Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Nov 20th, 2017, 6:38am
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Fallen Flags
   The Santa Fe
(Moderators: dti407, BNSF_1088)
   SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"  (Read 573 times)
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
 
« on: Mar 11th, 2017, 1:26am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Greetings all:
 
Am curious as to the disposition(s) of SF's passenger diesel fleet after the Amtrak takeover of 1971.
 
How many (if at all) SF passenger diesels were repainted for Amtrak?
 
Also, were any of the PA's preserved?
 
I do know that they were withdrawn from service in 1968, and officially retired the following year.
 
Your input is greatly appreciated.........thank you.......
 
E8M


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:46pm by Arnine » Logged
Norm_Anderson
Historian
Posts: 1726
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #1 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:35am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Welcome, E8M !
 
I don't believe that any Santa Fe F units made it into Amtrak colors.  At least in Santa Fe's case, during the first couple of years of Amtrak's operation, Santa Fe provided locomotives and crews under contract to Amtrak (even on-board service crews, like Chair Car Attendants, were Santa Fe employees rather than Amtrak employees-- in hindsight, this may perhaps have been to allow existing contracts to expire).  Amtrak's own SDP40F's and F40PH's began arriving fairly quickly, and the Fs were released into freight service, in the modified "Yellowbonnet" (or occasional and rare "Bluebonnet") livery.  Eventually, they were returned to EMD as "trade-ins" on newer, second-generation power, and several of them were rebuilt into "CF7" locomotives.  Of the "covered wagons" (E units and FP9s) that wore Amtrak paint, I do not believe that any of them ever worked for Santa Fe.
 
So far as I know, only three of Santa Fe's ALCo PAs have survived, and are in varying states of preservation and/or restoration.  They all were initially sold by Santa Fe to Delaware & Hudson, and then later went to Nacionales de Mexico.  Today, I believe one remains on static display in Mexico, while a second one has been restored to Nickel Plate colors for operation by Doyle McCormack, and a third (once little more than a bleached skeleton) is slowly being restored to full Warbonnet livery and full operational status by the Museum of the American Railroad in Texas.  This last one may be the same one that was slated for display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.  But for my money, operation beats static display, no matter how august the surroundings.
 
 
Regards,
 
Norm


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:46am by Norm_Anderson » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #2 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 10:23am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Hi, Norm:
 
Appreciate the welcome, and also appreciate the info you shared.....thanks!
 
Even the most casual of SF enthusiasts know that the company indeed had a proud and long tradition of providing stellar passenger service for decades, reaching its peak during the era when the sleek Warbonnet diesels were heading the railroad's fine stable of diesel-powered thoroughbreds.
 
Just imagine had Amtrak decided to roster even a set or two of ex-SF power, and had retained them to this day for "special" duties; just imagine a set of E-8's, repainted to their original Warbonnet glory, hauling a train of Amfleet cars!
 
I still wonder what the situation would have been like, has SF's passenger operations (like Southern) remained independent of Amtrak for several more years......but that's an entirely different story!
 
Even the later U28CG's, which were basically freight engines equipped with steam boilers, displayed a strong sense of style and class, all gussied up in classic "Warbonnet" livery.
 
It is also interesting to note that 56 of the F7's were designated as dual-service models, which could be used interchangeably on either passenger or freight runs.
 
Again, Norm, appreciate the info and welcome......never can learn enough about SF varnish
 
E8M


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 2:22pm by Arnine » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #3 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 5:11pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Norm/fellow SF historians......
 
The U28CG's were still "new kids on the block" when Amtrak took over SF passenger service; being so new, I would have thought that Amtrak would have taken ownership of these engines and continue to use them in regular service.
 
IMHO, I have long felt that these hulking monsters never truly "came into their own", fan-wise; I still feel these rugged and handsome locomotives are still greatly unappreciated to this day.
 
The SF had the distinction of being the only railroad to roster them (10 in all); the SF used them quite frequently on the "TEXAS CHIEF"; there is also an excellent photo of a trio of these huge behemoths smoking up a storm with the "TEXAS CHIEF", heading out of Chicago in 1967 in "SANTA FE RAILWAY", by Steve Glischinski........
 
E8M


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 5:13pm by Arnine » Logged
Norm_Anderson
Historian
Posts: 1726
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #4 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 6:26pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

E8M, I agree that Santa Fe deserves a salute for investing in new passenger power even into the mid-1960s, when some other railroads had already given up and were simply limping along, offering barely enough service to keep the ICC off their case.  Those Diesels didn't come cheap (and neither did the FP45s).
 
The U28CGs were tried out for awhile on the Texas Chief, but I believe they finally found a home polishing Santa Fe's reputation at the head of the Super C premium freight service.
 
Lifelong Chicophile that i am, it was only recently that I discovered that the speed record for travel between Chicago and Los Angeles is not held by the Super Chief (at 39.5 hours), but by the Super C (at 34.5 hours, five full hours faster than the all-Pullman flagship)!
 
At the time, the Super C was way-outside-the-box thinking-- a freight train that operated at passenger-train speeds, and that could imperil the career of any dispatcher or yardmaster who allowed it to leave its terminal late.
 
Unfortunately, the Super C fell victim, not so much to competition, as to Santa Fe's overall skill at handling their regular freight-- the Super C needed to charge an Extra Fare of around $1,500 per trailer just to break even, and the non-extra-fare hotshots by that time were only a half-day or so slower.  Shippers eventually decided the extra fare wasn't worth it, and the Super C was quietly withdrawn after only a few years.  If Santa Fe had had the 'lightbulb moment" at the very beginning of the "piggyback revolution", they might have completely dominated the field.
 
But however it unfolded, the U28CGs were a part of it, and they looked every inch the part.
 
 
Regards,
 
Norm


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 6:31pm by Norm_Anderson » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #5 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 6:51pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Norm:
 
As a non-commuter road, the fact that the SF invested in new passenger power that late in the game is indeed noteworthy; most other roads still offering through passenger service were simply "making do" with the older, first generation power they already rostered.
 
The SF, like other passenger roads in the 1960's, was still carrying heavy head end traffic on many runs; when the USPS made its massive cuts in 1967, ending all but two RPO services on SF rails; the USPS also announced that they would be switching non-first class mail over to freight trains, to take advantage of the lower rates.
 
When REA traffic expired, it was yet another blow to SF's passenger services.
 
By the late 60's, the SF was going through the throes of train offs, service cuts, and further cost-cutting measures.
 
However, unlike many other railroads of that era, the SF did not reduce the high level of quality on its remaining passenger runs, reducing many trains to operating with shabby equipment and surly staff.
 
Right up until the end, the SF remained an outstanding example of HOW through passenger service could......and SHOULD......be operated.
 
It would have been interesting, to say the least, to have seen what the SF might have purchased for new passenger service had Amtrak not existed; imagine a massive F-40, in full Warbonnet regalia, hauling varnish out of Chicago?
 
Man, what a sight that would have made for!
 
On roads that also offered commuter services during that era, more and more former through engines found themselves bumped into the suburban commuter pool, as more and more through trains were eliminated; in time, many such engines were re-geared for freight service.
 
In a vast sea of service cuts and train eliminations that hallmarked the late 1960's, the SF never allowed its long-established "shining star" to tarnish......
 
E8M
 
 
 
 


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3826
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #6 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 8:18pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Mar 11th, 2017, 6:26pm, Norm_Anderson wrote:       (Click here for original message)

Lifelong Chicophile that i am, it was only recently that I discovered that the speed record for travel between Chicago and Los Angeles is not held by the Super Chief (at 39.5 hours), but by the Super C (at 34.5 hours, five full hours faster than the all-Pullman flagship)!
 
At the time, the Super C was way-outside-the-box thinking-- a freight train that operated at passenger-train speeds, and that could imperil the career of any dispatcher or yardmaster who allowed it to leave its terminal late.

Given the priority give the Super C - likely over everything except the Super Chief, that is not really a surprise for two reasons:  First, even the Super Chief needed to have some slack to allow some make up of time, maybe not as 5 hours, but probably at least a couple hours given the length of the run.  Second, the Super C ran the freight route through Amarillo, which has much easier grades and not the speed restrictions.  The route may be shorter, (I think it is) but do not know without looking at the route lengths.


Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #7 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:19pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Gentlemen:
 
A brief mention here on "The World's Fastest Freight Train"......
 
https://www.quora.com/Do-high-speed-cargo-trains-exist-anywhere


Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #8 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:23pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

A few vintage photos and info on  "The Super C"........
 
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Super_C
 
Article courtesy of Citizendium
 
Also of interest:
 
http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/famous-locomotives3.htm
 
Article courtesy of HowStuffWorks


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:46pm by Arnine » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #9 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:41pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

From hauling sleek SF varnish to slugging it out with the "Super C"......
 
http://www.gptm.us/html/santafe93history.htm
 
Page courtesy of Santa Fe 93.com


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 9:46pm by Arnine » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #10 on: Mar 11th, 2017, 10:42pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

True Leviathans of the Santa Fe, these two late 60's views of the U28GC's showcase the sheer brutishness of these massive locomotives (2800 HP, 16 cylinders), which could (and did) make short work of whatever varnish or tonnage they were assigned to haul.
 
These engines were the first new passenger power the SF had purchased since the F7's of the 1950's........
 
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf359ags.jpg
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf0358gea.jpg
 
photos courtesy of fallenflags.org


« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2017, 10:43pm by Arnine » Logged
Norm_Anderson
Historian
Posts: 1726
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #11 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:36am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Mar 11th, 2017, 8:18pm, George_Harris wrote:       (Click here for original message)

Given the priority give the Super C - likely over everything except the Super Chief, that is not really a surprise for two reasons:  First, even the Super Chief needed to have some slack to allow some make up of time, maybe not as 5 hours, but probably at least a couple hours given the length of the run.  Second, the Super C ran the freight route through Amarillo, which has much easier grades and not the speed restrictions.  The route may be shorter, (I think it is) but do not know without looking at the route lengths.

 
E8M and George, I'm not sure either about the mileage differences between Amarillo vs. La Junta, but you are undoubtedly right.  Another factor was that they kept the trains short (maybe 20 to 25 cars, tops) and lavishly powered (five horsepower per ton).
 
The shortest Super C I have seen was on the cover of a magazine-- a single Warbonnet F unit, a single Trailer-Train-type spine car with two trailers on it, and a red caboose.  But it still had rights over everything else that moved that didn't have stainless steel on it.
 
On another forum, a guy talked about trying to pace the Super C somewhere in Southern California.  The speedometer in his Camaro read 86 miles per hour when common sense took over, and the train was still pulling away from him.  The Super C was "officially" restricted to 79 miles per hour, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that crews sometimes suffered from short-term memory loss.
 
The 34.5-hour run was probably a one-off for demonstration purposes.  I believe the regular advertised time was "under 40 hours" endpoint-to-endpoint.  I have also heard that Santa Fe once teamed-up with New York Central, and ran a train from New York City to Los Angeles in 56 hours-- several hours faster than the Twentieth Century - Super Chief connection, by omitting the leisurely layover in Chicago.  I am not sure if that record has ever been surpassed.
 
 
Regards,
 
Norm


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:37am by Norm_Anderson » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #12 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:44am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Norm/George/Et Al:
 
This discussion is now reminding me of the years when TOFC's could be found in passenger consists.
 
NYC's "Flexi-Vans" come to mind right off the bat; also, for some years, SOUTHERN passenger trains also carried TOFC's.
 
Certain Erie-Lackawanna through trains also carried TOFC's, back in the 60's; these the trailers would either be REA Express or USPS.
 
As I had mentioned earlier in this discussion, many photos of SF varnish through the mid 60's depict consists carrying a still substantial head-end business.
 
By the later 60's, a baggage car or two semed to be the only head end equipment carried on SF trains.
 
Alas, the tide was fast running out.....
 
E8M
 


Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #13 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 1:04am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

These two views date from 1965 and 1966; respectively.
 
