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.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 13th, 2015, 11:03 AM   #2921
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
Any ideas on how to speed up the average speed of regular Amtrak trains to 70 mph at least, China can do it for their Z class trains over much rougher terrain.
Well the thing is ... Amtrak doesn't own most of the tracks they run on. The freight companies do. And because of Regulation, the freight companies maintain their tracks with a 79 mph speed limit (because if you set the speed limit at 80 mph or higher, you have to put in more expensive signaling, which the freight companies don't want to etc) ...

This is why speed improvements to 110 mph are happening in such a piecemeal fashion. Basically, the states most willing to put their money where their mouth is, are the ones independently funding separate corridors' upgrades (see the Wolverine corridor, for example, or the upgrading of the Chicago-St Louis corridor).

To see things happen faster we would need to see a national passenger railroad policy, which we've never really had -- not only that, but a policy with major funding streams behind it. We'd also need the freight railroads' cooperation, or possibly a restructuring of how the American rail net is organized.

There is a lot of market opportunity for passenger railroading in the United States. East of basically the I-35 corridor you've got a close-knit net of 1-2 million person metros, and all across the Midwest great hulking stations from when regional passenger trains were much more common than they are today. But to say the opportunity is there is one thing. To actualize it is another.
__________________
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 13th, 2015, 11:04 AM   #2922
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
Any ideas on how to speed up the average speed of regular Amtrak trains to 70 mph at least, China can do it for their Z class trains over much rougher terrain.
1) Find $50-100 billion dollars
2) Fix a lot of curves.
3) Constant tension catenary.
4) Build some new trackage away from curvy alignments.

For Acela, it is limitations on the Northeast Corridor and lack of political will which is why we need some serious dollars. After that, we can have some serious HSR.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2015, 06:55 PM   #2923
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17036

Some Amtrak Action that I caught on Friday in Harrison

Amtrak CIties Sprinters # 602 & 622 pulling Silver Star#92


Amtrak CIties Sprinters -64# 602 & 622 pulling Silver Star#92
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak CIties Sprinters -64# 602 & 622 pulling Silver Star#92
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak CIties Sprinters -64# 602 & 622 pulling Silver Star#92
by Corey Best, on Flickr

Westbound Amtrak Regional train with AEM-7 #920


Westbound Amtrak Regional train with AEM-7 #920 passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Amtrak Regional train with AEM-7 #920 passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr

Westbound Acela Express


Westbound Acela Express passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing through Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr

Eastbound Acela Express


Eastbound Acela Express passing thru Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Acela Express passing thru Harrison,NJ
by Corey Best, on Flickr

Amtrak DOCK lift Bridge over the Passaic River


Amtrak DOCK Bridges over the Passaic River
by Corey Best, on Flickr
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2015, 07:55 PM   #2924
mrsmartman
Registered User
 
mrsmartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,378
Likes (Received): 1452

East River Bridge Division, New York Connecting R.R.

The view is amazing when taking train up the curve to Hell Gate Arch Bridge into New York City.


https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordp...oughbridge.jpg
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by mrsmartman; July 13th, 2015 at 08:02 PM.
mrsmartman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2015, 07:57 PM   #2925
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 805

Because that's totally green pasture in the background, and not the South Bronx and Harlem.
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation

Feel The Bern #2016

Sopomon, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 12:12 AM   #2926
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17036

__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 09:59 AM   #2927
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Well the thing is ... Amtrak doesn't own most of the tracks they run on. The freight companies do. And because of Regulation, the freight companies maintain their tracks with a 79 mph speed limit (because if you set the speed limit at 80 mph or higher, you have to put in more expensive signaling, which the freight companies don't want to etc) ...

This is why speed improvements to 110 mph are happening in such a piecemeal fashion. Basically, the states most willing to put their money where their mouth is, are the ones independently funding separate corridors' upgrades (see the Wolverine corridor, for example, or the upgrading of the Chicago-St Louis corridor).

To see things happen faster we would need to see a national passenger railroad policy, which we've never really had -- not only that, but a policy with major funding streams behind it. We'd also need the freight railroads' cooperation, or possibly a restructuring of how the American rail net is organized.

There is a lot of market opportunity for passenger railroading in the United States. East of basically the I-35 corridor you've got a close-knit net of 1-2 million person metros, and all across the Midwest great hulking stations from when regional passenger trains were much more common than they are today. But to say the opportunity is there is one thing. To actualize it is another.
China's rail system also moves a lot of freight.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 01:53 PM   #2928
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,158
Likes (Received): 274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Amtrak CIties Sprinters # 602 & 622 pulling Silver Star#92


Amtrak CIties Sprinters -64# 602 &amp; 622 pulling Silver Star#92
by Corey Best, on Flickr
Why are they using 2 locomotives for such a short train? If one locomotive isn't powerful enough or lacks traction they should have gone for locomotives with more axles (like a Bo-Bo-Bo setup with 9+MW)
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 02:25 PM   #2929
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
China's rail system also moves a lot of freight.
It's also a single nationalized entity. Structurally, they aren't really alike.
__________________

Swede, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 11:43 PM   #2930
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17036

Vermont's Rail Plan ,
- talks about upgrading track speeds
- using DMU's instead of push pulls
-increased service on both Intercity lines
-New Passenger lines
-Upgraded Freight corridors

http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/...une%202015.pdf
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2015, 11:45 PM   #2931
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17036

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
Why are they using 2 locomotives for such a short train? If one locomotive isn't powerful enough or lacks traction they should have gone for locomotives with more axles (like a Bo-Bo-Bo setup with 9+MW)
Who knows its Amtrak...
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section

CNB30, M-NL, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2015, 06:43 AM   #2932
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17036

Amtrak's Harrisburg Station

Photos from t55z


Harrisburg Transportation Center
by t55z, on Flickr


the westbound Pennsylvanian leaving Harrisburg
by t55z, on Flickr


electric &amp; diesel in Harrisburg
by t55z, on Flickr
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2015, 03:40 PM   #2933
mrsmartman
Registered User
 
mrsmartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,378
Likes (Received): 1452

Santa Fe 4-8-4 Steam Locomotive #3751 High Speed Pass in 1080p

__________________
mrsmartman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2015, 10:10 AM   #2934
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
It's also a single nationalized entity. Structurally, they aren't really alike.
My question was related to how you proritize passenger services without hampering fregiht rail
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2015, 10:43 PM   #2935
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,438
Likes (Received): 612

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Vermont's Rail Plan ,
- talks about upgrading track speeds
- using DMU's instead of push pulls
-increased service on both Intercity lines
-New Passenger lines
-Upgraded Freight corridors

http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/...une%202015.pdf
Vermont is very environmentally friendly place. Get more people on trains and off roads will work well for them.
__________________

mrsmartman, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2015, 06:59 AM   #2936
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
My question was related to how you prioritize passenger services without hampering freight rail
Well current Chinese practice isn't much different from American practice in the early 20th century, when both freight and passenger services were run by private companies. Mainly China uses a combination of widespread electrification, better track maintenance, and laxer safety standards to run lighter, faster freight trains than the exceptionally heavy ones you see in the US.

There are also significant changes in the way freight is handled than half a century ago that make passenger service integration more difficult. Obviously, American trains are bigger and heavier -- but this also makes them extremely slow to accelerate and major slots hogs (the tradeoff being that since you can run multiple orders of magnitude more freight per slot than in e.g. Europe, you don't need as many slots to run it). American railroads generally refuse to invest in modern signaling systems or mainline electrification. There has been little to no investment in cutoffs for a century. Generally, parallel mainlines are run by competing freight services rather than having a freight-designated main (perhaps with light passenger service, if needed) and a passenger-designated one. And so on. And the best solutions east of the Rockies, where there are usually duplicate lines between any given city pair, are hardly useful west of them, where there generally aren't.

China doesn't really have any of these problems. Sure, they run bigger, heavier freights than the Europeans (blame buffer-and-chains couplings!) but they're neither as big or as heavy as modern American freights -- closer to midcentury freights, actually -- their trains have acceleration profiles closer to that of heavy passenger trains (like sleeper services), and more importantly, China Railways owns the whole goshdarn thing. It's not infrequent that Amtrak trains are late because they're caught behind slow freights; in the common-carrier days and in China, passenger trains always get priority. This is simply not the case in the US today.

As far as solving it, east of the Rockies there are three approaches:

- Return to the common-carrier model. Thing is, it's not at all clear such a model would work in the developed world today. European railroads are extremely passenger-friendly and North American ones freight-friendly. Under such a model, passenger requirements (i.e. general 110+ mph service, slots enough for multiple tpd, if not hourly, between major markets, etc.) would drive freight equipment and transport requirements (shorter, faster trains, perhaps under wire). The nature of British freight rail suggests it could work, but can their little intermodal drags and merry-go-rounds scale up transcontinental unit trains?

