Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Milwaukee Road Beer Line

10151 views
27 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Milwaukee Road Beer Line
Posted by FulhamFC on Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:34 AM
I only recently rediscovered the MR magazine and have loved every bit of it. After spending hours trying to come up with a workable track plan in N that I can model in a space 6 X 3, (it’s all I can practically do... long story, and yes I tried to get more room or work it so it could be a shelf layout but that’s a story for another time.) I came across the track plan and the videos on the Milwaukee Road Beer Line. Fantastic! It set my ideas flowing again and here is my attempt based on it. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. The two sidings I’ve added on the far left are staging tracks that lead to the rest of the world, and I’ve spilt the layout into two areas so you can’t see the whole thing from one place. It won't be modular like the original HO and it could even be set somewhere else!
  • Member since
    March, 2010
  • 5 posts
Posted by MilwRd_Mike on Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:28 PM

I like it! I model the Milwaukee Road in HO and 3-rail (also a story for another time!). I like their trackplan; although I'm not a huge fan of urban scenery. I live in northwestern Illinois and I tend to model rural scenes.

Milwaukee Road Mike
  • Member since
    April, 2010
  • From: Green Bay Wi.
  • 48 posts
Posted by Groove Rider on Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:36 PM
I dig the track plan also. That's a fair amount of track to play with in such a small space. Good luck and I look forward to following along.
  • Member since
    February, 2008
  • From: Aiken, South Carolina.
  • 3,875 posts
Posted by Packers#1 on Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:09 PM

 I remember that layout series. I'd say you took it as a great jumping off point. both yards look workable without a lead, and if it's a switching layout that really wouldn't matter. looks like a fun layout to run as well

Sawyer Berry

Freshman Engineering student at Clemson University.

Planning a modular switching layout based on a pair of Missouri shortlines. Also enjoying researching different railroad lines that would be fun to model.

 

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Sorumsand, Norway
  • 3,417 posts
Posted by steinjr on Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:55 PM

FulhamFC
Any suggestions would be gratefully received.

 

1) Drawing. I'd recommend redrawing the figure with square being 1 foot long instead of with squares being 6" long. Then draw in your planned buildings (can be done just as squares and circles).

 That will make your track plan easier to evaluate for people who just look at the figure without making any calculations to evaluate how long spurs are, and to evaluate how much room you have for industries.

 2) Room plan/access. You have a center viewblock across the layout. That means that you need access from both sides.

 So your 2.5 x 6 foot layout will need to be placed in an available  6 1/2 foot x 8 foot area to be operated. 

 Your comment indicate that a 3 x 6 foot "space" is all you can get. Whether this 2.5 x 6 foot layout will work in your room depends on how you have defined "space".

 I would strongly recommend making a drawing that shows how the layout will fit into the room where it is going to be, including any access aisles.

 

3) Rescaling. You have taken a 4 foot deep x 12 foot long H0 scale track plan and made it into a 2 1/2 foot deep x 6 foot long N scale track plan.

 Good call on layout depth  - the H0 scale plan calls for 18" radius, which is fairly tight for H0 scale, but the N scale plan has room for curve radius that is a little gentler (for N scale). So depthwise you now have what would be the equivalent of about 4 1/2 feet of depth in H0 scale.

 Not so sure if it is an equally good call on layout length - the N scale equivalent of a 12 foot long H0 scale layout is a just under 7 foot long layout in N scale, not 6 feet.

 So most of your spurs running along the long axis of the layout (ie most of your spurs) is a car length or more shorter than the corresponding spurs on the original Beer Line layout.

 Might be a problem, might be fine - depends on what you are planning to run on those tracks - I would consider car lengths and engine lengths and look at whether you are losing spur lengths unnecessary. 

 

4) You have already decided that you are not going to make the sections into modules.

 Okay. So why do you let your track plan continue to be constrained by the limitations MRs modular concept imposed on the original track plan?  

 Why does e.g. the tracks on your plan have to cross over the section boundaries at an equal distance from the outer edge on all four section boundaries?

 

5) You have decided to use a viewblock to cut the layout into two visually distinct scenes.

 That can be a good call. It does have consequences for access (see above), but it also allows you to do two (or more) different scenes.

 You have also written that your layout will not be modular. So why does your viewblock need to follow (at least roughly) what was the module boundaries in the original MR plan?  

 Why not e.g. pull the viewblock at the lower right six inches further right, and the viewblock at upper left further to the left, gaining more room for the main scenes?  Since you are doing a viewblock anyways, you might as well make the industry for the spur going into the lower right hand corner on your plan a flat or semi-flat.

 Why do you need the river to be in both scenes, and for the river to be continuous through the viewblock?

 If you want the river to run as you have it - why not make the viewblock sort of U-shaped - upper left corner down to center, then along center of table rightwards, then up along river towards upper right hand corner?

 

6) Really the most important question, but I'll do it last : what is your design goal? What do you want to be able to do on your layout? 

 Hope you don't feel I am slagging your plan. What I hope to do is to challenge you to describe why you want to do things this way, and to consider whether the constraints you have followed in your design are deliberate design decisions or just stuff left over from a very different type of design, with different design goals.

 Because the MR design was made mainly to illustrate the concept of modular track plans. And that apparently is not one of your design goals.

Smile,
Stein

 

 

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Monday, April 05, 2010 1:13 AM

Too many S-curves, short spurs, and yards (if that is what those three-track groups of tracks are).

Mark.

 

  • Member since
    March, 2009
  • From: Just South of the Arctic Circle
  • 6,814 posts
Posted by Sir Madog on Monday, April 05, 2010 3:58 AM

 I do like MR´s Beer Line project very much. Despite the tight radii, it still has a sleek look to it, which should be kept in N scale, IMHO.

How about this:


 

If you could squeeze out an additional 4" of length, it could even be built in a modular fashion, just like the original plan, adding to the fun! Min. radius in the above plan is 9 3/4". I also used flex track instead of Peco´s Set Track .

Cheers!

Ulrich

People in Hamburg don´t tan, they rust!

  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Posted by FulhamFC on Monday, April 05, 2010 6:02 AM
steinjr

2) Room plan/access. You have a center viewblock across the layout. That means that you need access from both sides.

 So your 2.5 x 6 foot layout will need to be placed in an available  6 1/2 foot x 8 foot area to be operated. 

 Your comment indicate that a 3 x 6 foot "space" is all you can get. Whether this 2.5 x 6 foot layout will work in your room depends on how you have defined "space".

 I would strongly recommend making a drawing that shows how the layout will fit into the room where it is going to be, including any access aisles.

Sorry perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post. I've got the use of an room that has space in the middle for a 6 x 3 foot layout to be set up in and operated and then moved out of the way at the end. There is enough space to operate the layout on three sides with the four up against a small space on the wall.
steinjr

3) Rescaling. You have taken a 4 foot deep x 12 foot long H0 scale track plan and made it into a 2 1/2 foot deep x 6 foot long N scale track plan.

 Good call on layout depth  - the H0 scale plan calls for 18" radius, which is fairly tight for H0 scale, but the N scale plan has room for curve radius that is a little gentler (for N scale). So depthwise you now have what would be the equivalent of about 4 1/2 feet of depth in H0 scale.

 Not so sure if it is an equally good call on layout length - the N scale equivalent of a 12 foot long H0 scale layout is a just under 7 foot long layout in N scale, not 6 feet.

 So most of your spurs running along the long axis of the layout (ie most of your spurs) is a car length or more shorter than the corresponding spurs on the original Beer Line layout.

 Might be a problem, might be fine - depends on what you are planning to run on those tracks - I would consider car lengths and engine lengths and look at whether you are losing spur lengths unnecessary.

It is possible to stretch the length to 7 foot but that would only leave 1 foot of space to get access around to the other side. 6'6" would be more do able as i can squeeze through 1 1/2 feet more comfortably. Working on an updated plan and will post it soon
  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Posted by FulhamFC on Monday, April 05, 2010 7:47 AM
Done a bit of fine tuning so far. The top plan has been done using peco settrack points as used in the original. The lower one has been done with more realistic pointwork. Some idea of the location of industries has started to appear on them as well.
  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 7,283 posts
Posted by dknelson on Monday, April 05, 2010 8:18 AM

markpierce

Too many S-curves, short spurs, and yards (if that is what those three-track groups of tracks are).

Mark.

As to short spurs and short yards, the prototype Beer Line was sort of crammed into its urban space, but for model railroad purposes, in looking at your plan, I suggest dummying up those spurs and yards before commencing construction.  A turnout is a pricey and space consuming thing and sometimes it actually costs you car capacity on a siding.  That is, a turnout where each track after it holds just one car achieves nothing because without it you could park that second car where the turnout is.  Similarly even if the capacity of the track is one and three quarters cars, for practical purposes that is still just one car!    I think that was Mark's point and I tend to share this view that on paper this looks like lots more switching capability than reality might provide. 

Drawing a turnout on cardboard (or taking track and turnouts to a Xerox copier and making full size copies) and testing real cars on the results is a wise planning move when you have limited space.

Dave Nelson

 

  • Member since
    March, 2010
  • 5 posts
Posted by MilwRd_Mike on Monday, April 05, 2010 8:51 AM

Amen on the turnout eating up space. I've modeled in N, HO, and O scale it's very true that too many turnouts eat up layout space. The temptation is always to add more turnouts. However, you have to maintain clearance between the mainline and a siding or spur. I've rearranged industries that weren't glued down (thank goodness!) by having a freight car sitting too close to the main.

Remember, the turnout length plus the radius off the turnout takes up valuable model real estate.

Software modeling or drawing the trackplan is good. Playing with track and cars on a flat surface is better, IMHO. 

 

Milwaukee Road Mike
  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • From: Enfield, CT
  • 923 posts
Posted by Doc in CT on Monday, April 05, 2010 9:28 AM

steinjr
1) Drawing. I'd recommend redrawing the figure with square being 1 foot long instead of with squares being 6" long. Then draw in your planned buildings (can be done just as squares and circles).

 

With all due respect Stein, what's wrong with 6in squares on a diagram of a small layout?  Guesstimating  how much of a 12in square or dimensions something occupies is just that, guesstimating.   Besides, translating the resulting drawing to a layout would be easier.

Just my nickel (inflation and all).

Alan

Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/

  • Member since
    March, 2009
  • From: Just South of the Arctic Circle
  • 6,814 posts
Posted by Sir Madog on Monday, April 05, 2010 9:51 AM

 This is as close as you can get to the original track plan. The curved turnout is made by Minitrix, as Peco does not have a turnout with such a tight radius.

The track plan is now a more or less scaled down version of the HO plan.

 

Cheers!

Ulrich

People in Hamburg don´t tan, they rust!

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Sorumsand, Norway
  • 3,417 posts
Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:02 AM

Doc in CT
Stein, what's wrong with 6in squares on a diagram of a small layout? 

 

 Nothing.If having six inch squares is what is import for you, then just use six inch squares. And make a comment, either on the drawing or in the text that squares are 6".

 But just to take a trivial example - if you just have explained that you have a 3 x 6 foot area available for your layout, and then you show a layout with 5 x 12 squares, where tracks aren't labeled and structures aren't shown, then people may start to wonder what your track plan is actually showing.

 I still have no clue why the OP chose to use only 83% of the space he apparently had available - why he made the layout 2.5 feet wide rather than 3 feet wide, and thus lost a 6" deep strip along the whole length of the layout which he could have used for additional scenery depth, or for making curves wider or whatever.

 I still don't know what the OP liked so much about the Beer Line plan - it clearly is not it's modular nature - he doesn't want modular.

 It isn't the location and specific industries - he is fine with using other industries and having it represent a different location. In his representation of the plan he drops a yard track (and gets shorter yard tracks relative to the original), but keeps the track for broken glass next to what was the beer distribution center in the original plan.

 It is not the operating scheme "a single local delivering cars from the local yard to industries on an urban branch line" - he wants to add two short staging tracks, so he clearly wants to run more trains in some way.

 The OP has posted some new track plans - labels are a little on the small side for me to read them comfortably, but the track is visible.

 One could of course try to make general comment on the track plans. But not understanding what the OPs goals for this layout is, it is hard to make sensible suggestions.

 Oh well, whatever. I'll just go do something else instead :-)

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

  • Member since
    March, 2009
  • From: Just South of the Arctic Circle
  • 6,814 posts
Posted by Sir Madog on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:37 AM

 Stein,

you win a few, you loose a few.  I took the time to draw a plan as close to the original MR version as possible, within the space limit the OP has stated, attempting to capture the flavor of this nicely done project layout.

Was I expecting a word from the OP ? ConfusedWhistling

Cheers!

Ulrich

People in Hamburg don´t tan, they rust!

  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Posted by FulhamFC on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:13 AM
First of all I would like to say thank you to Sir Madog for taking the time to come up with his version of the plan it was greatfully recieved.
steinjr
But just to take a trivial example - if you just have explained that you have a 3 x 6 foot area available for your layout, and then you show a layout with 5 x 12 squares, where tracks aren't labeled and structures aren't shown, then people may start to wonder what your track plan is actually showing.
if you are unable to work out that each square is 6 inches after I had already mention the over all size of the layout then what can I say...? As for the lack of structures and labels not everybody picks up software as quick as other or has the time to spend hours detail each and every plan. I had hoped that i would get some constructive help on were the plan was heading before I spent the limited time avalible going into more detail on a plan that would need drastic change.
steinjr
I still don't know what the OP liked so much about the Beer Line plan - it clearly is not it's modular nature - he doesn't want modular.
Being over in england means my design mind as it were is still very much in the english railway frame of mind and I am slowly getting used to the different requirements of an american railroad. As for what it was i liked about the beer line plan? the option of lots of shunting and the choice of just setting some thing off and sitting back and watching it go round.
steinjr
It is not the operating scheme "a single local delivering cars from the local yard to industries on an urban branch line" - he wants to add two short staging tracks, so he clearly wants to run more trains in some way.
I think this is an ingrained idea that is hard to shake from english layout designs. most small american plans show a yard that the cars and locomotives are placed on and then you start were as the english frame of mind is that the trains have to start somewhere out of view and then "arrive" in your model location. This is something that i have always done and am used to and struggle to get my head around the "american" way.
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Sorumsand, Norway
  • 3,417 posts
Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:39 PM

 

FulhamFC

  Being over in england means my design mind as it were is still very much in the english railway frame of mind and I am slowly getting used to the different requirements of an american railroad.

  As for what it was i liked about the beer line plan? the option of lots of shunting and the choice of just setting some thing off and sitting back and watching it go round.

<snip>

 Most small American plans show a yard that the cars and locomotives are placed on and then you start were as the English frame of mind is that the trains have to start somewhere out of view and then "arrive" in your model location.

 This is something that i have always done and am used to and struggle to get my head around the "American" way.

 Okay - now it now becomes possible to try to understand what you want and why.

 So the continuous run option is important to you. Check.

 Switching (shunting in British English) is important. Check.

 You want trains to come from somewhere else and go to somewhere else. Check.

 Any particular reason for why you put in two shorter staging tracks instead of a single longer staging track?

Any particular era you want to model? Are we in the age of 40-foot cars or in the era of 60-foot cars or what?  Steam engines? Transition era smaller diesels engines? Modern engines? Road switchers? Switchers?

 What kind of place do you want to model? Big steel plant? Urban warehouses? Harbor docks in Brooklyn? Smallish Midwestern agricultural community? Appalachian coal mine town? Something else?

 

Smile,
Stein

 

 

  • Member since
    March, 2009
  • From: Just South of the Arctic Circle
  • 6,814 posts
Posted by Sir Madog on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:55 PM

 FulhamFC,

we are a hearty bunch of people, sometimes a little provocative, but never mean.  Questions are asked to get answers, some of which we sometimes may not like, but that´s life. Most of the people are really helpful, even if they appear to be a little persistent.

Btw, I am in Germany, so an inch farther away from US railroading practice as you are!

Smile!

Cheers!

Ulrich

People in Hamburg don´t tan, they rust!

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:34 AM

Hi Fulham,

steinjr
 Most small American plans show a yard that the cars and locomotives are placed on and then you start were as the English frame of mind is that the trains have to start somewhere out of view and then "arrive" in your model location.

Not true, but on small layouts on-pike-staging costs space you could use for other purposes. Some folks use a PECO-loco-lift or their hands to refresh cars, some people use a cassette or a removable yard and others go for on-pike staging.

Knowing your space from a previous thread, I would use a small part of one of the storage shelves for a staging area. And if you want to be fancy this area could become an extension too.

Stein made a important remark about car length. Just as in Europe modern cars are long. They require large(18+) radii and #6 switches. The beer line was designed for the 50's when cars were 40 or 50 - feeters. (a 10" radius and #4 switches in N are appropriate).

I never found much difference between American and English model-railroading. In my old (1961) PECO trackplan books by the late CJ. Freezer I find a lot of prototypical inspired terminals with staging added; just like the beer line. The differences were mainly in passenger traffic and volume of freight traffic.

Beside the footprint discussion you have to consider layout height. An N-scale switching layout would be very convincing when build at armpit height.

Paul

 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Posted by FulhamFC on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:27 AM
Thank you for all your additional feedback and i will try to answer the questions that have arrisen.
Paulus Jas
Beside the footprint discussion you have to consider layout height. An N-scale switching layout would be very convincing when build at armpit height.
I agree that this is the best and most realistic height to model but due to medical issues i can no longer stand for any length of time no matter how short, so had intended to model it so i can sit down if i need to and still operate it. As for Stein's questions regarding car length and period, i had considered this and decided to aim for and 50/60 period so i can run the 40 or 50 feeters. Another question that arose was the location. My knowlege of american is limited i have to admit. Most of the location i know are either baseball ground (yankees for the World championship!) or battlefields from the american civil war. I have been reading a book called Leaders Count about the history of the BNSF and have Eejoyed it so much i am leaning towards a location so that i could model one of the BNSF old merger partners. The qustion of location will, i know also depend on what sort of industries i will model and this is something i need to give serious thought and i feel that i need to do some more research on this area. Any suggestions most gratefully recieved.
  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:34 AM

hi Fullham,

you will face one problem, the BNSF spans an area as big as Europe. Finding THE spot is not that easy.

