Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

The amount of information that has been publicly released on this proposal is so scarce that it is silly to make any assumptions about where they will or won't stop.

Considering they've included the detail that trains will serve Quebec City Airport (which is a tiny destination in itself) and Eglinton (which is essentially right next to Union and you can easily get to it by rapid transit from Union), I would say in terms of service area they've been pretty clear that this is a line that will only serve people travelling to or between major cities, and not as a new local line. Looking at VIA's history of gradually killing off local services of pretty much every kind, I have zero hopes of seeing rural stations on the new route and I would be happy to put money on that. Look at the number of trains VIA stopped in Cornwall pre-COVID... and they already have tracks passing through and multiple services daily. You think they'd want to stick a station in even smaller towns on a line that they are acting like is Canada's answer to the Acela Express?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, InfiNorth said:

Considering they've included the detail that trains will serve Quebec City Airport (which is a tiny destination in itself) and Eglinton (which is essentially right next to Union and you can easily get to it by rapid transit from Union), I would say in terms of service area they've been pretty clear that this is a line that will only serve people travelling to or between major cities, and not as a new local line. Looking at VIA's history of gradually killing off local services of pretty much every kind, I have zero hopes of seeing rural stations on the new route and I would be happy to put money on that. Look at the number of trains VIA stopped in Cornwall pre-COVID... and they already have tracks passing through and multiple services daily. You think they'd want to stick a station in even smaller towns on a line that they are acting like is Canada's answer to the Acela Express?

The only somewhat rural stations I could see is Perth and Myrtle, it’s a small hamlet on the extreme northern end of Whitby, it would have enough demand from people living in Durham to support a station there. 
 

Also, could we see North Toronto Station being reopened as a possibility for HFR? It could possibly be cheaper than building Track connecting the North Toronto and Bala subs.

Share this post


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

Looking at Google maps the best route, would go up the Bala sub and tracks would have to be built to connect to the North Toronto sub,  tracks would have to be built for it to go around the CP North Toronto yard, then it would join the Havelock sub and take it the entire length. East of Havelock there’s the Trans Canada and K&W trails, you can clearly tell there was a railway there on Google Maps all it would need is widening, overhead and rebuilding bridges and building overpasses, this could take it as far as Kaladar, ON then it would need to build new tracks to connect up with the Belleville sub between Parham and Perth and it would take the Belleville Sub as far as Smiths Falls where a southeast to North curve would have to be built or the train would have to reverse just south of Smiths Falls station where it would join the VIA(Brockville) sub and would take that route into Ottawa. I could see stations at Scarborough (Victoria Park North of Lawrence), Myrtle(Whitby North) Peterborough, Tweed/Kaladar, Perth and use existing stations at Smiths Falls, Fallowfield, Ottawa as well as Union Station in Toronto.
 

if there was an Eglinton station it would probably be at Eglinton between Don Mills and Leslie. 

Did you take into consideration that the north Toronto sub and Bala Sub have a hight difference of more than 100ft at that intersection? 

And why do that when the Don Branch already exists? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Did you take into consideration that the north Toronto sub and Bala Sub have a hight difference of more than 100ft at that intersection? 

And why do that when the Don Branch already exists? 

No I forgot, thanks for reminding me!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Considering they've included the detail that trains will serve Quebec City Airport (which is a tiny destination in itself) and Eglinton (which is essentially right next to Union and you can easily get to it by rapid transit from Union), I would say in terms of service area they've been pretty clear that this is a line that will only serve people travelling to or between major cities, and not as a new local line. Looking at VIA's history of gradually killing off local services of pretty much every kind, I have zero hopes of seeing rural stations on the new route and I would be happy to put money on that. Look at the number of trains VIA stopped in Cornwall pre-COVID... and they already have tracks passing through and multiple services daily. You think they'd want to stick a station in even smaller towns on a line that they are acting like is Canada's answer to the Acela Express?

And yet, in public pronouncements they've made mention of stops in such burgeoning metropolis' as Sharbot Lake. So what does that tell you, other than to try and glean everything from a map is foolhardy?

