|
|
| why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? (1349620) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1349638) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Sun Apr 26 01:46:24 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. 1. Three out of the four lines were designed to intergrate into the prexisting EL system. Tunnels and El cars don't mix right.Also, the areas were under developed and an El was cheaper. 2A. No, it's not impossible, just expensive 2B. No that wouldn't do any good and be super expensive. 3. Steep grades that would be nessiasrly to pass under the Gowanus Canal and then follow the surface level through the hill would have been impossible for a train to climb. |
|
|
| (1349668) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Tramrunner on Sun Apr 26 08:41:30 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by The silence on Sun Apr 26 01:46:24 2015. Someone told me that sometime it's safer to dig a deep tunnel rather then cut and cover. .. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1349678) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:42:47 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. I know it's rude to correct Subject lines but South Brooklyn and southern are not the same thing. The only rapid transit in South Brooklyn is a subway (the F).1)they were built using the existing lines of overground railways, which even pre-existed before building a subway in NYC. (I think - this one sounds like true) That's only really true of the Brighton, most of which is pre-Dual Contracts. 2)The ground in South Brooklyn is not so good, and would probably not allow the construction of underground tunnels. (It is correct) Would it be theoretically possible to hide Culver line, as well as West End Line - undergroung? The broader reason had to do with construction costs and especially the water table. Look what happened to the Sea Beach in Sandy. One of the reasons the Nostrand Avenue Line doesn't go south of The Junction is that the rest of the line would have had to be elevated and people weren't thrilled with that. The New Utrecht Avenue Line (West End Line) was originally planned as a subway from the Triborough Plan, but even so the southernmost part would have been elevated. It was also planned to be over Stillwell Avenue to Surf Avenue. By the way, what's the reason of building Culver line from 4th Avenue to Carrol street on a viaduct? That was a big argument because they really wanted the entire IND underground, but they determined that to go underneath the Gowanus Canal was too much trouble and too difficult with the depth of the tunnel needed and the excessive grades. |
|
|
| (1349679) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:45:02 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Tramrunner on Sun Apr 26 08:41:30 2015. Well, cut and cover is less safe in the sense of surface disruption and the possibility of surface accidents and cave-ins, which did occur. But tunneling can be breathtakingly expensive, as we see with SAS. |
|
|
| (1349689) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 26 10:59:13 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:42:47 2015. I always found it ironic that Nostrand Ave line did not continue as an elevated structure, yet the Eastern Parkway line to New Lots Ave did! |
|
|
| (1349691) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Sun Apr 26 11:16:56 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Tramrunner on Sun Apr 26 08:41:30 2015. It all depends on the type of rock/soil.To tunnel in soil you either need some type of shield mechanism (like most of the older underwater tunnels used), or you need to freeze the ground first (as was done for part of the 7 extension). Tunneling in solid rock is less complicated, although still expensive. |
|
|
| (1349700) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 26 12:25:20 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 26 10:59:13 2015. In addition to every thing else that was said here:a) There's the issue of funding, and funding cut-offs! Notice how the Flatbush Avenue station is built on the #2 and #5 lines in Brooklyn. The station was NOT intended to be the terminal, but that was where the funding stopped. In addition look closely at the Utica Avenue station, the local tracks were to veer off headed down Utica Avenue while the express tracks were to head to New Lots Avenue. The cut-off of funding stopped the building of the Utica Avenue subway line well before the IND lines were even en-visioned. All of this history is contained in the NYC-Subway.org website. (Please note that even in recent times - funding cutoffs remain a problem - the Archer Avenue subway lines were not intended to end where they do now. The none building of the 41st Street-10 Avenue station for the #7 train. Even the #7 train ending at Flushing-Main Street are all examples of funding cutoffs. The cut-off of funding explains the non-building of the IND Second System, and the various bulk-heads and portions not completed. The are several sections of the current IND system where it is clear that the lines were intended to go further than they go now.) b) The Culver and West-End elevated lines all tied into the BRT's Fifth Avenue Elevated line at the 9th Avenue station, all BEFORE the BRT/BMT's Fourth Avenue subway was built! Elevated lines were cheaper to build compared to subways in areas where there was less population, water table issues, etc. Mike |
|
|
| (1349701) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 12:40:05 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. Why did "subway lines" in Manhattan used to be mostly overground? |
|
|
| (1349703) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 13:03:28 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 26 12:25:20 2015. The Culver and West-End elevated lines all tied into the BRT's Fifth Avenue Elevated line at the 9th Avenue station, all BEFORE the BRT/BMT's Fourth Avenue subway was built!Just a bit of an anachronism there. The West End and Culver (and Sea Beach) surface lines tied into the 5th Avenue el west of 9th Avenue before the 4th Avenue subway was built. The 4th Avenue subway began operations on June 22, 1915. The West End elevated opened as a branch of the Fourth Avenue subway to 62nd Street on June 24, 1916 and with further extensions until it reached West End Terminal again. The Culver el didn't begin opening until 1919. It was 5th Avenue el only until 1931. The surface West End became a trolley-only line and the surface Culver carried many trolley services. |
|
|
| (1349704) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 13:04:24 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 12:40:05 2015. They weren't called subway lines. |
|
|
| (1349706) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 13:08:10 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 12:40:05 2015. Because they could be put up quickly and much more cheaply than tunnels. |
|
|
| (1349707) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 13:08:21 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. By the way, what's the reason of building Culver line from 4th Avenue to Carrol street on a viaduct?If you tried crossing the Gowanus Canal on foot you'd know Why a Duck. |
|
|
| (1349712) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 26 13:52:30 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 12:40:05 2015. Ever try to run a wood/coal burning locomotive through a extended subway tunnel? |
|
|
| (1349716) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 14:14:54 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 13:04:24 2015. Yes. The OP does not seem to know that, in the context he indicated. |
|
|
| (1349717) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 14:15:44 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 13:08:10 2015. Quite so. Modern equivalents are much quieter, but NIMBYs are irrational. |
|
|
| (1349718) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 14:19:46 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 26 13:52:30 2015. The Metropolitan Railway and District Railway in London did, IIRC. They kept up such operations for about thirty years, apparently, using coke in the firebox.I must say that I find the triple track on the Bowery for the streetcars to be impressive, though. |
|
|
| (1349726) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 26 15:29:35 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. "By the way, what's the reason of building Culver line from 4th Avenue to Carrol street on a viaduct? "The CULVER line did NOT go across the Gowanus Canal Viaduct. It turned west at Ditmas and followed the Culver Line (Later the Culver Shuttle) to the 9th Avenue station and thence via the 5th Avenue El. It is sloppiness that calls the Smith Street Line "The Culver", or the "Culver Viaduct". We probably can ot break the geese, the reporters and possibly even the MTA now of this egregious error. It should either be called the Smith Street (line) Viaduct, or perhaps the Gowanus Viaduct. ROAR |
|
|
| (1349729) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 26 15:59:51 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 26 15:29:35 2015. No, it's not sloppiness. It's reality. It's not the 1930s anymore. |
|
|
| (1349731) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Sun Apr 26 16:02:34 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 26 12:25:20 2015. You can add to the list of lines which were not extended the Hillside Ave. E/F (yes some rush hour E trains use it). In 1950 the 179th St. station was opened and east of the station there are two levels of relay tracks. The upper level was originally intended to be extended further (possibly all the way to the city line) but that never happened. |
|
|
| (1349740) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 16:35:19 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 13:04:24 2015. And that's why I put "subway lines" in quotation marks. |
|
|
| (1349752) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sun Apr 26 16:57:21 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by LA Scott on Sun Apr 26 11:16:56 2015. As I watched in Science Channel, freezing was done for building 1st line of Paris Metro too. |
|
|
| (1349757) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Apr 26 17:12:26 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 12:40:05 2015. Look at all the space between the two tracks! The pillars are based on the sidewalks rather than in the street, which is almost completely open to the sky. And a good portion of the sidewalks is open and unshadowed too. Where and when was this, and how long did the structure remain like that? |
|
|
| (1349766) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 17:23:54 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:42:47 2015. I know it's rude to correct Subject linesSays who? And why? |
|
|
| (1349771) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:38:05 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 14:15:44 2015. The JFK Airtrain is effectively an el, and people don't mind too much. |
|
|
| (1349773) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:45:12 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 16:35:19 2015. Oh. |
|
|
| (1349774) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:48:48 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 17:23:54 2015. A correction, especially grammar, seems a bit know-it-all. |
|
|
| (1349775) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 17:49:14 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:38:05 2015. Because it's over a highway that's a lot worse. |
|
|
| (1349776) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 17:52:27 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:38:05 2015. The AirTrain is much different than the average el in several ways.1) It doesn't run over commercial businesses or private property. 2) The trains are only 2-3 cars long, instead of the 8-10 car length of the average elevated subway train. 3) There are no stops between Jamaica and the airport. That being said, I agree that modern elevateds can be run much more quietly and efficiently than the beasts that were designed in the 1880's, but since elevateds carry the stigma of noise and darkness, we will probably never see another one built. Which is too bad - a 21st century version of the 2nd Avenue El, perhaps even using MagLev technology to eliminate wheel noise, could be a tourist attraction. |
|
|
| (1349777) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:52:44 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Apr 26 17:12:26 2015. some of the oldest parts of the 3rd and 9th IIRC were built like that, but when strengthened and especially third-tracked they changed to the more familiar style. |
|
|
| (1349779) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:55:19 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 17:52:27 2015. I think people would like it better if there were stops. |
|
|
| (1349783) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:25:21 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 14:19:46 2015. If I can remember from my visit to London, the original “Underground” was actually mostly open cut with short potions of true tunneling. It was called the “Underground” simply because its ROW was below street level and when the tube lines were built at the turn of the 20th Century using electric power exclusively the original underground lines became known as “sub surface” or sometimes melt “surface” lines to distinguish them from the tube lines. I have an annual report from the CTA which describes the Congress St Line as being a “subway” even though like London’s original “underground” most of the line is in an open cut. |
|
|
| (1349784) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 26 18:25:56 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 17:52:27 2015. As we all know, most new rapid transait built in the US has included long stretches of "modern" elevated structures-BART outside dense parts of SF and 2 short tunnels in downtown Oakland and Berkeley, much of WMATA, MARTA, the Midway Line in Chicago, and bits of various "light rail" systems.At this point refusing to at least propose els where conditions warrant is institutional cowardice. |
|
|
| (1349786) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:27:01 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:52:44 2015. Actually, that part of the 3 Av El which is over the Bowery was demolished and replaced by the newer structure with which most of us are familiar. |
|
|
| (1349787) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:29:04 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 26 15:59:51 2015. Not only that but the part of the Smith St Line that pass south of Prospect Pk actually follows the original route of Andrew Culver’s Prospect Pk and CI RR more accurately than the 39 St routing. |
|
|
| (1349788) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Apr 26 18:30:21 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by murray1575 on Sun Apr 26 16:02:34 2015. THE UPPER LEVEL WAS TO GO TO LITTLE NECK P`WAY & HILLSIDE AVE.AS A 2 TRACK SUBWAY.NOTHING WAS BUILT BEYOUND 184ST& HILLSIDE AVE. |
|
|
| (1349797) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 18:59:43 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:27:01 2015. You remember which year? |
|
|
| (1349799) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 19:05:20 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:38:05 2015. It's not over any streets with houses, but a highway. There is no residential occupancy under that short part of 94th Avenue it passes over too. |
|
|
| (1349800) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 19:07:06 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 26 17:52:27 2015. elevateds carry the stigma of noise and darknessNo; like I said, NIMBYs are irrational. a 21st century version of the 2nd Avenue El, perhaps even using MagLev technology to eliminate wheel noise . . . would be incredibly expensive and a duplication of spare parts. |
|
|
| (1349801) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 19:08:44 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Apr 26 18:30:21 2015. "NOTHING WAS BUILT BEYOUND 184ST& HILLSIDE AVE." Well, you see, there is a wall at 184 Street and Hillside. An old-timer told me that if you take a pick-and-shovel and an oil lantern to the spot... |
|
|
| (1349804) | |
Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 19:28:26 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 26 18:29:04 2015. Very true.Also the MTA has more of a sense of history than used to be, like mentioning the names of neighborhoods in terminals. So effectively making the entire line Culver both honors history and gives a definitive name to a line that had many. But yes, the Gowanus/South Brooklyn/etc Viaduct has only been dubbed "Culver" relatively recerntly. |
|
|
| (1349810) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Apr 26 20:04:20 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 19:05:20 2015. houses on either side until it hits the belt p`way. |
|
|
| (1349812) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 26 21:05:40 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 19:08:44 2015. Eh? What is that station I see at 218th Street??? |
|
|
| (1349813) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 21:07:48 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 18:59:43 2015. 1915. |
|
|
| (1349816) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 21:12:02 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 26 21:05:40 2015. 76th Street North. |
|
|
| (1349819) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 26 21:54:41 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Apr 26 20:04:20 2015. Not almost directly overhead as with your usual el. |
|
|
| (1349821) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 23:06:32 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 17:48:48 2015. No, not really. |
|
|
| (1349822) | |
Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 23:06:42 2015, in response to Re: Why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 17:49:14 2015. bump |
|
|
| (1349824) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 26 23:09:10 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 21:12:02 2015. Alley Pond Park station ? |
|
|
| (1349829) | |
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Apr 26 23:49:07 2015, in response to Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 26 23:09:10 2015. haha you made a funnaaaay |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