Second problem is local terminal RR´s. Dock and urban are´s were usually switched by a local subsidiary. In Chicago, the east end of the SF, you had the Indiana Harbour Belt. At the west end the Alameda Belt Line. Those local RR´s worked for all major railroads that came into town.

My choice would be the Bay Area (San Francisco). Sun, colours, fruit, docks and Spanish charm all packed in one area. Or have a look at Lance Mindheim´s East Rail, it´s the same story in Miami.

Paul

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:46 AM

Paulus Jas

hi Fullham,

you will face one problem, the BNSF spans an area as big as Europe. Finding THE spot is not that easy.

Second problem is local terminal RR´s. Dock and urban are´s were usually switched by a local subsidiary. In Chicago, the east end of the SF, you had the Indiana Harbour Belt. At the west end the Alameda Belt Line. Those local RR´s worked for all major railroads that came into town.

My choice would be the Bay Area (San Francisco). Sun, colours, fruit, docks and Spanish charm all packed in one area. Or have a look at Lance Mindheim´s East Rail, it´s the same story in Miami.

"I think Paul meant the Port Chicago, near Pittsburgh, CA in Contra Costa county, east of San Francisco and north of Oakland CA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago,_California

Pittsburgh, Chicago, San Francisco all in California.

This should confuse our overseas friends to no end

ratled"

Confused, that's for darn sure.  Port Chicago and Pittsburg (no h) are at the end of the delta formed by several rivers (the Sacramento, San Joaquin and other rivers) quite a bit inland from the San Francisco Bay.  The Santa Fe (now BNSF) passed through both towns on its way to its western terminus in Richmond (with its own railroad-served port) along the San Francisco Bay. 

At Port Chicago was a naval ammunition port with its own railroad between port and ammunition storage area.  In Pittsurg was the Oakland, Antioch & Eastern which ran through Port Chicago on its way to Oakland, passing through a 3,418 foot-long tunnel in the Oakland Hills (San Pablo Ridge) carrying both passengers and freight.  It had a ferry operation in West Pitsburg connecting to lines going as far north as Marysville, and by railroad consolidation, became the Sacramento Northern.

OA&E depot in Pittsburg: 

 

Mark

 

  • Member since
    February, 2010
  • From: England
  • 18 posts
Posted by FulhamFC on Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:10 AM
Thanks for that Mark, I shall aim my research in that area as it sounds ideal
  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:20 AM

hi

In Model Railroad Planning 2010 you 'll find plans for the Californian Richmond Pacific. It has an interchange with BNSF as well as the UP.

Paul

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:16 PM

FulhamFC
Thanks for that Mark, I shall aim my research in that area as it sounds ideal

Here is some local history on railroads in north central Contra Costa County where Pittsburg and Port Chicago are located.

http://cowellhistoricalsociety.org/html/trains.html 

Mark

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:42 PM

Hi,

I meant the Alameda Belt Line.

The SPC's remaining freight operations became the OHB. This is similar to the real-life Oakland Terminal Railway and Alameda Belt Line (both owned by ATSF/WP in 1955).

The explanation can be found on Byron Henderson's(Cuyama) more then outstanding website.:

http://home.earthlink.net/~hendoweb/ohb/

Some how I love the Alameda scenes, have been there as a student and later for a University job.

Paul

 

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:41 PM

Paulus Jas

I meant the Alameda Belt Line.

Yeah.  Trying to model a prototype area of six miles containing two transcontinental railroads (SP & ATSF), an SP branchline, a shortline running 0-6-0 locos pulling mixed passenger/freight trains, an electrified railroad, and a narow-gauge industrial railroad, is too big of a challenge for most of us.

Edit -- The list was so long I left out the military railroad.

 

Mark

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Friday, April 09, 2010 10:17 AM

hi,

I should ignore it, Mark be serious please.

Never ever someone can build a whole railroad. Just try to find the right spots and model one or two of those.

Paul

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Popular on ModelRailroader.com
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...