 

As for the comparison with Cornwall - you do realize that ALL services had decreased in numbers, not just the ones stopping in Cornwall, right? Should I be making a stink because there are ONLY 4 trains running between Toronto and Ottawa today (and 3 most of the other days of the week), and not the 10 that were there pre-COVID?

 

You may want to actually look at an Acela Express schedule, rather than make assumptions. I think that you're going to be very surprised when you do.

 

16 hours ago, Shaun said:

Did you take into consideration that the north Toronto sub and Bala Sub have a hight difference of more than 100ft at that intersection? 

And why do that when the Don Branch already exists? 

Are you really that much of an idiot?

 

16 hours ago, John Oke said:

Also, could we see North Toronto Station being reopened as a possibility for HFR? It could possibly be cheaper than building Track connecting the North Toronto and Bala subs.

While I wouldn't normally rule anything out, in this case it's so unlikely as to be impossible. Nevermind all of the issues with dealing with CP, what would you do with all of the other VIA services, re-route them to North Toronto as well?

 

Dan

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, smallspy said:

to try and glean everything from a map is foolhardy?

 

As for the comparison with Cornwall - you do realize that ALL services had decreased in numbers, not just the ones stopping in Cornwall, right? Should I be making a stink because there are ONLY 4 trains running between Toronto and Ottawa today (and 3 most of the other days of the week), and not the 10 that were there pre-COVID?

 

You may want to actually look at an Acela Express schedule, rather than make assumptions. I think that you're going to be very surprised when you do.

 

Are you really that much of an idiot?

 

While I wouldn't normally rule anything out, in this case it's so unlikely as to be impossible. Nevermind all of the issues with dealing with CP, what would you do with all of the other VIA services, re-route them to North Toronto as well?

 

Dan

Look dude, we're just having a conversation. I don't think the hostility was really necessary, just break it down and explain why we're mistaken instead of insulting us in the process. I appreciate the response but your knowledge differs from ours, so let's focus on trying to bridge the gaps instead of burning bridges.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Look dude, we're just having a conversation. I don't think the hostility was really necessary, just break it down and explain why we're mistaken instead of insulting us in the process. I appreciate the response but your knowledge differs from ours, so let's focus on trying to bridge the gaps instead of burning bridges.

I don't have an issue with having a conversation.

 

But if you want a proper discussion, you better be informed - otherwise, it's not worth it to me. It will just be me explaining everything.

 

And what you've shown about your level of knowledge on the topic is that you're relying solely on one piece of information - seemingly a map that VIA has reproduced and distributed ad nauseum. There is a hell of a lot more that they've released, and yet, there is still so much that simply isn't known about what their proposal. Just because they've drawn straight lines on the map are you going to assume that the lines will be laser-straight? You realize that a 10 point line on a 500px image covers a swath like 15 miles wide, right?

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, smallspy said:

I don't have an issue with having a conversation.

 

But if you want a proper discussion, you better be informed - otherwise, it's not worth it to me. It will just be me explaining everything.

 

And what you've shown about your level of knowledge on the topic is that you're relying solely on one piece of information - seemingly a map that VIA has reproduced and distributed ad nauseum. There is a hell of a lot more that they've released, and yet, there is still so much that simply isn't known about what their proposal. Just because they've drawn straight lines on the map are you going to assume that the lines will be laser-straight? You realize that a 10 point line on a 500px image covers a swath like 15 miles wide, right?

 

Dan

Then feel free to share that info - I haven't seen much of it, being someone who lives on the West Coast. If it's not worth it for you to share knowledge with people who don't already have the knowledge, how are we supposed to gain the knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, InfiNorth said:

Then feel free to share that info - I haven't seen much of it, being someone who lives on the West Coast. If it's not worth it for you to share knowledge with people who don't already have the knowledge, how are we supposed to gain the knowledge?

I can't share what I don't have. Thus the problem with your original statement and your assumptions.