Both recall the era in which head-end traffic (such as mail and express) was still a substantial source off revenue for the SF......
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf00202jpa.jpg
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf-mc216jpa.jpg
 
Both photos courtesy of fallenflags.org


Logged
HwyHaulier
Historian
Posts: 3439
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #14 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 9:46am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Quote:
author=Norm_Anderson link=board=ATSF;num=1489213573;start=0#4 date=03/11/17 at 18:26:00...Unfortunately, the Super C fell victim, not so much to competition...  
the Super C needed to charge an Extra Fare of around $1,500 per trailer just to break even... Norm

Norm - Lodge Members -
 
Your writer watching the trains go by with the instant thread here. On this gem of a bit of intelligence about Super C, it a breath taker.  
Here, let us try to understand this: SFe desired freight charges wherein they not only had standard service on the bills, but an added  
$1,500 surcharge for expedited service?
 
GEEZ! Just when we thought SFe solid marketing people, it did this blunder? The $1,500 surcharge, alone, at around seventy-five (75)  
cents per mile! About the same as "...go home backhaul rate..." for ever present returning highway trucks available upon deliveries in  
Chicago market of eastbound produce truckloads from California and other West Coast origins. (In this option, highway is formidable,  
particularly when it done with sleeper teams on the trucks!)
 
The SFe folks wanted charges which entirely removed from daily realities! Perhaps it thought it could work that on US Mail contracts?  
Good luck, the Post Office had smart people, too. Just when we thought SFe had its own expertise in over the road, highway trucking?
 
.................  Vern  ....................


Logged

Ticket Agent serving...Pacific Stage Lines...Washington State System...Mt. Hood Stages...Pickwick Stages...Transcontinental & Western Air Lines.... Admitted Gold Bug..... Observant Orthodox Mossback..... H.M.R.A.O. Curmudgeons......
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak?
 
« Reply #15 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:11pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Gentlemen:
 
The following is from "SANTA FE RAILWAY" (Steve Glischinski):
 
".......the Santa Fe and the New York Central concluded that there was a market hor high speed, transcontinental, intermodal business, and pitched management on the idea of a New York-Los Angeles joint operation......test trains were run, and one one test, the Chicago-LA run was made in 36 hours, 46 minutes, setting a record. In fact, this beat the time of the 1937 SUPER CHIEF's record-breaking trip of 36 hours, 48 minutes......"
 
"......President John S. Reed, an early backer of intermodal service, announced that a 40-hour Chicago-LA  freight service would be inaugurated. The result was the fastest freight train in the world, the 'SUPER C"....."
 
"....the NYC, however, dropped out of the partnership with the SF before regular service could start. Much of the business was out of New York, so the train was handicapped from the start....."
 
".......".....the first SUPER C beat the record of the fitst test train set the previous year, making the trip in 34 hours, 35 minutes. But traffic was slow to develop, and the train remained a disappointment until 1969, when the United States Post Office signed up or the service to carry parcel post. The train became more successful, but, in 1976, the Post Oice contract went to the C&NW......"
 
*A VERY telling photo of the early days of the "SUPER C" can also be found in the aforemtioned work. Taken in 1968, at Winslow, Arizona, we see the eastbound "C", consisting of nothing more than an A-B lashup, hauling but a single TOFC (carrying two SF trailers) and a caboose.


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 12:22pm by Arnine » Logged
Norm_Anderson
Historian
Posts: 1726
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
 
« Reply #16 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 1:25pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

E8M, I recall seeing those USPS containers on the head end of the San Francisco Chief during the mid-1960s.
 
Vern, I know you have some expertise in this area-- perhaps I need to revise a couple of my earlier posts?  On reflection, an Extra Fare of $1,400 or $1,500 per trailer does seem excessive.  That works out to about $70 or $75 per ton for a 20-ton trailer.  Is it possible that $1,400 was the total charge, including the premium surcharge?  I wonder what the "standard" tariff was for a cross-country shipment in the late 1960s?
 
By the way, I just stumbled across an excellent photo page by Mike Condren.  Some of these photos were taken only a year or two before Amtrak, and reveal the quality of Santa Fe's passenger service even at the very end, when some other railroads had already given up and gone home.  Tucked away in there, too, is a photo of a truncated Super C, doing its best to do its best by the shippers.
 
www.condrenrails.com/ATSF/ATSF-Passenger-Trains.html

 
 
Regards,
 
Norm


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 1:27pm by Norm_Anderson » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
 
« Reply #17 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 2:30pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Norm:
 
Thank you for sharing those wonderful old photos....man, what a time to be a railfan in SF territory!
 
