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 May 14th, 2011, 07:55 PM   #101
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Dangerous for just whom: The bears...the wolverines... ... ...the deer?!?
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 14th, 2011, 10:57 PM   #102
Mr_Dru
Registered User
 
Mr_Dru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 1,384
Likes (Received): 547

Off topic:
Hello, I'm looking for an 'simple' Canadian Railways webpage. I want to book a trainticket somewhere online. And is it possible to go with the train from Toronto to Detroit?

Thank you.
Mr_Dru no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 01:35 AM   #103
diablo234
Oh No He Didn't
 
diablo234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,297

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Dru View Post
Off topic:
Hello, I'm looking for an 'simple' Canadian Railways webpage. I want to book a trainticket somewhere online. And is it possible to go with the train from Toronto to Detroit?

Thank you.
VIA Rail Canada

Trains do run from Toronto to Windsor, ON (just across the river from Detroit).
diablo234 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 09:22 AM   #104
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,913
Likes (Received): 18177

^ Are there even any cross-border trains to Detroit?
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

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

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 02:03 PM   #105
Mr_Dru
Registered User
 
Mr_Dru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 1,384
Likes (Received): 547

Quote:
Originally Posted by diablo234 View Post
VIA Rail Canada

Trains do run from Toronto to Windsor, ON (just across the river from Detroit).
Thank you for the site (its even in Dutch )
Mr_Dru no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 03:32 PM   #106
diablo234
Oh No He Didn't
 
diablo234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,297

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
^ Are there even any cross-border trains to Detroit?
None that I know of now, but I know Amtrak used to run trains from Chicago to Toronto but they were discontinued (also I think they might have been routed through Sarnia, ON-Port Huron, MI not Detroit-Windsor).
diablo234 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2011, 07:04 PM   #107
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

correct
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2011, 07:42 PM   #108
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68



I'm thinking that what killed off most of the border crossing trains was the hassle of crossing the border.



Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2011, 09:23 PM   #109
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Tell us about it. The yanks flipped out yet again even back in '83 when an unaccompanied 12-year-old boy travelling from Montreal to NYC was found to be harbouring a --gasp-- firecracker...man, the stupid guards were insufficiently educated at c-o-n-v-e-r-s-a-t-i-n-g let alone d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-n-g with the excessively shy tyke; I mean, my own 16-year-old companion really ought to have invoiced those pratts for translation services rendered Can you imagine? law and order a-hinging on the co-operation of mere minors

Train was delayed its bloody usual trio of successive hours

Either direction travelled: Welcum to America!

Last edited by trainrover; May 21st, 2011 at 09:29 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2011, 08:20 PM   #110
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

The
Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
CPR's being really obstinate at providing free, safe & secure access across its not-all-that-busy-docklands-serving-multi-tracked ROW through one of the densest 'hoods in the land here. The CPR is so almighty enough to be in the possession of The right to be fining (obligatorily-speaking-) trespassers, a creed of either a Mile-End or a Petite-Patrie local who follows any one of numerous holes in the trackside fences, 144$CDN. In 2011. What I ain't been hearing is how about revising The Railway Act of Canada instead of wasting time at pining away on intra-Victorian ideals this far in the future For instance, how many years has the footbridge linking Park X and Villeray been allowed to have been demolished due to 'pestersome' deterioration?



Moreover, english cbc radio's local morning show about three months ago featured on the line all da way from Calgary a CPR spokesperson (executive staff) who was allowed to categorise, on our airwaves, that docklands-serving ROW as plied-by-commuters. This utterance of hers was not corrected, plus it's been so flippin' long that none of us could have any bloody idea which semi-century she must've yapped out loud


Last edited by trainrover; May 27th, 2011 at 08:50 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 10:25 PM   #111
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738


Quote:
Originally Posted by trainrover View Post
It would appear that Gare Lucien L'Allier is going to be retrofitted. I wonder if there be any plan to install track-end hydraulic buffers


clickable, from novembre 2009



..............surely this one must've been discarded by one of this year's visiting Jazz fest musicians


clickable


image hosted on flickr

this one possibly pre-dates WWII (was trying to find an image of the ginormous ones equipping London's terminal Euston Station)!

[IMG]http://t0.************/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9_icpW_eLuV9vHX7na9VFOWagIH3RgFskYtursIoQapxPxsGs&t=1[/IMG]
clickable

Last edited by trainrover; July 9th, 2011 at 10:38 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2011, 08:07 PM   #112
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is just propaganda. I mean, it is an argument repeated "ad eternum" like rail travel was as smooth as high-class dining.

First of all, your coffee will be likely overpriced and crap.

The scenery will be likely to be tunneled out or protected by noise barriers.

Unless you are travelling on 2nd class, there will be fellow passengers scooping on your read.

Never mind you have to move to/from station from/to your house/workplace or elsewhere. Then, you will have to drive anyway or take a taxi/rental car, let alone ride some filthy bus full of people you'd usually avoid if given the choice. On this bus, you can get pickpocketed or worse. Maybe you will not find a set or have to share the lateral area of your buttock with an oversize person crushing you - unlike airplanes there will be no armrest. So by the time you got to the station, you are already stressed out from the experience to get there and so.

I am not saying train transport is useless, but that its "convenience" is usually overstated by people who promote it. I could start right now writing about the blessing of controlling temperature and soundtrack in your car, not having to talk with strangers while commuting, going straight to your destination, being able to leave and come as you wish without resorting to a timetable etc.
I'm sorry to respond to such an old post by someone with whom I already have a semi-active conversation going on in the U.S. HSR thread, but this post is just too much for me to bear....

I've lived in an automotive-centric/necessitating part of the world all my life (New Hampshire, in the U.S.). Not once, in the short stints during which I've had public transit or otherwise non-automotive sources of transportation available to me have I missed the use of a car. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but think critically about this issue, for once, please. What gives me, you, or anyone else the right to consume as many resources as is done by the driver of a car, nevermind the sort of behemoths sold in the U.S. and Canada, in greater and lesser quantities, respectively? The manufacturing of it, the maintainance of new tires, brakes, oil, the gas consumed, etc. etc.--it's all consumption necessitated by poor planning, or lack of any sort of planning at all. And the only consumption worse than intentional consumption is the kind that doesn't even wonder about itself. Un-self-conscious consumerism is a blight upon mankind

Why do we deserve to be so comfortable all the time? Is it simply a matter of chance that we should be born into places where comfort is essentially an expected quality of life? Emphatically, yes. It's anyone who thinks otherwise that's got his head in the sand. Stop being so concerned with your own well-being before that concern begins to affect you negatively, if it's not too late already....

And those worries of the obese, fetid public transit user, simply bring up more questions. Perhaps this person wouldn't be so fat and unclean if we would all apply some social pressure to one another, to say, "no, if I have to be around you, this isn't okay". Being in South Korea now, I understand the not-always-but-on-balance positive role social pressure can have on people. I've been riding the subways and buses of Seoul for weeks now, and have yet to come upon anyone whose hand I'd hessitate to shake. Maybe if we weren't all stuck in traffic, sitting in our climate-controlled, bespeakered isolation chambers, we'd be a less miserable lot to spend time around, and appreciate the world around us instead of the comfort of our backsides.

Sorry. I hear this sort of thoughtless nonsense spouted about all the time in the U.S., and this was the straw that yet again fractured one of the camel's vertebra, but I'm done ranting...for now!
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2011, 08:52 PM   #113
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
What gives me, you, or anyone else the right to consume as many resources as is done by the driver of a car, nevermind the sort of behemoths sold in the U.S. and Canada, in greater and lesser quantities, respectively?
Having money and the ability to pay for it. When you go beyond things most people consider as basic rights everyone should have access to (basic shelter, basic food, education, health care - I'm not entering the US controversy here -, public safety, voting, fair treatment from authorities etc), money is what determines which perks you have in life, and others don't. In the case of developed rich countries, an overwhelming majority of households have the ability to pay for car-mobility. In Ghana or Papua New Guinea, that might not be the case.

