• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The ultimate fantasy thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Well taking your original premise and analysing it from an economists (my) point of view..

The lack of road transport with all goods going by rail would mean the railways were creaking at the edges even with a decent amount of investment. If the country has large rivers they would likely be major trade arteries with significant development along them into the interior.

Its likely the majority of the population would live along the coast or rivers and the majority of passenger rail would be in these locations, further into the outback the odd passenger train would be running along low speed freight lines ala USA.

There would be marshalling yards all over the place to distribute to cities local road networks.

Its likely the economy of this country would have developed almost entirely along the coast with inland looking something like Australia or Brazil. The high tech industries would be on the coast as would most manufacturing inland would be primarily agricultral and mineral resource extraction.

If this is a large country its likely there would be small airports all over the place with the wealthy choosing to fly rather than take the train.


Frankly if you want to see what your hypthetical country would look like in practise, large railway no roads, look at the turn of the century US.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well, perhaps, imagine a world where there was some sort of plant disease around 1900 and every single rubber tree died. No rubber means no rubber tyres. This means that car development was seriously slowed, although aircraft were able to use alternative means of absorbing the shock of landing (mostly operating from water). By the time that road vehicles were affordable, the idea of carting quantities of flammable liquid around, let alone selling it from pumps, meant that it was considered unsafe. Private cars never took off. Nor did buses ever supplant trams, let alone local trains.

This changed the course of politics as well as transport. Oil was not such an important resource. Coal was, and Uranium is now. I'll leave someone else to decide on what happened there.

This certainly meant that railways were never in danger of nationalisation. The LNER, LMS, GWR and Southern continue to this day. Each went its own way. I can travel by 200 mph "EM-11" locomotive to Edinburgh, or by 100 mph "EU-65" multiple unit to London on a 6-track railway, where I can cross (by the 4-track Circle Line) to Paddington and catch a gas turbine unit (also capable of 200 mph) to Westbury, where I can change to a local train that could take me to Radstock for a school reunion. I might decide to go back via the Somerset and Dorset.

To go to Canada last year, I might have travelled by Canadian Pacific's latest passenger Sea Cat, or by an older monohull liner (which would take four days instead of two). There's no way I'd be able to afford flying boat prices, and land planes would be limited to things of Cessna/Tiger Moth size or helicopters, chiefly because all the big aircraft in World War II were flying boats, so there would be no big land airfields available afterwards. There might well be airships around as well, but fitting into a niche similar to Concorde. Over there, and in the USA, the great inter-city railways would still be carrying plenty of passengers. There would be no VIA Rail or Amtrak, instead I might travel by Canadian National to Toronto, then Penn Central's high-speed line once over the border.

The thing is, settlement patterns were pretty much set before cars, so some things would hardly change. Other social changes might be more noticeable. Firsty, no high street decline, since it's hard to get stuff home on the tram, so access to out-of-town developments would be very difficult. Much less centralisation of services as well, so Graveley might still have a shop, a post office, a police house, a local doctor and a vicar. Not sure what would be done about delivering things to people. Maybe you would still find Horses on the streets. Would anybody have ever heard of Ayrton Senna or Jenson Button either? Or would there be something else to race? Motorboats perhaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If this really is the ultimate fantasy thread, then can't we have pretty girls to keep us company while we drive the trains? :wub:

Oh yes, remembering that there might be quite a few sleeping car services still around... But then we don't want another MHC thread do we? ;)
 
Last edited:

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
To be honest I'm interested to see what impact legalising prostitution/brothels would have on the sleeper network; maybe we'd see more services...
 

Nonsense

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2009
Messages
293
Well, perhaps, imagine a world where there was some sort of plant disease around 1900 and every single rubber tree died. No rubber means no rubber tyres. This means that car development was seriously slowed, although aircraft were able to use alternative means of absorbing the shock of landing (mostly operating from water). By the time that road vehicles were affordable, the idea of carting quantities of flammable liquid around, let alone selling it from pumps, meant that it was considered unsafe. Private cars never took off. Nor did buses ever supplant trams, let alone local trains.

Thats a great premise.

To be honest I'm interested to see what impact legalising prostitution/brothels would have on the sleeper network; maybe we'd see more services...

Would the cost of the erm, service provider, be included in the ticket price?
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I must say, I'm not really so sure about this "Electrification and umpteen track 200 mph lines everywhere" school of thought. I'm afraid my fantasy network would include lots of noisy, smoky diesels on steeply graded scenic routes. Super-modern Shinkansens or TGVs as well on the trunk routes, but give me lots of class 20s and 37s (or Geeps and Alcos) on the local trains; including, of course, the Somerset & Dorset.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I must say, I'm not really so sure about this "Electrification and umpteen track 200 mph lines everywhere" school of thought. I'm afraid my fantasy network would include lots of noisy, smoky diesels on steeply graded scenic routes. Super-modern Shinkansens or TGVs as well on the trunk routes, but give me lots of class 20s and 37s (or Geeps and Alcos) on the local trains; including, of course, the Somerset & Dorset.

