Jump to content

Motor Coach Industries general discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you know the answer? Or are you just spitballing?   Actually, don't bother answering that. It really doesn't matter.   I don't support it or not support it. I frankly don't give a shit whet

It seems like they were just trying to answer your (repeated) questions, Swadian. In any case, this thread has veered off course. There was some good discussion but now it's not heading anywhere pro

Photos have surfaced on Facebook of a low floor motorcoach prototype making the rounds in the United States. Note, the wrap is meant to disguise its aesthetic.  

Posted Images

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

MCI enhances 2017 models, plans 35-foot and fully-electric coaches

http://www.metro-magazine.com/motorcoach/news/719555/mci-enhances-2017-models-plans-35-foot-and-fully-electric-coaches

"As we move into 2017, investments in our products continue as we are in the early stages of developing both a 35-foot coach and fully-electric coaches based on the industry’s best-selling MCI J4500 model.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
31 minutes ago, Swadian said:

These repeated public sector contracts allow MCI to get away with reduced quality.

I disagree with the entire premise of this statement. 

The public sector commuter usage of MCI Coaches are some of the highest mileage situations for a bus (of any kind) in the United States. These agencies continue to pick MCI (despite bids from Prevost and occasionally Van Hool) because of their well earned reputation for quality.

If anything, the private sector charter and line-haul operators have greater difficulty with these newer coaches because how quickly modern electronic systems have permeated every part of the vehicle. These operators typically run very lean maintenance operations and it can be tough to send all of your mechanics to MCI for classes on maintaining this stuff for two weeks at a time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, northwesterner said:

I disagree with the entire premise of this statement. 

The public sector commuter usage of MCI Coaches are some of the highest mileage situations for a bus (of any kind) in the United States. These agencies continue to pick MCI (despite bids from Prevost and occasionally Van Hool) because of their well earned reputation for quality.

If anything, the private sector charter and line-haul operators have greater difficulty with these newer coaches because how quickly modern electronic systems have permeated every part of the vehicle. These operators typically run very lean maintenance operations and it can be tough to send all of your mechanics to MCI for classes on maintaining this stuff for two weeks at a time. 

Actually, no. The heaviest use of public sector MCI commuter coaches is with NJT, operating at no more than 60,000 miles a year and being retired at no more than 850,000 miles. Other agencies use MCIs at far lower mileages.

When new MCIs get put into intercity service at over 100,000 miles a year, they fall apart, like Greyhound's US D4505s, which I ride very regularly. Even when well-maintained with operators like Adirondack, they suffer many problems, as has been reported by a reliable source at Adirondack, who also prefers H3-45s and 102DL3s.

Also, one must separate charter and intercity private sector operators from each other. Charter operators generally run 40,000-50,000 miles a year, compared to intercity operators running 80,000-150,000 miles a year. Charter operators, despite their "lean" maintenance, do OK due to their low mileage, and many continue to order MCIs, though mostly J4500s. Intercity operators with "lean" maintenance, like Greyhound, do horrible, while those with better maintenance (like Adirondack) still do poorly. Mixed operators that run both charters and intercity tend to be somewhere in between, most notably Midwestern operators like Arrow, Burlington, and Jefferson.

The reason agencies continue to pick MCI is because 1) Prevost and Van Hool are no better (except for the H3-45 which features embedded bolts), 2) MCI is often the lowest bidder that meets all requirements, and 3) MCI has the production capacity to deliver large orders to NJT, NYCT, and GO, lowering the price for all other agencies who piggyback onto the order.

Of course, all of this depends on what the comparisons are being made to. Compared to old GMCs and 102DL3s, new MCIs are terrible. Compared to what else is available in the worldwide market today, new MCIs are fine. This is also why those Midwestern mixed operators still order MCIs.

The Boeing 737 is outdated, but airlines still buy it. Same deal here. Of course, the D4505 wouldn't exist if it wasn't for NJT/NYCT/GO buying the D4500 Commuter and later the D4500CL/CT, just like how the 737 wouldn't be in production if it weren't for WN/FR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MCI is a Love/Hate relationship with public sector operators. They are durable coaches able to easily exceed the FTA minimum lifespans (12 yr/500,000 mi), and many do 2-400 mile days in express service at least up where I live without fail. The passengers largely love them, although the W/C loading method is clunky and time consuming in the transit operation. They are also easily available on various government contracts and options and are a good value for the price. They are not without their own quirks though, their radiator system, although improved from the split radiator is unique with the single large fan and clutch, although I have seen EMP fans retrofitted to some, their unitized wheel hub/bearing is an unusual item in the transit application, and the older coaches with their DD3 brakes are also not the "norm", both which can lead to fires on the MCI's, which seem to happen more frequently than on conventional transit equipment. As for shop equipment, usually a responsible transit agency will spend upwards of $10,000 on diagnostic tools and software to equip their shop to handle these coaches, something a smaller operator simply cannot afford to do. From what I understand the MCI handles intercity line haul operations far better than a Prevost, which seem to require much more maintenance and TLC, and this is also why they tend to be favorites with larger line haul operators as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:27 PM, busdude.com said:

I think MCI is a Love/Hate relationship with public sector operators. They are durable coaches able to easily exceed the FTA minimum lifespans (12 yr/500,000 mi), and many do 2-400 mile days in express service at least up where I live without fail. The passengers largely love them, although the W/C loading method is clunky and time consuming in the transit operation. They are also easily available on various government contracts and options and are a good value for the price. They are not without their own quirks though, their radiator system, although improved from the split radiator is unique with the single large fan and clutch, although I have seen EMP fans retrofitted to some, their unitized wheel hub/bearing is an unusual item in the transit application, and the older coaches with their DD3 brakes are also not the "norm", both which can lead to fires on the MCI's, which seem to happen more frequently than on conventional transit equipment. As for shop equipment, usually a responsible transit agency will spend upwards of $10,000 on diagnostic tools and software to equip their shop to handle these coaches, something a smaller operator simply cannot afford to do. From what I understand the MCI handles intercity line haul operations far better than a Prevost, which seem to require much more maintenance and TLC, and this is also why they tend to be favorites with larger line haul operators as well.

The dual fans in the 102DL3s and 102D3s are not actually split radiators, the left fan is the radiator while the right fan is the intercooler. The older stuff like the MC-9 and 102A3 did have split radiators; that may be what you mean.

Again, as for durability, of course 850k miles is much more than 500k, but it's also much less than the multiple millions of miles that a PD-4106 could easily do.

Large line-haul operators do not like MCIs. Megabus prefers Van Hool and Greyhound prefers Prevost. Greyhound has twice as many X3-45s as D4505s. So I would strongly disagree that new MCIs handle line-haul much better than new Prevosts. That being said, Van Hools and X3-45s are no better than new MCIs. Poor maintenance is not the only problem. I rode a X3-45 with interior lights warping out and saw pictures of others with roof leaks and interiors lights falling off. I rode a D4505 with a huge crack in the lavatory wall along the mirror. Another D4505 caused my friend to vomit from poor ride quality (like me, he has a lot of experience with motorcoaches and specially swore off the D4505 following that incident). I rode a brand-new D4500CTH with terrible ride quality, tilting and jerking all over the place, but I also rode an older T2140 that rode even worse (bad enough to get my head hit on the window).

The H3-45's embedded bolts do make it more durable for line-haul, which may be why Trailways of New York and Orleans Express keep ordering more.

Old MCIs, of course, are much better at line-haul than what's in production today, but it all depends on what comparisons are being made. Budd Domes aren't in production anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2017 at 11:27 PM, busdude.com said:

I think MCI is a Love/Hate relationship with public sector operators. They are durable coaches able to easily exceed the FTA minimum lifespans (12 yr/500,000 mi), and many do 2-400 mile days in express service at least up where I live without fail. The passengers largely love them, although the W/C loading method is clunky and time consuming in the transit operation. They are also easily available on various government contracts and options and are a good value for the price. They are not without their own quirks though, their radiator system, although improved from the split radiator is unique with the single large fan and clutch, although I have seen EMP fans retrofitted to some, their unitized wheel hub/bearing is an unusual item in the transit application, and the older coaches with their DD3 brakes are also not the "norm", both which can lead to fires on the MCI's, which seem to happen more frequently than on conventional transit equipment. As for shop equipment, usually a responsible transit agency will spend upwards of $10,000 on diagnostic tools and software to equip their shop to handle these coaches, something a smaller operator simply cannot afford to do. From what I understand the MCI handles intercity line haul operations far better than a Prevost, which seem to require much more maintenance and TLC, and this is also why they tend to be favorites with larger line haul operators as well.

I deeply disagree on some points about maintenance. Greyhound and MTA are buying loads of Prevost coaches for the lower maintenance, higher reliability, durability and the million-plus mile frame life.  The oldest Prevost buses at our garage are 14 years old and have 1.4 million miles on them and are still in daily intensive transit commuter service. Unlike the MCI models in our fleet, powertrain maintenance is their only major expense.  I drive both the H3 and X3 models and they have yet to see any reliability issues. We have two newer 2008-model J4500 buses and I have yet to drive them.  Drivers do complain about the tag axle switch in an awkward place.

I spent most of my time as a ski-trip passenger on older E and J-series buses, which left me stranded on 4 occasions in a single winter. Each of them have electrical and electronic glitches and climate control quirks, wiring issues and a bin full of broken overhead luggage latches. 

To the credit of MCI, their buses are less expensive to purchase, more pleasant to ride, handles well, holds the road well, they have better interior aesthetics, while the H3 swallows bumps and holds the road well, but rides more like a boat and makes the occasional passenger seasick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jack 47 said:

I deeply disagree on some points about maintenance. Greyhound and MTA are buying loads of Prevost coaches for the lower maintenance, higher reliability, durability and the million-plus mile frame life.  The oldest Prevost buses at our garage are 14 years old and have 1.4 million miles on them and are still in daily intensive transit commuter service. Unlike the MCI models in our fleet, powertrain maintenance is their only major expense.  I drive both the H3 and X3 models and they have yet to see any reliability issues. We have two newer 2008-model J4500 buses and I have yet to drive them.  Drivers do complain about the tag axle switch in an awkward place.

I spent most of my time as a ski-trip passenger on older E and J-series buses, which left me stranded on 4 occasions in a single winter. Each of them have electrical and electronic glitches and climate control quirks, wiring issues and a bin full of broken overhead luggage latches. 

To the credit of MCI, their buses are less expensive to purchase, more pleasant to ride, handles well, holds the road well, they have better interior aesthetics, while the H3 swallows bumps and holds the road well, but rides more like a boat and makes the occasional passenger seasick.

A lot of MCIs do seem to have electrical problems, but I've also experienced problems with Prevosts. MCIs are not necessarily cheaper than Prevosts. MCI has greater production capacity, but Prevost is catching up with their Plattsburgh plant. The new MCI D4500CTs and D4505s that I have ridden do not ride well at all. Tilting and jerking is noticeably greater than old MCIs (like 102DL3s), despite MCI supposedly "improving" their suspensions.

20 hours ago, busdude.com said:

I have not heard good things about Greyhound's experience with the Prevost's. However I do not know anyone in Greyhound's maintenance department.

Greyhound's experience with Prevosts is not very good, since their 2009 X3-45s have interior lights warping and falling off (amongst other issues). But their experience with MCIs is no better and possibly worse, considering how Greyhound is operating twice as many X3-45s as D4505s. The H3-45 has a completely different structure from the X3-45 and is arguably the better motorcoach. I do not wish to digress too far from the MCI topic, as there is a Prevost topic for discussing Prevost models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swadian said:

A lot of MCIs do seem to have electrical problems, but I've also experienced problems with Prevosts. MCIs are not necessarily cheaper than Prevosts. MCI has greater production capacity, but Prevost is catching up with their Plattsburgh plant. The new MCI D4500CTs and D4505s that I have ridden do not ride well at all. Tilting and jerking is noticeably greater than old MCIs (like 102DL3s), despite MCI supposedly "improving" their suspensions.

Greyhound's experience with Prevosts is not very good, since their 2009 X3-45s have interior lights warping and falling off (amongst other issues). But their experience with MCIs is no better and possibly worse, considering how Greyhound is operating twice as many X3-45s as D4505s. The H3-45 has a completely different structure from the X3-45 and is arguably the better motorcoach. I do not wish to digress too far from the MCI topic, as there is a Prevost topic for discussing Prevost models.

MCI has had a recent recall over electrical fires with the light system, I have heard of a couple of MCI's burning up that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't know where to start with some of the information presented as facts in this thread the last few days. User Swadian has made many of these same comments on other forums, and I objected to them then and there, as I do now. 

I'll start with the claim that transit agencies using MCIs in commuter service don't exceed 850k. I know of at least one agency on the West Coast that is pushing 1 million miles on their fleet of D4500s and they can't order enough of that equipment. Compared to a transit vehicle operating the same type of route, they are much more durable. I would also say that commuter service is a close comparison to what Greyhound does. While they may not rack up the same raw mileage as Greyhound, they also spend a lot more time idling in stop and go traffic, more brake usage, etc. The biggest difference is they are home at their maintenance facility every night. I actually think its a really good comparison. 

As far as vehicles "falling apart" obviously a lot of this has to do with Greyhound's maintenance standards (which, for cosmetic items, are pretty mediocre). Many of the things you've pointed out (warped light covers, etc) should be deferred until the next service inspection, and then replaced at that time. But because that PM may not happen at the assigned home garage, there is the issue of having the exactly part needed in stock at the moment. Most of these shops stock parts for the relevant safety and drive train systems, and little else. That means you either hold the vehicle for a week while you wait for Prevost to ship you new light covers (ground) or you send it down the road. And with Greyhound, you never know when you're going to see it again, even if the vehicle is technically assigned to your garage. This is a problem, that in the United States today, is unique to Greyhound. And they still haven't been able to address it satisfactorily. 

Regarding ride quality ... keep in mind the individual driver has a lot to do with ride quality. Example - I am now commuting to/from work on commuter MCIs. Some are 12-13 years old, others are literally brand new. One guy I get if I stay late at work merges to the left for this HOV off-ramp with such a jerk to the wheel that the whole bus starts swaying side to side. The old bus driver in me always is startled by this ... despite the fact that I know that this guy is going to do it, every day. It sure makes the bus feel like its about to roll over, swerve, or otherwise lose control. The 13 year old D4000s do it, and the brand new 45ftrs do it as well, but only when this guy drives. Everyone else can make the exact same merge, in the exact same fleet, so smooth I don't even realize we're up on the ramp. 

This is not a vehicle problem. This is a driver problem. And if you ride one coach in isolation with one driver, and he sucks, its going to be easy to impugn the quality of the vehicle. And yes, it is possible to have actual suspensions problems that lead to degradation in ride quality. But that's a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing one. 

Prevost vs. MCI and the Greyhound fleet. Yeah, Greyhound has ordered a shocking number of X3-45s lately. But the last couple of orders they've shifted back to MCI. There are lots of procurement strategies that could be at play here. One that makes sense to me is that after reaching a critical mass of Prevosts in the fleet and evaluating them to head to head with MCIs, they find that they are essentially equivalent. They can then source the vehicles from whichever manufacturer gives them the best price, and the best delivery time. I know that in my last years in the motor coach industry, the maintenance costs on Prevost vs MCI were pretty similar. And while they have distinct maintenance requirements, they are actually more similar than different. A mechanic who has spent a career on Prevost can pretty easily get up to speed on MCI and vice versa. This not the case if you include Van Hool or Setra in the discussion. 

I tend to believe, from both a passenger and driving perspective that the Prevost X-series is the best handling, best riding motorcoach on the market today. Period. The front suspension on those vehicles is outstanding, and they just swallow bumps and potholes in a way that nothing else can. Prevost has done a great job reinventing their X-series as something more than an entertainer coach... its now considered a quality option for line haul and commuter service, and should have a long life in those applications. 