Quote:
The manufacturing of it, the maintainance of new tires, brakes, oil, the gas consumed, etc. etc.--it's all consumption necessitated by poor planning, or lack of any sort of planning at all.
You are assuming the all car use is wasteful and un-needed. Try go give the same level of mobility for the scattered population of Northern Ontario via any public transit, and even the energy and resources deployed to provide everyone with a bus service with 24/7 frequency no less than 1 bus per hour, and you'll have the province bankrupt.

Quote:
Why do we deserve to be so comfortable all the time? Is it simply a matter of chance that we should be born into places where comfort is essentially an expected quality of life?
That is why we have countries (nation-States). Most of one's life outcome at birth, in a global scale, is determined by its country of birth. It is manageable to think of creating equal opportunities in a national scale, not in a global scale. In a certain sense, all we SSC forumers are fortunate to have been educated, and to have some sort of internet connection instead of having to beg all day for food or, worse, had been hijacked by some militia at age 12 and forced to fight for them in some random jungle guerrilla.

Quote:
Being in South Korea now, I understand the not-always-but-on-balance positive role social pressure can have on people. I've been riding the subways and buses of Seoul for weeks now, and have yet to come upon anyone whose hand I'd hessitate to shake.
Oriental cultures have yet to develop the deep entrenched sense of individualism we have in Western developed countries, in what it related to the notion that each person is the center of his/her own life, before any other societal, national, familiar obligation. But I'll not go down there for now.

Quote:
Maybe if we weren't all stuck in traffic, sitting in our climate-controlled, bespeakered isolation chambers, we'd be a less miserable lot to spend time around, and appreciate the world around us instead of the comfort of our backsides.
This is what infuriates me the most: people assuming that those using cars are totally unaware of their surroundings or do not like any physical activity or never take a trail etc. How would such people get partners, marry and have kids, then?

At the end of the day, as I usually say, public transportation, urban and non-urban, might have a certain whole in mobility. For certain groups and certain scenarios, it will be the best choice. There is no deniability on it. What I loath and whine about is the process of taking the discussion about public transportation in Canada and, in face of obvious shortcomings and pitfalls of an specific train project, try to use generalizing arguments that glorifies the "user experience" of a potential train passenger like everyone riding Via Rail were a transit geek delighted only to be moving on tracks. I staunchly oppose this glamourization of transportation - of any type/mode, included car mobility - as an excuse to get public money spent on it, on the lines of "it will make no money, it will cater for few people, but it is cool and we should have it done anyway".
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2011, 05:13 AM   #114
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Having money and the ability to pay for it. When you go beyond things most people consider as basic rights everyone should have access to (basic shelter, basic food, education, health care - I'm not entering the US controversy here -, public safety, voting, fair treatment from authorities etc), money is what determines which perks you have in life, and others don't. In the case of developed rich countries, an overwhelming majority of households have the ability to pay for car-mobility. In Ghana or Papua New Guinea, that might not be the case.

You are assuming the all car use is wasteful and un-needed. Try go give the same level of mobility for the scattered population of Northern Ontario via any public transit, and even the energy and resources deployed to provide everyone with a bus service with 24/7 frequency no less than 1 bus per hour, and you'll have the province bankrupt.
Again, this is only necessary because Canadians (and Americans) saw all the land they had and simply had no idea what to do with it. So they just built out--suburbs and malls as far as the eye can see simply because we couldn't leave the land alone. There is virtually no economic benefit to this sort of development, and obviously the environment suffers as well.

Quote:
That is why we have countries (nation-States). Most of one's life outcome at birth, in a global scale, is determined by its country of birth. It is manageable to think of creating equal opportunities in a national scale, not in a global scale. In a certain sense, all we SSC forumers are fortunate to have been educated, and to have some sort of internet connection instead of having to beg all day for food or, worse, had been hijacked by some militia at age 12 and forced to fight for them in some random jungle guerrilla.
So then, it's our right to continue to use these resources at rates far surpassing almost anyone else just because of luck? I'm not okay with that, and neither should you or anyone else be. I'm not saying that we need to drop our living standards down to third world levels so that others can consume like we do; that would obviously be against the whole point of this argument. I'm just trying to be thoughtful in realizing that the comfort I have is an outcome of lucky birth, and almost nothing else, instead of taking it for granted or assuming it's right.

