them require a stopover in another city before going to your destination, and prices of flights to and from smaller airports tend to be very expensive.
He Named Thor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 10:40 PM   #787
disturbman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley.
Yeah but the idea of the french system was to have a "plane on rail". The Californian HSR could be to the standards of the Japanese model if correctly build and run. On a Japanese HSR you see three types of different services, some operating at different speed (because of different rolling stock). It's possible to have an omnibus service, stopping at all the stops, a half omnibus service, stopping in the biggest stations, and an express that will not stop at all except at the extremities.
disturbman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 01:28 AM   #788
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
From what I read they'll use Spanish made trains, that would then be, at most, the Talgo class 102.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Class_102

The other HSR trains operated in Spain are either French (the class 100 is an older generation TGV) and the most recent ones used in Spain are Germans Valero.

The Talgo Class 102 which is ok of course, a pretty good system, it's based on a Bombardier systems (engines and stuffs) integrated to a Spanish chassis. We'll have to see how it performs but so far systems like the AGV or Velaro, that are Europe's most advanced ones for sure, are certainly more interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotrice_à_grande_vitesse
I'm not sure where you read that, but as of now they haven't chosen what trains they will use. I know that the CHSRA has been in contact with almost all major HST suppliers, from Alstom to Bombardier to Siemens, and others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley.
Yes, it's true that the system has a lot of stops, but a person will be able to buy an "Express" ticket, and not stop at any intermediate stations. I'm ignorant about other countries HST networks, simply because I live in the USA, but the California system will be built with tracks that allow trains to fly past stations without slowing down.

When California's citizens passed Prop 1(a) last November, it forced the CHSRA to build a train that goes from L.A.'s Union Station to San Fransisco's Transbay Terminal in 2 hours and 40 minuets. It can't go slower than that, by law, so the people saying it wont be up to par with the European and Asian systems, or that it will only have a top speed of 125mph are simply wrong.
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 02:04 AM   #789
disturbman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by xXFallenXx View Post
When California's citizens passed Prop 1(a) last November, it forced the CHSRA to build a train that goes from L.A.'s Union Station to San Fransisco's Transbay Terminal in 2 hours and 40 minuets. It can't go slower than that, by law, so the people saying it wont be up to par with the European and Asian systems, or that it will only have a top speed of 125mph are simply wrong.
So every single propositions on the ballots that passed has to be implemented as presented? Sounds interesting... and a bit crazy at first. I'd like to hear more about that. How is this possible? What's the process and idea behind it?
disturbman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 02:17 AM   #790
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

^ Admittedly I'm fairly ignorant on the matter, but if you want to learn more about it I'd check out this blog: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/.

It's done a great job of covering everything related to the California High Speed Rail project.
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 04:57 AM   #791
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by disturbman View Post
The Californian HSR could be to the standards of the Japanese model if correctly build and run. On a Japanese HSR you see three types of different services, some operating at different speed (because of different rolling stock). It's possible to have an omnibus service, stopping at all the stops, a half omnibus service, stopping in the biggest stations, and an express that will not stop at all except at the extremities.
This model requires high acceleration rate within all train sets to work properly.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 07:38 AM   #792
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by xXFallenXx View Post
Yes, it's true that the system has a lot of stops, but a person will be able to buy an "Express" ticket, and not stop at any intermediate stations. I'm ignorant about other countries HST networks, simply because I live in the USA, but the California system will be built with tracks that allow trains to fly past stations without slowing down.
Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...). It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 08:04 AM   #793
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...). It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.
I think they're planning on building a set of tracks that bypass stations completely.
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 06:50 PM   #794
Oscuro_XS
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
I'm not saying it's shit, it's not! But then the cutting edge systems are the very latest models by Siemens and Alstom really. One of the factors that will be determining in the USA, more than in France for example, is power consumption will be very important in a country where fossil energy sources are so dominant and in this domain trains using an electric propulsions (small engines below the trains) would certainly be most interesting than mechanical ones (two big engines at the front and the back). Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).
EMUs do not use less energy per se than traditional high speed trains. E.g. Talgo 350 (S-112) uses 16 Kwh/km, whereas Siemens Velaro E (S-103) demands 18.5 kwh/km. And they need almost the same energy per passenger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu
From what I read they'll use Spanish made trains, that would then be, at most, the Talgo class 102.
Ave Class 102 is no longer produced, as Talgo only produces Ave Class 112 by now. But this train is going to be replaced by the far better Talgo Avril in a few years.
Also, CAF (another Spanish high speed train manufacturer) is developing a 300 km/h train.
Oscuro_XS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 07:26 PM   #795
Matthieu
Administrateur
 
Matthieu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tarbes, the capital of the world
Posts: 15,271
Likes (Received): 5688

Quote:
Originally Posted by xXFallenXx View Post
I'm not sure where you read that, but as of now they haven't chosen what trains they will use. I know that the CHSRA has been in contact with almost all major HST suppliers, from Alstom to Bombardier to Siemens, and others.
A Spanish forumers had posted, somewhere on this forum, the Californian HSR was to be jointly developped with Spain, but maybe it was too early.

Quote:
EMUs do not use less energy per se than traditional high speed trains. E.g. Talgo 350 (S-112) uses 16 Kwh/km, whereas Siemens Velaro E (S-103) demands 18.5 kwh/km. And they need almost the same energy per passenger.
In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?
__________________
"To erect a tall building is to proclaim one’s faith in the future, the skyline is a seismograph of optimism."
Jean Nouvel
Matthieu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 11:48 PM   #796
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
A Spanish forumers had posted, somewhere on this forum, the Californian HSR was to be jointly developped with Spain, but maybe it was too early.
Yes, it definitely was too early. Not that there is anything wrong with the Spanish system or anything, but the fact of the matter is the California High Speed Rail system is being developed and built solely by the CHSRA. (At least for now. )
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 02:46 AM   #797
Oscuro_XS
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?
Both train stats are given at 300 km/h (185 mph) in regular services.
Talgo data is given by the manufacturer, whereas Siemens' is given by Renfe (Spanish operator), using the HSR Madrid-Barcelone (11400 Kwh, 621 km length).
Also, 13400 KWh at 320 km/h and 14800 KWh at 350 km/h.
Oscuro_XS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 03:04 PM   #798
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu View Post
In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?
The choice of motoring system (distributed or separate loco) is not informed by total energy consumption. Its an engineering choice of keeping axle weights down, tractive effort, and/or maximising passenger space (as locos have none), and/or maintenance and operational flexibility requirements.

Using a loco instead doesn't necessarily mean higher energy consumption, as normal passenger cars are lighter than powered ones in a distributed power design. For example, in the UK (example is 125mph), the distributed power class 390 (WCML) is about 50 tons per car, but an equivalent mkIV passenger car (ECML) is about 40 tons, and is hauled by a class 91 locomotive, which weighs 80 tons. So at approximately 9-11 cars in length there is a no tangible weight benefit to either approach. (nb class 390 has tilt technology adding weight, whereas the mkIV cars don't, however they nearly did and are somewhat over engineered accordingly, mkIII 125mph cars used on other routes are only 30-35 tons, but are powered by diesel locos)

A fairer comparison would be an ICE 3 with a TGV, but ICE3 has 25 metre cars, and TGV 20m, with the addition of the latter articulated on shared bogies. Due to the odd layout of a TGV a direct comparison isn't easy, but it still holds true that there isn't an energy consumption penalty with either approach.

Comparing trains of the same passenger capacity, energy per passenger, the loco approach does less well when there are few cars, but once cars become over 75% of total train weight (i.e. more then about 8) the difference becomes negligible.

The main benefit of distributed power is a much higher tractive effort (if all axles motored), giving better acceleration and ascent climbing at low to mid speeds. There are other benefits to distributed, such as if one motor dies it makes little difference to performance and is less likely to cause the train to be cancelled, among other things. The main benefit of locos is their interchangable nature, maintenance facilities don't have to be the length of a whole train (negated now that modern passenger vehicles are so complicated anyway that full-length maintenance facilities are becoming common regardless), and the locos can be used for other operations like freight (though this doesn't really apply for HS locos), again among other things.

Sometimes locos are a necessity due to other choices. In France they set out to keep axes weights low and keep friction low. After setting a low axle load, and then articulating the axles, giving half as many axles per car as a normal layout, one has to reduce the length to 20m keep the weight below the set axle limit. This also meant power had to come from a separate loco as the passenger axles couldn't get heavier. And the amount of power required meant they needed 2 locos. Technology has moved on of course so with the AGV the French have managed to keep the axle weights down, use distributed power and keep the articulated design.

Last edited by makita09; October 12th, 2009 at 03:33 PM.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 11:15 PM   #799
Basincreek
Contrary Lite
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tuolumne City, CA
Posts: 545
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...).
Outside of Union Station in LA there will be no "legacy stations." Union Station will have a huge new platform built on top of it that will be the new HSR station and all the other stations will be purpose built for the HSR system. This is a matter of necessity, mostly, since private companies own the railroad tracks, and any old stations along them, and they are adamant they will not let California's HSR system use those tracks or the land around them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.
There will be only one underground station, in San Fran, the rest will be either elevated or at grade. There will be no suburban stations.
Basincreek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2009, 09:11 PM   #800
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basincreek View Post
Outside of Union Station in LA there will be no "legacy stations." Union Station will have a huge new platform built on top of it that will be the new HSR station and all the other stations will be purpose built for the HSR system. This is a matter of necessity, mostly, since private companies own the railroad tracks, and any old stations along them, and they are adamant they will not let California's HSR system use those tracks or the land around them...

There will be only one underground station, in San Fran, the rest will be either elevated or at grade. There will be no suburban stations.
Many thanks, but... this almost raises more questions than it answers. I mean, surely totally new railway stations have to be either underground or in the suburbs??? Otherwise, what are they going to do? Knock down 50,000 residential dwellings in order to create a new railway corridor into the heart of town? Or build 20 km of elevated tracks through each town, giving thousands of residents a HSR next to their bedroom window?
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium