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 husafreak  
#1 Posted : 01 September 2021 17:21:14(UTC)
husafreak

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2019(UTC)
Posts: 353
Location: California, Bay Area
The new Class 141 chassis chassis design is well covered in the Z Trains Weekly review and teardown of the Marklin 81356 set. In the past this type of chassis has been seen when Marklin and AZL collaborate on American Locos. It is obviously coming from the AZL factory in China. Not a bad design but an old one and, as usual, anything that has to be done by hand is prone to poor workmanship. In the reviewed loco the chassis halves are held together by non conductive plastic bushings with self tapping screws. The bushings are a tight fit in the chassis and prone to breaking when the chassis halves are pried apart. Also some screws were stripped in the plastic bushings by overtightening or poor specification. None of the AZL locos I own use these bushings so I don't know if it is something new or not.
Anyone who knows AZL chassis will advise extreme care with the press fit contact strips. If they become bent or separated from the frame they are prone to bending and also failing to remain in place on reassembly.
It is hard to say wether I am disappointed or not to see this. It's not like AZL locos don't run well. But it is certainly not any design improvement. Locos which don't run on delivery and chassis designs becoming increasingly harder to maintain, i.e. not built to be maintained, or shoddy workmanship, seems to be our future. Same as it ever was? I haven't been in the game long enough to know if older Marklin locos ran well out of the box.
The body is certainly beautiful though! Marklin does what it makes in house very well.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by husafreak
Offline parakiet  
#2 Posted : 01 September 2021 17:37:15(UTC)
parakiet

Belgium   
Joined: 20/02/2017(UTC)
Posts: 97
Location: Flanders!
Thanks for your professional view!

Based on the pictures I concluded this designed had to be better than the old one, boy, did I was wrong!!

Or M is trying out different approaches or there isn't a steady design continuity. Hower it is very clear there are very different designs at this moment..
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by parakiet
Offline zscalehobo  
#3 Posted : 02 September 2021 17:12:34(UTC)
zscalehobo

United States   
Joined: 22/01/2014(UTC)
Posts: 158
Location: CALIFORNIA, Irvine
First and most importantly - buy from a dealer who tests the set prior to shipment. The poor operation portion upon opening the box is then eliminated.

Second - the motor and upper gears are "self-lubricating" type - meaning no service is needed on those. Motor has no brushes to change ... The screws and plastic threaded bushings hold the frame together. They can be deformed by the factory sure.... But again - this isn't usually intended to be opened frequently or at all. (IIRC - MTL uses these threaded bushings in their split frame deaigns)

For truck removal and oiling - you simply loosen these 6 screws. While loose and still well-threaded Gently split the frame slightly by hand or with a flat screwdriver and the trucks pop out for maintenance ... Eric's comments about the long strips is accurate - these are where binding and poor operation in curves can crop up if the trucks contacts are not riding freely underneath. It's a relatively simple design.

Märklin is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Same designs for 50 years "they never do anything new!" ... Finally try to change something and yet it's wrong also.

I wasn't going to take on these sets (due to a lack of customer interest) but now I'm definitely bringing some in. Looks pretty solid and new to me.

Frank Daniels
Owner - z.scale.hobo
A Noch "Top Dealer"
Marklin Dealer and Z Locomotive Service
Irvine, California, USA
www.zscalehobo.com
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by zscalehobo
Offline Zme  
#4 Posted : 02 September 2021 20:52:06(UTC)
Zme

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 387
Location: West Texas
Hello.

I thought the BR 141 write up in z Trains Weekly would generate some comments.

I don’t know about the easy to damage aspect of the new design, but what I see is something with a bit more weight to it. Traction should be improved if this is the case. Seems the design does have some heavy duty looks which are a welcome change. It will not be long till we see this design across all the similar models.

Much was said when the bell armature was announced, and most of it negative. While their long term benefits remain to be seen, they are smooth and quiet in operation. My old br 216, while working great, strong and powerful, does so with an ever present growl. If now I can get similar performance from this new design because of a weight increase, and it is quiet too, sounds like a win, win to me.

Just a thought.

Dwight
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#5 Posted : 03 September 2021 22:36:51(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post

I don’t know about the easy to damage aspect of the new design, but what I see is something with a bit more weight to it.


Unfortunately the Z lines review doesn't mention the weight, but I'd certainly welcome a new chassis design that has more of it!

Husafreak commented that this looks like a collaboration with AZL - do we know this for sure or is this just speculation? I welcome the reduction gearing in the bogies/trucks - is this typical of AZL designs?

Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post
Seems the design does have some heavy duty looks which are a welcome change. It will not be long till we see this design across all the similar models.


I was hoping that this might be true of the new Ludmilla (88136) but it looks like this uses the old chassis design adapted for the coreless motor.

Either way, I'm confused that this new chassis design differs so much from that of 88803 - are Marklin experimenting with a number of different designs and seeing which is most successful or buying in third party designs for the sake of expediency?

Cheers


Chris
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Zme  
#6 Posted : 05 September 2021 18:21:44(UTC)
Zme

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 387
Location: West Texas
Hi.

The new bell armature model of the BR 212 seems adapted from the old frame design also. There is likely not much change which could occur with this model.

Take good care.

Dwight



Offline husafreak  
#7 Posted : 06 September 2021 00:13:26(UTC)
husafreak

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2019(UTC)
Posts: 353
Location: California, Bay Area
Not a collaboration with AZL but similar enough in design that they might be from the same factory. But Frank commented that it is also like some Micro Trains line chassis. I don't know which or if those are the same factories. Anyway it looked familiar.
Offline Hatoil  
#8 Posted : 09 September 2021 09:07:34(UTC)
Hatoil

Sweden   
Joined: 09/09/2021(UTC)
Posts: 7
Location: Majorna, Gothenburg
Hi!

I really like this locomotive. It's finely detailed and it runs great. It's quiet and strong, probably the best runner of all the z scale engines I own. Easily on par with AZL and Freudenreich, something I can't say about my other Marklin locos.

I only ordered the E141 set because I liked the E41 (88353) so much.

I wanted to double-head the two, but strangely enough they run at very different speeds. The E41 is much slower at the same voltage. Both run and pull great though. And the headlights are just perfect, beautifully bright without spilling any light where there shouldn't be any.

Is there a steam engine with this design? I would really love a great running steam engine with the same characteristics. What's the best running steam locomotive in Marklin's current line-up?

New to the forum, but have read it sporadically for a long time. Returning to the hobby :)

Cheers,
Joens


thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Hatoil
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#9 Posted : 09 September 2021 21:13:10(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Hatoil Go to Quoted Post
Hi!

I really like this locomotive. It's finely detailed and it runs great. It's quiet and strong, probably the best runner of all the z scale engines I own. Easily on par with AZL and Freudenreich, something I can't say about my other Marklin locos.



That's really interesting and great news. Hopefully Marklin can sort out their quality problems and everyone will be as happy as you!

I was interested to hear that it's also a great puller. Are you able to put it on some scales and let us know how much it weighs?

All the best


Chris
Offline Zme  
#10 Posted : 10 September 2021 06:18:00(UTC)
Zme

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 387
Location: West Texas
Hello.

Regardless of the weight, I doubt there would be much to be disappointed about with this loco.

When I look at the frame, it just reminds me of the original BR 216, (8874/8875) with the large metal frame castings. It has to be heavier than the prior release and I expect there will be improved hill pulling power. On my layout, as I have mention earlier, I have better performance from my BR 10.3 than my BR 139 or BR 110. When I look at it, perhaps the position of the truck, or the distance between the trucks just happens to improve traction. Ya, I know, double traction does overcome many issues. With two locomotives, 10 or 12 two axles wagons are possible.

As for my steam locomotives, I don’t really get good traction from most of them. Longer ones seem worse, (BR 3 or BR 85) but it is possible the track itself has not be laid properly in some spots. (My first layout, I have to work on this, maybe I can make improvements ) I get much better pulling power from my BR 74 and even BR 89, but these are limited by their size and weight. BR 24 or 38 and even 55 all have coal tenders and don’t seem to be able to handle more than one or two, two axle wagons. (To my disappointment).

Is it possible models produced in coordination with AZL or the others, also include traction wheels as a standard? Perhaps this also explains the improvements observed. Smooth, quiet motor, additional weight perhaps and traction wheels could really be a potent combination.

Just my comment.

Take good care

Dwight



Offline Hatoil  
#11 Posted : 10 September 2021 09:00:39(UTC)
Hatoil

Sweden   
Joined: 09/09/2021(UTC)
Posts: 7
Location: Majorna, Gothenburg
Originally Posted by: Poor Skeleton Go to Quoted Post


That's really interesting and great news. Hopefully Marklin can sort out their quality problems and everyone will be as happy as you!