- Nationalize everything and have freight and passenger trunklines planned in a unified manner. Problems are (1) nationalization is expensive and (2) politically unpalatable. Also there was an opportunity, when Conrail was rebuilt out of the ashes of the failed Northeastern rail net, to do just this which we didn't take advantage of (of course Conrail spent a decade fixing the massive deferred-maintenance issues that had piled up on every Penn Central line)

- Separate provision of the physical infrastructure from equipment operation, as the Brits have done. This would still amount to a partial nationalization, but could be more salable to both freight operators (assume liabilities) and the general public (point out roads are a social good). In such a system, the infrastructure provider is in charge of physical plant maintenance and dispatch; they sell slots for freight and passenger services. The problem here is that the profitability of such a system essentially requires systematic undermaintenance of the physical plant, so (as the Brits learned the hard way) if you go this route the infrastructure provider basically has to be, at the very least, a nonprofit. Needless to say, you still get the ability to designate passenger and freight routes -- but now you don't have to assume operations.

Through the Rockies and west of them it's likely new cutoff routes for through services will have to be provided in any case.
__________________

Last edited by hammersklavier; July 21st, 2015 at 07:22 AM.
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 09:46 AM   #2937
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Well current Chinese practice isn't much different from American practice in the early 20th century, when both freight and passenger services were run by private companies. Mainly China uses a combination of widespread electrification, better track maintenance, and laxer safety standards to run lighter, faster freight trains than the exceptionally heavy ones you see in the US.

There are also significant changes in the way freight is handled than half a century ago that make passenger service integration more difficult. Obviously, American trains are bigger and heavier -- but this also makes them extremely slow to accelerate and major slots hogs (the tradeoff being that since you can run multiple orders of magnitude more freight per slot than in e.g. Europe, you don't need as many slots to run it). American railroads generally refuse to invest in modern signaling systems or mainline electrification. There has been little to no investment in cutoffs for a century. Generally, parallel mainlines are run by competing freight services rather than having a freight-designated main (perhaps with light passenger service, if needed) and a passenger-designated one. And so on. And the best solutions east of the Rockies, where there are usually duplicate lines between any given city pair, are hardly useful west of them, where there generally aren't.

China doesn't really have any of these problems. Sure, they run bigger, heavier freights than the Europeans (blame buffer-and-chains couplings!) but they're neither as big or as heavy as modern American freights -- closer to midcentury freights, actually -- their trains have acceleration profiles closer to that of heavy passenger trains (like sleeper services), and more importantly, China Railways owns the whole goshdarn thing. It's not infrequent that Amtrak trains are late because they're caught behind slow freights; in the common-carrier days and in China, passenger trains always get priority. This is simply not the case in the US today.

As far as solving it, east of the Rockies there are three approaches:

- Return to the common-carrier model. Thing is, it's not at all clear such a model would work in the developed world today. European railroads are extremely passenger-friendly and North American ones freight-friendly. Under such a model, passenger requirements (i.e. general 110+ mph service, slots enough for multiple tpd, if not hourly, between major markets, etc.) would drive freight equipment and transport requirements (shorter, faster trains, perhaps under wire). The nature of British freight rail suggests it could work, but can their little intermodal drags and merry-go-rounds scale up transcontinental unit trains?

- Nationalize everything and have freight and passenger trunklines planned in a unified manner. Problems are (1) nationalization is expensive and (2) politically unpalatable. Also there was an opportunity, when Conrail was rebuilt out of the ashes of the failed Northeastern rail net, to do just this which we didn't take advantage of (of course Conrail spent a decade fixing the massive deferred-maintenance issues that had piled up on every Penn Central line)

- Separate provision of the physical infrastructure from equipment operation, as the Brits have done. This would still amount to a partial nationalization, but could be more salable to both freight operators (assume liabilities) and the general public (point out roads are a social good). In such a system, the infrastructure provider is in charge of physical plant maintenance and dispatch; they sell slots for freight and passenger services. The problem here is that the profitability of such a system essentially requires systematic undermaintenance of the physical plant, so (as the Brits learned the hard way) if you go this route the infrastructure provider basically has to be, at the very least, a nonprofit. Needless to say, you still get the ability to designate passenger and freight routes -- but now you don't have to assume operations.

Through the Rockies and west of them it's likely new cutoff routes for through services will have to be provided in any case.
Can AMTRAK just buy the railways? Average speeds for normal trains needs to be at least 70 mph to be competitive with car travel.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015, 11:04 AM   #2938
hammersklavier
Feral
 
hammersklavier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 597
Likes (Received): 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by ren0312 View Post
Can AMTRAK just buy the railways? Average speeds for normal trains needs to be at least 70 mph to be competitive with car travel.
... you're asking for a chronically underfunded agency to come up with the capital to purchase large sections of the American railroad net?



Lemme put it this way. BNSF, the largest Class I railroad, is currently worth $44 billion. There are three other Class I railroads (Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, CSX) and part of a fourth (Canadian National) Amtrak would have to purchase, all worth somewhere in the same range ... so we're talking about $100 billion or more here, easily. Amtrak's funding for this year is $1.4 billion. You're looking at an organization whose total value is maybe 2% of the capital needed for the task.

Not only that, but Amtrak doesn't exactly have the world's greatest history of efficient operations management, and no freight handling experience whatsoever. At the scale of what would have to be done to actually begin seeing a revival of American passenger rail at scale, Amtrak is so small as to be a non-entity.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
hammersklavier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 10:51 AM   #2939
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,340
Likes (Received): 26131

Describtion of photo:

Quote:
As an Amtrak Cascades train passes on the left, crews use an excavator and loader to move existing track and install a new rail turnout as part of the Kelso Martin’s Bluff – Toteff Siding Extension project near Kalama in July 2015. This is one of 20 WSDOT high-speed rail projects that will be completed by 2017

Kelso Martin&#x27;s Bluff -Toteff Siding Extension work July 2015 by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr
__________________
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2015, 10:25 PM   #2940
hmmwv
Registered User
 
hmmwv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,391
Likes (Received): 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Well current Chinese practice isn't much different from American practice in the early 20th century, when both freight and passenger services were run by private companies. Mainly China uses a combination of widespread electrification, better track maintenance, and laxer safety standards to run lighter, faster freight trains than the exceptionally heavy ones you see in the US.

There are also significant changes in the way freight is handled than half a century ago that make passenger service integration more difficult. Obviously, American trains are bigger and heavier -- but this also makes them extremely slow to accelerate and major slots hogs (the tradeoff being that since you can run multiple orders of magnitude more freight per slot than in e.g. Europe, you don't need as many slots to run it). American railroads generally refuse to invest in modern signaling systems or mainline electrification. There has been little to no investment in cutoffs for a century. Generally, parallel mainlines are run by competing freight services rather than having a freight-designated main (perhaps with light passenger service, if needed) and a passenger-designated one. And so on. And the best solutions east of the Rockies, where there are usually duplicate lines between any given city pair, are hardly useful west of them, where there generally aren't.

China doesn't really have any of these problems. Sure, they run bigger, heavier freights than the Europeans (blame buffer-and-chains couplings!) but they're neither as big or as heavy as modern American freights -- closer to midcentury freights, actually -- their trains have acceleration profiles closer to that of heavy passenger trains (like sleeper services), and more importantly, China Railways owns the whole goshdarn thing. It's not infrequent that Amtrak trains are late because they're caught behind slow freights; in the common-carrier days and in China, passenger trains always get priority. This is simply not the case in the US today.
Thanks for the insight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Chinese freight trains are similar in weight compare to American ones. They have all those super long and slow coal trains frequently seen on all railway lines, some at 20,000t total weight. There are also double decker container trains that slow down to a crawl at bends and in tunnels. On the other hand I routinely see long BNSF trains loaded with Weyerhaeuser paper rolls and timber doing close to 65mph along the Portland-Seattle corridor. I'm sure there are faster ones out there, if that's the case the speed is pretty comparable to Chinese's fastest freight trains (120kph or 74mph). Remember a significant number of Chinese freight locomotives are imported American ones or derived from them, modern Chinese electric locos are largely based on the EuroSprinter series though.
__________________
The building under construction next to Shanghai Tower is Oriental Financial Center. The "plot" next to Jinmao is reserved green belt and no skyscraper will be built there.

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
hmmwv no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
marc, rail, train

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 09:36 AM.


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