London | Future of the Underground Network | Vision - Page 12 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility


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 July 30th, 2019, 10:33 PM   #221
Vyking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 802
Likes (Received): 861

There's a relatively large tube gap in NC London, centred around Clerkenwell/Exmouth Market, even though the Met line goes directly underneath (but doesn't stop).

Has a station around Exmouth Market ever been proposed? Seems like it would be of major benefit to the area.
Vyking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 31st, 2019, 07:08 AM   #222
bazza667
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyking View Post
There's a relatively large tube gap in NC London, centred around Clerkenwell/Exmouth Market, even though the Met line goes directly underneath (but doesn't stop).

Has a station around Exmouth Market ever been proposed? Seems like it would be of major benefit to the area.
2 options

1. Oxford St tram continuing along 401 to Angel
2. Add extra tracks for Metropolitan line from Baker St to Aldgate. Metro stops only at Baker St, Euston, Kings X, Farringdon and Liverpool St. Circle line stops at all stops with the new one at Clerkenwell
__________________

LondonerN1 liked this post
bazza667 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2019, 02:49 AM   #223
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhuairi View Post
Havering council has been looking into a north/south borough connection. Few ideas have been mooted so far, including the usual monorail idea. More likely it would be a tram system similar to Croydon. would use the existing push/pull line between Romford and Upminster, extending south to Rainham and the new development at Beam Park and north to Collier Row & Harold Hill.



Image also hints at the Cental Line extension to Collier Row and DLR to Beam Park.

The route also has the potential to be connect to KenEx tram from Upminster as they have identified Lakeside shopping centre as a future destination, with c2c going between Upminster and Grays already. This could open up a connection to Ebbsfleet and Bluewater



Also extending the line from Harold Wood to Brentwood would also be well used. To drive from Upminster to Brentwood takes 15mins, but there is no direct public transport between them, to do that by bus and train takes over an hour. Havering has the highest car ownership in London and this has the potential help the environment and save people time.
If Havering had to be served better : for me, it would be by a light rail line starting at South Woodford, going along the A1400 and the A12 all the way until the west of Romford and then going to Romford station, taking over the Overground branch to Upminster and also the c2c line to Grays.

The section until South Woodford may seem useless, but it isn't - it would be in prevision of a light rail line along the North Circular. It may also seem weird, but it's not and I'd even say it's justified : there's plenty of space along the North Circular and I'd even say there's demand for such a line.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2019, 01:27 PM   #224
rhuairi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by acs121 View Post
If Havering had to be served better : for me, it would be by a light rail line starting at South Woodford, going along the A1400 and the A12 all the way until the west of Romford and then going to Romford station, taking over the Overground branch to Upminster and also the c2c line to Grays.

The section until South Woodford may seem useless, but it isn't - it would be in prevision of a light rail line along the North Circular. It may also seem weird, but it's not and I'd even say it's justified : there's plenty of space along the North Circular and I'd even say there's demand for such a line.
South Woodford to Romford? Cannot for the life of me see a need for that?Connection into Havering is pretty good, it's the moving around the borough that's the issue, mainly north-south.
rhuairi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2019, 03:54 PM   #225
LondonerN1
Now in SE10
 
LondonerN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 1112

On the Greenwich Peninsula thread, there has been discussion about how the transport infrastructure is insufficient to support a future population of up to 40,000.

My proposal to improve the infrastructure in North Greenwich would be to revive and update the original intention for an eastern branch of the Jubilee line.

The idea in the 1990s was to eventually extend the line to Woolwich via the Royal Docks, and there is already provision at North Greenwich station to accommodate this. My idea is to extend the line to Barking Riverside instead, to help support development along that part of the Thames Gateway. There would be an interchange at Custom House (ideally cross-platform if it was possible) which would allow Greenwich Peninsula residents to travel one stop eastwards to join the Elizabeth line easily, avoiding the arduous and slow out-of-station interchange at Canary Wharf.

The line would then follow the old trackbed to Beckton, before continuing east to Barking Riverside. There could possibly be an additional station in South Barking.

