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!

Interesting plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction

2707 views
57 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Interesting plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:16 AM

This plan appeared in the Handbook #15, Track Planning Ideas, (58 track plans from past issues), multiple printings beginning in 1981.

I'm interested in posting a scan of that layout plan from my issue of that magazine, so that it might be discussed here on the forum.

(But I want to make sure I am not violating any copyright issues, as I can not find an active webpage reference to that track plan to make a proper link to ?)

I am seriously considering modeling this plan with a few alterations, and would like to hear other opinions about the 'stock plan' as presented, and modifications that might be made.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 22,967 posts
Posted by rrinker on Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:42 PM

 Now there's a good one. No helix, more or less a single level, but since you were planning on a box out the back of your shed for a helix, why not put the return loops there! That means no blobs to wreck your aisle width while still having the two sides plus a center penninsula.

It appears in the March 1975 issue. The designed is also known for appearing earlier in MR (1953) showing off his suitcase layout he constructed and used while serving aboad an aircraft carrier for the US Navy.

                            --Randy

 

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,351 posts
Posted by carl425 on Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:30 PM

Looks like an old school bowl of spaghetti to me.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:11 PM

Hi Carl,

Where did you find a dwg of the layout?

Did you find a dwg and/or text online somewhere??

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:28 PM

rrinker

 Now there's a good one. No helix, more or less a single level, but since you were planning on a box out the back of your shed for a helix, why not put the return loops there! That means no blobs to wreck your aisle width while still having the two sides plus a center penninsula.

I know what you are saying about eliminating those big loop/blops of my other plan, and a smaller peninsula, so those are a few things that attracted me.

But I'm unsure about your defintion of 'no helix'. It appears to me that there are three loops in that 'helix area'; 1) a single level in and out on the bottom, 2) the other two 'loops' appear to have to go thru a height change of at least 4" between their entry/exit tracks? ...wouldn't that be an 'abbreviated' helix situation??

I'm thinking the loops are shown in that offset manner in order to help understand the tracks. In reality they would be stacked right on top of one another?

 

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:36 PM

Over the past few months I've been going back thru numerous articles I have saved over the years looking for examples I might consider for my new plan. Just a few days ago I ran across this one, and could find very little references to it on the internet. There were some 'archived references' to it on the track plan index of Model Railroader, but when I clicked on there nothing came up,...it sent me back to the home of the index.

I find this track plan VERY interesting, particularly when you consider the versatility contained in a 10 x 13 plan (with an extra little 'helix like' addition bump external to the main layout)

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:33 PM

paraphrasing the designer, Leonard Blumenschine....

The layout has two 'terminal locations', Tupper Lake and Faust Junction. Start from either terminal, follow the main line (ignoring the crossover at Big Wolf for the moment), and when you end up at the other terminal you'll find yourself putting your loco on a common turntable that links both terminals,...even though the terminals are distinct from each other in character and function, and are located more than 2 scale miles apart.

At first the road was planned purely point-to-point, about 140 feet of folded and twisted main line. It was only when I was laying the sawmill siding at Big Wolf that I discovered that the addition of one simple crossover would provide for continuous lap running as well. Whether a train makes one lap, or repeatedly uses the 'accidental crossover', it is always headed for the other end of the line, and it never has to pass directly through its destination or origination point along the way while building up mileage.

The accidental crossover creates a sort of dogbone pattern wrapped around the space and folded upon itself. In all, one lap is about 90 feet long....a scale mile and a half. If you continue to take the accidental crossover you could make quite a long trip out of it.

The common turntable idea absorbed the dictates and helped shape the design. By keeping the terminals necessarily close together it created an interesting looking island and walking space for operating purposes. By eliminating the need for two turning facilities (either a second turntable, or a space eating wye), it simplified and compacted the whole design, but left maximum of space for the mainline.

  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,351 posts
Posted by carl425 on Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:00 PM

railandsail
Where did you find a dwg of the layout?

The March 75 MR.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 22,967 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, October 27, 2017 6:47 AM

I think I said it was in the March 75 issue.

Anyway, those are just stacked loops, they don;t connect. I wouldn;t connect them, it shortcuts the routes too much. It appears to already have continuous running. I see one loop for the right side, one loop foor the left side (making the whole thing pretty much a dogbone) plus another half loop that leads from the left side onto the center penninsula. The track is on different elevations which in real life would releive some of the spaghetti bowl appearance, although compared to some I don;t think this is at all. You want bowel of spaghetti, check the Philadelphia and Reading layout in 101 Track Plans. There is no surface on that plan not covered with track. This one uses elevation to break that up. I don't think there were any appearances of in-between layouts from this author, but by the time he built this one, he had been into this for well over 20 years. The space is similar to what is available, and it wouldn;t be too hard to pare out a couple of tracks here and there without drastically reducing the fun, if it really bothers you.

 Worst thing I really see is in the lower right behind the turntable, good luck reaching that grain elevator in the far corner.

                                       --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 27, 2017 7:28 AM

I went ahead and posted the dwg as I figured it would be very difficult for many to make comment/observation that didn't have ready access to the dwg.

Does anyone know if the gentleman Leonard Blumenschine is still involved with model railroading? ...and how he might be contacted??

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,245 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 27, 2017 7:42 AM

With plans like this, I think the idea is to get as much mainline run as possible into a given space without the train having to do simple laps on the same track in the same scene.  Instead, it has the train doing laps on different tracks in the same scene. 

To me, that doesn't really accomplish sense of distance since the train is still going through the same scene, and in this plan, three times in a lot of places.

It also makes construction complicated and scenery look unrealistic, extensive use of retaining walls.

Conceptually, how about this?  Since logging railroads travel distance vertically up and down a mountain as much as they do horizontally, why not have two levels of benchwork and stack the two terminals on top of each other on the peninsula.  Camp/mill up top and terminal at the bottom. The rest of the layout can be a two lap nolix or even helixed in the hidden area.

That way, when the train passes through the same scene twice.....along the walls...there is sufficient vertical separation between the tracks to give the operator the idea the train is making laps to decend a mountain.  Unlike the current plan that looks like we're just trying to cram as much mileage as possible into a space. 

You could do the same with a coal theme.  Short trains, steep grades, and sharp curves make this type of layout suitable for small spaces.

I would use this plan as inspiration.  The terminal peninsula looks promising, but the shelves a long the walls are way too crowded for my tastes...not to mention complicated to build and scenick.

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 22,967 posts
Posted by rrinker on Friday, October 27, 2017 8:44 AM

 Given that he was a Lieutenant in the Navy in 1953, if he IS still around, he'd probably be pushing 90. If you put his name in Google, you fidn another thread here from 2008 that discussed him a bit. He did a few other track plans as well, but I think this one was his actual layout.

 I see no place in any loop aroudn that layotu where the train passes through the same scene more than twice, once clockwise and once counter clockwise. Definitely not 3 times. Not only is each passge in the opposite direction, they are all on different levels, as seen by the various overpasses and underpasses. Yes, at one spot there are 3 tracks stacked above one another, which is a bit of a gimmick but often seen in published layouts of the era (top center - which would probably need to be changed since this area would need to be the entry liftout for the OP).  Moving the stacked loops totally outside of the perimeter of the main layout might help open things up as well.

                          --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 27, 2017 8:53 AM

Interesting reply Doughless, I'm going to have to study your ideas in greater detail.

I had wanted an upper level in my original trackplan, and had planned on inserting a west coast train station at that upper level (Santa Fe) , while having an east coast terminal (Balt) on my lower level.

I wonder how I might get that helix transition from lower level to upper level, while concurrently accomodating those dogbone loops of this new plan??

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 27, 2017 8:58 AM

BTW, here is another observation

montanan
I agree with Toor. It is an interesting track plan and will not only give you a lot of switching opportunities, but also allow for continuous running.

That was my thought as well. I've not been a big fan of all the switching work, but this plan will anticipate that eventuality should it emerge.

I also find the two long sidings provided on either side interesting. They might well allow for freight trains to pull over to allow passenger trains to pass,....multiple trains on same main lines. These trains might even be operated in opposing directions,...that would be an operating challenge.

 
montanan
My layout was built mainly for switching as a point to point layout with a yard and engine terminal at each end. With the use of hidden staging tracks, I can also run trains continuously. Didn't know how much I would do that, but I do find myself letting trains run around the layout while working on projects on the layout. This lets me run different locomotives so none sit around. Keeps them lubricated plus when the grand kids or visitors want to see trains run, you can do that while having cversations about the layout.

Nice plan.

I'm growing to like it more and more, even while it may force me to change from my original idea that I have invested considerable time into.

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,245 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 27, 2017 10:07 AM

rrinker

 Given that he was a Lieutenant in the Navy in 1953, if he IS still around, he'd probably be pushing 90. If you put his name in Google, you fidn another thread here from 2008 that discussed him a bit. He did a few other track plans as well, but I think this one was his actual layout.

 I see no place in any loop aroudn that layotu where the train passes through the same scene more than twice, once clockwise and once counter clockwise. Definitely not 3 times. Not only is each passge in the opposite direction, they are all on different levels, as seen by the various overpasses and underpasses. Yes, at one spot there are 3 tracks stacked above one another, which is a bit of a gimmick but often seen in published layouts of the era (top center - which would probably need to be changed since this area would need to be the entry liftout for the OP).  Moving the stacked loops totally outside of the perimeter of the main layout might help open things up as well.

                          --Randy

 

If you run a train from one terminal to the next I think it travels on each of the three mainline tracks that occupy the N and W shelves.  In some places on the left, he has 4 tracks on 3 different levels in a foot of bench work, and on the right its about 8 tracks on 3 different levels in about 2 feet of benchwork.  I think scenickly the whole layout would look rather urban in that its crammed with track, and I think the point is for it to look rural.

I would accomplish the same thing by having a simple water wings design with a single main line wrapping around the room and two reverse loops in the hidden section.  Two spurs off the wings could lead to the two terminals.  Simply run the train back and forth 3 times through the same scenes and it would accomplish the same thing and allow much more room for proper scenery. 

Originate the train at whatever terminal you want, run around the room back and forth through the loops; 3 laps, 8 laps, or 20 laps if you want to build distance, then thow the switch to the destination terminal.

I don't see the point of building three separate tracks and stacking them on three levels in 12 inches of benchwork to accomplish the same operation. 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Friday, October 27, 2017 10:23 AM

The layout as drawn has no staging and the visible yard is too small for any sort of operation as-is. The rule-of-thumb is for an active yard to be used only to about 50% of capacity – that is 10 cars as drawn.

Once one allows for transitions from level-to-grade and back, the grades will be steep and clearances for realistic-looking bridges will be tight for the many low-angle (oblique) bridge crossings.

The grades in the area of “accidental crossing” are not possible as drawn, if I read the plan correctly. The tracks to be joined are sloping in opposite directions.

The switching area in Tupper Lake is an unrealistic and nearly unworkable switching puzzle.

It might be possible to design a similar concept with multiple passes around the room via stacked turnback curves external to the room. But this plan is far from ideal as-is -- and may not even be buildable in that space. There has been a lot of thought on layout design over the last forty-plus years.

Byron

Edit: FYI, after a closer look, some of the turnouts as drawn would need to be handlaid-to-fit in the given space. Typical of many published speculative plans of earlier eras (and often still today). 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Friday, October 27, 2017 10:38 AM

Doughless
I would accomplish the same thing by having a simple water wings design with a single main line wrapping around the room and two reverse loops in the hidden section.  Two spurs off the wings could lead to the two terminals.  Simply run the train back and forth 3 times through the same scenes and it would accomplish the same thing and allow much more room for proper scenery.

A reasonable suggestion, and one that could also allow for adequate yard(s), interchange, staging, and more realistic switching areas in the same space. As noted, reversing connections could be built into the mainline (if desired).

  • Member since
    May, 2004
  • 4,286 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, October 27, 2017 12:15 PM

Admitting that what I'm going to say is repetitive of earlier comments:

I would redesign.  I would keep (for now) the trackage that is Tupper Lake and Faust Junction.  AND ELIMINATE ALL OTHER TRACKAGE.  Then I'd run the track from Tupper Lake through the "lobe" and up the left side of the now-empty layout.  It would curve around and end at Faust Junction.

On that track over on the left, I'd put a passing siding and "something switchable".

At the top of Faust Junction, there'd be, yes, a junction--just to the left of the first switch, towards the top.  That track would branch to the left (up top) and come around behind the existing Faust Junction trackage.  It would then turn left at the bottom and join the lobe for continuous running.

 

There'd be a lot of space for scenery on the left and top.  I think I would add "industrial" trackage to the right of the existing trackage at Faust Junction (being that that area is now pretty empty).  I think the added junction track (for continuous running) would/could just visually disappear in the trackage.

 

It DOES lack staging/storage.  Perhaps the lobe could house a real helix and drop down, so that a staging yard (unscenicked) would be below the layout.

 

 

That's what I would do.

I think I'd also polish my hand-laying track technique.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:58 AM

Thanks for all the interesting observations/critiques so far. I printed out a hard copy this morning and took it to breakfast with me,....sometimes I need to read it via printed page rather than just on the computer :)

I've made a few notes in reply, but don't have time to place them here right now (other outside projects are calling), and I need a little more time to digest them.  But thanks for all the suggestions,...rather than just critiques.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 30, 2017 6:56 AM

Double Track Mainlines

A few folks have suggested that I cut down on those double track mainlines and replace them with a single line (connectioning the two reversing loops). Let me explain why I favor the double lines,...first an example...

 

A few days ago I had occasions to visit a layout up in Jacksonville built by a retired CSX fellow. Just prior to entered the room he told us of his basic idea during the planning.

        He liked to run trains, and build and display freight cars/rolling stock. For that reason his layout primarily consisted of a double-track mainline all around the layout where longer trains could pass or run along one another, and a fair bit of yards and sidings where his rolling stock could be displayed on the tracks. His scenic efforts were 'delayed', but he was placing structures all around in anticipation of the 'scenic eventualities', that may come in the future, or get furthered delayed while he had fun with running trains and weathering locos and rolling stock.

...long narrow room...

Can you believe this room is only about 10 foot wide? (9'10" to be exact)

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 22,967 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, October 30, 2017 7:20 AM

 I can - looking at that aisle reminds me of trying to crawl through the submarine at the Buffalo Navy Yard. I was doing OK until I got to the engine room, almost couldn't make it past there and I almost had to go back in reverse to get out. (I am a bit hefty)

 The issue is always the space taken by the end loops. If you stay away fromt he double track, that doesn't mean your main line won;t have double track - you use a dogbone shape and foold it up as needed. The loops themselves are single track, but the mains then can be double tracked. If you cna keep those turnback loops outside of the main shed space as you initially planned with a helix, you can fit this all in, and have plenty of room, simply by not having ANY turnback curves inside the interior layout space. This would even work for two decks - in the attached "loop box" you would have one loop for the bottom deck, which would run around the shed perimeter and into a helix to go up to the upper deck which would make another lap of the interior and into a turnback loop for the upper deck. Center penninsulas could be wider with a center divider and access on both sides, with at least one if not both having no turnback loop at the end - the penninsulas would be branch ends with industrial areas or the yard. A 3 foot wide penninsula is plenty of width for any of this and still allows decent aisles. ANd there is continuous running for showing off or just watching trains run.

                                     --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 30, 2017 7:38 AM

 

Double Track Mainlines

I am of a similar inkling as the CSX guy I just referenced. I like to run trains, and I like to see them passing one another in close quarters, either going in the same direction, or opposite directions. For that we need 'double tracks', or long sidings, or BOTH.

I'd like to see if I can get both, long sidings & dbl track,...which this layout does. I can well imagine one train leading the other at such a distance that it has gone around a loop of the helix area and is returning on one mainline while the following train is still on its way to the loop,....they pass in opposite directions on the 2 mainlines.

Want to complicate it a bit more, a third train could be waiting on one of those long sidings.

I can appreciate the criticism about the total number of tracks on a very narrow portion of the shelf, and the terracing of those tracks, and the lack of space for scenic elements. I offer in response,...
1) I believe I know how to eliminate one of those tracks on the narrow side of the layout.

2) I believe I know how to lessen the terracing effect there, and in fact hope to do so as I look forward to the 'passing effect' I spoke of before.

3) My shed will allow for a 11 foot wide layout verse the original's 10 foot wide plan, so I might add extra width to either shelf on each side.

4) There are many modular layouts, that we all see at train shows, that accomplish a lot of scenery in a relatively narrow space, (and most with double track main-lines). So I figure with at least an 18” shelf on that side, there are a number of 'structures/scenes' that might be added to original plan/idea.

 

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 30, 2017 7:52 AM

@randy

My thinking also Randy.

I have a few more ideas on alterations, but they are sketched up rather sloppy on an existing copy of the original plan,...so I need to doctor them up before posting. Too bad I'm not more computer track plan knowledgable.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 30, 2017 9:09 AM

Staging Tracks

Another of the criticisms is the lack of staging in the original plan. I agree, and particularly since I like to run a variety of trains.

I plan on having 6-8 staging tracks, and they will most likely be located below that central peninsula, and most likely accessed from a low loop in that helix structure.

One person has suggested some sort of 'transfer table arrangement' to access those individual staging tracks, rather than multiple switches (turnouts). Any ideas of what might be possible?

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,245 posts
Posted by Doughless on Monday, October 30, 2017 9:36 AM

If you want staging in order to run a lot of trains, then a narrow peninsula would be a good place to locate the staging yards.  They can be stacked one on top of the other, especially if the loops can be located outside the main layout area.

Seven staging tracks on each yard should fit into a 16 inch wide peninsula.  The rest of the layout can be a nolix and the loops can also be built to help separate the two staging yards.

Another idea would be to try to combine the staging tracks with the loops, depending upon how much space you have back there.  Killing two birds with one stone so to speak, leaving more layout for scenicked space.  Combining them might be a challenge however, and you'd have to plan on having fewer staing tracks than if they were located in a peninsula.  It depends on how many you want/need.

  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 103 posts
Posted by Old Fat Robert on Monday, October 30, 2017 11:36 AM

Brian: You have asked for and received much wise advice and heartfelt opinion(s) from the forum members, a lot of it regarding the track plan itself. I maybe reading between the lines here and that often leads to errors of interpretation but it appears to me that you like the plan pretty much as is. If you can stand one more bit of advice, mine would to build it. Build it the way you want it. Even if that means it an exact production of the printed plan. This is a hobby: if during the build things don't look right to you, then change them. Build it your way and have fun doing it. It is all model railroading!

Old Fat Robert

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 30, 2017 9:54 PM

To the contary Robert, I am taking all this advice in seriously, and I can see a lot of it makes sense. I thought I had worked out a lot of potential alterations to the original plan, but when I went to create a rough sketch I got hung up on a few little details, and had to just put it away for a while until I am thinking (visualizing) more clearly.

This planning stage is an important phase of the project. I had spent almost a little over a month working on my first plan, then altering it, and doing some cardboard mock-up,..
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/264616.aspx?page=3

..and yet I still had some doubts about whether that was what I wanted. That lingering doubt is what me got me re-looking at this Tupper Lake design concept.

I can still make a choice at either that older design or this new one, but the bench work for the two will be quite different, so I am willing to spend some more time developing this plan, prior to making a choice between the two.

In these relatively small layouts where one is trying to do 'big things' it is surprising how one little change at one point can so effect a lot of the other rail plan,....I think more so than if one has a really big space to work with.

BTW, I think I am going to have to 'rename' this layout when I get through with it

  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 103 posts
Posted by Old Fat Robert on Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:29 AM

Interesting that you use the word "visualizing". ANd perhaps that word ties into my earlier message. The way my brain works (contradiction in terms there, for sure) goes in reverse to "visualizations". Lines on paper to me are lines on paper - I need to have tactile information on the build. I need to see it in 3D or real life. Then I can see that the levels are too close or the turnouts won't actually fit or whatever it is that needs to be adjusted or eliminated. Keep us informed on the build and good luck.

Old Fat Robert

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 329 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:18 AM

Helix Trackage

 

I flipped the original dwg over like this...

 

 

Then added your images in the same orientation...

But I am still having trouble interpreting the trackage in that helix area. Is there any double tracking in the helix? Are the trains going to climb and descend the helix on every go-around?

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,245 posts
Posted by Doughless on Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:58 AM

Brian, from my viewpoint of the green published plan, I would not call the above loops a helix, in that it is not one continous spiral of track.  I see it as three separate turnback loops stacked on top of one another.  The loops are not connected to each other.

Two passes around the layout with the turnback loops simplfied seems like it would accomplish the same thing as far as providing enough main line run; and leaving more pace for other things, mainly scenery, sidings and spurs, with less complex construction.  

This is what I think the hand drawn plan tries to accomplish.  Its probably a change for the better.  

It looks to me like the hidden trackage is a turnback loop and a one spiral helix, but let me look closer and edit.

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