 

If you want more info, than I'd suggest doing some research. There have been a lot of discussions already on the CanPassRail email group.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2020 at 6:58 PM, InfiNorth said:

I just want to add that I'm incredibly disappointed that VIA has opted to serve only Peterborough and Trois-Rivieres on their new alignment. In the end it doesn't help the people living in small towns that could otherwise see great benefits from having trains, even if only one or two a day stop in those towns. It's frustrating that even in the densely populated areas of North America, rail services are seen only as something to get to or between big cities, instead of like Europe, where you have both intercity trains between major centres and local trains serving the small towns. You look at rail lines in Britain and Mainland Europe and if a rail line passes through a town, you can bet at least one train a day calls at their tiny but well-built station.

Super Continental did very briefly serve Sudbury-White River for a time when VIA was screwing around with condensing transcontinental services in the early 1980s. Looking at schedules from that period hurts your brain trying to visualize the routes each train would follow. 

On 9/13/2020 at 4:37 PM, InfiNorth said:

Considering they've included the detail that trains will serve Quebec City Airport (which is a tiny destination in itself) and Eglinton (which is essentially right next to Union and you can easily get to it by rapid transit from Union), I would say in terms of service area they've been pretty clear that this is a line that will only serve people travelling to or between major cities, and not as a new local line.

I would like to invite you to put yourself into the shoes of those people who pitch HFR to private and public investors: this project is not just about adding a new route to VIA's network, it's to ensure VIA's long-term viability by transcending its constraining dependency on government funding and mostly unregulated infrastructure access from private freight railroads while making passenger rail relevant as an intercity mode again. Unless you can think of a different project which could achieve these goals, HFR is the only realistic chance to unlock the potential of passenger rail in this country in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the one thing which matters here is that HFR is getting built and as long as long as there is still not enough strong and binding political and financial commitment to make HFR happen, the question whether this train will stop in Agincourt, Locust Hill, Claremont, Myrtle, Burketon, Pontypool, Manvers, Cavan, Indian River, Norwood, Havelock, Bonarlaw, Ivanhoe, Tweed, Kaladar, Ardendale, Sharbot Lake or Perth* is absolutely trivial, as none of these communities will ever see a passenger trains which could stop in them, unless the questions which actually matter are answered.

As it happens, these communities have a strong interest in maximizing the benefits their citizens (and electorate) can derive from the project, while minimizing the draw-backs they suffer (e.g. noise, vibration, pollution) and this means that some of them will demand a station, a bypass or - like Sharbot Lake already did - both, in order to accept the construction of such a comparatively large-scale (and thus disruptive) infrastructure project through or near their community. There is nothing wrong with these demands and I applaud the Sharbot Lake residents which developed such a constructive position, which is quite the opposite of NIMBY-opposition folks like Paul Langan are desperately trying to stir up and I personally see no issue if these wishes are granted wherever they are reasonable (given that trying to ignore local concerns is the best way to attract the kind of legal battles which routinely delay HSR projects around the world by decades). However, I can only hope that this kind of politically-motivated cost factors (be it noise walls, bypasses, rural stations or bypasses) are paid by the governments rather than burdening any potential private investors by imposing measures on them which decrease rather than improve the projects' financial IRR and which may push them to pull out and leave the governments with higher capital funding requirements than they are willing to stomach.

I'm by no means denying that adding stops in communities along a proposed intercity rail line is an effective method in motivating them to support rather than obstruct the project and the case of minor Corridor stations like Coteau, Gananoque or Napanee prove (with their 1-2 stops per direction and day) that keeping these stations open does not need to prolong travel times for passengers on the vast majority of services. Nevertheless, the best way to ever bring back passenger rail service to at least some of the communities along the Havelock Subdivision is to support the ongoing efforts to study, design, approve and fund HFR, while the worst-possible strategy would be to insist that HFR is only worthwhile if it serves as many stations as possible, as it increases the risk that none of them (not even Peterborough) will see any intercity (and in most cases: any passenger) rail service for many decades to come...

*in case anyone wonders: I'm just listing the stops which were served along the Toronto-Peterborough-Smiths Falls route by the time passenger rail service was abandoned east (1965) and west (1990) of Havelock...

 

On 9/13/2020 at 4:37 PM, InfiNorth said:

Looking at VIA's history of gradually killing off local services of pretty much every kind, I have zero hopes of seeing rural stations on the new route and I would be happy to put money on that. Look at the number of trains VIA stopped in Cornwall pre-COVID... and they already have tracks passing through and multiple services daily. You think they'd want to stick a station in even smaller towns on a line that they are acting like is Canada's answer to the Acela Express?

Let's ignore QBEC, MTRL, OTTW and TRTO as major hubs and SFOY, SLAM, DORV, FALL, OSHA and GUIL as their suburban satellite stations and instead examine the timetables of the stations which remain:

  • Charny: whereas CHNY had not been served by more than 14 Corridor trains per week (i.e. 1 train per day and direction) since 1990, this number was increased to 26 trains on September 30, 2019 (out of 64 trains per week serving the QBEC-MTRL route, i.e. 41%). With the current CoVid schedule, 21 out of 42 departures (i.e. 50%) stop in CHNY, so still 50% more than anything seen between 1990 and 2019.
  • Drummondville: all 64 QBEC-MTRL trains per week stopped regularly in DRMV (which has never seen more frequent rail service), just like all 42 trains under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Saint-Hyacinthe: prior to CoVid, 39 out of 64 QBEC-MTRL trains per week (i.e. 61%) stopped regularly in SHYA (having been increased from 27 in 2017), just like 28 out of 42 trains (i.e. 67%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Coteau: COTO has not seen more than its one stop per day and direction it retained under the current CoVid schedule since 2005, but it is basically a suburb of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, which has a frequent direct bus connection with Montreal.
  • Cornwall: prior to CoVid, 68 out of 80 MTRL-TRTO trains (i.e. 85% or all trains except #68 and #69) stopped in CWLL (which was the highest count since the Enterprise night train was cancelled in 2005), just like all 48 remaining trains under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Alexandria: prior to CoVid, 65 out of 77 MTRL-OTTW trains (i.e. 84%) stopped in ALEX, just like all 42 remaining trains under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Casselman: prior to CoVid, 33 out of 77 MTRL-OTTW trains (i.e. 43%) stopped in CSLM (which I believe to be the highest number in the station's history), just like 28 out of the 42 remaining trains (i.e. 67%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Smiths Falls: prior to CoVid, 40 out of 130 MTRL-OTTW trains (i.e. 31%) stopped in SMTF (up from only 26 in 2004), just like 35 out of the 48 remaining trains (i.e. 73%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Brockville: prior to CoVid, 92 out of 210 MTRL-OTTW trains (i.e. 44%) stopped in BRKV (up from only 80 in 2014), just like 79 out of the 96 remaining trains (i.e. 82%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Gananoque: GANA has not seen more than its one stop per day and direction it retained under the current CoVid schedule since 2005, but the station is far away from the community it takes its name from, that driving to Kingston is hardly more burdensome.
  • Kingston: prior to CoVid, 198 out of 210 MTRL/OTTW-TRTO trains (i.e. 94%) stopped in KGON and another 12 KGON-TRTO trains originated/terminated in KGON for a total of 210 trains per week (which is an all-time high), just like all of the 96 remaining trains under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Nappanee: prior to CoVid, 20 out of 222 MTRL/OTTW/KGON-TRTO trains (i.e. 9%) stopped in NAPN (up from only 11 in 2006), just like 14 out of the 96 remaining trains (i.e. 15%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Belleville: prior to CoVid, 118 out of 222 MTRL/OTTW/KGON-TRTO trains (i.e. 53%) stopped in BLVL (up from only 73 in 2014), just like 93 out of the 96 remaining trains (i.e. 97%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Trenton Junctionprior to CoVid, 27 out of 222 MTRL/OTTW/KGON-TRTO trains (i.e. 12%) stopped in TRNJ (up from 0 in 2001, when the station was briefly closed), just like 21 out of the 96 remaining trains (i.e. 22%) under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Cobourg: prior to CoVid, 109 out of 222 MTRL/OTTW/KGON-TRTO trains (i.e. 49%) stopped in CBRG (up from only 52 in 1996), just like all of the 96 remaining trains under the current CoVid schedule do.
  • Port Hopeprior to CoVid, 26 out of 222 MTRL/OTTW/KGON-TRTO trains (i.e. 12%) stopped in PHOP (which is located 11 km from Cobourg), just like 14 out of the 96 remaining trains (i.e. 15%) under the current CoVid schedule do.

As you can see summarized in the table below, all but five Corridor stations are served by at least 30% of the Corridor trains which pass by and that share has increased for all of them during CoVid (as most stops lost by train cancellations were compensated by adding extra stops on other trains):

image.thumb.png.e7b4a55e44d28e3771f8a4b97a4df7d2.png

 

Therefore, I'm at least as puzzled as Smallspy by what makes you believe that VIA has a hostile attitude towards its smaller stations and in particular about what makes you look at Cornwall (of all places!) as a case-in-point, since the only trains which don't regularly stop there are trains #68 and #69 - and the evolution of these trains (from what used to be the 5pm non-stop Express return train for business travelers to a train which - if we look at #68 - saw OSHA added in 2008, CBRG&BRKV in 2015 and now GUIL, BLVL, KGON and, well, Cornwall under the CoVid schedules) exemplifies that VIA looks at developing the intermediary markets as maintaining fast end-to-end travel times becomes increasingly challenging, given ever-intensifying freight traffic:

 image.thumb.png.23c675d65aff24201b0bd573adfe7a84.png

Edited by Urban Sky
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Urban Sky said:

Therefore, I'm at least as puzzled as Smallspy by what makes you believe that VIA has a hostile attitude towards its smaller stations and in particular about what makes you look at Cornwall (of all places!) as a case-in-point, since the only trains which don't regularly stop there are trains #68 and #69 - and the evolution of these trains (from what used to be the 5pm non-stop Express return train for business travelers to a train which - if we look at #68 - saw OSHA added in 2008, CBRG&BRKV in 2015 and now GUIL, BLVL, KGON and, well, Cornwall under the CoVid schedules) exemplifies that VIA looks at developing the intermediary markets as maintaining fast end-to-end travel times becomes increasingly challenging, given ever-intensifying freight traffic:

My main problem with SmallSpy's disagreement with me was his approach, no so much his position. That's why I asked for clarification. I digress. I mixed up Cornwall and Coteau (apologies) having only been to that part of the country once, my geographical sense for the area is limited to the three times I've passed through the Corridor on a train and the many hours spent staring at maps and timetables... which results in a lot of muddled up information in my head. You are absolutely correct to find massive holes in my statements about the Corridor - this likely comes from my perspective, being someone who looks far more often at the long-distance trains (and present lack thereof) and their tendency to drop stations over the years. As a westerner I'm generally far more bitter about VIA Rail and their practices, having grown up in a city that had services axed over and over until almost nothing was left, and now live in a city where our daily trains were cancelled (not VIA's fault but they should have seen it coming) and quite frankly will never return. I'm just bitter and it paints everything about VIA with a fairly anti-local brush seeing how trains 1/2/3/4 fly through so many small communities, better serving tourists accessing major destinations. I know that isn't comparable to the Corridor, but it's my bias. Heck, even if VIA sticks a single daily train between Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Montreal that's better than nothing. I would love to see growth, just growth that will serve small communities well (two trains a day in the Corridor region is not "well" in my books) would make me a lot happier. Again, my biases. They may not be reasonable, but they aren't without reason.

