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 January 5th, 2011, 12:09 AM   #4321
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Because it's only a relatively recent (1980s) idea to send trains from Blackfriars through London Bridge? If it wasn't for that, it would work fine, especially if there was less shuffling about in the SE sector, with lines serving both termini - rationalise that and London Bridge would have been able to function as lots of separate chunks with segregated lines. Until Thameslink came about with a route that plays about.

Thameslink 2000 is lots of little-to-middly schemes merged together to make a scheme big enough to justify spending several billion pounds on a new viaduct in Central London, taking out part of a listed building and rebuilding London Bridge and it's approaches.

There's several problems that Thameslink solves - note how the first two wouldn't need several billion pounds spend in SE1, the third one is an age old problem that never justified the expense of fixing it unless you were going to spend a lot more on rebuilding London Bridge anyway, the forth one is improving a route reopened pretty recently and the last 3 are caused by Thameslink's current service:
  • Lengthening platforms and trains to increase capacity
  • Making some effort to improve Lewisham Junction (not a necessary part of the T2000 scheme now, but kept in as it's useful)
  • Adding a platform to the through Charing Cross line at London Bridge so all trains can stop there
  • Giving a 24tph core frequency on the N-S route at the western edge of The City
  • Swapping the terminating platforms at Blackfriars over to remove conflicts to the south of it, caused by Thameslink trains going to London Bridge
  • Allowing more trains to Charing Cross off-peak by removing the Thameslink trains that reduced it in the first place from being in the way
  • Allowing outer suburban Kings Cross trains to reach The City once more - there used to be, a long time ago, services to Broad Street and, until more recently, Moorgate via Farringdon. The GN&C taking over the inners, giving easy access to the City from the ECML, and the Bedpan electrification meaning St Pancras trains went to Moorgate instead of Kings Cross ones, and the tight curves under Kings Cross, meant that Kings Cross' access to the Widened lines closed.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 5th, 2011, 04:05 AM   #4322
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Here is a nice summing up of everything sotonsi has said.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 12:51 PM   #4323
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Although to be fair, Metropolitan Junction must have been an horrendous bottleneck throughout its history; quadruple track from Charing Cross converging with double track from Blackfriars into mere double track to Borough Market Junction.

I can only assume that the original layout was proposed to make far more use of the western curve up into Cannon Street from Metropolitan Junction, with LSWR trains running through Waterloo to terminate at Cannon Street (giving a City terminus, later negated by the Waterloo & City Line) and GNR and MID trains running down the City Widened Lines from St Pancras and King's Cross, up into Cannon Street via Snow Hill Tunnel, Blackfriars and Metropolitan Junction (in the end Moorgate sufficed as a City terminus).

The two-track section between Metropolitan and Borough Market Junctions is a nonsense (finally being rectified thank God), and it's not like the Victorians to have missed the opportunity to crash new arches through the market to widen the viaduct.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 02:45 PM   #4324
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I can only assume that the original layout was proposed to make far more use of the western curve up into Cannon Street from Metropolitan Junction, with LSWR trains running through Waterloo to terminate at Cannon Street (giving a City terminus, later negated by the Waterloo & City Line) and GNR and MID trains running down the City Widened Lines from St Pancras and King's Cross, up into Cannon Street via Snow Hill Tunnel, Blackfriars and Metropolitan Junction (in the end Moorgate sufficed as a City terminus).
As mentioned by me earlier, Charing Cross trains heading in the peak direction normally reversed at Cannon Street (The City was the more major destination, unlike today) en-route to London Bridge, which is the main reason for the two-track section being two-track.

Waterloo trains were rather few, looking at the recent London Reconnections post on the (single track) link.