Meanwhile, MCI continues to refine the D. I was happy to notice as I boarded my commuter coach the other night with 4000 miles on the ODO that MCI finally redesigned the parcel racks and passenger service units. Those hadn't changed since a revision for the 1987 102A3s, and it certainly makes the interior look quite a bit more modern. They really believe that the D is a viable model for the long run, and its proven reliability in these applications also makes it appealing for some charter operators that are looking for a simpler, easier to maintain alternative to the J4500. 

I think if you were to chose either the D or the Prevost X-series for a charter, commuter, or line-haul operation, you couldn't go wrong. They're both great coaches with a tremendous track record. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:31 AM, northwesterner said:

I just don't know where to start with some of the information presented as facts in this thread the last few days. User Swadian has made many of these same comments on other forums, and I objected to them then and there, as I do now. 

I'll start with the claim that transit agencies using MCIs in commuter service don't exceed 850k. I know of at least one agency on the West Coast that is pushing 1 million miles on their fleet of D4500s and they can't order enough of that equipment. Compared to a transit vehicle operating the same type of route, they are much more durable. I would also say that commuter service is a close comparison to what Greyhound does. While they may not rack up the same raw mileage as Greyhound, they also spend a lot more time idling in stop and go traffic, more brake usage, etc. The biggest difference is they are home at their maintenance facility every night. I actually think its a really good comparison. 

As far as vehicles "falling apart" obviously a lot of this has to do with Greyhound's maintenance standards (which, for cosmetic items, are pretty mediocre). Many of the things you've pointed out (warped light covers, etc) should be deferred until the next service inspection, and then replaced at that time. But because that PM may not happen at the assigned home garage, there is the issue of having the exactly part needed in stock at the moment. Most of these shops stock parts for the relevant safety and drive train systems, and little else. That means you either hold the vehicle for a week while you wait for Prevost to ship you new light covers (ground) or you send it down the road. And with Greyhound, you never know when you're going to see it again, even if the vehicle is technically assigned to your garage. This is a problem, that in the United States today, is unique to Greyhound. And they still haven't been able to address it satisfactorily. 

Regarding ride quality ... keep in mind the individual driver has a lot to do with ride quality. Example - I am now commuting to/from work on commuter MCIs. Some are 12-13 years old, others are literally brand new. One guy I get if I stay late at work merges to the left for this HOV off-ramp with such a jerk to the wheel that the whole bus starts swaying side to side. The old bus driver in me always is startled by this ... despite the fact that I know that this guy is going to do it, every day. It sure makes the bus feel like its about to roll over, swerve, or otherwise lose control. The 13 year old D4000s do it, and the brand new 45ftrs do it as well, but only when this guy drives. Everyone else can make the exact same merge, in the exact same fleet, so smooth I don't even realize we're up on the ramp. 

This is not a vehicle problem. This is a driver problem. And if you ride one coach in isolation with one driver, and he sucks, its going to be easy to impugn the quality of the vehicle. And yes, it is possible to have actual suspensions problems that lead to degradation in ride quality. But that's a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing one. 

Prevost vs. MCI and the Greyhound fleet. Yeah, Greyhound has ordered a shocking number of X3-45s lately. But the last couple of orders they've shifted back to MCI. There are lots of procurement strategies that could be at play here. One that makes sense to me is that after reaching a critical mass of Prevosts in the fleet and evaluating them to head to head with MCIs, they find that they are essentially equivalent. They can then source the vehicles from whichever manufacturer gives them the best price, and the best delivery time. I know that in my last years in the motor coach industry, the maintenance costs on Prevost vs MCI were pretty similar. And while they have distinct maintenance requirements, they are actually more similar than different. A mechanic who has spent a career on Prevost can pretty easily get up to speed on MCI and vice versa. This not the case if you include Van Hool or Setra in the discussion. 

I tend to believe, from both a passenger and driving perspective that the Prevost X-series is the best handling, best riding motorcoach on the market today. Period. The front suspension on those vehicles is outstanding, and they just swallow bumps and potholes in a way that nothing else can. Prevost has done a great job reinventing their X-series as something more than an entertainer coach... its now considered a quality option for line haul and commuter service, and should have a long life in those applications. 

Meanwhile, MCI continues to refine the D. I was happy to notice as I boarded my commuter coach the other night with 4000 miles on the ODO that MCI finally redesigned the parcel racks and passenger service units. Those hadn't changed since a revision for the 1987 102A3s, and it certainly makes the interior look quite a bit more modern. They really believe that the D is a viable model for the long run, and its proven reliability in these applications also makes it appealing for some charter operators that are looking for a simpler, easier to maintain alternative to the J4500. 

I think if you were to chose either the D or the Prevost X-series for a charter, commuter, or line-haul operation, you couldn't go wrong. They're both great coaches with a tremendous track record. 

I will respond to your points one by one:

I simply found the mileage of retired NJT D4500s, since NJT is the largest operator. I never claimed MCIs were not much more durable than transit buses on the same type of route. In fact, I did actually point out that 850k is a lot more than the transit requirement of 500k. Also, 1 million miles is not much more than 850k. Commuter service is not a close comparison to what Greyhound does. Highway running is very different from "more time idling in stop and go traffic, more brake usage, etc". It is like comparing a 737 to a A340.

The warped lights I was talking about, I specifically mentioned they were on Prevost X3-45s, not new MCIs. The only relevance they have in the discussion is that they suggest Prevost is no better than MCI, which is why agencies order MCI due to the cheaper price. I know how Greyhound does maintenance and you are correct - they didn't have a part for #86284 in Denver so they sent it out. But that doesn't prove anything when Greyhound 102DL3s are in better condition than Greyhound D4505s.

The ride quality is worse in new MCIs, no matter what driver is driving. They simply tilt more. But, I eat at McDonald's, so your mileage may vary.

So, you personally prefer a vehicle (the X3-45) that has interior lights falling off. That is very revealing of yourself. I think I recognize you, but again, I eat at McDonald's.

Just because MCI keeps "refining" the D4505 does not mean they keep improving it. Great features do not equal great quality. Even if they are improving it, my comparison to the 737 is still particularly valid here in the sense that Boeing keeps refining the 737 and customers keep buying it in huge numbers, despite it being a not-so-great and, indeed, obsolete aircraft.

Your end point is basically the same point I've been trying to make. All the motorcoaches in production are similar (and bad) enough in quality that new MCIs looks OK compared to the rest. So, in the end, we agree more than we disagree.

You said you "think" that "if you were to chose (sic) either the D or the Prevost X-series for a charter, commuter, or line-haul operation, you couldn't go wrong". You think, but are you sure? Would you be willing to sign a contract personally guaranteeing your statement? Yes or no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well, it's a J4500 with the center cargo hold replaced by a low-floor wheelchair ramp section, but the rest of the motorcoach is still high-floor. Also, the PSUs appear not to have been installed.

That wrap fails to conceal anything of importance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Swadian said:

That wrap fails to conceal anything of importance.

The front has some differences that could be classified as a 'facelift'. Not to say that it isn't a one-off piece that was created just for the prototype to fool people, but with the impending release of the J3500, perhaps there are slight differences planned. Notably the windshield shape (and the black piece below it) and placement of the headlights appears to be higher if you compare it to today's J4500:

Universal_Coach_Line_868-a.jpg

Even the headlight housing is different - would be cool if the lines around the headlights were the turn signals.

The door does not have the angled glass either.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A. Wong said:

The front has some differences that could be classified as a 'facelift'. Not to say that it isn't a one-off piece that was created just for the prototype to fool people, but with the impending release of the J3500, perhaps there are slight differences planned. Notably the windshield shape (and the black piece below it) and placement of the headlights appears to be higher if you compare it to today's J4500:

Universal_Coach_Line_868-a.jpg

Even the headlight housing is different - would be cool if the lines around the headlights were the turn signals.

The door does not have the angled glass either.

That proves my point because you can still see differences and anything that you can't see probably isn't a major change anyway, so the wrap does not conceal "anything of importance". At most the wrap may conceal a minor change to the lower front nose.

Why don't they just take off the wrap?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...