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 October 5th, 2010, 01:06 AM   #481
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Don't you think NTV is in for serious business? Unbounded by any need of keeping a "day long service", something even forward-thinking Trenitalia is obliged to, they will be able to undercut Trenitalia prices running only at peak times, when Trenitalia trains are fuller.
This is completely unreleated to the structure of the timetable. You can have a symmetric timetable even with one train per day.

NTV will probably have cadenced trains, on slots given by the infrastructure manager (even if choosen following NTV's desires).

It's like studying grammar and vocabulary at school: you don't use all the words you learned in any speech just like you don't use all the slots that exist in a symmetric timetable on every hour of every day of every year.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 5th, 2010, 01:47 AM   #482
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Again, that might work for Switzerland, but it wouldn't work for Germany. Germany can't and shouldn't plan it's rail investments about an obsession of "how the new timetable will be like". They need to reduce, drastically, travel time between major population centers if they want a rail system capable of providing healthy competition to air travel as they said they want.
Its a misconception to believe that HSR can only compete against air travel if its done the French way with a more or less complete network of HSR and stations on the green field (which even France really does only have on the Marseille - Paris and Paris - Lille corridor). DB prefers to see the ICE as a service integrated into their intercity and regional services with easy access and easy switches at the most important network hubs. Its a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, there are fewer corridors in Germany that would really justify a continuous HSL with only a few stops - unlike in Spain, France or Italy.
Of course they should speed up some connections and add more HSLs where its necessary. But we won't see a network like the Spanish one on the long run. And Germany probably wouldn't need one either.

Quote:
I'd bet that if any country that has ever built a HSR in Europe (save for the Eurotunnel, which is a particular case) had taken an approach like the Swiss, the overall high-speed, segregated, dedicated to long-distance travel only trackage in Europe would be 1.000km in the best case scenario.
You are wrong to believe that "true" HSR and a compact integrated schedule like the Swiss one are two things that can't come together. Of course they could. The schedule structure doesn't forbid to speed up connections, it just says that trains should meet at the hubs in predefined intervalls. If a HSL could speed the trains up without falling out of the meeting times, the Swiss would certainly build one (in fact they did some pretty large investments into their network like the new line between Bern and Olten to speed up trains). But if this can't be done (quite understandable, as the distances in that case are just too short to speed up a train to cut travel time 30min or so), it would be throwing money into the bin as most people would arrive earlier at their change station and then sit around waiting for their connecting regional train, without any cuts in real travel time. It simply doesn't make sense.

Quote:
If the Swiss model had been replicated in Europe, a Thalys train Frankfurt-Brussels wouldn't exist, for instance. A Frankfurt-Paris high-speed train capable of competing with rail wouldn't either...
Why do you think so? Of course it could exist. Let's assume a Swiss style schedule integrated for both Germany and Belgium with trains meeting at the main hubs on the full hour. If a Thalys would be able to cut travel time from Frankfurt to Brussels for 60min, with a integrated Swiss style schedule that would cut travel time for most passengers one hour as they would arrive at the interchange station Brussels one intervall earlier. If it would cut travel time only by 50min, for these passengers travel times wouldn't be cut by a single minute, but they could experience 50 minutes sitting around at Brussels Midi. Wouldn't really make sense.
Just like a HSL in such a system on rather short distances (like the ones between the Swiss major hubs) wouldn't make any sense. There's no strong domestic flight market to compete with, and a real HSL wouldn't cut travel times very much on such short distances - in fact, cutting stops on the way would result in longer travel times for most passengers as you would force them to make detours to get to a HSR stop.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2010, 11:41 AM   #483
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21258

That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2010, 12:00 PM   #484
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.
I assure you that it is not as simple as it may seem...even if you don't plan connections.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2010, 06:45 PM   #485
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post
You are wrong to believe that "true" HSR and a compact integrated schedule like the Swiss one are two things that can't come together. Of course they could. The schedule structure doesn't forbid to speed up connections, it just says that trains should meet at the hubs in predefined intervalls. If a HSL could speed the trains up without falling out of the meeting times, the Swiss would certainly build one (in fact they did some pretty large investments into their network like the new line between Bern and Olten to speed up trains). But if this can't be done (quite understandable, as the distances in that case are just too short to speed up a train to cut travel time 30min or so), it would be throwing money into the bin as most people would arrive earlier at their change station and then sit around waiting for their connecting regional train, without any cuts in real travel time. It simply doesn't make sense.
The Swiss rail operations are an unique product to the geography, population size and the size of Switzerland. Germany should take the best of French and Swiss practices and make them its own.

