National Limited

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: National Limited

Postby Woody » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:33 am

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I kind of agree that it should be a priority to get cities that have no service a first train than to get current cities a second train although Woody's point is well taken that it is cheaper to use routes/stations you currently [own] use.


I very much want to add service to cities that don't have it. So I'm hyped about the proposed CONO extension by another name that will add Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola, and Tallahassee to the national system. I want to take your least favorite train daily because serving a city only 3 times a week is almost like not serving it at all. When the Cardinal goes daily, it will seriously add Charleston, Huntington, Cincinnati to the national system. Taking the Sunset/Eagle daily will add Phoenix (sort of, LOL), Tucson, El Paso, Houston, and Lafayette to the national system in a serious way. And all of these new cities will be added at modest cost and without using too much equipment from the very limited pool available.

In the Restore-a-Route thread, a couple of us are arguing that the best way to help the LD lines is to add overlapping corridors. We have a few of those, Cascades/Coast Starlight, Surfliner N of L.A./Coast Starlight, Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle, Amtrak Virginia trains. The LD trains are bleeding money -- tho less each year -- and are the prime target for the haters.

Adding the Lynchburger helped the Crescent by diverting short trip passengers heading to the NEC cities. Those passengers riding Lynchburg-D.C. or Charlottesville-Philly, for example, had occupied seats that couldn't be sold in Greensboro, Charlotte, or Atlanta, because they were sold out north of Lynchburg. With the short-trip riders on the other train, the Crescent could sell more profitable long-trip tickets.

The Carbondale-Memphis extension would be cheap to start up because it would use equipment that now lays over in Carbondale. It would share station costs, mostly Memphis that would be, and maybe share some managerial overhead with the City of New Orleans. It would easily double Amtrak's mind share in the market, as potential customers in Memphis came to realize that there were two trains a day to Chicago.

In the larger picture, it would be a shining example for neighboring states and cities to see a successful train started up. It makes it more likely that Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Bristol could get state money to get a train to their stations. Log-rolling it used to be called. One legislator says to another, "I'll help you if you help me. We'll help pay for the Memphis train but we want a train to Nashville next". The chances of the other cities getting a train is increased by a successful Memphis day train, not delayed by it.

Virginia got Stimulus funds to pay for a short segment upgrade D.C.-Richmond that will cut 10 minutes out of the schedule of the half dozen Richmond trains, Newport News, and Norfolk trains. AND it will save 10 minutes for the Palmetto, the Meteor, the Star, the Carolinian, and the Auto Train[i]. And don't think 10 minutes will make no difference when the [i]Palmetto's arrival in Savannah becomes 8:54 p.m. instead of 9:04 as now -- "We can still make that restaurant before it closes". Or the arrival in NYC become 11:46 p.m. instead of 4 minutes before midnight. Or the Carolinian gest to Charlottre at 8:02 instead of 8:12 p.m. -- "I can get home to see my kids before bedtime".

Or look at the big picture. Amtrak needs Billions for new equipment. It needs to get Congress of its neck about the losses. It needs good press. It needs a better reputation. It needs more passengers, higher customer satisfaction scores, etc.

Adding the CONO by another name along the Gulf Coast will gain 138,000 riders. Taking the [/i]Cardinal[/i] daily gets 100,000 easily, a daily Sunset gains 125,000, a Memphis day train adds maybe 100,000 or more. That's nearly 500,000 more riders with four or maybe five more consists. Meanwhile customer satisfaction scores will soar from the daily service and the daylight service. Media stories will take a more positive tone. And nothing succeeds like success. So, growing ridership, more satisfied customers, more good vibes for CongressCritters in those states, better press, less of Amtrak-is-a-loser reputation. Doesn't all that get us closer to the multi-billion orders for new equipment? And to the new and restored routes we all want to see added?
Woody
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: National Limited

Postby Philly Amtrak Fan » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:32 am

Woody wrote:
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I kind of agree that it should be a priority to get cities that have no service a first train than to get current cities a second train although Woody's point is well taken that it is cheaper to use routes/stations you currently [own] use.


I want to take your least favorite train daily because serving a city only 3 times a week is almost like not serving it at all. When the Cardinal goes daily, it will seriously add Charleston, Huntington, Cincinnati to the national system.


Shhh!! This group doesn't yet know the Cardinal is my least favorite train.

As for Cincinnati, I think the departure/arrival times are the bigger problem than the frequency. You can run two daily trains during the graveyard shift if you wish. Know what you get? Cleveland. A step up from Cincinnati but not much better. If anyone is serious about helping Cincinnati, they need a train to depart/arrive at some reasonable time. Same with Cleveland.

Amtrak currently schedules the Chicago-NEC trains are timed to allow connections to/from western trains which stick Ohio during the graveyard shift. This makes sense for the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited because there is a significant end point to end point market on each. On the other hand, the Cardinal is a Capitol Limited that takes about 6 hours longer to get to/from DC and a Lake Shore Limited that takes about 9 hours longer to get to/from NY. Even for Philly and Baltimore, sure it's a direct route but you can make a single transfer in NY or DC and save about 6 hours as well. So the Cardinal isn't useful as a Chicago-NEC train. The two largest markets on the train that aren't served by other LD lines are Indy and Cincinnati. The train times in Indy are around midnight eastbound and 5:20-6am eastbound and Cincinnati times are in the graveyard shift. If your two biggest target markets are Indy and Cincinnati, doesn't it make more sense to schedule them at times convenient to them? I suggest leaving Cincy for Chicago early in the morning but after 7am and leaving Cincy for the East Coast late at night but before 11pm. Then Indy times get much better too. The two cities lose the ability to transfer to the west but at least they have a train at more convenient times and the eastbound gets into Washington/New York much earlier. If you stick with the current schedule, then the train doesn't serve Indy/Cincy at reasonable times and Chicago and the NEC don't need the train since the CL and LSL are way faster. So who is the train for?

Also, if you really are serious about Cincinnati, something that can get to the East Coast faster than the Cardinal without dipping all of the way south to the middle of Virginia would be better. Something that can go from Cincinnati/Columbus to Pittsburgh similar to the old National Limited?
Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
Location: Philly Area

Re: National Limited

Postby Tadman » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:50 am

If it's an issue of choosing one new start versus one second frequency, why choose the new start? Consider the second frequency: Your station costs are split in half as you now have two trainloads of passengers supporting that agent's salary. Your ridership will probably go up more than 2x as the second (or third especially) frequency makes it possible to have more options and convenience. A new start, on the other hand, means you have an entirely new market that has to be opened - new stations and platforms, new trackage, new storage areas, new qualifications - that's really expensive.
Tadman
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Michigan

Re: National Limited

Postby Tadman » Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:02 am

ryanch wrote:Facts always help people see things clearly. Here are state income tax rates:


Ah yes, the zampolit comes forward to defend the state government.

Here are my facts, Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html

Illinoisans pay among the highest property taxes in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Some Illinoisans' property-tax bills are more than their mortgage payments.


She paid more than $18,000 in property taxes last year — well over 5 percent of what she thinks her house is worth


In McHenry County, where the Bajaks reside, property taxes eat up nearly 8 percent of the median household income. What's worse, Illinoisans aren't getting much bang for their tax bucks.


Property taxes at the municipal level have not been going to fund spotless roads or other public works. Instead, they're mostly funding out-of-control pension costs.


Venezuellinois is flat ass broke and we cannot afford anything including passenger trains.

Mercatus Center at George Mason U ranks Venezuellinois in last place for solvency:
http://mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

And ABC News has Venezuellinois as #1 in the top six states suffering financial distress:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/states-s ... 16811562#1

Illinois, by the end of the current year, will face accumulated unpaid Medicaid bills estimated to total $1.9 billion.


Perhaps a video would help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et-s_GnUNBw

To sum it up nicely from Mercatus Center:

Illinois’s fiscal position was the lowest among all 50 states in FY 2013... Long-term obligations were significant, with liabilities exceeding total assets. Other areas of fiscal stress included the size of the unfunded pension liability, which totaled $275 billion on a guaranteed basis, plus a further $33 billion in bonded indebtedness and $34 billion in unfunded other postemployment benefits (OPEB)


We cannot afford paper clips let alone passenger trains. And I want these passenger trains.
Tadman
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Michigan

Re: National Limited

Postby Philly Amtrak Fan » Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:14 am

Tadman wrote:If it's an issue of choosing one new start versus one second frequency, why choose the new start? Consider the second frequency: Your station costs are split in half as you now have two trainloads of passengers supporting that agent's salary. Your ridership will probably go up more than 2x as the second (or third especially) frequency makes it possible to have more options and convenience. A new start, on the other hand, means you have an entirely new market that has to be opened - new stations and platforms, new trackage, new storage areas, new qualifications - that's really expensive.


No doubt second frequencies are cheaper. But adding potential markets in theory should add much more ridership.
Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
Location: Philly Area

Re: National Limited

Postby Greg Moore » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:03 am

I think in some cases, you can have both.

i.e. you don't need a completely new route, and most places having a single frequency probably don't need a second frequency the entire route.