I was interested to hear that it's also a great puller. Are you able to put it on some scales and let us know how much it weighs?

All the best


Chris


On my kitchen scale this locomotive weighs 29 grams.

Joens
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Hatoil
Zme
Offline Hatoil  
#12 Posted : 10 September 2021 09:12:49(UTC)
Hatoil

Sweden   
Joined: 09/09/2021(UTC)
Posts: 7
Location: Majorna, Gothenburg
Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post

As for my steam locomotives, I don’t really get good traction from most of them. Longer ones seem worse, (BR 3 or BR 85) but it is possible the track itself has not be laid properly in some spots. (My first layout, I have to work on this, maybe I can make improvements ) I get much better pulling power from my BR 74 and even BR 89, but these are limited by their size and weight. BR 24 or 38 and even 55 all have coal tenders and don’t seem to be able to handle more than one or two, two axle wagons. (To my disappointment).

Dwight


Hm, I was hoping the steam engines had been improved, at least some model. I am as disappointed as you in the pulling power of the ones I have got. But I have mostly older constructions.

I only have one steam engine with a bell shaped motor, the one in the Rheingold set. It actually pulls rather well, but it's not very reliable. It tends to stall at lower speeds.

Joens

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Hatoil
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#13 Posted : 10 September 2021 21:18:32(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Hatoil Go to Quoted Post


On my kitchen scale this locomotive weighs 29 grams.

Joens


Thanks very much - that is quite impressive for such a small locomotive. The 5 pole powered BR 111 weighs in at 24g, so its significantly heavier than that and I'm sure it's traction is improved accordingly.

Thanks again


Chris

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#14 Posted : 10 September 2021 21:29:33(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post
Is it possible models produced in coordination with AZL or the others, also include traction wheels as a standard? Perhaps this also explains the improvements observed. Smooth, quiet motor, additional weight perhaps and traction wheels could really be a potent combination.



To my mind the problem with traction tyres is the reduction in electrical pick-up (though I'd imagine it is possible to make conductive traction tyres) so I would always favour additional weight over traction tyres. I've also notice a tendency of traction-tyred locomotives to "wobble" as they run, though this may just be something that happens as the tyres wear. Judging by the photos I've seen, the new BR141 doesn't have traction tyres, though.

As you know, I am somewhat obsessed with locomotive traction and share your dissatisfaction with most of the stream locomotives I have in this respect. Among the many surprising and intriguing effects I have noted is that a loco will often have different pulling power in one direction compared to the other. I suppose this is something to do with the centre of gravity.

Have a great weekend, all the best


Chris


thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Mman  
#15 Posted : 11 September 2021 07:36:09(UTC)
Mman

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 86
Location: England, Guildford
At this scale it is difficult to see what is going on re locomotive traction. Certainly there can be a wide difference between the pulling power of a loco in each direction and also between two apparently identical ones. Placing the worst pullers on a mirror has revealed that at rest not all wheels touch the glass, gentle pressure downwards will allow full contact. Is it the (different) pressure the wiper springs exert between the bogies and the frame that causes the two to sit in different planes?
With the class 143 I recently bought (and returned because it kept derailing) I found that it’s tendency to derail depended upon what it was pulling and also in which direction it was going. Pulling back on the rear coupling affects how the rear bogie (truck) sits and if the front one is naturally in a different plane it will be affected also.

All this fascinates me, my H0 locos just plough on up gradients and through pointwork and sharp curves regardless, Z is a whole different ball game. As previously mentioned I use a Noch Tessin large cased layout with its gradients and curves for test and comparison purposes with consists of up to 15 two axle tank wagons. 15 is about the maximum any loco will pull on this layout and I look forward to trying out an ÖBB class 2016 later that was delivered yesterday.
ChrisG
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Mman
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#16 Posted : 11 September 2021 14:47:07(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Mman Go to Quoted Post
At this scale it is difficult to see what is going on re locomotive traction. Certainly there can be a wide difference between the pulling power of a loco in each direction and also between two apparently identical ones. Placing the worst pullers on a mirror has revealed that at rest not all wheels touch the glass, gentle pressure downwards will allow full contact. Is it the (different) pressure the wiper springs exert between the bogies and the frame that causes the two to sit in different planes?
With the class 143 I recently bought (and returned because it kept derailing) I found that it’s tendency to derail depended upon what it was pulling and also in which direction it was going. Pulling back on the rear coupling affects how the rear bogie (truck) sits and if the front one is naturally in a different plane it will be affected also.

All this fascinates me, my H0 locos just plough on up gradients and through pointwork and sharp curves regardless, Z is a whole different ball game. As previously mentioned I use a Noch Tessin large cased layout with its gradients and curves for test and comparison purposes with consists of up to 15 two axle tank wagons. 15 is about the maximum any loco will pull on this layout and I look forward to trying out an ÖBB class 2016 later that was delivered yesterday.
ChrisG


Ah yes, I'd forgotten about alignment of the wheels themselves. I've certainly noted quite a lot of "play" in the wheels and gearing so it would be expected that the number of wheels in contact with the rails vary from model to model and with direction. I think the design of the coupling exerts a sideways force on the coupled vehicles as well as one parallel to the direction of travel. I've certainly noted occasional derailments when I run long trains (10 or more bogie coaches) on my layout. I have to say this was before I realised there was more than one version of coupling, though, so the derailments could have been due to original design couplings, of which I have a few.

By and large, though, I rarely experience derailments on my layout which I have put down to good design on Marklin's part.

Like you, I find the topic of traction a fascinating one. I feel I have identified some of the variables and how they affect traction but I am far from having a full picture.

Cheers


Chris

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#17 Posted : 11 September 2021 21:58:15(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Oh! Also meant to say, please let us know about 88881. I’ve been tempted by that loco myself, even though it doesn’t suit my layout at all! (That hasn’t stopped me buying stuff in the past - my two V200s, for example!)

Cheers


Chris
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Mman  
#18 Posted : 11 September 2021 22:19:47(UTC)
Mman

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC)
Posts: 86
Location: England, Guildford
88880 was the ÖBB loco that my son (who lives in Innsbruck) sent me a photo of in a local shop. Whilst there are a few available from Germany I don’t want to get into the duty/VAT situation. I found the 2007 version with the conventional 5 pole motor in the UK (88881) and bought that. I prefer the 5 poles to the newer motors anyway, the V80 is a disaster as far as I’m concerned.
After a sluggish start and some hesitation it speeded up a bit so I had the top and the trucks off to give it a little oil. Then it wouldn’t run at all but the lights came on - it was the usual problem where the two bare wires soldered to the circuit plate weren’t making good contact with the legs of the capacitor, once tweaked off it went running very well achieving 11 two axle tankers in one direction and 13 in the other round the Noch Tessin.
I have mostly German locos but also a few Swiss and Austrian so it makes a good addition to my Z roster.
I was very impressed with ÖBB when I was visiting Austria but assumed wrongly that their whole system was electrified hence my surprise at them having big mainline diesels.
I look forward to returning to Vienna and Innsbruck to revisit any remaining Märklin dealers.
ChrisG

Edited by user 12 September 2021 11:13:44(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Mman
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#19 Posted : 11 September 2021 23:22:35(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Mman Go to Quoted Post
I prefer the 5 poles to the newer motors anyway, the V80 is a disaster as far as I’m concerned.
After a sluggish start and some hesitation it speeded up a bit so I had the top and the trucks off to give it a little oil. Then it wouldn’t run at all but the lights came on - it was the usual problem where the two bare wires soldered to the circuit plate weren’t making good contact with the legs of the capacitor, once tweaked off it went running very well achieving 11 two axle tankers in one direction and 13 in the other round the Noch Tessin.


Like you, I’m not won over by the coreless motors - they are quieter, but don’t seem to have the range of speed control of earlier motors - their maximum speed is lower - no bad thing - but the slow running is no better in my estimation. Also their characteristics seem very temperature dependent, which is a real problem if you’re trying to automate anything.

All this said, the 5-pole motors have their own problems - not maintaining a consistent speed being the most annoying to me. Even with constant voltage and no load the motor will speed up and slow down of its own accord - some motors being more prone to this than others.

I was quite looking forward to the V80 becoming available to non club-members in due course. Not sure I’m so enthusiastic now!

Cheers


Chris
Offline Zme  
#20 Posted : 12 September 2021 02:54:06(UTC)
Zme

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 387
Location: West Texas
Hi.

I am always looking for that perfect locomotive which will conquer my hill challenging layout, and I think I will put the new 141 or equal on my wish list. That 88881 looks good too. The v80 may not improve for a while.

