Video Archive         Recent Topics      
YMR logo

You are here:  Your Model Railway Club > Model Railway Layouts. > Members Personal Layouts. > Latton Street To bottom of page
                 

 Moderated by: Spurno  
AuthorPost
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I’ve spent months deciding which wall the new layout would sit against.

I finally decided that the back wall, (left side of the plan below) was best, as although it meant the layout was a bit shorter it’s got more light as there is a fluorescent tube directly above, and the layout can sit back against the wall which it can’t where Latton Fields was situated, because of the gas pipe.

The blue outline is the current/old base boards and the new layout boards will sit on top.



I’m going to try cassettes for storage, as although my back problem prevents lifting too much, I should be able to just slide them around on the old base board, which effectively becomes a cassette table.



The track plan is just another version of the late Cyril Freezer’s Minories track plan with a three way point. Hence my ‘Thoughts on Minories’ thread a few months ago.

As before, the black line/left hand side of the road bridge is the join between the two boards.



The brown block on the road is where I’ve been measuring up some Scalescenes low relief flats.

The 3D views show the station building suspended in mid-air above the end of the tracks with the entrance onto the road that runs along the back, but that may change to just a facade at the end of the tracks, or something low relief elsewhere.







I’ve salvaged all the electrofrog points and a lot of the track from Latton Fields, so track work will be code 100 and theoretically I only need to buy a Peco SL-E99 three-way point and one L/H SL-E92.

I’m moving away from WIT and rods for point control and this time it will be solenoid point motors and DCC control. It seems sensible to get two Peco PL-10 motors for the three-way point as they will clip to it and avoid any alignment problems. I might try Seeps for the others but motor size will be a consideration, as the distance below the board is only the height of the battening of the new boards sitting on top of the old.

I also hoping all the points and necessary electronics will fit as planned on one board, which will cut down on the plugs necessary for wiring to cross the boards.

Available time and funds are going to make this a very slow build, but I’m not in a hurry and I’d prefer to get this all working as I want, and not use cheaper alternatives just to get the layout operational.

More as and when it happens.



Ed

Last edited on Sat Aug 12th, 2017 04:41 pm by Ed

John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3518
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed
Talk about boldness be my friend! I am lost in admiration particularly after all the work you put into Latton Fields.

I have always thought that the Minories track plan looked very attractive with lots of operating potential.

Couple of thoughts:

Is there any conceivable way you can avoid using a three way point? I found the peco code 100 3 ways to be a total pain. I had two on Granby......You may recall I ripped one up last fall.........I keep glaring at the remaining one trying to work out how to get rid of it! I am not alone in disliking them.....there was a thread on RM web a few months back.

It occupies such a pivotal position on your layout it would be a shame if you were plagued with the derailments and uncertain operation that I suffer from.

Secondly are the other turnouts insulfrog or electrofrog......if the latter I wondered how you would switch polarity?

Love the plan though....will watch its development with interest 

Cheers

John


Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

It's space constraints John, as usual I'm trying to get a quart into a pint pot.

The right hand board is roughly 3' 10" and having a curved entry for the fiddle yard cassettes, also cuts the available space down.

Using a cross over instead of a 3-way reduces the platform lengths, not just for the extra length of a cross over but also having to avoid points over the base boards join.

I've seen a few threads where people have had problems with the 3-way, but I'm hoping that as long as I lay it dead flat I'll be lucky with modern diesel/electric stock.

Just hope for the best, fingers crossed.

All the points will be electrofrog and if I use Seep PM-1s I can use the accessory switch for the frog.

The 3-way with two Peco PL-10s will be a bit different as I'm not a fan of the PL-13 accessory switch, so I'm going to try a couple of Gaugemaster DCC80 autofrogs.


Ed

John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3518
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I was afraid that would be the case:cry:......I wish you luck and will be interested to see how you get on. I am certain you are correct about the importance of the turnout being laid absolutely level.........I would add that the four sections of track joining must be equally level and be dead straight after the point for at least 3".............how do I know this?:oops::oops:
Now I have learned all this I am almost tempted to try the 3 way again rather than have it sitting at the bottom of a drawer:roll::lol:


I share your distrust/dislike of Peco micro switches.....hence the question!


Good luck with the layout 


:cheers



John

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thanks John.

Still trying to find some time to work on the base boards, so I don't expect to  start laying any track for a few weeks.

Probably start by laying the 3 way and work out each way from there.



Ed

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Been thinking about your comments John and the problems you've had with 3 way points on Granby.

I was just about to order the 3 way point yesterday and as I don't want to build a potential problem into the layout before I've even started, I thought I'd do some more investigation.

There are quite a lot of posts on various forums regarding derailing when turning left from the toe, and also possibly having to move the switch blades in the correct order when setting the road, or both sets of switch blades will be trying to be moved by one point motor.