Quote:
Oriental cultures have yet to develop the deep entrenched sense of individualism we have in Western developed countries, in what it related to the notion that each person is the center of his/her own life, before any other societal, national, familiar obligation. But I'll not go down there for now.
Oh, you'll not, won't you? I will. What good does individualism do anyone? Never even mind the fact that the way in which we perpetuate our supposed individualism is through mass consumerism, buying and spending in patterns so predictable and controllable that there's a living to be made simply off of the process of selling us stuff we hardly need in the first place. It's precisely this concept of individualism we're being sold in mass-produced form, with heaps of irony to go around for anyone who realizes it.

Quote:
This is what infuriates me the most: people assuming that those using cars are totally unaware of their surroundings or do not like any physical activity or never take a trail etc. How would such people get partners, marry and have kids, then?
Daily car usage and being "outdoorsy" or otherwise social has nothing to do with this. In a car, you are removed from a level of social interaction which helps you learn how to cope with people with whom you have no association with and whom you might otherwise avoid totally, instead of simply honking your horn at someone to communicate "you're bothering me"; unless you want to be thought a total boar, you've got to think of the right words, body language, facial expression, and timing necessary to say that same thing unless you want an earful.

And certainly you've seen all the data about how most cities are younger demographically than the suburbs? There's a reason for that. People move to cities precisely because the chance of meeting someone with whom you'd like to have a relationship and maybe have kids is far higher in denser areas; it's a matter of simple statistics you can't argue with.

Besides, I'm not aiming for an ad hominem here, but I get the impression that you're not a native North American citizen; exactly how long have you lived here?

Quote:
At the end of the day, as I usually say, public transportation, urban and non-urban, might have a certain whole in mobility. For certain groups and certain scenarios, it will be the best choice. There is no deniability on it. What I loath and whine about is the process of taking the discussion about public transportation in Canada and, in face of obvious shortcomings and pitfalls of an specific train project, try to use generalizing arguments that glorifies the "user experience" of a potential train passenger like everyone riding Via Rail were a transit geek delighted only to be moving on tracks. I staunchly oppose this glamourization of transportation - of any type/mode, included car mobility - as an excuse to get public money spent on it, on the lines of "it will make no money, it will cater for few people, but it is cool and we should have it done anyway".
I'm not advocating for an omnipresent system of public transportation in Canada that has high speed rail lines running from Whitehorse to St. John's, and a bus system serving every town with more than 5,000 people in it. You'd be quite right in saying that'd be wasteful and inefficient in itself. However, there are certain places, both in Canada and the U.S., that could hugely benefit from high speed rail. And building high speed rail in these places would likely only help to raise density, further justifying the construction of such lines in such places.

I'm beginning to understand that as much as you try and take the reasonable-yet-still-conservative-about-transit approach, you really have no desire to advocate for the propagation of mass transit outside of anywhere that simply couldn't function at all without it. You're always painting public transit as if it's a huge step down from automotive transit when the truth of the matter is that it isn't.

P.S. Sorry to everyone that I barge in this way and start a virtual 2-man flame war, it's just as I said before, I hear the sort of talk that Suburbanist is on about all the time, as I'm sure many of you do, but I can't stand it.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2011, 05:13 AM   #115
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1674

Yeah, this forum would be better if we didn't have this argument every time. I disagree with both of you anyways.

Without going to off topic, expanding intercity and commuter rail is very expensive in North America compared to its potential for ridership. People who already have cars won't find them convenient to use, and they feel they need to own vehicles because everyday alternatives to driving are poor. It is wasteful to expand these services because they take away scarce funding from more viable options that solve the aforementioned problem. This might sound like circular logic, but I am concerned with real world conditions not theory.