Oh, I'm sure there would be quite a few around, especially on goods. Perhaps even steam, depending on the relative prices of oil and coal (on the one hand, oil would not be in such demand, on the other, nobody would be that bothered about looking for it).

Speaking of freight, as well as shifting anything and everything that can fit through the loading gauge, it would have to deal with a lot of specialised traffic. Parcels, mail, milk, fish, other perishables and livestock would still go by rail. Imagine standing at Reading one morning and seeing a procession of high speed expresses interrupted by 20,000 gallons of milk whipping by in tankers. Then there would be the more unusual things. If there was such a thing as Airbus in this world, and they made flying boat wings in Broughton, then they would have to get to the coast for delivery. How do you move something that's 190 ft long by 20 ft wide in our loading gauge? Mind you, they can move a Proton rocket by rail in some places.
 

Nonsense

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2009
Messages
293
...If there was such a thing as Airbus in this world, and they made flying boat wings in Broughton, then they would have to get to the coast for delivery. How do you move something that's 190 ft long by 20 ft wide in our loading gauge?

They wouldn't. Large components like wings would have to fabricated on-site, such factories and assembly plants would need to be located on major waterways. Anything that can't go by rail or water won't go far at all.

Just thought too. Modern industrial estates would probably still exist where they are now as they are often brown field sites that would have once been rail connected. In a rail centric regime, those rail connections would still exist.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
How do you move something that's 190 ft long by 20 ft wide in our loading gauge? Mind you, they can move a Proton rocket by rail in some places.

You build a short industrial railway, perhaps even (like rocket moving ones) the sort of one where the cariages run on more than two rails, to the barge terminus. Alternatively, you build a spur of the canal.

Of course, you wouldn't be building at Broughton in the first place if you didn't have rubber tyres, as it was built around an airfield. You;d be building at Calshot mindyou!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
They wouldn't. Large components like wings would have to fabricated on-site, such factories and assembly plants would need to be located on major waterways. Anything that can't go by rail or water won't go far at all.

Just thought too. Modern industrial estates would probably still exist where they are now as they are often brown field sites that would have once been rail connected. In a rail centric regime, those rail connections would still exist.

That's true, and that would mean massive networks of sidings all over the place and loads of little industrial shunters to move wagons around. Something like they used to have at Burton-on-Trent for the brewerys. Sounds like an interesting subject to photograph.

A lot of out-of-gauge objects did get shifted around at one point, there were special bell codes for it. This included boilers, industrial equipment (mostly for blast furnaces or refinaries), heavy guns and even a midget submarine on one occasion. Generally, the problem was that it could only be made in one place and was needed in another, so usually it only travelled once.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Were money not a problem, there's about a dozen new stations I would open in Lancashire.

Timetable issues be damned
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
Why am I thinking that all these random branch lines would require ETS equipped shunters? (I'm thinking more a diesel electric Cl14 than Cl08)

You know to take a single coach from a portion working the last 20 miles to the village destination as part of the morning milk/parcels train?
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Why am I thinking that all these random branch lines would require ETS equipped shunters? (I'm thinking more a diesel electric Cl14 than Cl08)

You know to take a single coach from a portion working the last 20 miles to the village destination as part of the morning milk/parcels train?

I could see this system being used instead of single-car DMUs running short-to-medium distances.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
Why am I thinking that all these random branch lines would require ETS equipped shunters? (I'm thinking more a diesel electric Cl14 than Cl08)

You know to take a single coach from a portion working the last 20 miles to the village destination as part of the morning milk/parcels train?

You'd certainly for this sort of thing want everything used in this way fitted with auto-couplers, and ideally push-pull systems
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
You'd certainly for this sort of thing want everything used in this way fitted with auto-couplers, and ideally push-pull systems

Sounds like an excellent idea. Plenty of scope for through coaches that way as well. There's the usual problem with fitting a through coach to a streamlined unit, but nothing is impossible to solve. The alternative would be to make DMUs powerful enough to haul a couple of vehicles, milk tankers or livestock vans perhaps. Tail loads used to be quite common with first-generation units.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
How about having each carriage as a detachable unit, that could be assembled into trains of any desired length to suit demand, with motive power units that could be attached/detached at any convenient location; e.g. you could have an electric motive power unit as far as the wires go, and then swap it for a diesel (or vegetable oil, or coal) powered unit. That way you wouldn't be hauling around unnecessary weight, or more carriages than you need, and you wouldn't need to run diesels under the wires or haul electric units around when they could be used elsewhere. :idea:
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Let's flesh out a few more details. It's already at least the pre-nationalisation network in terms of scale. The Channel Tunnel really did get built in the 1960s after all, and so Britain ended up in the Schengen Agreement. Today, trains from accross Europe regularly arrive in London, including some from as far away as Poland. Some British trains run right through to Europe as well, and the tunnel now sees such heavy use that there are plans to add more bores. Boat trains are another major feature. Although the Chunnel made major inroads into the Channel Packet market, there are still plenty of them, plus a few hovercraft and sea cats. On the domestic side, the continual competition between the Big Four still drives up standards. As well as speed, both Anglo-Scottish companies compete in terms of first class luxury. The Pullman Car Company is still in existance and as good as ever, although the LMS still does not see the need for it, because in-house catering is of equal or better standard. As a result, we see full meal service delivered on many of the fastest trains (rather like GNER in the real world, just better). Also, I like the idea from up the thread of compartments still being available.

Regional expresses are well and truly around. Rather than just a few coaches, many of them are the size of a major London express. They also tend to be loco-hauled rather than fixed-formation, which is quite convenient for adding parcels vans occasionally (more later). Many have full buffet service, and all run at considerable speeds (125 mph in most cases). Where they cross company boundaries, such as at Shrewsbury or Banbury, loco-exchanges can be seen. It is not uncommon to see mixed formations of coaches on such a service, sometimes representing three different companies.

With suburban trains, capacity is of the essance. The Southern's experiment with double-deckers did not work, so all lines did their level best to make platforms longer and increase the numbers of running lines. As suburban towns continued to grow, this ultimately turned out to be impossible. Trains are still overcrowded, but with the switch to containerised freight developing (later, since the idea could not develop from road freight) the idea of expanded loading gauges reappeared, and with it double-deckers.

Local passenger trains tend to be a mixture of DMUs, EMUs and push-pull shuttles. All can carry parcels and very light freight, with a maximum of two small vans or milk tankers coupled to one DMU. However, true mixed trains are often seen in places such as the West Highlands, where you might find six different wagons coupled to two coaches, led by a diesel loco. They run fairly frequently, with some trains "captive" to one route, others more variable. Through coaches from the main line are less common than they used to be, but still found in places such as Devon and Cornwall where loco-hauled expresses still run.

The mail and parcels business is thriving. Royal Mail owns a large fleet of EMUs based on current express passenger trains, plus a fleet of loco-hauled parcels vans which can run as part of a passenger formation if need be. Some of the longer-distance workings carry lightweight sorting machines, although the old practice of exchanging mailbags on the move is now no longer necessary. Stations can act as parcel collection points, and these often go in the guards' vans of passenger trains if need be. In general, if something is delivered to the parcels office at St Ives, it will be available for collection from Wick within 24 hours.

As well as mixed passenger trains, the pick-up goods train is still well-known. Distribution for wagonload traffic is necessarily fairly slow, but massive modern marshalling yards and automated hump shunting can be very efficient. The major concern for private owner wagons is maintenance, although standards have improved in the last 50 years. All vehicles are air-braked now, and brake vans are generally not used.

Full trainload traffic is impressive. Regular production of new freight locomotives continues to this day at Doncaster, Darlington, Crewe, Derby, Swindon and Eastleigh, plus several private firms. The latest LNER "DF-14" Co-Cos can generate 4,000 hp and get a mammoth 2,000 ton coal train up to 60 mph. An alternative "EDF-1" design uses electric power on main lines and diesel power when shunting or on non-electrified sections. Railways are a "common carrier", and have to make an effort to accept anything they can potentially fit through their loading gauge.

The EM-11s that haul the fastest passenger trains can sometimes be found hauling newspapers, milk, fish, livestock and even bananas (which require heated vans). This time-critical traffic is highly profitable and travels just as fast as passenger trains, mostly overnight, but sometimes in broad daylight.

Future prospects look excellent. Although there has been a downturn in traffic recently because of economic problems, there are suggestions that the government might do something different. The new Channel Tunnel well contain a Maglev, with the full line running to Paris and Brussels. There is already a plan for "Maglev 2" to Birmingham, with prospects for more lines to come.

As you can see, the railways are a thriving business, at the heart of the country's economy. Where would we be without them?
 

VTPreston_Tez

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
Were money not a problem, there's about a dozen new stations I would open in Lancashire.