Actually, DB has tried to improve the HSR infrastructures around Frankfurt with many schemes, but the only scheme has come into fruition is the FRA airrail terminal.

Honestly, Darmstadt, Hagen, Wolfsburg, etc. do not need to be any kind of ICE hubs and even stations. People from these cities should travel via IC services to the bigger cities in their own federal states to catch the ICE trains. Forcing DB to have many ICE stations in Germany is like forcing Lufthansa to create 5, 6 MUC-sized hubs within Germany.

The common people in Germany are now actually afraid of local RE services being cut. Letting DB beef up its ICE services in a profitable and meaningful manner is another incentive for DB to provide more local service in addition to the local service subsidies.

Check these articles out:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...699847,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...716217,00.html

Last edited by aab7772003; October 5th, 2010 at 09:37 PM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2010, 09:38 PM   #486
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.
Which in the Swiss case isn't that easy as it is not only adjusting the schedules of a few connecting trains, but changing the schedules for all (!) trains. The Swiss have at their mayor hubs the same intervalls when most trains meet. If you speed up lets say Basel - Zurich 10 min and then let the trains at Zurich leave 10min earliers, then you need to adjust trains in Bern, back in Basel, in St. Gallen and elsewhere for 10 min in order to get the system working. That's almost impossible. Hence, speeding the first service up for 10 min won't cut travel time if you don't want to go to Zurich HB as it would mean to have an extra 10 min waiting time.


@ aab: You're absolutely right. In an ideal case, Germany should adopt a mixture of the French and the Swiss system. However, I think better integration (and above all more reliable services) would bring much more comfort and utility for most passengers than investing all the money into speeding up some few connections. The German rail system has a lot of hubs (unlike the French one), in that aspect it is quite comparable to the Swiss one.

Btw.: According to reports of "Die Zeit" the main problem of the German rail network aren't slow HST services but a massive lack of capacities for freight trains. A study suggested that all (!) the money which is planned to go into HSLs should be invested in upgrating the existing lines and create more capacities for freight and regional trains as it would be more valuable for the economy.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 02:45 AM   #487
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by thun View Post
Which in the Swiss case isn't that easy as it is not only adjusting the schedules of a few connecting trains, but changing the schedules for all (!) trains. The Swiss have at their mayor hubs the same intervalls when most trains meet. If you speed up lets say Basel - Zurich 10 min and then let the trains at Zurich leave 10min earliers, then you need to adjust trains in Bern, back in Basel, in St. Gallen and elsewhere for 10 min in order to get the system working. That's almost impossible. Hence, speeding the first service up for 10 min won't cut travel time if you don't want to go to Zurich HB as it would mean to have an extra 10 min waiting time.


@ aab: You're absolutely right. In an ideal case, Germany should adopt a mixture of the French and the Swiss system. However, I think better integration (and above all more reliable services) would bring much more comfort and utility for most passengers than investing all the money into speeding up some few connections. The German rail system has a lot of hubs (unlike the French one), in that aspect it is quite comparable to the Swiss one.

...
What is so wrong with some passengers experiencing dead time at the major stations?
Germans should understand that Switzerland is just little bit larger than Bavaria.
DB is a national firm. There is nothing wrong to invest lots of money on HSR for journeys to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. With the technology of today, ICE services between Frankfurt and Munich and v.v. should be just around two hours.

Last edited by aab7772003; October 6th, 2010 at 01:58 PM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 10:12 AM   #488
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Don't you think NTV is in for serious business? Unbounded by any need of keeping a "day long service", something even forward-thinking Trenitalia is obliged to, they will be able to undercut Trenitalia prices running only at peak times, when Trenitalia trains are fuller.
NTV intends to run something like 15 return journeys a day on Milano - Roma. So I suppose they do intend to run a "day long" service. After all their intention is to target business travellers. People going to meetings in Rome, that you know, sometimes do end an hour later or an hour earlier...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 10:29 AM   #489
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7772003 View Post
What is so wrong with some passengers experiencing dead time at the major stations?
Psychology.

Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.
For example: When the new HSL between Aachen en Liège opened this shaved half an hour of travel times for Köln - Brussel trains. However for passengers coming from the South arriving in Köln to change for a train to Belgium the time gained just means half an hour more dead time in Köln hbf. This means that optimizing the schedule itself has the potential of saving time for many passengers.
But DB does a pretty good job here anyway, not like SNCF. If you want to travel from Geneva to somewhere in the Provence you can now take a TGV to Avignon, but because this train arrives in Avignon TGV, and local trains to other places leave from Avignon Centre you lose all the time gained on the HSL in the railway station transfer.
it pays to pay attention to the whole system. People don't travel from TGV station to TGV station. They travel from one home to another. Or from a home to a business meeting...
Things are improving though, with SNCF also going to a regular patterned timetable. (As RFF has discoverd how handy that is...)
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 01:09 PM   #490
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Psychology.

Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.
It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 01:42 PM   #491
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.
The idea that time moves faster when you're moving is not something I just made up. And while it's true that you can eat in the bigger stations you also can eat on the train.
But the most important point I was making is that coordinating schedules is a cheap way of improving travel times, so it should not be overlooked.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 02:16 PM   #492
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Psychology.

Time moves differently when in a moving vehicle.Trains are more comfortable than stations.
And it is annoying that you have to wait while you could be continuing on to your destination.
For example: When the new HSL between Aachen en Liège opened this shaved half an hour of travel times for Köln - Brussel trains. However for passengers coming from the South arriving in Köln to change for a train to Belgium the time gained just means half an hour more dead time in Köln hbf. This means that optimizing the schedule itself has the potential of saving time for many passengers.
But DB does a pretty good job here anyway, not like SNCF. If you want to travel from Geneva to somewhere in the Provence you can now take a TGV to Avignon, but because this train arrives in Avignon TGV, and local trains to other places leave from Avignon Centre you lose all the time gained on the HSL in the railway station transfer.
it pays to pay attention to the whole system. People don't travel from TGV station to TGV station. They travel from one home to another. Or from a home to a business meeting...
Things are improving though, with SNCF also going to a regular patterned timetable. (As RFF has discoverd how handy that is...)
The problem is that too many Germans are having the "RE mentality." No matter how you improve systematic timetable, you cannot dramatically reduce travel time to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. Incremental scheduling improvements without dedicated high speed rail lines will not even effectively achieve travel time reduction between Frankfurt and Munich.

Optimizing the ICE and RE schedules is not the same as operating ICE like running RE. Again, the Swiss solution fits like a glove for Switzerland because rail operation wise Switzerland is really just another German federal state.

Last edited by aab7772003; October 6th, 2010 at 03:53 PM.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 06:24 PM   #493
spag85
Registered User
 
spag85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Delft
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
That is the whole problem: planning works and imagining only time reductions that are hourly-spaced (or its fraction) are worth. Damn, you first reduce travel time, it requires billions and years of work. Then you adjust your timetable, which requires 2 or 3 clicks on a notebook.
I think we all understand already what you have been saying in these several posts - we just don't agree with it.

The Bahn2000 approach works, the Swiss have by far the highest public transport modal share. It works _also_ because they don't build much more road infrastructure, which would induce traffic and hence produce pollution.

The timetable has to drive infrastructure decisions otherwise it is pointless.

Finally, railway operations research is not 2 or 3 clicks but an industry and timetable generation easily lasts 18 months for a good reason.
spag85 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #494
spag85
Registered User
 
spag85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Delft
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7772003 View Post
The Swiss rail operations are an unique product to the geography, population size and the size of Switzerland.
Not a disagreement, rather a side note: when clock-face scheduling was first introduced in the 30's in the Netherlands, the Dutch also thought that their geography is unique.

The modern success of clock-face schedules (started in Switzerland) shows, however, that local situations are not always that "unique" as some opponents might argue...
spag85 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #495
spag85
Registered User
 
spag85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Delft
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
It's rather the other way around. In (bigger) stations I have to opportunity to shop and to eat while I'm virtually trapped in a train.
I wish you were right, timetabling would be much easier -- however experience shows that passengers feel that transfer time passes 1.5-3x times slower than in-vehicle time.