Further from "SANTA FE RAILWAY":
 
".........nonetheless, the 'SUPER C' had cast the die for Santa Fe intermodal operations, with service designed for what the customers needed, not what the railroad wanted to do......."
 
".........in 1968, the railroad carried 113, 523 trailers; by 1972, this had grown to 156, 262. in 1974, SF began operation of Chicago-LA intermodal train No. 188. This train operated to Hobart Yard in LA in 50 hours at standard intermodal rates......"
 
"......in 1975 came trains 199 and 991, which were scheduled to meet the requirements of a single customer, UPS, and also opererated between Chicago and Richmond. These trains were the hottest on the railroad, after the end of the 'SUPER C'......."
 
E8M
 


Logged
Norm_Anderson
Historian
Posts: 1726
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
 
« Reply #18 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 3:54pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

E8M, the quotes you shared cast some light on an interesting numbering system that Santa Fe used for several years.
 
When I was growing up in the 1960s, all Santa Fe freight trains were listed as "Extras," and identified only by Road Engine number.  Thus a train might appear on Train Orders as "Extra 3841 East" or "Extra 225 West."  On paper, at least, there was no difference between the hottest perishables manifest and the lowliest daisy-picker.  All were listed as "Extras."
 
Then, Santa Fe divided their territory into nine regions.  I am not completely sure of the boundaries on all of these, but they were roughly as follows (corrections welcome):
 
1. =  Chicago
2. =  Illinois
3. =  Iowa - Missouri
4. =  Kansas
5. =  Oklahoma - Texas
6. =  Colorado
7. =  New Mexico - Arizona
8. =  Southern California
9. =  Northern California
 
Each train was then assigned a three-digit number.  The first number was the train's region of origin.  The third number was the train's region of destination.  And the center number was its level of priority.  Numbers 0, 1, and 2 were the lowest; 3, 4, 5, and 6 were mid-level; and 7, 8, and 9 were the highest.  In other words, the higher the center number, the higher the train's priority.
 
Thus, a mid-level train operating from Kansas City to Denver might be assigned number 356 (if westbound) or 653 (if eastbound).  A lowly New Mexico local might get number 707.  And the hottest-of-the-hot Chicago-Los Angeles intermodal would rate 198 westbound, or 891 eastbound.
 
Later, it was realized that confusion would sometimes arise if there were, for example, more than one "139" (low-level Chicago-to-Bay Area) train crossing the country at the same time, particularly if one happened to overtake the other.  So a better system had to be devised, that included the day of the month of departure.  But for a while, if you knew a train's three-digit number, you knew where it came from, where it was headed, and how "hot" it was.
 
 
Regards,
 
Norm


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 3:59pm by Norm_Anderson » Logged
E8M 86 A-B
Former Member
Re: SF varnish power to Amtrak/Recalling the "Super C"
 
« Reply #19 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 4:12pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Norm:
 
Am glad that the quotes I posted earlier inspired you to share the interesting numbering system that SF used for its freight runs......VERY interesting....and educational!
 
Here is some more interesting SF tonnage trivia from "SANTA FE RAILWAY":
 
".........Santa Fe first experimented with TOFC service in 1952, when several runs carrying dry ice containers carrying semiperishable products. By 1954, Santa Fe offered piggyback service between Chicago and California and to the Gulf, but these were trailers hauled in regular freight trains......."
 
".........trucks, with even better roads and the evolution of the federally funded Interstate Highway System, began to cut into the railroad's merchandise traffic, by offering cheaper and faster service....."
 
"..........the railroads responded by doing what they did best: carrying freight over long distances; in this instance, the freight was truck trailers. Railroads were least eficient in terminals, but this element was turned over to the truckers. Truck companies simply drove the trailers to the customers once a train reached the terminal........"
 
"......to speed loading/unloading at terminals, in 1963, Santa Fe put into service the first successful top-lift crane to remove piggyback trailers from flatcars......"
 
E8M


« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017, 4:21pm by Arnine » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »