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 March 19th, 2009, 08:13 AM   #881
TheMann2000
Toronto's Defender
 
TheMann2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 166
Likes (Received): 11

I just love this garbage:

Quote:
Amtrak is "poorly run and poorly managed," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, told CNN's Brianna Keilar on Tuesday.

"That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a train service, but we [shouldn't] give additional money and reward incompetency and inefficiency. If that's what the stimulus is about, we're in a whole lot worse trouble."
Amtrak doesn't even serve Oklahoma (I think) and these good 'ol GOP morons haven't learned yet that every form of transport gets subsidies. If it were me, I'd go a lot further than Biden did - I'd budget all the money to rebuild the Northeast Corridor to have a Shinkansen-style line just for the Acela, allowing it to go its full 200 mile an hour top speed, and in doing so bury the commuter airlines in the Northeast forever.

I would then focus on the triangle between Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. A plan was drawn up here to build a train based on the TGV, which of course got killed by heavy lobbying by Southwest. Payback time, Southwest - Again, this would almost certainly bury the commuter airlines.

These two lines alone would make life better for Amtrak financially - much more travel on their lines, much bigger profits on the (already profitable) Acela.

And memo to the GOP - don't ya think that electric-powered trains are good for US oil consumption instead of fuel-guzzling buses, cars and aircraft? Or do you just envision invading Venezuela next time instead of Iraq?
TheMann2000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 19th, 2009, 02:38 PM   #882
Facial
Seeking truth from facts
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles / San Diego
Posts: 636
Likes (Received): 10

What is with Republicans? Why do they regularly ignore the fact that Amtrak was created solely because the passenger services of virtually every private railroad in the U.S. became unprofitable?

And they wanted to privatize during Bush's height of ignorance? Give me a break! The privatized carve-ups wouldn't operate one percent more efficiently than Amtrak does now. They would begging to go back to the feds just like GM and Ford are doing now.

Nationalize the mainlines and nationalize Amtrak. Don't make it "for-profit" since that's just laughstock and a faux label to cover up pre-1971 failures of private railroads. Of course everyone would see that it is in the best interest of the corporation to operate with the least capital loss possible. Central planning keeps transfers and schedules coherent between different services, and regional partnerships, such as Amtrak California, already are quite sufficient in serving as positive role models for the rest of the system. There is no need for a "privatized" passenger railroad.
Facial no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2009, 06:26 PM   #883
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMann2000 View Post
Amtrak doesn't even serve Oklahoma (I think)
Heartland Flyer takes a daily trip from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, TX. While it takes about twice as long as driving, it certainly is a pleasant excursion, especially the part through the Arbuckle range in the south part of Oklahoma. It's also very popular; expansion up to Kansas City via Newton, KS is planned, linking the spur to the national network even further.

Coburn is a radical in the sense that if spending isn't for what he thinks are essential functions of government (usually military), then he is opposed to it. He rarely does what's in the state's best interest, and that has gotten even a bunch of Republicans mad at him. He most likely will not be re-elected in 2010.

And finally, coming from the Houston suburbs, both solidly GOP and oil company territory: no, they don't think reducing oil consumption is a good thing. The oil companies only care about profiting as much as possible, and the only way they can do that is selling as much oil product as possible.

Meanwhile, the Republicans both have a inherent distaste for public spending (for reasons way too convoluted and complicated to describe here, though my previous post is a good place to start), and are heavily supported in their campaigns by the oil industry. They don't want Amtrak because they think everyone should just use fuel as inefficiently as possible on the heavily-subsidized public roads (which they want to toll now, usually contracted out to foreign firms) since it makes said oil companies ridiculously profitable. And it isn't unlikely that there would be a push for invading Venezuela; remember who is the only winner in war: not the victorious army, but rather, the businesses who are flush with cash from wartime spending and now have a clear field for setting up shop in new territories.
ADCS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 06:48 AM   #884
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,867
Likes (Received): 18140

France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US
19 March 2009
Agence France Presse

The United States is ready for a truly high-speed rail system and France's national railway SNCF would be "very interested" in operating a network, a senior executive said Thursday.

"We strongly believe that in this country, in some of the corridors, the system should logically be profitable," SNCF International chairman Jean-Pierre Loubinoux said in an interview on the sidelines of a rail conference in Indiana.

While detailed market analysis still needs to be undertaken, Loubinoux said the French experience has shown that high-speed rail operates most effectively between large cities that are around 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (600 to 930 miles) apart.

These conditions exist in the east coast, California, the midwest, Texas and Florida.

"You could have more than just a corridor. You could have a system," he told AFP.

"If the possibility (of operating a network) is open we certainly would consider it with great interest."

The US government has allocated eight billion dollars for high-speed rail as part of a massive economic stimulus package and a number of states are competing for the money.

The bulk of the states are expected to propose incremental improvements to their rail systems by improving existing tracks in order to increase speeds from a maximum of 79 miles per hour to 110 or 150 miles per hour (127 kilometers per hour to 177 or 241 kilometers per hour.)

Loubinoux said the nation would be better off investing in a new, dedicated system with speeds of up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour.

There is "a lot of business potential to be considered," Loubinoux said, adding that the structure of the bidding process remains to be determined.

"Will it be just a build and transfer of technology, will it be maintenance and operation... commercial contracts, operating possibilities," he said.

"Definitely in some cases, especially in high-speed corridors... we could envisage participating in some operation systems."

The SNCF, which developed France's famed TGV series of high-speed trains in the 1970s, plans to submit proposals to the US railway authority, which expressed interest last fall in improving service in 11 rail corridors.

"What we can bring is our experience. It's been more than 25 years since we developed high-speed rail services."

Loubinoux is hopeful that the United States, which has long lagged in developing its passenger rail system, now has the political will to launch the massive investment needed.

"The economic and financial crisis worldwide seems to be a sort of catalyst to big, nationwide infrastructure programs," he added.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 07:16 AM   #885
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 aquablue View Post
I find it so incredibly frustrating (as a USA resident) that they can't get their finances and everything together to build a few lines of what they call "High speed rail" (110mph max).

China has dedicated 789billion dollars to rail -- 789b bloody dollars -- they have built a 1000mile Beijing-Shanghai link done in a paltry ammount of time. In the USA, the rail associations are so weak and they aim so low (i.e, calling a 110mph link HSR) that it is almost a joke... I am incredibly embarrased that they would even use that term - High Speed.

For example, the South East HSR and Mid West HSR from Richomd - Charlotte and Chicago to St. Louis. The web sites has been around for years with nothing happening. The timeline says it would take 10 years to start construction. All this for a slow-ass 110mph train link? This is just upgrading old freight tracks, how difficult could that be?

I thought Sen. Kerry knew what it takes to build a proper rail line in terms of costs, etc.. Then he proposes a tiny figure of 8billion for the entire country. How dissapointing, what a laugh.

WHY are they aiming so low, why are they so afraid to be bold and ask for the realistic sums of money required from the new gov?

WAKE UP USA. WAKE UP RAIL PEOPLE. HAVE SOME BACKBONE, STOP CALLING 110mph RAIL HIGH SPEED, ITS EMBARASSING.

Argentina is about to build a HSR link now, and we are waiting until 2012 to even start construction on the CA HSR....

WHY IS IT SO SLOW HERE? I seriously think that there is a conspiracy against rail in this country from business (taxis, airlines, right wing conservative rural people) and it makes me so incredibly angry and sad to see this country standing still while the rest of the developed and developing world race ahead with ambition.

China is building thousands of kms of HSR --- and here we give into rural or conservative people who have a love affair with the car and the airplane...well, i'm fed up with these idiots.
Short answer: We let NIMBY's run our country. Unlike China, where NIMBY's get nothing more than a note on their door that says GTFO, we hold meetings for these idiots and actually listen to what they say. Then we have to do studies and what not and report our findings back to them, only for them to ignore it and kill any and all projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
AMericans seem to be so completely stupid that they are oblivious to the problems with transportation in their own country.

On top of that you have mentally retarded conservatives that see the railroad as a symbol for socialism and planning, which to them represents unwanted government intervention in the marketplace, as if the market built the freeways and roads they love in the first place.

Republicans hate anything that doesn't burn coal or oil.

It is a sick and sad state of affairs in which we live.
+1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotavento View Post
This is a missconception ...


Tram«s were replaced by buses because these had advantages that culd not be used by trams (namely one had to build tram tracks everywhere) .. .and long distance trains lost big time to the plain when this entered the jet era ... same fate happened to steamers/trans-oceanic travell.

It just evolved ... trains didn't ... at least in the USA they didn't evolve.

for example in europe BUDD and Pullman coaches were a sign of "fast" rail travell so railways continuously made progress on rail infraestructure ... but in the end most of european railway companies ended up as a small group of nationalized railway companies.

in the USA they remained as fully private companies and adapted to ever changing conditions ... the passenger traffic in USA moved from rail to air/road in the same way that freight traffic moved from rail to road in europe.
Nowadays is much more dififcurt to recover the lost freight in europe that it would be to recover the passenger freight in the USA.
Actually General Motors and Michelin DID go buying up public transit networks only to shut them down and replace them with (GM built) buses. This is actual fact.
He Named Thor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 01:20 PM   #886
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Maybe I'm getting confused... but if states are upgrading a lot of track to run at 110mph or even 150mph, then that's pretty damn good.

Many HSR countries seem to neglect their other services. In the UK we don't really have credible HSR like France or Germany (except 3 lines at 125mph and the 186mph Eurostar). However we do operate more lines at 100mph+ in route length than any other EU state with very high frequencies. It does do the job well and passenger numbers continue to grow... even in recession one private rail company announced an increase in revenue. Traveling on conventional rail in HSR countries can be a tedious and painful experience. The USA it seems is going to have a first class conventional rail experience if all the upgrades are made.

There does also now seem to be momentum in connecting US populations with true HSR e.g. California.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 03:21 PM   #887
Chafford1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 130
Likes (Received): 0

110mph services are a sensible first step, given that the kind of funds the Chinese are pouring into their railways won't be available in the USA. Following Obama's recent $8 billion initiative, US railroads should start seeing some progress once the funding has been allocated in April.

Another point worth mentioning about the Chinese is that they don't take into account the wishes of the people when developing their infrastructure. If your house is in the path of a new line, tough.
Chafford1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 06:04 PM   #888
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
Maybe I'm getting confused... but if states are upgrading a lot of track to run at 110mph or even 150mph, then that's pretty damn good.

Many HSR countries seem to neglect their other services. In the UK we don't really have credible HSR like France or Germany (except 3 lines at 125mph and the 186mph Eurostar). However we do operate more lines at 100mph+ in route length than any other EU state with very high frequencies. It does do the job well and passenger numbers continue to grow... even in recession one private rail company announced an increase in revenue. Traveling on conventional rail in HSR countries can be a tedious and painful experience. The USA it seems is going to have a first class conventional rail experience if all the upgrades are made.

There does also now seem to be momentum in connecting US populations with true HSR e.g. California.
That has been more my line of thinking over the last few months which in contract to before I was thinking there should be more fosuc on short dedicated HSR lines. If the U.S. could just get much of the sytem at a 100-115mph consistant pace over much if its sytem that would really be a great improvement and cost a fraction in contrast to dedicated ROW HSR.

On certain segements dedicated HSR could still make sense on some routes but just as much attention should be made to upgrading to a 100-115mph standard. Right now with 55-75mph mph avg. with frequant delays that is the standard right now is not sustainable for longtime viability of the system.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 06:25 PM   #889
JoKo65
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotavento View Post
Only the british can claim the diesel-HST crown ... 125 classed HST 's , Virgin Voiagers (and others similar in the UK) and the failing ICE-VT of DB are basically the only ones running daily at speeds of 125mph around the globe under diesel power.
[…]
You mean ICE TD.
__________________
L'Amerique? C'est l'évolution de la barbarie ŕ la décadence, sans toucher la culture.
JoKo65 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 08:35 PM   #890
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

(ignoring the partisan political cheap shots - there is plenty of blame to go around)

I applaud the proposal from SNCF. Deride the French all you want (and I do on a lot of fronts), but they do know how to handle electric power systems and they do know how to run a railroad - their TGV ('Train ŕ Grande Vitesse' - literally 'Very Fast Train') services have devastated the French domestic airlines.

IMHO, the biggest roadblocks for them here in the USA will be the FRA collision rules (I would go with the European rules and IMHO, highway grade crossings are a much bigger passenger safety threat than are freight trains); tax treatment of railroad rights-of-way; interfacing with the private freight railroads; NIMBY! and, likely the biggest impediment of all, ROW acquisition cost.

Imagine trying to build a new-ROW TGV-style line between NYC and Boston.



When Amtrak was developing their Acela service, they did consider 'unkinking' the NEC through Connecticut, but opted instead to run the train slower and add 'tilting' technology to the trainsets because of the out-of-sight prohibitive cost (mostly involving ROW acquisition) of straightening the track, which hugs the coastline through much of the state (how many total 'full circles' of curvature are there on the NEC between NYC and Boston?).

Similar costs and roadblocks, though not to that extreme level, will face them elsewhere in the USA.

That said, in addition to what was written in the above article and assuming that it can be built, I believe that a TGV-style service can also work between Chicago and the northeastern USA - especially with the several major cities along the way.

The airlines are best for long-distance (1000-1500km+ one-way) common-carrier travel. Rails are best for the shorter hops.

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 10:43 PM   #891
DWNTWN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 130
Likes (Received): 91

I applaud the French for taking the initiative. Clearly, the SNCF works and as time has shown, we need a foreign country to show the naysayers about HSR in the U.S. -NIMBYs included- how it has worked in their countries and how it can link cities here, shortening travel times and improving efficiency in travel. These guys need to start pitching HSR in terms of passenger comfort as well considering that on a flight connecting Miami to Orlando (i.e.) one would be treated to uncomfortable seats with what the airlines call "leg-room", no food, and a 2.5 ft.-wide aisle to walk the length of the plane to stretch (not to mention the incredible hassles associated with security checkpoints at airports). Instead, with an HSR line, one could do point-to-point travel (in Miami the trains would arrive at a Central station just outside the airport, but have direct connections to Miami-Dade Transit, and the airport itself via an APM), have much more comfort on the trains with a bistro car, REAL leg-room, and a chance to walk around. Don't get me wrong, I love aviation -and always have-, I just think its time that we become more efficient in this country in terms of transportation and in that aspect HSR soars above air travel for distances such as the aforementioned.
DWNTWN no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 12:21 AM   #892
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Too much bailout money to the car makers. Not enough left for trains.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 01:37 AM   #893
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 37

I hear the FRA has to come up with a proposal to build it, perhaps Mr. Biden could help us by adopting the European rail standards to show support for high speed rail. Since we have Mr. Amtrak as the VP, we might be able to get some regional high speed trains completed.

Another reason we find it too hard to complete. Credit default swaps are worth more than transportation. It's the whole reason the financial system has gone haywire.
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:12 AM   #894
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3706

Quote:
Short answer: We let NIMBY's run our country. Unlike China, where NIMBY's get nothing more than a note on their door that says GTFO, we hold meetings for these idiots and actually listen to what they say. Then we have to do studies and what not and report our findings back to them, only for them to ignore it and kill any and all projects.
The US is not the only country that has problems with NIMBY's ruining things.
LtBk está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:52 AM   #895
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Yeah, but... please don't forget that DFW (That's Dallas-Fort Worth, ainnit?) is in itself a huge sprawl and there's not to my knowledge a very good local infrastructure (metros, commuter lines...). Which being so, you'd still need a car to get to/from a central HS station. The European experience is, you only get a really good load factor on highspeed trains when the end-stations of those trains are the hubs of strong local transport networks. Otherwise, what are passengers supposed to do? Drive to DFW highspeed station and leave their car there; then take the fast train to Houston; then rent a car in Huston? That's not realistic. In that case they'll drive.
DT Dallas is served by THREE light rail lines, so there are transit options.

Taking the train between Dallas and Houston would be FAR faster than driving. That is the advantage. HSR is targeted to replace short haul flights, not driving.

And Houston does have plans to build a new intercity rail terminal serviced by light rail in addition to building an E-W light rail line, so most of the city will be accessible via rail in the next ten years.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 01:55 PM   #896
mramelet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Utrecht, NL
Posts: 129
Likes (Received): 29

I hope the US will follow the french for their HST, but forget about what we did with their "common" train (regional and intercities outside TGV)
The issue in France is that the TGV has been seen as the "king" of the rails, and no investment has been done on the rest of the network
The result is that the secondary network is devastated.
Probably this would have happened without the TGV as well, as we had here - like everywhere else- a period where cars seemed to be the only thing that did matter.
Unfortunately we didn't save the freight which is performing very poor in France, compared to Germany for example.
I propose a deal : HST against freight expertise :-)
mramelet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:39 PM   #897
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 756
Likes (Received): 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
DT Dallas is served by THREE light rail lines, so there are transit options.

Taking the train between Dallas and Houston would be FAR faster than driving. That is the advantage. HSR is targeted to replace short haul flights, not driving.
Yeah, sure Hoosier, but I think you miss a couple of my points. Taking last things first, I agree a high-speed train is much faster than driving, but you'll never get a high-speed train between - say - Orange County and Modesto. (You may get a TRAIN, but it will have to stop 5-8 times to pick up enough passengers to make it viable.) It'll be between central LA and central SF. Which being so, it all hangs on how fast you get from central LA (or central Houston) to the suburbs - without a car.

You're of course right that HSR is tageted to replace short haul flights - but, unlike cars, flights are much faster than trains. Again, the whole argument hangs on railway stations being much more conveniently located than airports. In Europe this is generally the case: our cities are so concentrated, and only the smallest hillbilly cities have not at least 5-6 metro lines. Therefore, people like the train: City centre to city centre is the best possible kind of transport. Only....

...I'm not sure it will work in Texas. People can take a cap from the airport every bit as well as they can take a cap from the (highspeed) railway station.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 03:24 AM   #898
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Göteborg
Posts: 2,333
Likes (Received): 9

I guess all the resources went to bail out the bank institutions...

__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 05:36 AM   #899
philvia
Registered User
 
philvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nyc
Posts: 1,022
Likes (Received): 33

i dont think the US needs a nation wide network of HSR - its too big and too expensive. Before anyone says anything, i'm a HSR ADDICT, i love fast trains... going to school to hopefully one day be in charge of constructing them but I think that they should only serve regional cities that have good mass transit... with airplanes connecting the longer distances.
philvia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 05:57 AM   #900
Yrmom247
Parabolic
 
Yrmom247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tampa
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 0

The US has a hard time building HSR because we reformed this country to be built around the car and the airplane. But I see another reform in the future because of our plan for renewable energies. Sun powering trains is way less expensive and more efficient than driving or flying. And I believe Obama realizes that or definitely won't be a stranger to the idea.
__________________
VANCOUVER 2010 SOCHI 2014!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I may be paranoid, but no android.
Yrmom247 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 02:24 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