While I know you can't share internal information, is there anything that has been published externally (thus publicly) that gives me any more of a view of VIA's HFR plans than the map and the marketing blurbs on the website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 12:36 AM, InfiNorth said:

As a westerner I'm generally far more bitter about VIA Rail and their practices, having grown up in a city that had services axed over and over until almost nothing was left, and now live in a city where our daily trains were cancelled (not VIA's fault but they should have seen it coming) and quite frankly will never return.

What exactly should VIA have seen coming and what could they have changed about the deteriorating quality of the infrastructure on which they are running their Victoria-Courtenay service? Have a look at how bad the state of that line is and it appears reckless that someone dared to operate trains over these tracks less than a decade ago:

1588302321854.png

Source: WSP (2020, p.21)

VIA unfortunately only started to publish their ridership and financials on a by-route basis in 2013 and thus after service on Vancouver Island was already suspended, but figures released for 1988 (which informed the design of the devastating 1990 cuts) indicate an annual subsidy need of $1.8 million or $39.10 for each of its 45,706 riders, which translate to $3.4 million or $74.10 in today's prices. Why should the federal taxpayer continue to pay for a non-essential service (every house along the line is accessible year-round by road) in a province which can't even be bothered to keep the rail infrastructure required by that service in a condition safe enough for measly RDCs (not that my province of residence is much better with the Chaleur having been suspended since roughly the same time as the Malahat, but at least they are now starting to become serious about restoring the rail infrastructure, which makes me confidence that I will finally get to use the train to Gaspé by the end of this decade)?

 

Quote

I'm just bitter and it paints everything about VIA with a fairly anti-local brush seeing how trains 1/2/3/4 fly through so many small communities, better serving tourists accessing major destinations. I know that isn't comparable to the Corridor, but it's my bias.

I sympathize with your feeling, but I don't fully understand why you blame VIA for focusing on the one single customer group for which hour-long delays along the route and travel times which are well above those for driving or taking a bus - where one exists - is still worth spending enough to give the Canadian a cost-recovery rate which is almost as high as in the Corridor (58.2% vs. 69.4% in 2019) rather than being a deal breaker? So why would someone living in Brandon drive the 18 km up to the former Brandon North station (because I can't think of any other community with significant population along the Canadian's present route which has lost its station since VIA's creation) and then wait for a few hours until the train actually shows up to travel to Winnipeg or Saskatoon if he might have reached his destination with his car by the time he just boards the train?

 

Quote

Heck, even if VIA sticks a single daily train between Toronto-Peterborough-Ottawa-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Montreal that's better than nothing. I would love to see growth, just growth that will serve small communities well (two trains a day in the Corridor region is not "well" in my books) would make me a lot happier. Again, my biases. They may not be reasonable, but they aren't without reason.

Not sure I follow: you would call building a new route just to operate once per day "better than nothing", but get bitter about serving an existing station with twice that amount of trains?

 

Quote

While I know you can't share internal information, is there anything that has been published externally (thus publicly) that gives me any more of a view of VIA's HFR plans than the map and the marketing blurbs on the website?

As I explained to you in my last post, the project hasn't advanced far enough to have a broad public debate the kind of details you want to discuss. That's why you will struggle to find the kind of information you are seeking. Nevertheless, I invite you to follow (or even participate in) the discussions we have on Urban Toronto, as they regularly concern HFR...

Edited by Urban Sky
Minor corrections/clarifications
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 8:45 PM, Urban Sky said:

So why would someone living in Brandon drive the 18 km up to the former Brandon North station (because I can's think of any other community with significant population along the Canadian's present route which has lost its station since VIA's creation)

There is also Transcona, Manitoba which lost its direct VIA service in the early 2000's. Even though Transcona is now part of Winnipeg, it was its own community until 1972. My understanding is that the signpost was in a bad location for passengers to board and probably didn't see much use seeing as Winnipeg Union Station is a 20 minute drive or so from there. The Brandon North station was moved to Rivers as a stationette for the Canadian. I believe its still the active VIA stop in Rivers as the existing station is in rough condition. Even though Edmonton and Saskatoon still have service from the Canadian, their stations have been moved out of downtown so not as convenient for some potential passengers.

Share this post


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...