Last edited by zaphod; July 13th, 2011 at 06:34 AM.
zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2011, 10:35 PM   #116
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
It is wasteful to expand these services because they take away scarce funding
That was written about the Intercolonial Railway under construction between Halifax and Montreal back in the 1800s, e.g., overly-pricey stone masonry for its dozens and dozens of bridges, which have been proven to be of such high quality, requiring virtually no maintenance the past odd 140 years.

In this sense, scarcity is an option, not obligatory -- e.g., wherefrom is funding being deprived?

Last edited by trainrover; July 13th, 2011 at 10:41 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 05:42 AM   #117
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Also, it's not as though either Canada or the U.S. had to develop the way they did; it was simply a matter of coincidence that they had prodigious domestic natural resources, and that historically that's been enough to support strong economic growth. It was a matter of economic prudence to build in the dispersed manner that we did. Times change, and because we're now so strongly service-oriented, it's no longer economically desirable, nor really viable in the long-term, to have population so spread out. Encouraging density now, by making transportation less dependant on the automobile, is a way to prepare for the future.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 02:46 PM   #118
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Also, it's not as though either Canada or the U.S. had to develop the way they did; it was simply a matter of coincidence that they had prodigious domestic natural resources, and that historically that's been enough to support strong economic growth. It was a matter of economic prudence to build in the dispersed manner that we did. Times change, and because we're now so strongly service-oriented, it's no longer economically desirable, nor really viable in the long-term, to have population so spread out. Encouraging density now, by making transportation less dependant on the automobile, is a way to prepare for the future.
I guess you are missing the point. Canada (and most of US) has a lot of small places scattered around vast terrain. I'm not talking about areas that are on the periphery of a big city, but small cities with less than 20.000 inhabitants (many way less than that) that are 40, 80 miles from the nearest populated place. Not really places from which people commute.

To suggest that everybody should move to big cities in their inner areas is tantamount to propose the de-population of 3/4 of all "suitable for human settlement" area of Canada.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Last edited by Suburbanist; July 14th, 2011 at 06:49 PM.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 03:16 PM   #119
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2,000
Likes (Received): 1033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
I guess you are missing the point. Canada and most of US has a lot of small places scattered around vast terrain. I'm not talking about areas that are on the periphery of a big city, but small cities with less than 20.000 inhabitants (many way less than that) that are 40, 80 miles from the nearest populated place. Not really places from which people commute.

To suggest that everybody should move to big cities in their inner areas is tantamount to propose the de-population of 3/4 of all "suitable for human settlement" area of Canada.
If we're totally honest, places in which are "suitable for human settlement" means, in the purest sense, places which are naturally suitable for human settlement without the necessity of an artificial environment. The fact that we've become so good at replicating places which are suitable to human settlement, in terms of food and water availability and creation of shelter (and all that entails), means that we've been able to populate pretty much the entire globe. It's the most impactful use of our natural intelligence to make ourselves comfortable wherever we like.

But no, I'm not suggesting that we should all move to somewhere between the tropics because that's what's best (nor am I arguing that that is what's necessarily best), and pursuing this argument any further will only get us farther away from the point that this thread is all about, so I'll leave it be.

(The only point of mine this perspective gets to is that I think areas with better systems of transportation tend naturally to attract more people [can we at least agree on that?]; therefore, any region which makes use of mass transit is likely to see its population [density] increase. I suppose you could look at this like a chicken-or-egg problem.)

My point was, originally, that there are some areas of the U.S. and Canada which are suitable to the use of high speed passenger railway transportation as a form of mass transit; granted, there are fewer in North America than in most of the rest of the world, but as I said before my argument isn't and has never been that all communities in North America should have access to a passenger rail system, just that there are some. What I'm beginning to understand is virtually a knee-jerk reaction from you is that there are no places, beyond those which already heavily utilize passenger rail transport (and even then not always), that are suitable to that form of transportation.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 06:55 PM   #120
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Canada (and most of US) has a lot of small places scattered around vast terrain
As does Australasia, yet their networks are far more up-to-snuff than any of ours is.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, canadian national, canadian pacific, cp rail, go transit, railways, via rail canada

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 05:53 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