The Blackfriars link from the South Eastern to the London, Chatham and Dover railway seems bizarre to me (it pre-dates the station now called "Blackfriars"), which came later) - it's later than the rest of the lines South of the River. Perhaps it was to let GNR and MID trains terminate at Cannon Street, though Moorgate really isn't that far away. Or to provide more terminal capacity (and a freight link) - note how Blackfriars station had terminating platforms on that side, with the through side on the other. It's a bit of an enigma wrapped in a mystery, and doesn't appear to be of much use until you have Thameslink wanting to have the interchange at London Bridge a lot later.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 07:18 PM   #4325
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Oh, I forgot about Elephant & Castle. You can tell that I don't live in London?

Wouldn't it be better to send ECML trains via Farringdon to Elephant & Castle (and reverse them somewhere in the south) than like today reverse them at Kings Cross? (If so, installing the ECML Thameslink tracks "today" would be a good idea even if London Bridge cannot cope with more trains)...


Anyway, what do you think about my opinion that some infrastructure could be added even if it's only useable outside of peak hours (due to that other parts of the infrastructure is a bottleneck in peak hours)? I.E. running ECML trains to London Bridge during off-peak hours...
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 07:39 PM   #4326
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

While, on the surface, it looks simple and a good idea, it creates a lot of problems. There are very good reasons why Thameslink doesn't take trains from the Great Northern sector yet: where do you turn back trains in the south (especially as there's no close-in turn-backs), keeping trains away from London Bridge while it's being upgraded, extra dual voltage trains to provide the service.

I guess you could have made the trains that currently terminate at Kentish Town go to Letchworth instead, but you'd still have the trains problem thanks to the different electrification systems.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 08:47 PM   #4327
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Oh, I forgot about the electrification issue...

Regaring how things were built many years ago, perhaps the Blackfriars - London Bridge link were installed mainly or atleast partially for use by goods transportation?


How about this:

A remake of Waterloo so that the four tracks from London Bridge to Waterloo East connects to some Waterloo platforms (thus removing Waterloo East), and linking the Charing Cross tracks to some other Waterloo platforms?
The services would then be that some southwestern trains go to Charing Cross, and all trains that today go to Charing Cross would instead be connected to trains that today terminate at Waterloo, thus creating through services.
Such a remake would probably need six tracks between London Bridge and the point where the Blackfriars link join the line to London Bridge. I know that it would cost a lot to make such change, but I assume it would cost a lot less than any crossrail thing...

Another questing:
Has there anytime been any plans to link Cannon Street to Moorgate (Northern City line)? I don't know hot the Northern City Line platforms at Moorgate is aligned, but by looking at a map it seems like a tunnel from Cannon Street to Moorgate would be almost a straight line... Perhaps other tunnels at Bank would be in the way, or the tunnels would be to steep?
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 09:53 AM   #4328
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

I guess my point was more along the lines of why have they built tunnels that cannot be used for another 7 or 8 years? Surly they knew London Bridge was going to be an issue years ago so why not invest in that before building tunnels etc that cannot be used for years?
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 01:26 PM   #4329
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
I guess my point was more along the lines of why have they built tunnels that cannot be used for another 7 or 8 years? Surly they knew London Bridge was going to be an issue years ago so why not invest in that before building tunnels etc that cannot be used for years?
Because it was far easier / more logical to build the tunnels and the diveunder at St Pancras Thameslink at the time of building that station, so that disruption is minimal in the run-up to 2018. Plus, most of the tunnel to the ECML was able to be a simple cut & cover construction, as it's below the Kings Cross railway lands development. By 2018 the land will be developed and the tunnel would have been more expensive to construct.

A reassuring bit of foresight for a change
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 02:16 PM   #4330
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
Oh, I forgot about the electrification issue...

Regaring how things were built many years ago, perhaps the Blackfriars - London Bridge link were installed mainly or atleast partially for use by goods transportation?
SER trains operated a Woolwich to Finsbury Park (later Enfield) service over the spur from its opening until 1907, but it was then pretty much non passenger-only all the way through to 1988 when Thameslink was introduced, and I'm guessing barely used after the Snow Hill Tunnel closed in 1969 (I assume empty carriage working only, as there would have been no goods traffic originating from Holborn Viaduct / Blackfriars after that).

So yes for most of its life the spur was primarily an important inter-regional goods link.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 02:24 PM   #4331
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
As mentioned by me earlier, Charing Cross trains heading in the peak direction normally reversed at Cannon Street (The City was the more major destination, unlike today) en-route to London Bridge, which is the main reason for the two-track section being two-track.

Waterloo trains were rather few, looking at the recent London Reconnections post on the (single track) link.

The Blackfriars link from the South Eastern to the London, Chatham and Dover railway seems bizarre to me (it pre-dates the station now called "Blackfriars"), which came later) - it's later than the rest of the lines South of the River. Perhaps it was to let GNR and MID trains terminate at Cannon Street, though Moorgate really isn't that far away. Or to provide more terminal capacity (and a freight link) - note how Blackfriars station had terminating platforms on that side, with the through side on the other. It's a bit of an enigma wrapped in a mystery, and doesn't appear to be of much use until you have Thameslink wanting to have the interchange at London Bridge a lot later.
Ah yes I forgot about the SER's (with hindsight) somewhat odd arrangement of most trains working London Bridge - Cannon Street - Charing Cross - Cannon Street - London Bridge... Must have been a pretty torturous journey for those using Charing Cross; surely far quicker to alight at Cannon Street and use the District railway from there than fanny about waiting for your train to reverse and creep round to Charing Cross.

I know that the link at Waterloo ended up very lightly used, but it was engineered for double track and I guess originally was intended to see far more use (with Cannon St being the logical LSWR destination). As was often the case, I presume an LSWR / SER squabble led to the link's underuse and premature demise (and the LSWR having to build their own Tube into The City).

Aesthetically Waterloo is definitely the better for not having a line crossing the concourse, but at the same time the link would have been pretty useful if used to its fullest potential.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 11:15 PM   #4332
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Because it was far easier / more logical to build the tunnels and the diveunder at St Pancras Thameslink at the time of building that station, so that disruption is minimal in the run-up to 2018. Plus, most of the tunnel to the ECML was able to be a simple cut & cover construction, as it's below the Kings Cross railway lands development. By 2018 the land will be developed and the tunnel would have been more expensive to construct.

A reassuring bit of foresight for a change
Especially in this day and age of economic rationalism. Rarely would one see something built without a return (use) so far away.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2011, 04:26 AM   #4333
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,672
Likes (Received): 678

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
Oh, I forgot about the electrification issue...

Regaring how things were built many years ago, perhaps the Blackfriars - London Bridge link were installed mainly or atleast partially for use by goods transportation?


How about this:

A remake of Waterloo so that the four tracks from London Bridge to Waterloo East connects to some Waterloo platforms (thus removing Waterloo East), and linking the Charing Cross tracks to some other Waterloo platforms?
The services would then be that some southwestern trains go to Charing Cross, and all trains that today go to Charing Cross would instead be connected to trains that today terminate at Waterloo, thus creating through services.
Such a remake would probably need six tracks between London Bridge and the point where the Blackfriars link join the line to London Bridge. I know that it would cost a lot to make such change, but I assume it would cost a lot less than any crossrail thing...
The problem is that most of the passengers on trains to Charing Cross want to go to the West End. Charing Cross is the best located station for the West end. These passengers would have to change to the tube, when Covent Garden, St James and Whitehall is an easy walk to the station.

Waterloo customers are split between the City, West End and Canary Wharf. They have excellent tube links already. There would be no advantage for anybody to catch a train to London Bridge instead. Only a small number of Waterloo trains could use Charing Cross anyway. Plus compared to the trains lines it's an easy interchange at Waterloo East between the Networks.

I know people keep bringing this idea up because the train lines are next to each other, but it serves no purpose. For Cross town links is better to link lines on opposite sides of the city centre and of terminals of similar size.

Off hand I think new links between Waterloo and Liverpool streets West Anglia Lines would make a good match. Chelney linking more waterloo lines to Euston and st Pancras before taking over Liverpool street lines or lines from Croydon and New Cross crossing the West End.

The Problem is that the tube is more dominant in the West and the North compared to massive commuter rail networks of the SW S and SE.

at some point in the future you could see all commuter trains desplaced into crossrail tunnels to make way for long distance services.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2011, 12:34 PM   #4334
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
The problem is that most of the passengers on trains to Charing Cross want to go to the West End. Charing Cross is the best located station for the West end. These passengers would have to change to the tube, when Covent Garden, St James and Whitehall is an easy walk to the station.

Waterloo customers are split between the City, West End and Canary Wharf. They have excellent tube links already. There would be no advantage for anybody to catch a train to London Bridge instead. Only a small number of Waterloo trains could use Charing Cross anyway. Plus compared to the trains lines it's an easy interchange at Waterloo East between the Networks.

I know people keep bringing this idea up because the train lines are next to each other, but it serves no purpose. For Cross town links is better to link lines on opposite sides of the city centre and of terminals of similar size.

Off hand I think new links between Waterloo and Liverpool streets West Anglia Lines would make a good match. Chelney linking more waterloo lines to Euston and st Pancras before taking over Liverpool street lines or lines from Croydon and New Cross crossing the West End.

The Problem is that the tube is more dominant in the West and the North compared to massive commuter rail networks of the SW S and SE.

at some point in the future you could see all commuter trains desplaced into crossrail tunnels to make way for long distance services.
One possible use for the link at Waterloo that I have pondered is a cross-London route hugging the south bank of the Thames like RER C in Paris, a very cheap & quick Crossrail, maybe a combination of the SWT Reading Service with the SET Dartford via Woolwich service (i.e. Reading to Dartford via Waterloo & London Bridge).

I think it would certainly be a useful route to many, although I guess the bridge at Waterloo is a bit too far south of the Windsor lines platforms so maybe a service passing through Wimbledon might have to suffice instead?

Splitting Waterloo concourse in two is not ideal, but I guess if it's done well it could work, e.g. using the opportunity to create a high-level shopping / catering level like at Liverpool Street.

Might allow Waterloo East to close also.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2011, 12:08 AM   #4335
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
One possible use for the link at Waterloo that I have pondered is a cross-London route hugging the south bank of the Thames like RER C in Paris, a very cheap & quick Crossrail, maybe a combination of the SWT Reading Service with the SET Dartford via Woolwich service (i.e. Reading to Dartford via Waterloo & London Bridge).

I think it would certainly be a useful route to many, although I guess the bridge at Waterloo is a bit too far south of the Windsor lines platforms so maybe a service passing through Wimbledon might have to suffice instead?

Splitting Waterloo concourse in two is not ideal, but I guess if it's done well it could work, e.g. using the opportunity to create a high-level shopping / catering level like at Liverpool Street.

Might allow Waterloo East to close also.

When I was in Paris, I thought "why don't we have something neat like the RER C which goes in an embankment along the river?" - then I realised that we did. It's called the District line and it's on the north side of the river!
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2011, 02:03 AM   #4336
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Yeah but one on the south side would be useful too...

However when I passed through the other day by my estimation the bridge to Waterloo East aligns with platforms 10/11, so not convenient for the Windsor lines, more the lines through Wimbledon... Maybe Dartford to Basingstoke or something like that?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2011, 04:22 PM   #4337
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

If a big remodellation of Waterloo could be part of such project, then the tracks from London Bridge could perhaps go to the Windsor lines and the lines from Charing X could cross those (over or under) the "RER/crossrail" lines and connect to the Wimbledon lines?

Another option, probably rather costly, could be to remodell the flyovers between Clapham junction and Waterloo/Victoria, if it by some reason would be better to swap lines.
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2011, 04:36 PM   #4338
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
The problem is that most of the passengers on trains to Charing Cross want to go to the West End. Charing Cross is the best located station for the West end. These passengers would have to change to the tube, when Covent Garden, St James and Whitehall is an easy walk to the station.

Waterloo customers are split between the City, West End and Canary Wharf. They have excellent tube links already. There would be no advantage for anybody to catch a train to London Bridge instead. Only a small number of Waterloo trains could use Charing Cross anyway. Plus compared to the trains lines it's an easy interchange at Waterloo East between the Networks
Well, if Waterloo has good enough tube connections, then todays passengers to Charing Cross could just as well use the excellent tube links from Waterloo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
I know people keep bringing this idea up because the train lines are next to each other, but it serves no purpose.
Through trains serves atleast two purposes. One is that passengers from both sides will get more usable central stations, thus balancing the load on the stations. Another is that the stations don't have to be that large. A through station can handle far more trains per hour and platform than a termini station.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
For Cross town links is better to link lines on opposite sides of the city centre and of terminals of similar size.
Of course, but that would cost a lot more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
Off hand I think new links between Waterloo and Liverpool streets West Anglia Lines would make a good match. Chelney linking more waterloo lines to Euston and st Pancras before taking over Liverpool street lines or lines from Croydon and New Cross crossing the West End.
An interesting question is why Canon Street isn't linked to Moorgate. I know that such link would not be as good as for example Waterloo - Liverpool Street or Waterloo - Euston, but it would also probably be far cheaper to build as it's shorter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
The Problem is that the tube is more dominant in the West and the North compared to massive commuter rail networks of the SW S and SE.
Yes, and that's part of the reason why I think a "south of the Thames RER" would be good, the capcity demand is probably distributed rather equaly on such a line.

(I assume high quality signal system also, making "metro" frequency of 20-30 TPH possible)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
at some point in the future you could see all commuter trains desplaced into crossrail tunnels to make way for long distance services.
In some places the do it the oppisite way, run all long distance services through the central area, and let some of the less important suburban services terminate somewher in the central area. For example look at Berlin where some suburban/regional trains end at Lichtenberg and some at Ostbahnhof, but all long distance trains run through the central area.

I have no idea if this is good or bad. I assume it's a question of track capacity and where the depots are.
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2011, 04:21 PM   #4339
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

It is good as long as you respect these requirements:

- those services terminating outside should be the less important ones, per number of passengers
- the interchange from/to through services must be easy, fast, and with less barriers as possible*, and trains scheduling between interchanging services must be tight, in order to avoid a drop of commercial speed for the entire travel

* where possibile, terminating trains should stop at the same platform where the through ones will call. A nice example is Berlin's S3, Ostbahnhof - Erkner: Ostbahnhof has 4 S-Bahn tracks, served by two platforms; S3 trains arrive at track 3, while through service to city centre run on track 4, with an adequate frequency in order to minimize interchange times. The same happens on the other side, with trains from the city running on track 1, and S3 departing from track 2 (not the real numbers, just to schematize the description).


A question to english speaking rail professionals. I would like to know the exact terms to define these two kinds of rail infrastructure:

1) a platform built in the middle of two tracks, an alternative to the classic side platforms; in italian they are called "island platforms".
http://goo.gl/maps/jgyP

2) a junction where one of the tracks is grade separated, to reduce traffic conflicts; the italian term is somehow silly to translate, being "jump of the mutton"
http://goo.gl/maps/2Tga
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2011, 07:01 PM   #4340
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,215
Likes (Received): 1782

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
A question to english speaking rail professionals. I would like to know the exact terms to define these two kinds of rail infrastructure:

1) a platform built in the middle of two tracks, an alternative to the classic side platforms; in italian they are called "island platforms".
http://goo.gl/maps/jgyP

2) a junction where one of the tracks is grade separated, to reduce traffic conflicts; the italian term is somehow silly to translate, being "jump of the mutton"
http://goo.gl/maps/2Tga
An island platform would indeed be the correct term for No. 1, and I think for No. 2, the junction itself would be described as 'grade separated', and the individual track that's not on the surface would either be a flyover or a dive-under. Hope I've been of some help, I do hasten to add I am not a rail professional though .
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT 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 06:42 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