I have tried several including the BR 101 or 182 (5 poles)thinking each would do it, but discovered just how difficult a problem this is. The BR 103 or 151 do a good job, I think the extra drive axles help, if they are actually functional. It seems they are. With the three pole motor they make a lot of noise.

The new cordless motor are great, but I believe we are conditioned to hear the growl and somehow get the impression they are weak when they actually are not. Smooth and slow, actually more realistic perhaps.

I wasn’t really aware the five pole motors change speeds, but will likely notice this now. Is it possible the motor warms and becomes smoother and faster as a result? Which exhibit this more than the others? 211903? They are found in nearly every Bo Bo type locomotive in the fleet.

Isn’t the “Z World” wonderful? It is just part of the joy.

Take good care

Dwight

Offline Poor Skeleton  
#21 Posted : 12 September 2021 11:49:25(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post
The BR 103 or 151 do a good job, I think the extra drive axles help, if they are actually functional. It seems they are. With the three pole motor they make a lot of noise.



I’ve always liked the look of the BR103 and would love an excuse to buy one, but it really wouldn’t suit my layout and I don’t think I’m ready for catenary yet!

My Ludmillas have 6 wheel bogies but the centre pair aren’t powered yet they still out-haul the heavier 8874. The only explanation I can come up with for this is that the wider spacing between wheels gives greater friction between the wheel flange and rail edge on curves.

Quote:
I wasn’t really aware the five pole motors change speeds, but will likely notice this now. Is it possible the motor warms and becomes smoother and faster as a result? Which exhibit this more than the others? 211903?


I’m sure it’s not a temperature thing. If I set a loco off at moderate speed the loco will spontaneously speed up or slow down every now and then. At first I thought this was an electrical contact issue but I have tested motors in isolation and they do exactly the same thing. I think it has to do with the position of the motor brushes - the motion of the motor can “kick” them into a different position where they’ll exert more or less friction on the commutator (or maybe they make better/worse electrical contact). Yes, it is the 211903 motor I’m referring to - my steam locos don’t seem to suffer this at all.

Ah yes, the wonderful world of Z Scale! As I’ve said before, a lot like owning an Alfa Romeo!

All the best


Chris
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Zme
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#22 Posted : 17 September 2021 19:12:23(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
I see there is the V80 (88804) in the Autumn releases line up New items Autumn 2021. Despite the mixed reception, I'll almost certainly be getting one!

Have a great weekend, everyone!


Chris
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
Offline Zme  
#23 Posted : 17 September 2021 21:44:15(UTC)
Zme

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 387
Location: West Texas
Hi.

Thought you would be interested in this new item. I wonder if that one would be good on hills. Maybe the wheels are in just the right locations for good traction.

I was noting the Kittel with a different paint scheme. I think of this as the earlier version of a railbus.

Take good care have a great weekend.

Dwight

Offline Poor Skeleton  
#24 Posted : 17 September 2021 23:36:16(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 378
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Zme Go to Quoted Post
Hi.

Thought you would be interested in this new item. I wonder if that one would be good on hills. Maybe the wheels are in just the right locations for good traction.

I was noting the Kittel with a different paint scheme. I think of this as the earlier version of a railbus.

Take good care have a great weekend.

Dwight



Yes, I'm wondering how its haulage will be, too. I don't think my expectations are high, but all of my diesels out-haul the apparently mighty BR85 so I'm sure it will be fine. It's not clear from the service sheet how much of the chassis is metal, but I'm hoping being a new chassis design it will be heavier than we're used to!

I'm also awaiting the new 88136 Ludmilla with coreless motor which I hope will share the pulling power of the versions I already have but with smoother running.

The Kittel is a very pretty looking model and I am quite tempted but, as you see, I already have a few items on my shopping list!

Take care yourself, and have a great weekend


Chris


Offline husafreak  
#25 Posted : 27 September 2021 14:13:41(UTC)
husafreak

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2019(UTC)
Posts: 353
Location: California, Bay Area
There is a lot of talk about “haulage” or pulling ability here and since AZL and or MTL use this chassis manufacturer maybe Marklin could use this manufactures traction tires as well? I don’t know for sure obviously just guessing.
I’ve often wondered why, of all the major Z scale manufacturers, Marklin avoids these tires? The greater weight of this loco is a bonus but when a Marklin train comes to a stop and it’s loco’s wheels are still turning I gotta guess traction tires would do the job.
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 1.009 seconds.