So, you double frequency on part of the route (say the Crescent) but then split (say at Atlanta).

You probably don't need 2x daily service south of Atlanta, but do North of it. And points in other directions could use service they don't have now.

So you leverage existing stations and only add a few new ones.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: National Limited

Postby Woody » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:05 am

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:
Tadman wrote:If it's an issue of choosing one new start versus one second frequency, why choose the new start? . . . A new start ... means you have an entirely new market that has to be opened - new stations and platforms, new trackage, new storage areas, new qualifications - that's really expensive.

No doubt second frequencies are cheaper. But adding potential markets in theory should add much more ridership.

Whose theory?

And what examples please?

Nah, that's not fair to ask. I can't think of any new start LD trains in the past 15 years or more.

But we do know about adding frequencies.

Back around 2005, Illinois stepped up to subsidize 2 new frequencies of Lincoln Service corridor trains StL-CHI, where already 2 Lincolns were running (along with the Texas Eagle). Within a year or so, Lincoln ridership more than doubled.

A few years back, North Carolina was able to add a second Piedmont Raleigh-Charlotte where there had been only one plus the Carolinian. With 3 frequencies on the segment, ridership more than doubled and then some.

Cascades service started mid-1990s, with one train along with the Coast Starlight. Every time another frequency was added (it's now 4 each way Seattle-Portland, will be 6 by 2018), ridership went up by more than 100,000.

So we have proven success from adding frequencies. For new lines, we have somebody's theory. :(

Plus everything Tadman said. LOL.
Woody
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: National Limited

Postby mtuandrew » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:58 am

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Shhh!! This group doesn't yet know the Cardinal is my least favorite train.

It sounds like any train that doesn't go through most of Pennsylvania is your least favorite train :P
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: National Limited

Postby Philly Amtrak Fan » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:31 pm

mtuandrew wrote:
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Shhh!! This group doesn't yet know the Cardinal is my least favorite train.

It sounds like any train that doesn't go through most of Pennsylvania is your least favorite train :P


Not true. I've ridden the California Zephyr, City of New Orleans, and the Southwest Chief three different times. I think the SWC is great. It takes less than 48 hours to cross two time zones. I think travel between Chicago and Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New Orleans are all useful. Meanwhile, the Sunset Limited when it ran to Florida connected California, Texas, and Florida, which now are the three largest states in population in the US with many large cities between the three states (and that's not including New Orleans). In my opinion, you should be able to travel cross country from Florida to California either with a one seat ride or requiring a single transfer at a convenient time (like the connection window in Chicago between the East Coast trains and the West Coast/Texas trains). So I think there are plenty of "good" trains that don't serve Pennsylvania. Transportation to me simply means getting from point A to point B. Consider point A as where you live and point B as where you want to get to. You want to choose cities/states where point A is where many people live and point B is where many people want to go to (tourist attractions for example).
Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
Location: Philly Area

Re: National Limited

Postby electricron » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:07 pm

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: So I think there are plenty of "good" trains that don't serve Pennsylvania. Transportation to me simply means getting from point A to point B. Consider point A as where you live and point B as where you want to get to. You want to choose cities/states where point A is where many people live and point B is where many people want to go to (tourist attractions for example).


While some take vacations anytime throughout a year, most of us take vacations at specific times (or seasons). Amtrak long distance trains have to run all year long, they have to make business sense all year, especially when we don't take vacations. Amtrak can easily add cars to a train during peak vacation seasons, but it's difficult to eliminate trains when few of us are on vacations.
The reason the NEC turns a profit, or if you choose to think looses less, is because its trains attract the business traveler and is therefore less sensitive to the ebb and flow of those of us on vacations. I realize that long distance trains bread and butter clients are vacationers, it would be a major mistake by Amtrak to run long distance trains targeting just vacationers, which varies so widely seasonally.
Ideally, Amtrak needs to run long distance trains between our largest metros in our largest states where there should be sufficient vacationers to support them all year long, even during the slow vacation seasons.
electricron
 
Posts: 3921
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: National Limited

Postby Philly Amtrak Fan » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:22 pm

electricron wrote:
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: So I think there are plenty of "good" trains that don't serve Pennsylvania. Transportation to me simply means getting from point A to point B. Consider point A as where you live and point B as where you want to get to. You want to choose cities/states where point A is where many people live and point B is where many people want to go to (tourist attractions for example).