This is only a "crayons" idea and there are probably lots of reasons why it's not a good one! But anyway, here is a mock-up of how it might look:

Jubilee line extension [email protected] by RJS London, on Flickr
LondonerN1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2019, 05:21 PM   #226
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,814
Likes (Received): 797

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonerN1 View Post
On the Greenwich Peninsula thread, there has been discussion about how the transport infrastructure is insufficient to support a future population of up to 40,000.

My proposal to improve the infrastructure in North Greenwich would be to revive and update the original intention for an eastern branch of the Jubilee line.

The idea in the 1990s was to eventually extend the line to Woolwich via the Royal Docks, and there is already provision at North Greenwich station to accommodate this. My idea is to extend the line to Barking Riverside instead, to help support development along that part of the Thames Gateway. There would be an interchange at Custom House (ideally cross-platform if it was possible) which would allow Greenwich Peninsula residents to travel one stop eastwards to join the Elizabeth line easily, avoiding the arduous and slow out-of-station interchange at Canary Wharf.

The line would then follow the old trackbed to Beckton, before continuing east to Barking Riverside. There could possibly be an additional station in South Barking.

This is only a "crayons" idea and there are probably lots of reasons why it's not a good one! But anyway, here is a mock-up of how it might look:

Jubilee line extension [email protected] by RJS London, on Flickr
The problem is that the line is now sardine tin like full all the way from Stratford to the Wharf, there are no spare trains to send towards another branch. The key need is more capacity into the Wharf.

What's needed is more tunnels across the river. One idea could be a short extension from the City Airport DLR under the river after Silvertown then to North Greenwich, maybe a bit further south down the peninsula and then across under Marsh Wall on the Dogs and then across the river again to Surrey Quays station on the Overground, thereby also relieving the Jubilee line from the West as well, how far you'd extend it westwards from there would depend on capacity of such a line and the cost. But you could go west to the Old Kent Road and potentially a future Bakerloo line extension and maybe further to a station on the Walworth road and maybe Oval Station on the Northern line. thereby intercepting a lot of traffic from hitting the Jubilee line.

With not all trains on the Woolwich line of the DLR using the new route you could also have a small spur down the peninsula with a couple of stations towards Charlton. A lot of people who rail head to North Greenwich could interchange earlier and avoid the permanent gridlock at the foot of the Peninsula.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2019, 06:23 PM   #227
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 2545

Or make bus fares zonal again, so the residents of Charlton get the empty South Eastern trains (will be empty after Crossrail) on a Zone 3 fare rather than bus it to North Greenwich and only pay the Zone 2 cap.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2019, 07:22 PM   #228
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

Also that duplicates the DLR by and large. Any extension should be to Thamesmead and/or Abbey Wood, but that may now be GOBLIN territory and the stretch to Stratford is slammed, with each stop being a major interchange.

The development plans for the Canada Water catchment, and the ELL increases, and that station’s own capacity is the true issue for the Jubilee. Crossrail’s effect on the Docklands hasn’t been seen as yet.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2019, 08:20 PM   #229
LondonerN1
Now in SE10
 
LondonerN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 1112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
The problem is that the line is now sardine tin like full all the way from Stratford to the Wharf, there are no spare trains to send towards another branch. The key need is more capacity into the Wharf.

What's needed is more tunnels across the river. One idea could be a short extension from the City Airport DLR under the river after Silvertown then to North Greenwich, maybe a bit further south down the peninsula and then across under Marsh Wall on the Dogs and then across the river again to Surrey Quays station on the Overground, thereby also relieving the Jubilee line from the West as well, how far you'd extend it westwards from there would depend on capacity of such a line and the cost. But you could go west to the Old Kent Road and potentially a future Bakerloo line extension and maybe further to a station on the Walworth road and maybe Oval Station on the Northern line. thereby intercepting a lot of traffic from hitting the Jubilee line.

With not all trains on the Woolwich line of the DLR using the new route you could also have a small spur down the peninsula with a couple of stations towards Charlton. A lot of people who rail head to North Greenwich could interchange earlier and avoid the permanent gridlock at the foot of the Peninsula.
I like that idea! The spur down the Peninsula could have stops at the new school, Greenwich Millennium Village, New Charlton (for all the superstores) and Charlton Riverside (supporting the proposed new development there).

It would be even more useful if a Crossrail station gets built at Silvertown/London City Airport.