Timetable issues be damned

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

A highspeed line from Glasgow to Europe calling at Preston International, Leeds International, East Midlands International, Tottenham International?, Stratford International, Ebbsfleet International, Ashford International, all via the WCML at 140mph, a new highspeed line PRE-LDS (which would be expensive, if not Crewe and Brum stops instead) and then via ECML and after East Midlands, another high speed line at 185mph, down to the GA lines at 100mph, turning just before Stratford Regional onto HS1.
local services all VT stops GLC-PRE, then Halifax, Bradford and Leeds, then onto a plethora of destinations at high frequency, with branches to Huddersfield, Doncaster, York so the line (pres. HS3 recorded much usage)
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,319
Well, if nuclear was (almost) the only power supply, there would be little coal or oil, and use of the latter would need to be restricted primarily for use in the chemical & manufacturing industries (plastics, medicines, etc.) as it would be too valuable to burn. That rules out most or all diesel operated trains (locos or dmus), especially fuel-hungry types like Voyagers & Class 185.

With no major roads, every large industrial unit would need a private siding, some running via streets from the local goods yards in each town. Motive power on these would have to be battery powered "shunter" types. Horses might be used for some lighter duties.

All main lines would need to be electrified, but the costs of electrification would have meant that many lines to small / remote towns would never have been built. Locations such as Wick, Holyhead, Penzance would only be served by nuclear powered ships of various sizes. As there would be no road competition and no aircraft, the need for high speed rail would be low, and to save energy, few services would operate at more than 90 - 100 mph.

But, as uranium & thorium supplies are not unlimited, we would still be hoping that nuclear fusion power stations can become technically feasible in the next 100 years.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
Well, if nuclear was (almost) the only power supply, there would be little coal or oil, and use of the latter would need to be restricted primarily for use in the chemical & manufacturing industries (plastics, medicines, etc.) as it would be too valuable to burn. That rules out most or all diesel operated trains (locos or dmus), especially fuel-hungry types like Voyagers & Class 185.
Actually the switch to nuclear based domestic and industrial energy would free current coal reserves (and even now it is estimated that current British coal production of 17 million tonnes per annum can be sustained for many decades, if not centuries) to be supplied as synthetic fuels totally near 200,000 barrels per day. (This translates to nearly 11.6 billion vehicle-km per year for Cl22x)
This is easily enough when combined with nuclear derived hydrogen to improve the efficiency of the process, this is especially true due to the lack of private road fuel consumption.

This is even true if any available oil and shale gas is used entirely for chemical purposes (natural gas would not be used as hydrogen as that would be derived electrolytically with off peak electricity).

With no major roads, every large industrial unit would need a private siding, some running via streets from the local goods yards in each town. Motive power on these would have to be battery powered "shunter" types. Horses might be used for some lighter duties.
Well if you don't want internal combustion powered engines, you could deploy 750V tram style power supplies on some runs, using low cost Trampower (TM) designed equipment. (They claim £50k for 1200m).

But, as uranium & thorium supplies are not unlimited, we would still be hoping that nuclear fusion power stations can become technically feasible in the next 100 years.

Well we don't really need fusion since in this reality fast breeders are not a political anethema, once this far easier technical challenge is beaten and a cheap FBR becomes available granite becomes a viable ore for uranium and thorium. (Granite would have an energy value 25 times that of coal by mass)
 
Last edited:

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well if you don't want internal combustion powered engines, you could deploy 750V tram style power supplies on some runs, using low cost Trampower (TM) designed equipment. (They claim £50k for 1200m).

The way I've been playing the scenario, a world without rubber tyres, there is no particular reason why Rudolph Diesel would not develop a new type of engine for ships and stationary applications. The question is whether it would catch on. If it did not, electricity is not the only alternative. There are gas turbines, steam turbines, Stirling engines and quite a few other ideas. Even a modernised version of these is possible. I'm currently using "diesel" to refer to something that carries its own power source.

Well we don't really need fusion since in this reality fast breeders are not a political anethema, once this far easier technical challenge is beaten and a cheap FBR becomes available granite becomes a viable ore for uranium and thorium. (Granite would have an energy value 25 times that of coal by mass)

Sounds like Aberdeen is getting an energy boom after all. I quite like the idea of the Fast Breeder City! :D
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
As well as speed, both Anglo-Scottish companies compete in terms of first class luxury. The Pullman Car Company is still in existance and as good as ever, although the LMS still does not see the need for it, because in-house catering is of equal or better standard. As a result, we see full meal service delivered on many of the fastest trains (rather like GNER in the real world, just better). Also, I like the idea from up the thread of compartments still being available.