While some take vacations anytime throughout a year, most of us take vacations at specific times (or seasons). Amtrak long distance trains have to run all year long, they have to make business sense all year, especially when we don't take vacations. Amtrak can easily add cars to a train during peak vacation seasons, but it's difficult to eliminate trains when few of us are on vacations.
The reason the NEC turns a profit, or if you choose to think looses less, is because its trains attract the business traveler and is therefore less sensitive to the ebb and flow of those of us on vacations. I realize that long distance trains bread and butter clients are vacationers, it would be a major mistake by Amtrak to run long distance trains targeting just vacationers, which varies so widely seasonally.
Ideally, Amtrak needs to run long distance trains between our largest metros in our largest states where there should be sufficient vacationers to support them all year long, even during the slow vacation seasons.


No I agree point B also includes business destinations in addition to vacation spots. I would think that most of those destinations still are the "large" cities. Plus, if you have out of town conventions, popular vacation destinations tend to be chosen pretty often too. Whether it is for business or pleasure, I would still think more passengers want to go to New York or Chicago or California or Florida than ... West Virginia.
Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
Location: Philly Area

Re: National Limited

Postby ryanch » Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:33 pm

Tadman wrote:
ryanch wrote:Facts always help people see things clearly. Here are state income tax rates:


Ah yes, the zampolit comes forward to defend the state government.

Here are my facts, Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html

Illinoisans pay among the highest property taxes in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Some Illinoisans' property-tax bills are more than their mortgage payments.


She paid more than $18,000 in property taxes last year — well over 5 percent of what she thinks her house is worth



Faced with a coherent summary of the situation, people who would prefer a different set of facts often revert to anecdote. Yes, as I said, the property tax rate here is high, the income tax rate is not high.

So on balance, overall taxation here is not extremely high.

The asset/liability and unpaid expenses flow from the fact that we've had no agreed budget for a year, due to the childishness of the two men in charge, not because we are taxed so incredibly that there is not another ounce to be squeezed out.

None of the anecdotal facts provide contradict that simple statement of the state's financial situation.

I'm not "defending the state government." There is incredible dysfunction. To address it, we have to understand the situation, and part of that is understanding that on balance, we're not currently taxed at an extremely high rate. Even the governor understands that, and has conceded that a tax HIKE (no doubt much smaller than the one the speaker pushes) is necessary.

I don't support this train. It doesn't make financial sense for the state, under any circumstances. I'm a bit surprised to see you that you want it.
ryanch
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: National Limited

Postby Philly Amtrak Fan » Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:28 pm

I would like to see Amtrak service return to Columbus, Ohio whether it be north-south to Cleveland-Cincinnati-Dayton or east-west to Pittsburgh-Indianapolis. Of course Kasich is a problem though. Perhaps if it takes the form of a reroute of the Cardinal it can be done without Ohio funding.
Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
Location: Philly Area

Re: National Limited

Postby Woody » Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:05 pm

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:I would like to see Amtrak service return to Columbus, Ohio whether it be north-south to Cleveland-Cincinnati-Dayton or east-west to Pittsburgh-Indianapolis.

Your friends at All Aboard Ohio were pushing for Columbus-Ft Wayne-CHI.

I like that one, and it doesn't rule out the other options later.

Everybody would pitch in: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and even Ohio one of these days. And of course, the feds, one of these days. The first part of the route, in Illinois, is an element of the CREATE plan. South Of The Lake, SOTL, thru Indiana to Porter, where Amtrak's 110-mph stretch heads up to Michigan, is necessary to cut an hour out of the schedules for the Wolverines, the Blue Water, and Pere Marquette. And the Lake Shore Ltd and the Capitol Ltd -- and a restored Broadway Ltd, if ever, would go along for the quicker ride. So Michigan will put in money, and Indiana will too (oh, yes, they will, and especially if it's heading toward Ft Wayne service), and maybe even a bit more from Illinois. Then on thru Ft Wayne to the state line, it will be Indiana's matching funds with the feds. But after SOTL it gets much cheaper per mile.

From the border to Columbus, the state of Ohio would have to rustle up matching funds to go with the feds'. But not as much as to do the 3-Cs. They will probably need only one station in Columbus, not two (2) in Cincy as per the 3-Cs. And the first plan announced will be to start moving at more than an average of 49 mph, again unlike the 3-Cs.

Then if it gets built, it would have strong knock-on effects:
The route CHI-Ft Wayne gets about halfway CHI-Ft Wayne-TOL-CLE. So a 110 mph-corridor CHI-CLE is half paid for and done.
And the line would feed traffic to/from the 3-Cs, when built, Columbus-Dayton-Cincy and Columbus-CLE.

if it takes the form of a reroute of the Cardinal . . .
There you go again. :P
Woody
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: National Limited

Postby Anthony » Sun Aug 14, 2016 4:51 pm

electricron wrote:
Midlands Steve wrote:I don't see enough of a travel market STL-IND to build a corridor service at conventional speed.

Not enough of a travel Market? Why not? By comparison, the 283-mile route, STL-KCY, is well-patronized with 2 trains in each direction. There has been talk of adding another train. In measuring the success of these trains, you also have to consider that there is bus service and non-stop air service available. There is scheduled bus service, STL-IND, but no non-stop air service. From STL, driving on I-70 to either KCY or IND is often an obstacle course clogged with big trucks. No wonder so many people opt for Amtrak. But so far they can't use it east of STL. The 238-mile trip, STL-IND, with possible intermediate stops at Effingham, Terre Haute, and Greencastle, looks like a winner to me.


Politics wise, I can think of better city pairs for Illinois and Indiana to subsidize. But putting politics aside, what would be the timing of the trains extending the existing River runners east to Indianapolis?

To answer that, let's look at the existing River Runners schedules and make an assumption it would take as long to run between St. Louis and Indianapolis as it is between St. Louis and Kansas City, since there is no existing train to check a schedule. ;)
Eastbound trains
#314 (okay)
KC to SL 8:15 am CT to 1:55 pm CT(5 hours, 40 minutes)
SL to Indy 2:00 pm CT to 8:40 pm ET
#316 (poor)
KC to SL 4:00 pm CT to 9:40 pm CT
SL to Indy 9:45 pm CT to 4:25 am ET
Westbound trains
#311 (poor)
Indy to SL 2:30 am ET to 9:10 am CT
SL to KC 9:15 am CT to 2:55 pm CT
#313 (okay)
Indy to SL 9:15 am ET to 3:55 pm CT
SL to KC 4:00 pm CT to 9:40 pm CT

A 313 and 314 train extension to Indy would work with overnight train storage overnight in both Indy and KC. The 311 and 312 train extension wouldn't work with very early morning arrivals or departures. No state would subsidize that train service. ;)
But, here's the kicker, those trains are already extended to run towards Chicago as trains 303 and 304! Where's the rolling stock coming from to run a section of these trains to Indy?


Let's get this straight. According to the quoted posts and current schedules, the Missouri River Runner takes 5:40 to go 283 miles over a quite curvy route with eight intermediate stops. The STL-IND route is 238 miles long, is relatively straight, and would only have 3 intermediate stops between IND and STL (Greencastle, Terre Haute, and Effingham). All of this combined would mean that the trip time is much shorter IND-STL (around 3 1/2 hours, give or take) than the current STL-KCY. Given the political issues with extending the River Runner to IND, IND-STL-KCY service could instead be done with a Kansas City section of the Cardinal, preferably after the latter train goes daily. The current schedules of the Cardinal and River Runner would not change. The new section's run would take just over 9 hours. A rough schedule for the section would be:
    WESTBOUND:
    Dp. IND: 6:50 AM
    Ar. GCS: 7:31 AM
    Ar. TRH: 8:25 AM
    Ar. EFG: 9:28 AM
    Ar. STL: 11:00 AM
    Dp. STL: 12:00 PM
    Ar. KWD: 12:29 PM
    Ar. WAH: 1:06 PM
    Ar. HEM: 1:34 PM
    Ar. JEF: 2:22 PM
    Ar. SED: 3:39 PM
    Ar. WAR: 4:09 PM
    Ar. LEE: 4:50 PM
    Ar. IDP: 5:06 PM
    Ar. KCY: 5:40 PM

    EASTBOUND:
    Dp. KCY: 12:00 PM
    Ar. IDP: 12:19 PM
    Ar. LEE: 12:36 PM
    Ar. WAR: 1:19 PM
    Ar. SED: 1:49 PM
    Ar. JEF: 3:03 PM
    Ar. HEM: 3:48 PM
    Ar. WAH: 4:16 PM
    Ar. KWD: 4:58 PM
    Ar. STL: 5:40 PM
    Dp. STL: 6:45 PM
    Ar. EFG: 8:17 PM
    Ar. TRH: 9:20 PM
    Ar. GCS: 10:11 PM
    Ar. IND: 10:50 PM
    Dp. IND: 11:59 PM

This schedule would allow for convenient connections to the CONO and IL state-supported trains, TE and SWC, and would be timed to add that midday frequency to the River Runner.
Anthony
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests