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 November 29th, 2010, 09:28 PM   #4281
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by London Underground View Post
Ok, let me put it this way: I saw a picture of a model of the third(green) prototype painted in the current red, white and blue corporate livery.

Does that ring any bells?
Hmmm no, sorry... It seems a bit odd, as the corporate livery wasn't invented until the 1990's so the 1986 stock precede it. In the early 1990's there were still several variations of the red, white & blue (some with no red aside from the cab ends) being trialled. Quite a few of the 1972 and 1959 stock trains on the Northern Line when I worked it had odd liveries that had been applied for customer feedback before the current corporate livery was settled on.

I have the LU handbook from 1997 when I joined (all new entrants used to get a copy) and there's no photo of a corporate livery 1986 model in there.

Are you sure it wasn't an early model of a 1995 or 1996 stock prototype before they went into production? Would make more sense to me.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 30th, 2010, 12:01 AM   #4282
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

It looked exactly like the green 1986 prototype, with exactly the same livery as the current trains, but i did'nt read the text underneath... It might have been supposed to look like a 1995/96 stock car, but i dont know. I did'nt see when the book was made either.

But, would that make any differance?
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 05:32 PM   #4283
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Only because the photos in the handbook would be changed each new edition I'd expect.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 1995/96 stocks looked very similar to the 1986 stock when they were on the drawing board, just in corporate livery.

I'm guessing maybe you saw a version of the handbook from the early to mid 1990's when there was a model of the then proposed future train for the Northern / Jubilee Lines photographed in it?

Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 05:39 PM   #4284
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

I think you're right. Misstaken identity, i guess. There's no need for the little
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 06:54 PM   #4285
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

I'm back!

The reason why I asked most of the questions in my old post (4154) was that I had a perhaps crazy idea to make it possible to increase train frequency on the circle up to what's practically possible on a line without grade junctions.

As 30 TPH probably is good enough today then my idea is't really useable today, but sometime in the future it might be. Anyway, here it goes:

Let all trains running counter clockwise be circle trains.

Let all trains running clockwise be district trains, and let the district line take over both the northern and the southern part of the circle line. This would sadly mean bad interchanges between Hammersmith&City and the circle at Paddnington, and all travelers on the Metropolitan line would have to change at Baker Street.

By running this way there will be no conflicts at flat junction and therefore, with the right signalling equipment and probably ATO, train frequency could increase. As an increased frequency is only needed in the rush hours, this way of running trains would only be needed in the rush hour.

Some slight alternations could perhaps be done, for example in the moring rush ours some Metropolitan line trains could be let onto the circle away in the Upminster direction, but those trains would then be "lost" from the Metropolitan line until the morning rush is over.
Also, if there is a need for it, at Algate it would be possible to also running some clockwise circle trains, and in the Gloucester Road - High Street Kensington - Earls Court area it would be possible to choose between running some clockwise circle trains or some counterclockwise district trains. Another option in this area, if the sum of train frequency required on the District to Turnham Green and to Wimbledon would be higher than the maximum train frequency on the circle, would be to reconfigure platform usage and switches at Gloucester Road and (probably more complicated) at High Street Kensington so for example the Wimbledon trains could run from Earls Court to High Street Kensington, reverse there and go to Gloucester Road, and reverse again and go back to Wimbledon (or vice versa), while trains from Turnham Green goes to the northern part of the circle, and trains from the southern part of the circle goes to Turnham Green. (I'm using Turnham Green as a common name both for Richmond and Ealing Broadway services).



I also have a few new questions:

Has there been or are there any plans of a track connection between Hammersmith on the District line and Hammersmith on the Hammersmith and City line?

Has there been or are there any plans of building platforms at places where underground lines cross each other or where underground and NR lines cross each other? For example the Central line crosses the Metropolitan and the Picadilly line at Ruislip, Metropolitan crosses Bakerloo and NR near Northwick Park / Kenton, and the North London Line part of Overground, and also the Goblin, crosses underground lines at quite a few places without (good) interchange possibilites.

I understand that adding an interchange point would only be sensible if it would provide more benefits than drawbacks, and assume that it's a question of cost...
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2010, 10:14 PM   #4286
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

Ok, another question then:
Have you ever seen, in real life or in a picture, the 1973 stock units with the special Concorde side stickers and Terminal 4 destination blinds? It was according to the book* units 864 and 195.

*London Underground Stock from 1997
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 10:43 AM   #4287
Triple C
Registered User
 
Triple C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Antalya
Posts: 5,271
Likes (Received): 1724

OK, maybe my questions aren't about London but rail system.

1 - Are there any underground rails constructed with cut-cover method in London? In Antalya, Antray's Çallı-Meydan part works overground on former 2x2 avenues, and that cause bad traffic problems. The current mayor of city (the rail system was built before his election) said it costs € ~90m to set the line underground. (And the whole rail costed € ~150m)
2 - Is it true that bus lines can't operate near the public transport rail?
__________________
ek$i | Flickr | last.fm | Twitter
Concerts | Cappadocia | Eskişehir | İzmir '09 | İstanbul
In some time: Ankara, Antalya, Bandırma, Çanakkale
Triple C no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 10:44 AM   #4288
_BPS_
678 999 8212
 
_BPS_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mrs.GaGa
Posts: 2,658
Likes (Received): 2594

Do you live in a tube?
_BPS_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 03:14 PM   #4289
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
Are there any underground rails constructed with cut-cover method in London?
There's rather a lot. For a start, there's all the underground sections of the Circle, District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines (The so-called Sub-surface lines), plus a few parts of other tube lines outside the centre, not to mention a lot of the tunnels on the rest of the rail network (though some of them are bored, or just dug by hand).
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 06:40 PM   #4290
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by London Underground View Post
Ok, another question then:
Have you ever seen, in real life or in a picture, the 1973 stock units with the special Concorde side stickers and Terminal 4 destination blinds? It was according to the book* units 864 and 195.

*London Underground Stock from 1997
Doesn't ring a bell... I remember the 'United Airlines' liveried '73 train quite fondly, that looked pretty smart... But I don't recall a 'Concorde' one.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 06:50 PM   #4291
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
There's rather a lot. For a start, there's all the underground sections of the Circle, District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines (The so-called Sub-surface lines), plus a few parts of other tube lines outside the centre, not to mention a lot of the tunnels on the rest of the rail network (though some of them are bored, or just dug by hand).
To expand on this, there are some stretches of 'genuine' tunnel (i.e. no disruption at ground level) on the subsurface lines due to the topography above, for example Mount Pleasant tunnel between King's Cross and Farringdon (which I live practically on top of), and Campden Hill Tunnel between High Street Kensington and Notting Hill Gate, but yes otherwise all the rest of the so-called 'subsurface' lines, where subterranean, are cut & cover. One slight deviation from this rule of thumb is the District / Circle Line between Westminster and Blackfriars, here the railway was actually effectively built along the River Thames foreshore behind a retaining wall and huge sewer, with the roadway (the Embankment) then being built above.

The vast majority of main-line tunnels in London are purely the result of topography (i.e. passing through hilly ground), and resulted in no disruption at ground level.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 06:52 PM   #4292
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
2 - Is it true that bus lines can't operate near the public transport rail?
No... Buses in London are fully integrated with the Tube / rail networks where possible and act as 'feeders' of Tube / rail passengers onto the system
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2010, 09:37 PM   #4293
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Doesn't ring a bell... I remember the 'United Airlines' liveried '73 train quite fondly, that looked pretty smart... But I don't recall a 'Concorde' one.
Ok. That was a beautiful train. Thanks anyway.
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!

Last edited by London Underground; December 1st, 2010 at 09:46 PM.
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2010, 03:06 PM   #4294
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
I'm back!

The reason why I asked most of the questions in my old post (4154) was that I had a perhaps crazy idea to make it possible to increase train frequency on the circle up to what's practically possible on a line without grade junctions.

As 30 TPH probably is good enough today then my idea is't really useable today, but sometime in the future it might be. Anyway, here it goes:

Let all trains running counter clockwise be circle trains.

Let all trains running clockwise be district trains, and let the district line take over both the northern and the southern part of the circle line. This would sadly mean bad interchanges between Hammersmith&City and the circle at Paddnington, and all travelers on the Metropolitan line would have to change at Baker Street.

By running this way there will be no conflicts at flat junction and therefore, with the right signalling equipment and probably ATO, train frequency could increase. As an increased frequency is only needed in the rush hours, this way of running trains would only be needed in the rush hour.

Some slight alternations could perhaps be done, for example in the moring rush ours some Metropolitan line trains could be let onto the circle away in the Upminster direction, but those trains would then be "lost" from the Metropolitan line until the morning rush is over.
Also, if there is a need for it, at Algate it would be possible to also running some clockwise circle trains, and in the Gloucester Road - High Street Kensington - Earls Court area it would be possible to choose between running some clockwise circle trains or some counterclockwise district trains. Another option in this area, if the sum of train frequency required on the District to Turnham Green and to Wimbledon would be higher than the maximum train frequency on the circle, would be to reconfigure platform usage and switches at Gloucester Road and (probably more complicated) at High Street Kensington so for example the Wimbledon trains could run from Earls Court to High Street Kensington, reverse there and go to Gloucester Road, and reverse again and go back to Wimbledon (or vice versa), while trains from Turnham Green goes to the northern part of the circle, and trains from the southern part of the circle goes to Turnham Green. (I'm using Turnham Green as a common name both for Richmond and Ealing Broadway services).
Hello!

I'm a little confused by what you're proposing, but it sounds devilishly complicated!

One small 'fix' I've proposed for SSR is to combine the H&C and Circle Lines into a single route thus:

Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Liverpool Street - clockwise lap of Circle Line - Edgware Road - Liverpool Street - Aldgate East - Barking

...Then back the other way. This would be a pretty long run (not far off 2 hours), but at least it's a single service with two 'ends' to allow service recovery and would remove the current need to change trains at Edgware Road for customers travelling between, for example, Notting Hill Gate and Baker Street.

I'd run it at perhaps 8tph, which is slightly better than the 'old' Circle Line and a fair bit better than the current Circle Line. Much more than this would impact too much on the District Line. This doubles up to 16tph Edgware Road to Liverpool Street, leaving plenty of capacity for the Metropolitan Line between Baker Street and Aldgate (i.e. at least 10tph can run beyond Baker Street). Makes for a simpler service pattern, the only disadvantage is a reduction in tph between Edgware Road and Hammersmith, which I would address by building a terminating 'bay' platform at Paddington H&C for a Hammersmith - Paddington shuttle service to appease Westfield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
I also have a few new questions:

Has there been or are there any plans of a track connection between Hammersmith on the District line and Hammersmith on the Hammersmith and City line?
Not that I'm aware of. The H&C got there first, and descends from viaduct at Goldhawk Road down to ground level at Hammersmith terminus. However the District / Piccadilly Lines are in cutting with a tunnel immediately to the west of the platforms so the lines are on different levels; if the H&C were to continue south to join the District, the junction would need to be quite far east of the Hammersmith stations to accommodate the difference in level. Also, the fact that the H&C buffer stops are on the same level as Hammersmith Broadway a few metres beyond is a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
Has there been or are there any plans of building platforms at places where underground lines cross each other or where underground and NR lines cross each other? For example the Central line crosses the Metropolitan and the Picadilly line at Ruislip, Metropolitan crosses Bakerloo and NR near Northwick Park / Kenton, and the North London Line part of Overground, and also the Goblin, crosses underground lines at quite a few places without (good) interchange possibilites.
There have been some... You have to bear in mind that originally most railways were separate competing companies and as such interchanges were to be discouraged... For example the Central and Piccadilly Lines used to cross each other at what is now Holborn with no interchange until the 1930's, and many other examples there were simply two completely separate stations next door to each other (e.g. the Central and Bakerloo Line stations at Oxford Circus), so to change you'd need to get the lift up to street level, walk along the pavement, enter the other station, and get the lift back down to Tube level. Many other examples of this existed: Elephant & Castle, Euston, Tottenham Court Road... Where practicable these inconveniences have been since rectified.

In the suburbs as you note there are still a few examples of lines crossing with no interchange, one of the main reasons is I guess that the point where they cross is remote from the nearest town centres... So to close West Ruislip and Ruislip stations to open an interchange where the lines cross, you'd end up with a very poorly located station remote from the town centre, buses, etc.

Some other examples are just too expensive... For example the North London Line and Northern Line 'missing' each other at Camden... The North London Line is on viaducts and therefore diversion would be grotesquely disruptive, and likewise relocating the Northern Line platforms further north is not a realistic option.

The only two realistic contemporary options I've heard about are re-opening Junction Road station on the GOBLIN as an interchange with Tufnell Park, and a combined Central / Piccadilly station to replace Park Royal and Hanger Lane, but again it's a worse location than Hanger Lane being remote from the roundabout and buses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
I understand that adding an interchange point would only be sensible if it would provide more benefits than drawbacks, and assume that it's a question of cost...
And that's basically the crux of it: £££
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2010, 04:01 PM   #4295
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Sometimes, a good interchange (perhaps even as an additional station in some cases) must be more beneficial than where it is situated in relation to the outside world?
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2010, 07:04 PM   #4296
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jang0 View Post
Sometimes, a good interchange (perhaps even as an additional station in some cases) must be more beneficial than where it is situated in relation to the outside world?
Yes of course, it's not all bad... There are pros and cons which need to be weighed up.

Closing British Museum and opening Central Line platforms at Holborn undoubtedly had a lot more benefits than not doing it, but somewhere like a Ruislip interchange is much more balanced... Open the interchange with no associated closures of existing stations, then journey times worsen, but close adjacent stations then you have a new station much worse situated and much less accessible... And it all costs £ too.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2010, 11:05 PM   #4297
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Hello!

I'm a little confused by what you're proposing, but it sounds devilishly complicated!
Well, I'm known for making things sound a lot more complicated than they are when I'm trying to explain something (especially the first times). An image says more than a thousand words:

image hosted on flickr

London-SSL1 by muppfoto, on Flickr

Cons:
* Metropolitan reverses at Baker Street.
* Hammersmith & City reverses at Paddington, leaving the passengers to a rather long walk to change trains.
* I have no really good idea of that to to with the Kensington Olympia Shuttle. On the map it's shown as a separate line.
* There is no real place for service recovery for the circle line

Pros:
* No conflicts at flat junctions on the central subsurface network, thus:
* Number of trains per hour can increase to the level of the best deep level lines, thus:
* Number of passengers able to use the system (before severe overcrowding) increases.

As said before, this would only be used in peak hours where there is a real need to be able to run more trains than the flat junctions allow.

I'l draw a "phase 2" later


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Not that I'm aware of. The H&C got there first, and descends from viaduct at Goldhawk Road down to ground level at Hammersmith terminus. However the District / Piccadilly Lines are in cutting with a tunnel immediately to the west of the platforms so the lines are on different levels; if the H&C were to continue south to join the District, the junction would need to be quite far east of the Hammersmith stations to accommodate the difference in level. Also, the fact that the H&C buffer stops are on the same level as Hammersmith Broadway a few metres beyond is a problem.
Oh, I were not aware of the level difference. In other words it would probably cost a lot of £££ to make a good connection. On the other hand the level difference could perhaps be used to make the junction level separated. (I'm sure there would be a lot of NIMBY against raising Hammersmith Broadway a few meters up...). Anyway a connection here would brobably not be that useable, especially in that direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
In the suburbs as you note there are still a few examples of lines crossing with no interchange, one of the main reasons is I guess that the point where they cross is remote from the nearest town centres... So to close West Ruislip and Ruislip stations to open an interchange where the lines cross, you'd end up with a very poorly located station remote from the town centre, buses, etc.
If such interchange would be built, I'd leave the existing stations in place. The interchange would "cost" 2-3 minutes travel time for existing travelers using West Ruislip, Ickenham, Hillingdon and Uxbridge, and would probably also cost TfL a few more trains and drivers to keep existing service frequency and ability to recovery from delays. There is probably not enough demand/use to justify building that interchange...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Some other examples are just too expensive... For example the North London Line and Northern Line 'missing' each other at Camden... The North London Line is on viaducts and therefore diversion would be grotesquely disruptive, and likewise relocating the Northern Line platforms further north is not a realistic option.
I understand that it would be really expensive to move the platforms of a tube line, but would building platforms on existing rail lines on viaduct be that expensive? (On the other hand, as it would be expensive and disrputive to build new platforms on the Northern tube line, it probably wouldn't do any good to move the overground/rail station anyway).

Bonus question: Why itn't the four track configuration restored from the junction left of Camden Road station up to the junction where the tracks to St. Pancras diverge southwards?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The only two realistic contemporary options I've heard about are re-opening Junction Road station on the GOBLIN as an interchange with Tufnell Park,
Interesting! That would probably not be that expensive. Would the new station be where the old was? It looks like it would be a shorter walk if a reopened station would have exits to Darthmout Park Hill.


How about a move of Harringay Green Lanes Rail closer to Harringay Rail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
and a combined Central / Piccadilly station to replace Park Royal and Hanger Lane, but again it's a worse location than Hanger Lane being remote from the roundabout and buses.
Aha.

How about moving North Ealing station a bit southwards and add plattforms to the Central and Disttrict lines there? (I understand that you can change at Ealing Broadway, but an interchange here would probaby be better for most people.

Perhaps such interchange would make it possible to do some major changes of the network?
How about letting the District line go all the way up to Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, and either remove the Acton - North Ealing - Ealing Broadway service completely or make it a branch of the Picadilly?
That would remove the (accessability) problem of running both tube and subsurface stock on the Rainers Lane - Uxbridge line, and would make more Picadilly trains able to go to Heathrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
And that's basically the crux of it: £££
I understand that...
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2010, 07:17 PM   #4298
RedArkady
Viewseeker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post


How about a move of Harringay Green Lanes Rail closer to Harringay Rail?
They should do that - move it to where the lines cross and open up pedestrian connections to the surrounding streets and Finsbury Park (the actual park, not the station), plus a short walkway to the Harringay Rail platforms.

The Piccadilly Line must run under Harringay Green Lanes, could it not take over the existing station? The gap between Manor House and Turnpike Lane is huge.
RedArkady no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010, 03:21 AM   #4299
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

I've got a horrible feeling that I have asked, or at least somebody else has asked, before but are they going to fix that massive ROAR on the JLE? It's worse northbound, especially between Westminster and Green Park and Canary Wharf - Bermondsey.
ta
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2010, 01:12 PM   #4300
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
I've got a horrible feeling that I have asked, or at least somebody else has asked, before but are they going to fix that massive ROAR on the JLE? It's worse northbound, especially between Westminster and Green Park and Canary Wharf - Bermondsey.
ta
It's probably railhead corrugation, and is fixed by a visit from the rail grinding train.

Corrugation forms on curved sections with high speeds where the wheels begin oscillating gently from side to side, with each passing train wearing the same pattern into the railhead which in turn guides the next train's wheels to follow the same pattern of oscillation, so the unevenness (and noise) gets worse and worse.

The rail grinding train (incidentally this was the train that rolled away on the Northern Line and nearly caused a disaster a few months back) visits the whole network in rotation and grinds the railhead back into an even shape, giving a smoother, quieter ride. Obviously this can't be done again and again or there'd be no rail left, so eventually re-railing is required every few years.
Tubeman 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