Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline revmox  
#1 Posted : 28 May 2021 06:10:13(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Hi,

I've decided to give HO model railroading a try again after a break of 20 years. I have spent some time with full size and 5" gauge in the interim. The last time I dabbled with Hornby HO and just gave up after so many issues with poor quality and smooth running. This time I thought I'd give Marklin a try because of my memories of many friend's 1970's Marklin layouts that just worked so well without any problems.

To see how it all goes I decided to build a small track, run 4 or 5 basic trains for myself and grand kids and see if Marklin will be a winner. Mostly, so far so good. The bit that has me most concerned is loco performance on the 24671 and 24672 curved points. The basic locos I have sometime stumble or stop on the points and one 36740 sometimes just plows to a sudden halt when the pick up shoe jams into one of the centre studs and then it just sits there with the wheels spinning.

So, after all that, the question to everyone is "Are the 24671 and 24672 more trouble than they are worth?" I'm thinking of reworking my simple track plan (hopefully attached) to remove the curved points - should I?

Track.jpg
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by revmox
Offline H0  
#2 Posted : 28 May 2021 08:26:30(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 14,260
Location: DE-NW
Hi!
Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post
So, after all that, the question to everyone is "Are the 24671 and 24672 more trouble than they are worth?"
Well, my answer is "Definitely yes!" Others may contradict.
I have a converted BR 216 that makes a short circuit, but only on one of the two turnout types and only in one direction.
I like long coaches (303 and 316 mm) and decided against R1 on my layout.
The threeway turnouts also are trouble makers - the right turn is not R2.
The double-slip switches can also give problems, especially with small locos running slow.

Which rolling stock are you aiming for?
My advice: Make sure to have routes without "problem track pieces" where you can run "sensitive" locos and trains.

My Rheingold tin-plate coaches had a slider that jammed up on any turnout. It didn't like the higher studs there. I guess Märklin had made the angle wrong.
I installed a Roco whisper wiper and the problem was solved. Never tried that with a loco.
Maybe you can bend the wiper of the 36740 to make it work properly.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by H0
Offline hvc  
#3 Posted : 28 May 2021 11:52:52(UTC)
hvc

Australia   
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC)
Posts: 341
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post

So, after all that, the question to everyone is "Are the 24671 and 24672 more trouble than they are worth?"


I used to have operational problems (derailments) with the old M-track (metal track) curved turnouts, but I have been using the 24671 and 24672 c-track curved turnouts for the last 15 years and have found them very reliable.

- Herman
Offline JohnjeanB  
#4 Posted : 28 May 2021 12:18:45(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,737
Location: Paris, France
Hi Revmax
Welcome to this great forum.
Regarding the curved switches, I can only talk about the R1 version 24671and 24672.
After making sure all is correct the switches work flawlessly.
For a train to use them takes good wheel spacing (very very unlikely with Märklin) and good sliders (perfectly aligned with the wheeltrain very straight and medium spring pushing on the studs). I have 10 of them. Of course they must be on a plane level (no abrupt incline before or after the switches)
True they are more for shorter trains for the looks but ALL Märklin rolling stock I have does not give me ANY issue (no stop at slow speed, derailing).
Because I run my trains using Rocrail, I do a lot of yard operation (uncoupling, pushing trains, etc).
Cheers
Jean
My layout videos
latest vid
hump yard
Offline Chris6382chris  
#5 Posted : 28 May 2021 13:33:56(UTC)
Chris6382chris

United States   
Joined: 27/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,160
Location: Middle of the US
My layout is mostly R1 with some R2 curves and I use the c-track curved turnouts at different places on my layout including the mainline and only on the rarest of occasion have I ever had an issue and it involved pushing a long passenger car into the inside part of the curve and the car jumped the track but it turned out to be a coupler issue and has since been resolved. I have not had any problem with small or large steam, diesel, or electric engines stopping on those switches.
Offline DTaylor91  
#6 Posted : 28 May 2021 19:37:30(UTC)
DTaylor91


Joined: 31/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 400
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Has the OP tried adjusting the slider to spec?
Offline David Dewar  
#7 Posted : 28 May 2021 23:09:00(UTC)
David Dewar

Scotland   
Joined: 01/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 7,001
Location: Scotland
Never really had a problem although a slider On a coach had to be adjusted to get through both curve and three way turnouts. Doing some work on the loco slider should solve the problem.
Take care I like Marklin and will defend the worlds greatest model rail manufacturer.
Offline revmox  
#8 Posted : 28 May 2021 23:33:19(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Hi, I'm the OP. Thanks to all the members for the feedback.

It is clearer to me now that there are two very separate issues here - the points themselves and loco performance on them which is mostly down to the pick up shoe.

It seems that the 24671 and 24672 can work fine for some people and, unless they are damaged or badly adjusted in some way, should be reliable. Their construction is pretty solid and I think it would take something serious to do real damage. Mine a brand new and I can see nothing wrong with them.

My question asked about "loco performance on the 24671 and 24672". As I said, I'm basically a newbie giving Marklin a trial, and ATM have 4 locos, two little yellow diesel 4 wheel shunters from some Aldi sets that were new and unopened on eBay for peanuts. I bought a 30000 and a there is also a 36740 in a 29074 set I bought. So 4 locos, the 2 little diesels just work with no issues, their not pretty, but absolutely no issues.

I looked closely at the pickup shoe on the 36740 and it had a noticeable reverse bend, letting the ends dig in over the curved points causing a crash stop. I have corrected this to some extent and it now seems OK but I'm not yet confident enough to leave the room while it is running. Brand new, straight out of the box, handled carefully. I'm disappointed that this could occur.

The 30000 is also brand new. It went back for reprogramming because it wouldn't run correctly. It also had excessive side play in the front axle (I'd put a link here to my post on this topic if I knew how). Now it has taken to "pulsing and growling" at low speeds and occasionally launching itself down the track for no reason. The local supplier is sending a new one for comparison. I'm disappointed that this could occur.

It now seems to me that, if there is a problem with a loco, it will just be more obvious on the curved points.

So maybe my question should have been "Is Marklin quality control up to scratch?"

Cheers and thanks again to all.
Offline kiwiAlan  
#9 Posted : 29 May 2021 00:14:55(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 6,292
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post
Hi, I'm the OP. Thanks to all the members for the feedback.
...
I looked closely at the pickup shoe on the 36740 and it had a noticeable reverse bend, letting the ends dig in over the curved points causing a crash stop. I have corrected this to some extent and it now seems OK but I'm not yet confident enough to leave the room while it is running. Brand new, straight out of the box, handled carefully. I'm disappointed that this could occur.


The running surface of the pickup shoe should be flat. I used to advocate the merest concave bend to it to stop it shorting on the rail that is being crossed as it goes through points, but it appears from others experience that having it dead flat is better.

Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post

The 30000 is also brand new. It went back for reprogramming because it wouldn't run correctly. It also had excessive side play in the front axle (I'd put a link here to my post on this topic if I knew how). Now it has taken to "pulsing and growling" at low speeds and occasionally launching itself down the track for no reason. The local supplier is sending a new one for comparison. I'm disappointed that this could occur.

It now seems to me that, if there is a problem with a loco, it will just be more obvious on the curved points.

So maybe my question should have been "Is Marklin quality control up to scratch?"

Cheers and thanks again to all.


It sounds like it could be a quality problem with the loco, your other thread is over here. It will be interesting to see if it is different to the other one the dealer sends.



Offline LeoArietis  
#10 Posted : 18 July 2021 00:08:35(UTC)
LeoArietis

Sweden   
Joined: 07/02/2008(UTC)
Posts: 134
Location: Lindome, Sweden
If I could go back in time and redo my layout I would have skipped the R1, at least on all the main-lines.

It depends on what type of rolling stock you are going for. Not even all Märklin will be fine on R1.

The switches usually work well, and with most vehicles but it's 360 mm radius and that is small.

In your idea, it's possible to change to the larger R3 curved turnouts that I have found to be reliable.

S-curves should be avoided, and s-curves with R1 are prone to cause trouble.
Current layout:
http://www.svensktmjforu.../index.php?topic=10990.0
The former project:
http://www.svensktmjforu...forum_posts.asp?TID=1097
With Pictures and trackplans, but in Swedish
Transitation-curves in C-track:
https://www.marklin-user...9-on-75-cm.aspx#post9281
Offline JohnjeanB  
#11 Posted : 18 July 2021 00:40:56(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,737
Location: Paris, France
Hi Leo
Every one has its regrets on existing layout.
Mine are with insufficient spacing between levels (90mm in my layout).
This is fine for operation but bad when you need to reach for a stuck train (main issue: poor contact after a period of inactivity, usual sequence you unstuck the train but with poor visibility you derail it.

Regarding R1 rails and R1 switches, I admit that the small radius is very unattractive and unrealistic especially with long cars so I keep them for non-visible portions.
However I never observed a derailment caused by it on all the Märklin locos and wagons I have including big locos like the BR 45 steamer and the US Big Boy.
I don't have extra extra long cars like the torpedo to move iron in fusion. I have the SNCF 241A65 and the EST 241A serie 13 and both work like a charm on R1 although Märklin recommends R2
The secrets for good operation with R1:
- rails fully jointed,
- no brutal vertical change (only smooth ones at begin and end of inclines )
- no twisted rails (like an helix)
- no successive R1 S curves without a transition straight (only R2 and larger radii are allowed)
- avoid using the R1 bridge with long cars which rub on railings ( This is the only R1 limitation)
- always install catenary mast OUTSIDE of the rail

Cheers
Jean
My layout videos
latest vid
hump yard
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
Offline revmox  
#12 Posted : 18 July 2021 02:32:43(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
I started this topic with concern about 24671 and 24672 points. The track has now been fully built but modified slightly to give two continuous loops. I can now report that there have been no problems at all with running on those curved points. It seems the two NEW locos I had both had problems. One with a reverse curve on the pickup shoe - problem completely solved when it was made flat. The other a loco with very excessive side play in the wheels, swapped over without fuss by my friendly supplier.

As far as R1 goes - if you buy 3 starter sets then you've simply got 36 R1 curves waiting to be used. In a way it's a bit of a trap for those who just try to expand from starter sets.

There are clearly lots of faults and compromises in my first layout but that was a deliberate decision to go small, single level, toy train style and easily achievable. You have to start somewhere ...

Final Plan.jpg
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by revmox
Offline JohnjeanB  
#13 Posted : 18 July 2021 10:57:23(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,737
Location: Paris, France
Hi Revmox (No first name, sorry)
Your layout is great, I like it but I find you have only one loop track and for the other direction, you almost had one but it goes to 2 industrial tracks.

Sorry this is a typical Marklinist attitude to take advantage of the 3 rails (with reversing loops)

Another suggestion: I find you could have more sidings to leave wagons

Here is my hump yard to sort wagons

Like you I was not using sidings very much until I organised automatic operation with Rocrail
Cheers
Jean
My layout videos
latest vid
hump yard
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
Offline revmox  
#14 Posted : 19 July 2021 02:13:46(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Hello Jean,

Thanks for the comments. That's the first time I have seen an automated hump yard like that for model trains - it seems I've been away from HO for too long - very interesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only one loop track", there are two reversing loops available. But I agree there's no path to run continuously from one loop to the other without constantly changing the double slip switch, if that is what you mean. You are correct that there are few sidings and there is little provision for sensible shunting operations. To be honest, that's not really my thing, but I have the space to extend the layout another two metres to the right in the future. That should allow a decent storage yard and the outer loop to go to a second level - or it might be a whole new concept.

The advice I got was too big, too quick often leads to frustration and disappointment - was I right to listen to it?

I'm only doing this to see if Marklin HO is right for me as I get older. It does make a change from 5" and 7 1/4" gauges, see here https://www.facebook.com/WalkaMiniatureRailway/

Cheers, Mark

Loops.jpg



thanks 2 users liked this useful post by revmox
Online Alsterstreek  
#15 Posted : 19 July 2021 11:48:34(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,176
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: JohnjeanB Go to Quoted Post
...Your layout is great, I like it but I find you have only one loop track and for the other direction, you almost had one but it goes to 2 industrial tracks.

Do you recommend to have a double track oval layout like this with one passing track in each direction - see red line?Final Plan rev1.png

Originally Posted by: JohnjeanB Go to Quoted Post
Sorry this is a typical Marklinist attitude to take advantage of the 3 rails (with reversing loops)

In an US layout that would be a wye for turning around single-headed locomotives. Maerklin is ideal for such a hassle-free track combination (no short circuit...). So, I cannot see anything wrong about this.

Originally Posted by: JohnjeanB Go to Quoted Post
Another suggestion: I find you could have more sidings to leave wagons

Do you mean stub tracks?
Offline JohnjeanB  
#16 Posted : 19 July 2021 11:52:09(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,737
Location: Paris, France
Hi Mark
My mistake, you indeed have 2 reversing loops which is IMO excellent.
Your layout is compact and a good compromise.
Key points are:
- accessibility: better when all around accessibility and no zone is further away that 80 cm to 1 m. Otherwise you may use access panels (landscaped panels to sneak in the middle of the layout.
- the best layout is a matter of taste. It must please YOU. So take your time, do a lot of traffic simulations (do you prefer line operation, station, industrial, other?)
- often, layouts are divided in "blocks" to host trains (in a station, a crossing zone, etc). These are sections without track pieces (Switches, crossings, double slip). Their length is ideally similar because it determines the longest train you can run normally (for me around 1.7 m)
- if the landscape is important to you you must include it in the design (e.g.: I have a Faller Car system like here

I hope this helps
Jean
My layout videos
latest vid
hump yard
Offline revmox  
#17 Posted : 19 July 2021 12:42:46(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Thanks Alsterstreek and Jean,

I've looked at the material you have both posted and you're light years ahead of me. Very impressive! It's good to see we are all supporting the German economy!

Also thanks for the track modification idea Alsterstreek - I hadn't thought of that and will certainly chew the excellent idea over while I toss and turn tonight.

I think there's a bit of a terminology gap between us regarding sidings, loops, stub and spur tracks. I only know what I've picked up here in Australia which includes a couple of years with a group running vintage rail motors. Looking on the internet only made things worse, like this one http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/261192.aspx

This was what I thought landscaping a railway meant.

dodgy points 1.jpg

And some old rail motors - 1920s and 1960s.

DSC_0040 boxed.jpg
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by revmox
Online Alsterstreek  
#18 Posted : 19 July 2021 14:31:32(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,176
Location: Southwesternmost
Jean´s hump yard is indeed a jewel.

Post 6 in below thread describes a compact simplistic hump yard for the poor man concept on an inclined board by a German group of youngsters:

https://www.marklin-user...s-in-H0-scale#post498158

Inspired by the above, I played around with a 100 x 200 cm shunting heaven module:
hump1shunt.png

(See Post 90: https://www.marklin-user...es-and-ovals#post498754)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Online Alsterstreek  
#19 Posted : 19 July 2021 14:36:13(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,176
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post
I think there's a bit of a terminology gap between us regarding sidings, loops, stub and spur tracks. I only know what I've picked up here in Australia which includes a couple of years with a group running vintage rail motors. Looking on the internet only made things worse, like this one http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/261192.aspx


ThumpUp

And looking at your track plan and the first photo: Not without my wye !

BigGrin

Edited by user 19 July 2021 20:04:38(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline revmox  
#20 Posted : 19 July 2021 23:18:04(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Thanks again Jean and Alsterstreek,

Here's a revised track plan with your suggestions - an extra passing loop and two more "sidings". And no wye!

Maybe I'll go that way. The wiggle at the double slip switch is a bit odd but isn't on a main line so I guess I can live with it - I'll think on it. Unsure

Jean and Alsterstreek.jpg
Offline revmox  
#21 Posted : 19 July 2021 23:20:00(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Or this ... I must stop thinking ...

Jean and Alsterstreek v2.jpg
Online Alsterstreek  
#22 Posted : 19 July 2021 23:54:35(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,176
Location: Southwesternmost
But ... I liked the wye !

Offline revmox  
#23 Posted : 20 July 2021 00:37:21(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
Me too ... so it's back. The original idea is intact but improved, thanks guys!

Jean and Alsterstreek v3.jpg
Online Alsterstreek  
#24 Posted : 20 July 2021 11:18:14(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,176
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: revmox Go to Quoted Post
Me too ... so it's back. The original idea is intact but improved, thanks guys!
Yesss !

Since you are a flattop modeler for the time being, I suggest to *not* screw down any track. That allows you to re-arrange track segments for experimenting. Planning is one thing, how it looks like in reality another.

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline marklinist5999  
#25 Posted : 20 July 2021 18:10:18(UTC)
marklinist5999

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 970
Location: Michigan, Troy
Yes, it seems no matter how intricate the planning, the unexpected problem can surface. The more I do, the more I learn. I've actually had more of a problem with the straight R1 turnouts. Bridge ramps terinate at two of mine, so to improve and resolve the derailing issue for certain long cars, I shimmed up the turnouts and tracks adjoining to them. That lessened the sharp incline rake.
I even had to make one S curve without a straight track piece between, because that's what width the R2, and R 3 curves allotted at each end of the loop.
I only have a slight problem now with the leading axles of lighter long cars in one direction at higher speeds against the points, and that ceases with the trunout set for through traffic, and not for the curved exit. I had to use R3 radius at one end because of a tunnel clearance I have planned for on the curve. It has to accomodate two tracks, and even still, i need to use an * inch p.v.c. pipe union end as a portal. HO double track portals are 6 inches.
I ran a test run of my 5 unit ICE 3 yesterday and discovered it had trouble climbing the R2 curved embankment of 4.5 inches in 61/2 ft. As a 3 unit, it had no problem., but the center power car must puch the front up, as it pulles the rear cars. I shimmed the tracks leading to and at the beginning of the grade a bit more to reduce the rake.
Offline LeoArietis  
#26 Posted : 27 July 2021 01:05:33(UTC)
LeoArietis

Sweden   
Joined: 07/02/2008(UTC)
Posts: 134
Location: Lindome, Sweden
The wye (triangular tracks?) are nice in this layout since you can easily change the direction of travel and I always find that neat when running trains. I think you should keep the wye since it connects the reverse loops in a cool way! I also like the appearance of triangular tracks.

By the way, I did a few years of flat top rail, maybe with the occasional bridge crossing in a reverse loop on top of it all. Kind of the seed to my current layout. Unfortunatetly I could not fit a visible triangular, but I have one hidden away. BigGrin
Current layout:
http://www.svensktmjforu.../index.php?topic=10990.0
The former project:
http://www.svensktmjforu...forum_posts.asp?TID=1097
With Pictures and trackplans, but in Swedish
Transitation-curves in C-track:
https://www.marklin-user...9-on-75-cm.aspx#post9281
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by LeoArietis
Offline marklinist5999  
#27 Posted : 27 July 2021 11:22:57(UTC)
marklinist5999

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 970
Location: Michigan, Troy
Leo, I didn't have room for a Y turnout either, not a reversing loop or crossover. I had already many structures from before. For the new layout, the choice was trackage, or buildings. I have a small branch loop oval, two long arch bridges connected, a long truss bridge, and a 4 ft. Bridge connecting the sections. My castle and Stuttgart fernsheturm needed a mountain over a tunnel on a corner curve.
Offline revmox  
#28 Posted : 27 July 2021 12:49:11(UTC)
revmox

Australia   
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
It is interesting that the wye in the layout has caught the attention of some people. I was looking at Marklin and quite undecided whether I wanted to make a return to HO modelling. In fact I was very close to passing the whole idea up as too much effort, time and money on top of my other railway interests. I then spotted the layout below in an old Marklin M track book (it has 0351 on the front and goes back to the 1970s I think). I thought that it looked like a good place to start - a wye and some reversing loops - still toy trains and not a "model railway". It's expanded and updated to C track and built on a bare board and just waiting for two more curved points to do the Alsterstreek variation mentioned in this thread. We'll see where it goes from there.

I have a 900 kg crane on the back of my truck that can't lift some of the loks on my local track - picking a lok up with one hand is a nice change.

L plan M track.jpg
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by revmox
Offline marklinist5999  
#29 Posted : 27 July 2021 16:30:18(UTC)
marklinist5999

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 970
Location: Michigan, Troy
It's great revmox! I had room for it too, but I had been envisioning R2, and R3 sweeping curves to accomidate longer cars. I've also wanted a Bietschtahl bridge since I saw the BLS video in 1990 or '91. That needed a lor of room for the ramps curving to it. So I only have one parade route on the back 8 ft. side. Function follows form, or visa versa. Had I removed my 2 rail outer oval from my original 4X8', I could have addedA second C track ova with a crossover like shown above. However, I have several nice Roco d.c. analog Loco's and trains which I got in the 90's. A Lufthansa Airport Express with a br 111, an ETR br 420-421 Frankfurt suburban, an Orient Express 4 car sleeper set, some SBB cars, at 303 mm., an auto carrier also 303 mm., and several freight and double container wagons which reequire wider radii.
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.269 seconds.