Last edited by LondonerN1; September 1st, 2019 at 08:54 PM.
LondonerN1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2019, 10:18 PM   #230
LondonerN1
Now in SE10
 
LondonerN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 1112

I've been thinking some more about my proposal. I still think it has some value. I've now extended it to Thamesmead, as you can see on the map below.

I think it would make Barking Riverside and Thamesmead viable places to live for a lot more people, in the same way that the first Jubilee line extension opened up Canning Town.

Currently, there are six or so westbound trains per hour in the peak that start at North Greenwich. These would obviously start at Thamesmead under my proposal. As I understand it, there is headroom with the signalling system to run 36tph through the core, with a max of 30tph being operated now. The additional trains could all start at Thamesmead, leading to a frequency of a train approximately every 5 minutes on the new branch.

Yes, the line partly replicates the DLR, but it takes a much more direct route between Custom House and Beckton.

Jubilee line extension [email protected] by RJS London, on Flickr

Last edited by LondonerN1; September 5th, 2019 at 10:24 PM.
LondonerN1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2019, 10:28 PM   #231
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,002
Likes (Received): 13524

We shouldn't be encouraging more traffic onto the Jubilee, particularly as the Elizabeth line will be fully operational within 18 months and frequency improvements on the DLR but also the Overground extension to Barking Riverside from the early 2020s.
__________________

NCT, Rapidtransitman, geogregor liked this post
Mr Cladding no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2019, 07:44 PM   #232
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,622
Likes (Received): 615

Hi all,

I've begun thinking about some of these ideas again recently, but I want to scrutinise them fully before going into too much detail and producing complete masterplans. I think a lot of the ideas in this thread have some merit. I'm still convinced by my Alt. Crossrail 2 idea for example, and ideas on the last page about further improving Canary Wharf access seem really sensible. Crossrail will without doubt improve access to Canary Wharf from the east and west, but less so from the north or south. Are they expecting a reduction in Jubilee line users from central and west London? If so, that will reduce overcrowding for passengers coming from Waterloo or London Bridge, but by how much? It's also a really difficult thing to improve- I now feel that my previously proposed 'Thameslink 2' from somewhere near New Cross to Canary Wharf then Stratford is unlikely to be viable, as there would be very low off-peak usage.

First I wanted to discuss this Canary-Wharf-Funded DLR extension to Euston- would this be the most efficient way to bring more passengers to Canary Wharf?

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/201...ank-to-euston/

I know it's been mentioned for a while, but I still reckon an extension south-west terminating at Clapham Junction would serve a lot more people. I can see why Canary Wharf would want a direct link to HS2 (which they already have at OOC), but are there any projections to back up that being a better route?

If I do assume that the Charing Cross > Victoria route is better, which Central London stations would be worthwhile? As much as I'd love one at Aldwych for old times sake, I can't really see that being worth it, given it's only 10 minutes walk from Charing Cross. It would then make sense to have an interchange at somewhere like City Thameslink (lets just call this Ludgate Hill), St Pauls or Blackfrairs. Bank as existing, and an idea mentioned in the London Infrastructure Plan, a new underground DLR station at Tower Hill? I looked at this before on page 6 but always assumed the gradient here was too steep, does anyone know? Any views on a stop between Bank and Charing Cross?

Could Canary Wharf instead fund an extension to the Metropolitan line? As Euston and Euston Square would be consolidated by Crossrail 2 and HS2, Canary Wharf to Euston would become possible. Assuming the Metropolitan line can split at Snow Hill Junction, and gradually lower the old Thameslink line trackbed to send the Met on a new path past Liverpool Street, where might it go? I quite like the way LondenerN1 illustrated your ideas on the last page so I’m going to use the same style to suggest some options.


Option 1: My previously proposed, via Deptford and onto Hayes.
Advantages:
-Huge area of potential development in North Deptford
-Taking over Hayes branch simplifies SE mainline routes.
Disadvantages:
-No link to Canary Wharf, so increased pressure on Jubilee and DLR.
-More difficult to secure private funding as a result.



Option 2: Jubilee extension alternative
Advantages:
- Relieves pressure on the Jubilee line and Crossrail
-Hits several areas of development opportunity.
Disadvantages:
-Largely follows existing routes, so would there be the demand?
-Is there potential for more homes in Thamesmead?



Option 3: Alternative route to Dagenham Dock
Optional additional stations at Stave Hill, Silvertown, London City Airport, Creekmouth
Advantages:
-Connects the largest number of London Plan areas of opportunity, and could facilitate thousands of new homes on both sides of the Thames.
-Easiest to secure further private funding from LCA or developers.
Disadvantages:
-The longest stretch of tunnels required.
-Of limited benefit to existing Rail or DLR users



Option 4: Hayes via Canary Wharf
Advantages:
- Still of benefit to Deptford and reduces overcrowding on DLR Lewisham branch.
-Opportunities for development along Hayes branch, which would become very well connected.
-Taking over Hayes branch simplifies SE mainline routes.
Disadvantages:
- Doesn’t hit the major future development areas in Greenwich, Charlton, Baking or Dagenham.
- Stave Hill and Millwall may not be able to justify stations of their own.



All 4 options would connect Canary Wharf, the City, KXSP and Euston, and would reduce congestion on Crossrai, DLR and the Jubilee line. I think my preference is probably option 4, without a station at Stave hill and Millwall, but what do you think? I think it also depends on where the Bakerloo extension goes- I feel as though sending the Met towards Hayes and the Bakerloo towards Charlton Riverside make more sense?
__________________

LondonerN1 liked this post
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2019, 05:16 AM   #233
bazza667
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 357

Would the metropolitan line best be served with reducing interactions with circle and Hammersmith lines to increase service frequency?

Another option would be to run Hammersmith & city services from Aldgate East to Limehouse and Canary Wharf
bazza667 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2019, 11:43 AM   #234
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,558
Likes (Received): 941

Extending the Metropolitan line looks good on a map, but as there are only 14tph then it's a bit of a waste of investment.

The Jubilee line is too busy for any branches, especially the eastern end which won't be helped by Crossrail, so I think that's a bit of a non-starter. DLR to Thamesmead is the best bet I would have thought

The thing I want to know, and is most urgent in my mind, is why the Bakerloo line extension is going to cost 10x more than the very similar extension of Line 11 in Madrid.
__________________

Jon10 liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2019, 02:59 PM   #235
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22,209
Likes (Received): 44698

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post

The thing I want to know, and is most urgent in my mind, is why the Bakerloo line extension is going to cost 10x more than the very similar extension of Line 11 in Madrid.
Because everything in the UK cost ludicrous amount of money, just look at the road projects...

There is serious question though, what drives the costs up? Yes, the labour costs are higher in the UK, but not multiple times highers. (and actually lower than in Scandinavia)

Is it the cost of bureaucracy? Protracted planning? Too high specs? Badly run procurement system? There must be a reason.
geogregor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2019, 06:03 PM   #236
Vyking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 802
Likes (Received): 861

Land value, planning and regulation I'd say, plus generally higher spec in recent years.

The last "no frills" tube projects would've been the Victoria and Jubilee phase 1, a long time ago now.
Vyking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2019, 09:30 PM   #237
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,622
Likes (Received): 615

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Extending the Metropolitan line looks good on a map, but as there are only 14tph then it's a bit of a waste of investment.
This is very true, even though that it 14tph terminating right in the city, so any extension south would be heavily used. I wonder how the cost-benefit of ~9km of tunnels (to Lewisham, Option 1) and 4 underground stations would compare to other proposals for dedicated lines which can run higher frequencies, but would be starting from scratch? Is there any possibility to increase the Met line frequency, or would it just take another 6k or so of tunnels to make it an isolated line from Baker Street?

How much of a need is there to give Thamesmead a station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by heymikey1981 View Post
Developer-led Metropolitan line extension from Aldgate passing through:
I missed this, which is similar to Option 3 above except includes a better idea to run services through Southwark, perhaps with stops in St Saviours and Surrey Quays, both of which are areas of development potential and would reduce pressure on the Jubilee. But anyway, I agree with Stuu that due to the costs of any project as mentioned above, being realistic, this is very unlikely to happen.

Alt Option 3 illustrated below.


Crossrail 2 to Stanstead

A little off-piste, but if Crossrail 2 was to use the disused trackbed from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park, as I’ve proposed in the earlier pages of this thread (ignoring the split to Stratford which would be expensive and complicated), and take a dedicated route north of Finsbury Park, could it eventually connect with the West Anglia Main Line and reach Stansted?

I’m thinking this could be much cheaper than resolving all the level crossings and shared services on that line which CR2 is currently suggesting. I think they’re even saying they’d 4-track that line, which would be hugely expensive and disruptive. If a new line split (most likely) from the Hertford Loop line, it could have several benefits:
- Creation of the International KXSP Hub with direct connections to all 4 major London airports + HS1.
- Semi-fast services offering comparable speeds to the Stansted Express, but far more frequent with fewer capacity constraints on the line.
- Fewer Stanstead services on the WAML frees up capacity for other services

The best case scenario would require about 5km of overground track, mostly through countryside, and a grade separated junction at Cheshunt. This is shown below, but other options might be to connect the lines between Cuffley and Hoddleston or Waterford Heath and Stansted Mountfitchet.




This might create a network which looks something like this. I’m aware that for the direct Stansted services to work, you’d need to terminate a load of services at Finsbury Park using the flyover at Ferme Park to turn trains back. You could send that capacity elsewhere, but difficult to see where without an expensive underground junction. I might look at those options another time.

Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2019, 11:07 PM   #238
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 36,217
Likes (Received): 20288

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
The thing I want to know, and is most urgent in my mind, is why the Bakerloo line extension is going to cost 10x more than the very similar extension of Line 11 in Madrid.
Isn't the Madrid Line 11 extension shorter than the Bakerloo Line extension?

And also, the average distance between stations in London is longer than in Madrid.
...which actually only makes matters worse, of course.

That said, London is horrifically expensive.

On the other hand, the soil under (most of) Madrid is much better for tunnelling than the one under London.
__________________
&&& a PMRCat ImpTgn Cat2017 WC/CA/EC ImmTGN
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Last edited by 437.001; October 27th, 2019 at 11:19 PM.
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2019, 11:27 PM   #239
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 36,217
Likes (Received): 20288

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post
Option 4: Hayes via Canary Wharf
Advantages:
- Still of benefit to Deptford and reduces overcrowding on DLR Lewisham branch.
-Opportunities for development along Hayes branch, which would become very well connected.
-Taking over Hayes branch simplifies SE mainline routes.
Disadvantages:
- Doesn’t hit the major future development areas in Greenwich, Charlton, Baking or Dagenham.
- Stave Hill and Millwall may not be able to justify stations of their own.

I like this option.

But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bazza667 View Post
Would the metropolitan line best be served with reducing interactions with circle and Hammersmith lines to increase service frequency?

Another option would be to run Hammersmith & city services from Aldgate East to Limehouse and Canary Wharf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Extending the Metropolitan line looks good on a map, but as there are only 14tph then it's a bit of a waste of investment.
Wouldn't that need a new tunnel from Baker St to Lewisham to relieve pressure and improve frequencies?

I don't dislike the idea though.

But the cost would be huge.

So for now, Hayes would better be a future Bakerloo extension.
__________________
&&& a PMRCat ImpTgn Cat2017 WC/CA/EC ImmTGN
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Leedsrule liked this post
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2019, 12:39 AM   #240
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,558
Likes (Received): 941

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
Isn't the Madrid Line 11 extension shorter than the Bakerloo Line extension?

And also, the average distance between stations in London is longer than in Madrid.
...which actually only makes matters worse, of course.

That said, London is horrifically expensive.

On the other hand, the soil under (most of) Madrid is much better for tunnelling than the one under London.
The Madrid extension is 1km shorter, with one less station, although it will have 3 underground interchanges including the one at Atocha which can't be easy to build. The fact is infrastructure in the UK costs insane amounts of money, and no one seems to notice.

I don't think the costs are much to do with the geology, the Victorians managed to tunnel through that area without all the technology we have now
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRAZIL | Urban Transport Compilation mopc Subways and Urban Transport 2225 November 12th, 2019 11:07 PM
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24003 November 12th, 2019 11:55 AM
Lisboa | Village Underground MarcoSousa Projectos 55 July 12th, 2014 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us