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 > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



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 August 23rd, 2010, 01:46 PM   #4201
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

I like the idea, but would really keep Marylebone open as a station for slower Birmingham services and other trains that won't be able to fit into Euston anymore come HS2.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 23rd, 2010, 07:06 PM   #4202
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,879
Likes (Received): 66

What is the arrangement of the small parts of the Underground that lie outside of the GLA boundary? Do the local councils have to financially contribute?

Also, how many instances does the Underground share tracks with National Rail services and what is the arrangement in terms of ownership & maintenence etc?
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 08:48 PM   #4203
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Fenchurch Street is currently 8tph off peak, and 20tph peak. Marylebone (ignoring Wrexham and Shropshire) is currently 8tph off peak and ~20tph peak (I just counted trains this hour 1800-1900 and it was 20) - add in higher frequencies on inner services (West Ruislip, Grays, etc) and the Chesham/Amersham Met line services, you'll get perhaps 12tph (3x4tph:Shoeburyness, Laindon and Grays) off peak on c2c, but then 16tph on the other end, unless you drop Birmingham (2tph, but I haven't got the 2tph Oxford trains, so drop them as well) and Bicester North (1tph) - you can get rid of the 1tph Wycombe stoppers, so I guess if you just stick with the 2 Aylesbury routes, then that's 12tph (4 West Ruislip, 2 Aylesbury via Am, 2 Aylesbury via HW, 2 Amersham, 2 Chesham). Peak with the upped frequencies you could get 20tph (you'd have it as a branch of the CML, so you have to allow for 5 or 6 trains on the core bit from the Portal to Neasden Junction) through Central London. Now all you need is a route - how about Tower (sort of under current Fenchurch Street ish), Bank/Cannon Street (with exits from the ends of the platforms to Mansion House and Monument), Ludgate Circus (with the west exit being near the Temple, and the east one at Blackfriars and City Thameslink), Tottenham Court Road (after all, that is megahub number 1 - southeastern exit towards Covent Garden) and Baker Street/Marylebone?

My preferred plan for c2c would be to, having split Crossrail into 2, is to take the Grays via Rainham branch, up the frequency and have that go via Stratford and onto that Crossrail route (on a new alignment through Central London to SWT area). The rest (Upminster routes) would be served by a new tunnel from the Isle of Dogs to West Ham. West Ham to Fenchurch Street would be either removed, or DLRed (you can extend it along the Northern Outfall Sewer if you want). You'd do something else with the Marylebone routes.

AFAICS, at least one of the four routes (DLR/c2c/West Anglia-Lea Valley/GEML fast) needs extending to the West End, if not beyond. The GEML fasts have Stratford to change onto, but congestion will always be a problem unless you take the Jubilee. The West Anglia and Lea Valley services have the Victoria line for quick access to the West End, I guess, but that's pretty congested. c2c has change at Barking/West Ham onto the District, which isn't the fastest and is rather congested. The DLR has the JLE and Crossrail, and while the latter will be congested, the former will be quiet enough.

The DLR is probably the worst choice, not least because making the current crowding heading into Bank worse would suck - Barbican or Liverpool Street (providing some distribution of passengers, so it doesn't all get dumped at Bank) would be a far better extension than Charing Cross and Victoria. This leaves the Lea Valley, GEML fasts and c2c - c2c is nicely self-contained, and brilliant for extending westwards.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 09:40 PM   #4204
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
What is the arrangement of the small parts of the Underground that lie outside of the GLA boundary? Do the local councils have to financially contribute?
That would make sense although I don't know for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
Also, how many instances does the Underground share tracks with National Rail services and what is the arrangement in terms of ownership & maintenence etc?
1) Gunnersbury to Richmond (District Line / LOROL) - Owned / maintained by NR. The ownership boundary is in fact halfway between Gunnersbury and Turnham Green, at the former site of Acton lane Junction. Signalled by Richmond signal box.

2) East Putney to Wimbledon (District Line / SWT) - Owned by LU / maintained, signalled and electrified by NR. No timetabled passenger SWT services, but plenty of empties to / from Wimbledon Park Depot. Was BR property until 1994 (the boundary used to be halfway across Putney Bridge), when LU purchased the branch for £1. It was a nominal price because the 'Thames bubbler' aeration barge (for the benefit of Thames wildlife in summer) rammed Putney Bridge, which required millions of pounds worth of repairs, which BR were not prepared to pay for as their trains didn't use the bridge. The agreement was that BR would continue to control signalling on the branch from Wimbledon Signalling Control Centre, and as a consequence NR rules apply even though LU own it.

3) Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone (Bakerloo Line / LOROL) - Owned / maintained by NR, although Stonebridge Park Depot is LU property. Signalled by Wembley Signalling Control Centre (used to be Willesden Suburban box).

4) Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham (Metropolitan Line / Chiltern) - Owned / maintained / signalled by LU. The actual boundary is a 2km distance beyond Amersham at Mantles Wood.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 04:19 AM   #4205
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,672
Likes (Received): 678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'd love to see a Crossrail that 'does' something with the C2C route... The attraction being that the entire C2C network feeds along 2 tracks between Barking and just outside Fenchurch Street, so putting it underground could completely remove the need for Fenchurch Street station. Ideally, at the other end the tunnel would connect with the Chiltern route into Marylebone and thus completely overtake that network, but it would entail a lot of investment in terms of electrification... Potentially all the way to Kidderminster if service patterns remain the same. Would also allow the Met to be cut back to Watford / Uxbridge only and full segregation between NR and LU along the 4-track section Watford South Junction to Harrow-on-the-hill.

Maybe electrification could initially just take place to Aylesbury (both routes), with longer-distance trains to Banbury and Birmingham remaining diesel and working via the original GWR Birmingham main line from South Ruislip to Old Oak Common and thence to Paddington (I guess Crossrail 1 will free up some platform capacity at Paddington).

Between Fenchurch St and Marylebone the tunnel section could serve Bank (with Fenchurch St closed completely), City Thameslink, Tottenham Court Road and Baker Street (with Marylebone NR closing completely).

A pretty useful cross-London route with good City and West End station locations, relatively short tunnel (compared to Crossrail 1 and 2), interchanges with Crossrails 1, 2 and Thameslink, and a growing hinterland with towns like Basildon, High Wycombe, Aylesbury, Grays and Southend served.
Considering the constraints on all London terminals and their approaches, I would never consider closing a London terminal. C2C train paths are full Chiltern still has some growth left with the current infrastructure investment.

So I agree with Sotonsi that the tunnel needs to go as far a the split for the Rainham loop. But I don't think we should divert anything in to Liverpool street. A new tunnel would effectively mean a four track approach to Fenchurch street, with it becoming a peak only terminal.

I don't think we can suddenly divert services to other terminals because of crossrail, as the release in capacity it provides, would be very useful for longer distance services for their own lines.

By the time we are discussing a crossrail between Fenchurch St and marleybone I suspect the Chiltern Mainline will have already been electrified anyway. The idea for cutting back the Met to just Watford and Uxbridge with the new branch taking over all services to Aylesbury was effectively the strategy for the first crossrail scheme when there were two branches in the West and one in the East to Shenfield. with the paths Watford and Uxbridge could a cuple of extra trains an hour.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 08:50 AM   #4206
metroranger
Registered User
 
metroranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St Ratford (it's being gentrified)
Posts: 1,665
Likes (Received): 1730

Talking about Fenchurch Street, would it be possible to terminate a new overground service there using the link between Stratford and Limehouse.
Fenchurch Street - Stratford - Angel Lane - Waltham Cross.
With the Olympics and Stratford City east London could do with some more north south services.
metroranger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 08:50 PM   #4207
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I presume the latter if either... Bit of a random question, what prompted it?

The Bakerloo Line used to serve Bushey station en route to Watford Junction, and this would have been the destination for trains stabling in Croxley Depot... So I guess Bakerloo trains used to show a 'Bushey' destination at times?
funny, one of my relatives (living in London) is nicknamed "Bushey" (or Bushi, or Bushy - never saw anyone spell his nickname) - now I know where the name might have come from.

Tubeman, what do you think of the issue of HS2 being tunneled under Primrose Hill (among other neighbourhoods, I guess) - I read a few papers that said that this was a big concern for the residents but they were afraid of speaking out.

Also, is there a plan to extend the DLR westwards from Bank to service the city? I recall seeing something like that on a map of proposed extension, about 1 year back.

Cheers, m
__________________
Follow TRANSIT - the Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit

w. http://transitmy.org
e. [email protected]
tw. http://twitter.com/transitmy
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/TRANSI...12392362108880

Last edited by allurban; August 25th, 2010 at 08:59 PM.
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 10:53 PM   #4208
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Bank is right in the middle of the city - do you mean the Charing Cross & Victoria extension - that seems to be a long term aim (one of the worst DLR extensions from Bank that gave a positive BCR with another bit added on and the worst line for that corridor - Crossrail closely parallels it and the Jubilee helps too), but is really little more than a TfL pipedream.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2010, 08:02 AM   #4209
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Bank is right in the middle of the city - do you mean the Charing Cross & Victoria extension - that seems to be a long term aim (one of the worst DLR extensions from Bank that gave a positive BCR with another bit added on and the worst line for that corridor - Crossrail closely parallels it and the Jubilee helps too), but is really little more than a TfL pipedream.
yeah, that is the one that I'm referring to. I sometimes forget that "city" means "The City" when it comes to London.

But yes, the extension to Charing Cross and Victoria is the one I am referring to.

Cheers, m
__________________
Follow TRANSIT - the Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit

w. http://transitmy.org
e. [email protected]
tw. http://twitter.com/transitmy
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/TRANSI...12392362108880
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2010, 09:01 PM   #4210
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by metroranger View Post
Talking about Fenchurch Street, would it be possible to terminate a new overground service there using the link between Stratford and Limehouse.
Fenchurch Street - Stratford - Angel Lane - Waltham Cross.
With the Olympics and Stratford City east London could do with some more north south services.
The two problems with that service are that the Gas Factory Junction - Bow Junction section is single track (not an enormous problem), and that these trains would have to cross the GER main line on the level between Bow Junction and Stratford... The crossover is there, but there would be a lot of conflicting train movements as a result.

The latter is a show-stopper I fear.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2010, 09:07 PM   #4211
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
Tubeman, what do you think of the issue of HS2 being tunneled under Primrose Hill (among other neighbourhoods, I guess) - I read a few papers that said that this was a big concern for the residents but they were afraid of speaking out.
I'm aghast at how much money is being proposed to be spent on HS2 when so many billions of £ have just been spent on the WCML upgrade.

I guess the Primrose Hill objectors are just being fairly typical nimbys... Yes they might have a bit of vibration during tunnelling, but large tracts of east London has had HS1 tunnelled underneath and although there was a famous sinkhole appear in some back gardens (in Manor Park I think?), beyond that I'm not aware of any lasting issues from trains passing below property.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2010, 10:56 PM   #4212
Harrow + London
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 2

Surely trains passing under Primrose Hill would be too close to Euston to be travelling fast enough to disturb residents above

Also, how deep underground could a sub-surface train run? Would it be possible to dig a tunnel deep underground? Cos I was thinking if the Isle of Dogs becomes heavily developed with high-rises (as it currently is) it would need a transport solution to absorb the heavy traffic expected (which the DLR wouldn't be able to handle). A sub-surface line running north to South along the Isle would do this well, and the Metropolitan line, from Aldgate, could run south-east along Commercial Road, onto the Canary Wharf stations, and then on to the south of the Isle. Far-fetched, but extending the Met line to Canary Wharf has been talked about briefly somewhere. I just wanted to know if the line could be dug deep enough to traverse the Docks and avoid digging up roads and demolishing buildings.

Last edited by Harrow + London; August 27th, 2010 at 11:16 PM.
Harrow + London no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2010, 05:46 AM   #4213
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I guess the Primrose Hill objectors are just being fairly typical nimbys...
heheheh from what I got from the article, the residents who are speaking out (anonymously, it seems) are not "typical" nimbys (many are famous residents of London, celebrities, etc) but are quick to point out that theirs is a mixed neighbourhood with all levels of incomes - in other words, they are trying to be typical nimbys.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. HS2 interests me alot because of the potential of High Speed Rail to revive English cities from the northwest of London up to Birmingham.

Cheers, m
__________________
Follow TRANSIT - the Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit

w. http://transitmy.org
e. [email protected]
tw. http://twitter.com/transitmy
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/TRANSI...12392362108880
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2010, 07:43 AM   #4214
metroranger
Registered User
 
metroranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St Ratford (it's being gentrified)
Posts: 1,665
Likes (Received): 1730

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The two problems with that service are that the Gas Factory Junction - Bow Junction section is single track (not an enormous problem), and that these trains would have to cross the GER main line on the level between Bow Junction and Stratford... The crossover is there, but there would be a lot of conflicting train movements as a result.

The latter is a show-stopper I fear.
Thanks Tubeman - just Stratford to Broxbourne perhaps?
metroranger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2010, 11:44 AM   #4215
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrow + London View Post
Surely trains passing under Primrose Hill would be too close to Euston to be travelling fast enough to disturb residents above

Also, how deep underground could a sub-surface train run? Would it be possible to dig a tunnel deep underground? Cos I was thinking if the Isle of Dogs becomes heavily developed with high-rises (as it currently is) it would need a transport solution to absorb the heavy traffic expected (which the DLR wouldn't be able to handle). A sub-surface line running north to South along the Isle would do this well, and the Metropolitan line, from Aldgate, could run south-east along Commercial Road, onto the Canary Wharf stations, and then on to the south of the Isle. Far-fetched, but extending the Met line to Canary Wharf has been talked about briefly somewhere. I just wanted to know if the line could be dug deep enough to traverse the Docks and avoid digging up roads and demolishing buildings.
Provided TBMs are utilised and the tunnels bored no limit really... I assume you're referring to a north-south route traversing the Isle of Dogs? Yes certainly the Metropolitan Line ending at Aldgate leads to wasted capacity, but the trouble with extending a subsurface line as opposed to a Tube line is cost, as the tunnels need to be much larger diameter. Ventilation would be a consideration also, as the S Stock have air con so there'd be a build-up of heat in the tunnels unless there was effective extraction.

The office / commercial area of the Isle of Dogs is discrete and dense, and will be well served by Jubilee Line, Crossrail and DLR. The rest of the island is residential, with some very large council estates which I assume don't house much in the way of Canary Wharf workers... The private apartments are typically around the perimeter of the island along the river front so I don't think an arterial railway 'spine' down the middle of the island would help that much moving these people to their offices, certainly if anything DLR serves this purpose already.

I guess many CW workers who live on the island just walk to work, I guess nowhere on the island is more than 30 minutes walk from CW.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2010, 11:47 AM   #4216
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by metroranger View Post
Thanks Tubeman - just Stratford to Broxbourne perhaps?
There already is a Broxbourne-Stratford service! 1tph
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2010, 11:56 AM   #4217
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
Considering the constraints on all London terminals and their approaches, I would never consider closing a London terminal. C2C train paths are full Chiltern still has some growth left with the current infrastructure investment.

So I agree with Sotonsi that the tunnel needs to go as far a the split for the Rainham loop. But I don't think we should divert anything in to Liverpool street. A new tunnel would effectively mean a four track approach to Fenchurch street, with it becoming a peak only terminal.

I don't think we can suddenly divert services to other terminals because of crossrail, as the release in capacity it provides, would be very useful for longer distance services for their own lines.

By the time we are discussing a crossrail between Fenchurch St and marleybone I suspect the Chiltern Mainline will have already been electrified anyway. The idea for cutting back the Met to just Watford and Uxbridge with the new branch taking over all services to Aylesbury was effectively the strategy for the first crossrail scheme when there were two branches in the West and one in the East to Shenfield. with the paths Watford and Uxbridge could a cuple of extra trains an hour.
I just like the idea of 'tidying up' the number of termini, especially as Marylebone and Fenchurch Street aren't particularly well connected to the Tube. Of course if we're talking tunnels from Barking to Neasden then yes there's a doubling of potential capacity on the C2C and Chiltern routes, but a tunnel this length defeats the point on my 'cheapo Crossrail' notion as it's several times longer.

Marylebone is a pretty significant chunk of prime real estate which would be a plus in terms of financing the project too.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2010, 09:28 PM   #4218
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Provided TBMs are utilised and the tunnels bored no limit really... I assume you're referring to a north-south route traversing the Isle of Dogs? Yes certainly the Metropolitan Line ending at Aldgate leads to wasted capacity, but the trouble with extending a subsurface line as opposed to a Tube line is cost, as the tunnels need to be much larger diameter. Ventilation would be a consideration also, as the S Stock have air con so there'd be a build-up of heat in the tunnels unless there was effective extraction.
The air con issue could probably be solved by some automatic system that turns the AC off when traveling in deep level tunnels. Perhaps it could be included in track-to-train-data transmitted by a future signaling system? Compared to the lenght of Baker Street - Watford/Amersham/Uxbridge, a deep level extention is probably only a short part of the total line. If the air con is switched on for most of the line.

(In theory, empty stock movements could even have the air con running in reverse mode, I.E. heating the train thus cooling off the tunnels a tiny bit. In practice doing so probably have a negligible effect).


How big is the cost difference between subsurface and tube size when using TBM's?

Last edited by MiaM; August 31st, 2010 at 09:33 PM.
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2010, 12:57 AM   #4219
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
The air con issue could probably be solved by some automatic system that turns the AC off when traveling in deep level tunnels. Perhaps it could be included in track-to-train-data transmitted by a future signaling system? Compared to the lenght of Baker Street - Watford/Amersham/Uxbridge, a deep level extention is probably only a short part of the total line. If the air con is switched on for most of the line.

(In theory, empty stock movements could even have the air con running in reverse mode, I.E. heating the train thus cooling off the tunnels a tiny bit. In practice doing so probably have a negligible effect).


How big is the cost difference between subsurface and tube size when using TBM's?
Blimey... Dunno...

Tube tunnels are about 3.5m diameter whereas surface stock single bore tunnels (e.g. Crossrail) are 6.2m... My rudimentary maths makes that a cross-sectional area of 9.6m2 versus 30.2m2, so a pretty big differential.

Of course the vast bulk of the cost will be stations, track, signalling, etc which have to be built regardless of tunnel diameter and so it's not as if Crossrail will cost 3 x a Tube line per km built just because there's 3 x spoil removed.

It is a definite that a Tube tunnel is cheaper to build per km than a full-size tunnel, but I don't know by how much.

Regarding air con being switched off for deep-level sections, yes of course it can be... I'd suggest an opening at the southern end (e.g. continuing to Lewisham to take over the Hayes branch) would be desirable otherwise it'd just end up being a dead-end stuffy tunnel like the Bakerloo Line is (and very hot as a consequence).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2010, 01:09 AM   #4220
JohnNotts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 0

Plaistow

An incident (probably over dramatised) has been reported where a train that had "turned" at Plaistow proceeded westwards on the eastbound line.

My recollection is that a train that turns there leaves the station on the eastbound line and then crosses over, so presumably the signal cleared with the crossover points set wrongly.

Shouldn't that be prevented by interlocking?
JohnNotts no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

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 06:38 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