Having said that, it is indeed very important to improve station (and even platform) services to occupy waiting passengers and this is really a way to reduce perceived travel time.
spag85 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 06:49 PM   #496
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by aab7772003 View Post
The problem is that too many Germans are having the "RE mentality." No matter how you improve systematic timetable, you cannot dramatically reduce travel time to and from and between 15 to 20 largest cities within Germany, as well as to major cities in neighboring countries. Incremental scheduling improvements without dedicated high speed rail lines will not even effectively achieve travel time reduction between Frankfurt and Munich.
The question is one about priorities. What kind of railway investments will benefit the largest amounts of people.
It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
However, once you compare travel times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Frankfurt" to "somewhere in the vicinity of München" with for example times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Lyon" to "somewhere in the vicinity of Toulouse" you will see that DB easily wins...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 07:43 PM   #497
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21258

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The question is one about priorities. What kind of railway investments will benefit the largest amounts of people.
It is true that Frankfurt Hbf to München Hbf is not as fast as some services of similar length are in France.
However, once you compare travel times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Frankfurt" to "somewhere in the vicinity of München" with for example times for "somewhere in the vicinity of Lyon" to "somewhere in the vicinity of Toulouse" you will see that DB easily wins...
But the demographic structure of Germany is different! And distances are higher! If you keep improving point-to-point connections to fringe places, you will never have a high-speed connection between München and Frankfurt, for instance, let alone Frankfurt or München and Berlin.

Being less crowded, they can leave such "small place near Hamburg to small place near Düsseldorf" traffic for cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spag85 View Post
It works _also_ because they don't build much more road infrastructure, which would induce traffic and hence produce pollution.
This is just wrong. If train was a superior solution, it wouldn't need artificial creation of congestion on roads (the modal of choice if they were properly funded for many...) to attract people to rail. And electric car are going to eliminate point-of-use pollution (and I don't give a dime about "scarce space" or other soft talking).

Quote:
The timetable has to drive infrastructure decisions otherwise it is pointless.
Imagine if Germans analyzed their airport expansion program trying to figure out the timetable of airlines that would likely operate there... Vehicle operation is better left alone for a competitive, at lest semi-non-cooperative market scenario. Then the market adjusts itself.


Quote:
Finally, railway operations research is not 2 or 3 clicks but an industry and timetable generation easily lasts 18 months for a good reason.
It's simple. Do it like Italy. Fast and high-speed trains (the most lucrative) have absolute priority. Everything else, if possible, might be schedule around those. Otherwise, you just wait 40 min in a station so your slow-moving, low ridership, money-losing regional train doesn't get in the way of a train moving 100km/h faster than you and stopping nowhere. Does it bother you? Buy a car and stop whining.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 08:12 PM   #498
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
It's simple. Do it like Italy. Fast and high-speed trains (the most lucrative) have absolute priority. Everything else, if possible, might be schedule around those. Otherwise, you just wait 40 min in a station so your slow-moving, low ridership, money-losing regional train doesn't get in the way of a train moving 100km/h faster than you and stopping nowhere. Does it bother you? Buy a car and stop whining.
That is true, but I would think twice before proposing the italian way as a virtuous transportation example... mainly for the lack of a general plan.

We have a population expanded distribution similar to (and maybe worse than) Germany's, and we apply a point-to-point french model.

In central Veneto, where I live, they applied this method for the last decades. Building lots of new roads, spreading new residential areas along (not around: along) them, and when they get to full capacity, building again new roads.
Final result: we have no more free space. The transit network is a discontinuous grid of roads, mostly slow and congested, and creating public transport vectors is almost impossibile, or at least highly inefficient, due to the lack of "main centers".
Possible evolutions: none. Game over.
__________________
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 October 6th, 2010, 08:21 PM   #499
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

(edit: I was replying to Suburbanist)

I know I loose my time as you simply don't want to understand, but high speed trains in a coordinated timetable and carry more passengers and so earn more money, and all that for little expense. But they can also be faster, for the simple reason that a bunch of randomly placed trains is slower and of more difficult management than a well planned timetable (that requires months and engineers to be created...not only two clics)...sure in empty lines like the Spanish ones it's easier...but usually it is not the case as in Europe generally there is a problem of saturation. Even France is planning to make a regular interval timetable as it discovered that it is much better.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2010, 08:47 PM   #500
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
That is true, but I would think twice before proposing the italian way as a virtuous transportation example... mainly for the lack of a general plan.
The lack of planification led Italy to have a lot of railways, and to a lot of new infrastructures, that carry (pax*km in proportion to the number of inhabitants) one third of swiss traffic, mainly because connections are too large (50 minutes between trains) or too risky (5 minutes, that is, nearly impossible) making a lot of trips non feasible.

Two non-connecting trains carry less people and earn less money, but cost the same as two coordinated trains, so they require more subsidy. That's strange: Suburbanist doesn't like subsidies, but he wants a system that being less efficient require more money (in the form of subsiedies of trains, new road infrastructure to replace disorganised trains, ...). That's a nonsense
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 02:53 PM.


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