The catering on British train companies' services has become so good that it also provides cafés and home delivery services for the British and European public. The craze for British railway cuisine has extended to most of Europe and a sizeable chunk of Asia. Factories employing the latest technology and skilled chefs will output a decent range of quality goods to be delivered at the appropriate temperature to the entire European rail network, with all goods remaining fresh due to the speeds available. It is even common for an award-winning pie to be delivered to your house in Lisbon, Milan or Istanbul, having been cooked on the final leg of its swift journey from Preston, Lincoln or Glasgow.

As a result, the agricultural industries and machinery industries in Britain are booming, with goods traded via the railways. Farmers are on excellent terms with the railways, with farmyards equipped with simple but effective sidings and goods facilities. Technology has advanced to such an extent that the growing of organic crops and the rearing of free-range animals is relatively easy and most certainly the norm.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
A strong agricultural industry pretty much requires organic be dropped due to reduced yields.
The Organic food bubble is largely sustained by the lack of high quality non-organic alternatives. (It is largely organic or bog standard).

Additionally a largely nuclear energy grid removes any of the carbon-emission arguments against nitrogen fertilisers, as nuclear derived hydrogen (either Copper-Chlorine cycle or off peak electrolysis) allows the generation of hydrogen for ammonia (assuming we don't get the single step solid state ammonia synthesis process working soon) allows zero impact fertilisers to become a reality.
 
Last edited:

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,319
Actually the switch to nuclear based domestic and industrial energy would free current coal reserves (and even now it is estimated that current British coal production of 17 million tonnes per annum can be sustained for many decades, if not centuries) to be supplied as synthetic fuels totally near 200,000 barrels per day. (This translates to nearly 11.6 billion vehicle-km per year for Cl22x)
This is easily enough when combined with nuclear derived hydrogen to improve the efficiency of the process, this is especially true due to the lack of private road fuel consumption.


Well we don't really need fusion since in this reality fast breeders are not a political anethema, once this far easier technical challenge is beaten and a cheap FBR becomes available granite becomes a viable ore for uranium and thorium. (Granite would have an energy value 25 times that of coal by mass)

My thoughts were based on a scenario that nuclear power had become a necessity only because we had only small reserves of carbon-based fuels. Of course, with nuclear electricity, we could produce almost limitless hydrogen from sea water and use compressed hydrogen as a fuel - but having seen photos of the R101 disaster, I am not sure I would want to sit over (or under) a large reservoir of compressed or liquid hydrogen.

Some, maybe all, of the fast breeder reactor designs operate at higher temperatures than other nuclear reactors. That creates problems with the containment vessels, with increased corrosion and stress-related failures, especially in designs using liquid sodium as coolant. They worked, many of the problems could have been solved - at a cost, but they would almost all be more expensive to build & operate than conventional reactors.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
My thoughts were based on a scenario that nuclear power had become a necessity only because we had only small reserves of carbon-based fuels. Of course, with nuclear electricity, we could produce almost limitless hydrogen from sea water and use compressed hydrogen as a fuel - but having seen photos of the R101 disaster, I am not sure I would want to sit over (or under) a large reservoir of compressed or liquid hydrogen.
Well the hydrogen would be reacted with atmospheric carbon dioxide to manufacture methanol which could either be used as a fuel cell or combustio engine fuel directly or you can use the mobil process to produce hydrocarbon fuels.

Some, maybe all, of the fast breeder reactor designs operate at higher temperatures than other nuclear reactors. That creates problems with the containment vessels, with increased corrosion and stress-related failures, especially in designs using liquid sodium as coolant. They worked, many of the problems could have been solved - at a cost, but they would almost all be more expensive to build & operate than conventional reactors.

Indeed, thermal reactors are certainly more practical in the medium term, but in the very long term I believe it will be far cheaper than fusion for the same effective result (essentially unexhaustible energy supply).
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
My thoughts were based on a scenario that nuclear power had become a necessity only because we had only small reserves of carbon-based fuels. Of course, with nuclear electricity, we could produce almost limitless hydrogen from sea water and use compressed hydrogen as a fuel - but having seen photos of the R101 disaster, I am not sure I would want to sit over (or under) a large reservoir of compressed or liquid hydrogen.

It's no more dangerous than petrol. Possibly less so in that it ignaites spontaneously at a higher temperature and disperses easily rather than forming into puddles if there is a leak. Having vast quantities in an enormous balloon surrounded by oxygen-rich air is clearly somewhat different from carrying it around in a cryogenic cylinder, or just an ordinary gas cylinder. That would be similar to storing petrol in a wooden barrell - rather than a jerry can perhaps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top