Interesting posts on cs.trains.com (Model Railroader), where people have resorted to filing the end of one of the switch blades amongst other things.

Therefore thought last night it might be a good idea to see if I could replace the three way with two points, without shrinking the layout too much and I came up with this.



It does mean moving the Y point on to the left hand board and makes the head shunt slightly shorter, but the platform lengths are more or less the same.

Also makes positioning the supporting batten under the middle board (as indicated) without fouling any point motors, a bit easier.

Think this may be a safer option and two points are cheaper than a 3 -way.


Ed




John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3518
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed

That is exactly what I was thinking of .......I didnt feel confident enough about the space constraints to suggest it in my post. I am sure you have made the right decision.

I think the problem with the code 100 three way relates to the geometry.......when switching to the centre the smaller rear blade puts noticeable pressure on the longer blade. A very experienced modeller on RMweb used a code 75 three way which is more asymetrical to overcome the problem.

Look forward to seeing developments

Cheers

John

Last edited on Wed Aug 16th, 2017 10:29 pm by John Dew

Barry Miltenburg
Full Member


Joined: Wed Jan 18th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 177
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed

I agee regarding the Code 75 3-way.  I have had one on my Yarslow layout for 5 years, sited at the end of the main line crossover and at the start of the goods yard.  The only problem I have experienced is with the Peco switchgear that sits on top of the point motor.  The little sliding brass contact is poor really.

For my new layout (and the eventual monster layout - see thread "going large") I will use Seeps with the built in switch as you have suggested, quite soundly IMHO.  I find them trickier to install but far more reliable.  There are some good vids on YT suggesting that you centre the blades of the turnout with plastic strip and then fix the Seep in place whilst the operating pin is centred.  It works well!!

I like the changes you made to your plan to open out the throat.  My Going Large layout also features a Minories derivative - its a plan I like so I watch your progress with interest.

Barry

Sol
A modelling Moderator.


Joined: Mon Nov 28th, 2011
Location: Evanston Gardens, South Aust, Australia
Posts: 3573
Status: 
Online

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Code 100 3 way is not ideal for manual operation but solenoids & diode matrix (***) so the blades can be moved without causing the problem that John refers to.
Yes,I have used a code 75 turnout and solder fishplates to code 100 track - half of the fishplate on the code 100, flatten the other half and sit Code 75 on top and solder that rail.

(***) a similar process can be used for Tortoise type motors.

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

That looks very similar to what I did for my old layout. I added a double slip at the station throat to lead to the turntable and engine shed without having to shunt locos into the goods sidings.






It was a good layout to operate. I did the terminus as a truncated through line, to allow for possible future expansion - the premise was that Beeching had cut the line back to Middlehurst (as I called it). I also added a crossover to act as an engine release at the terminal end of the double tracks in the platform area. This is only just visible between the two trains.

Sorry for the poor quality of the photos - they date from the days when I had a 1 megapixel digital camera!

Last edited on Thu Aug 17th, 2017 04:22 pm by SRman

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Still haven't decided what the three sidings will be yet Jeff.

DMU storage, maintenance/breakdown train storage, carriage sidings, or maybe find an excuse for a few short freight operations.



Ed

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Ed, those sidings could be used for different purposes at different times if you want to add some variety to your operations.

The one thing I will say that didn't work so well with the mirror-imaging of the track plan was that parcels bay (on the right in your plans above) needs a double shuffle to get trains out onto the correct main line track. In the original Minories plan, the train would have had to be shunted in after arrival in one of the main platforms. My version had a double track leading in and out with a headshunt line parallel to those, so varied that little bit from your plan. If you are using it asa single track line, then this ceases to be a problem anyway.

I have to say that this track plan gave me much pleasure and was able to be operated as a terminus to fiddle yard or as a shuttle to my other station, or as through services onto the double track main circuit I had at that time. I had the option of running locos around terminating trains or releasing the train loco and backing another one on, fresh from the engine shed.

Last edited on Fri Aug 18th, 2017 03:54 am by SRman

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Just a boring woodwork picture, put I thought I'd post it at it shows what I thought was level three years ago wasn't :oops:



There's 12mm of MDF packing under the right hand side of the middle baseboard where the spirit level is.

Didn't help in that I hadn't put enough bracing under the old board either, so it sags. Double :oops: :oops:

I'll have to put packing under that small right hand board that comes around the corner as well, but just shows you can't skimp on the baseboard construction.

Also proves I've learned something being on these forums :)


Ed

TeaselBay
Novice
 

Joined: Fri Aug 4th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 98
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Wow Ed your planning is brilliant.  I mainly went with laying old track and trial and error to see what I can fit.  
Looking forwards to following your progress.

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thanks Chris, I'm still tweaking the track plan as I've just realised I need a catch point .


Ed

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I put a dummy catch point on the parcels road, visible on the far side of the tracks in the second pic. All it was was a piece of rail filed to a point with some sleeper end off-cuts leading off to the right (at least, to the right in the photo). As I was never actually going to use it, I figured the simulation of it was sufficient for my needs ... and cheaper than buying one!

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I see it Jeff, over by the containers.

I did have a go at making one on the old layout ages ago, but it wasn't very successful.

Think I need a SL-84 and since this time I've actually remembered before laying all the track (and considering what point motors etc. are going to cost), I might just buy one as they're only £8.50.

Don't plan to make it operational, purely cosmetic.


Ed


Think this is right.




Last edited on Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 02:54 pm by Ed

new04db
Lurking Around the Forum


Joined: Sun Jan 13th, 2013
Location: Cheltenham, United Kingdom
Posts: 393
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed,
To avoid everything being lined up/perpendicular in regards to the railway and scenic's, Might be worth having the bridges at an angle with the back board.

  

Last edited on Thu Aug 24th, 2017 01:36 pm by new04db

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Good point Aaron, I'll look in to that.

There's a reason why the platforms are dead straight though, as opposed to a slight curve or even the reverse curves in the original Minories.


Ed
 

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

While waiting for the paint to dry on the baseboards I revisited another version I did a while back with four platforms, and also moved the road bridge onto the left hand board and set it at an angle as suggested.




Disadvantages are, I've shorted the head shunt by about 80mm and the top platform is a bit short.

:hmm



Ed





Marty
Enjoying the Journey


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Posts: 5885
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I like that more Ed, don't know why, feels more complete, tidier, contained by platforms maybe. I have a tidy mind... not that my workbench shows it!!
Two comments regarding the points. 

One, I wouldn't use the Y under the bridge.  I think you are asking for trouble as I have four of them in crossover pairs in Henllan station and it took a good deal of fettling  including cutting sleeper chairs and adjusting the rail ends to avoid derailments. I'd be tempted to just use a left hand straight, using a radius in the flexitrack coming out of the platform to get the correct angle.

 Also, and I know you're trying to fit in a tricky layout into a small space, try to maintain the short straight section of track before the first point at the station throat on the up main.  You have been around long enough to know this I am sure, but I have done it myself, being tempted with the thought that I could make a straight point work immediately from a radius and finding afterwards much to my  disappointment that I couldn't. 

Just my thoughts now that my mind has fought it's way up from the quagmire of this recent headcold.

I'm enjoying the rebuild btw.

Marty

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Had two Y points on the old layout without any problems Marty.

They replaced a diamond crossing which I kept forgetting to change the frog polarity on. I got fed up with forgetting to flick the switch and getting shorts :lol:.

A left hand point would be better, but being longer it makes the distance between the tracks greater and shortens that line.



Also makes the track over the baseboard join a curve instead of a straight.

Know what you mean about the point straight after the curve at the throat and I did have a short section of straight track before the point originally, but it got sacrificed when John suggested the 3-way was not a good idea after all the problems he and others had experienced.

Any straight  before the point just reduces the platform lengths by the same amount, so I'm hoping as everything will be traveling at low speeds, I'll get away with it.

Good to hear the cold is getting better :thumbs


Ed






Barry Miltenburg
Full Member


Joined: Wed Jan 18th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 177
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Ed - I'm sure you have considered this and discarded it because of baseboard joint issues but I wondered if the throat could be curved as below to increase platform space and avoid some of the reverse curves???



Barry

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I've lost count of how many different variations of station throat I've tried Barry.

All boils down to the shape of the boards and available space, any extra length gained on the platform roads just shortens the sidings.

Try as I may I can't swap out the Y point as Marty suggested, but I've tidied things up a bit.

The head shunt (Platform 1) is a bit short, but would take a DMU/EMU or a Class 08 with three coaches to be shunted back into the sidings.

Alternatively some sort of short freight train, vans maybe, if one of the sidings becomes some sort of unloading facility.



Ed




Last edited on Mon Sep 11th, 2017 12:55 pm by Ed

Barry Miltenburg
Full Member


Joined: Wed Jan 18th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 177
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Ed

I had a couple of hours playing with EnRail today and now share your pain - the site is just too small, even with a double slip in the throat.  I tried swapping the yard to the front but you lose so much length by gaining the shunting within easy reach.

Stupid question - is the other wall any longer??

Somewhere else on this site I read about the lost lamented 3mm scale....................

Barry

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Available space on the other wall only allows for a 2" longer base board Barry.

I did a bit of  feasibility study before I decided to do this, hence my Thoughts on Minories thread.

http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=15026&forum_id=54

It's the curved entry onto the boards that mess things up, but integral garages just aren't very big.


Ed

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Quick question, Ed: does the space under the right hand main board have to be kept as space?

If you could add a triangular board in that corner, you could rearrange the tracks as Barry suggested in his post before yours. One of the original ideas of the Minories plan was to eliminate reverse curves, making for much smoother transitions for trains using the crossovers, and also reducing the chances of buffer locking when shunting. It would mean moving the signal cabin, as the tracks would cross where that is currently shown.

Adding a triangular board would mean you could have the lines exiting the main board at an angle across to the right hand lower board (the one with the tunnel). That, in turn, would also allow you to extend those sidings at an angle across the boards and onto the right hand lower board.

Last edited on Tue Sep 12th, 2017 02:14 pm by SRman

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Think you mean a bit like this Jeff.

(Blue lines are the old boards that the new ones sit on)

I've moved the signal box (orange rectangle) to where I think you mean the sidings could cross.




One thing to bear in mind is that any additional length of trains also requires longer cassettes, or whatever I end up using as a fiddle yard.

Ed

 

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed. Yes, that's exactly what i mean.

I am thinking not so much of length of trains but smooth flow through the trackwork. Doing this with the triangular add-on would get back to the original intention of the design of Minories, eliminating the reverse curves through the crossovers and into the platforms. 
Longer sidings would be a side benefit if you wish to implement them.

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

:hmm


Ed

Barry Miltenburg
Full Member


Joined: Wed Jan 18th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 177
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Jeff
I like your revision as the throat looks a lot better

Ed - at the platform ends, there appears to be a peninsular. Can the platforms curve?  Even a slight curve into that space might produce an inch or two that might make a difference

On the subject of cartridges, bear in mind that the unit will be about an inch longer than the stock to allow for a door type device. Again, that inch makes a lot of difference - trust me, I am a long-time cartridge builder & user!!

Last edited on Thu Sep 14th, 2017 05:55 pm by Barry Miltenburg

SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2503
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thanks Barry. One of the things I have always been good at is getting trackwork to 'flow', although there always have to be compromises for given spaces.

With my earlier layout using Minories as the basis, I  laid the pair of sidings I had at the top (above the platform roads) at an angle to the board edges, just to get away from having everything parallel to the board alignments.

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Think I'll live with the reverse curves, as I really don't want to add bits of base board.

They all have a straight of some sort between the curves and I'm putting a single slip in, which will remove the reverse curve on departure from platform 4.

The boards were made to bolt together so that the layout can be easily dismantled if necessary, and it's really a case of what will fit on these boards.

I'm recovering from a cold at present, so nothing can get done anyway  :sad:


Ed



Marty
Enjoying the Journey


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Posts: 5885
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Sorry to hear you have had a cold too... blasted thing is getting around. Hope you get over it soon.
Marty

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Think we're having an early Autumn here Marty................................. and the colds to go with it.

Ed

Sol
A modelling Moderator.


Joined: Mon Nov 28th, 2011
Location: Evanston Gardens, South Aust, Australia
Posts: 3573
Status: 
Online

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Ed wrote: Think we're having an early Autumn here Marty................................. and the colds to go with it.

Ed


and here in South Australia,we are having a late winter..... cold and wet & windy

Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3448
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thought I really ought to post an update.

Slow progress as I had a skin infection on one leg that left me pretty much stuck indoors for four weeks. Three lots of antibiotics and still got a dressing on the leg, but have manged to get a bit done.

Old view of the planned throat.



Where I’m currently at, with a single slip replacing two of the points. The slip is Insulfrog and operated by two surface mounted motors from the old layout (waste not, want not).



The accessory decoders are on top as I was a bit unsure of clearance under the board, but they can be hidden with the sort of nondescript type of brick buildings you tend to get at an urban terminus.

What I didn’t realise was how much wiring would be needed in a fairly small space. Bit of a balance between trying to keep it tidy and at the same time keeping the wires (especially for the point motors) as short as possible.




I’m almost at the stage of bolting the two main boards back together, which means I can lay track across the join into the station and start on building platforms.

Apologies for dark pictures but it's always dark at this end of the garage. Once I've got a bit further on, I plan to put some additional lighting in.


Ed


(PS Look Max, no Scotchlocks :mutley)




Longchap
Full Member


Joined: Wed Mar 25th, 2015
Location:  Saumur, France
Posts: 1243
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed,

Sorry to hear that you've been stuck indoors for so long, but I can tell you've had time on your hands, as I've not seen painted baseboard undersides before. Hmm, I jolly fine idea, as it makes that odd maintenance dash under the layout so much easier when you can see what you're doing.

Hope your continued recovery is a comfortable one.

Bill

WoT, no Scotchlocks !!!
 


                 

Recent Topics Back to top of page

Powered by UltraBB 1.15 Copyright © 2007-2011 by Jim Hale and Data 1 Systems. Page design copyright © 2008-2013 Martin Wynne. Photo gallery copyright © 2009 David Williams.