Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening?

The Ham · 11 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
One can also add the inefficiency of the private motor vehicle in terms of usage- they spend 95% of their life times unused and storage space has to be found for them which is a huge problem in urban centres and for those that live in older housing/flats.

Even in new build houses a three bedroom house will often have two or three car parking spaces, which take up 25-40m2 of side whilst the house will often take up about 50m2 whilst the garden (if you are lucky) will be circa 75m2.

That means of a total 150-165m2 plot size about 15-25% of the land you own is used for parking.

For flats it's not uncommon for 50% of the land space needed for parking.

Then there's so the work spaces (which are empty when the house spaces are full) which again can be 50% of the land use.

That's a lot of wasted space which could be used for other things. It's also a lot of space which needs to be drained which adds to development costs.

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 Jul 2018

It is a wonder why those who espouse rail travel do not have Damascene moments in their backward-looking view of the future and plead the case for the total canalisation of the railway system.

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
Even in new build houses a three bedroom house will often have two or three car parking spaces, which take up 25-40m2 of side whilst the house will often take up about 50m2 whilst the garden (if you are lucky) will be circa 75m2.

That means of a total 150-165m2 plot size about 15-25% of the land you own is used for parking.

For flats it's not uncommon for 50% of the land space needed for parking.

Then there's so the work spaces (which are empty when the house spaces are full) which again can be 50% of the land use.

That's a lot of wasted space which could be used for other things. It's also a lot of space which needs to be drained which adds to development costs.

Is this view commonly shared in the large Asian economic countries, such as Japan, South Korea, et.

A0wen · 11 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
It is a wonder why those who espouse rail travel do not have Damscene moments in their backward-looking view of the future and plead the case for the total canalisation of the railway system.

Not for the first time - where's the 'like' button when needed ?

To take your point though Paul, I think most of them don't go back beyond about 1955 in their view to the past. The fact that for 30 years the railways were hemorrhaging both money and passengers is merely an inconvenient fact that is the result of poor government decisions.... nothing to do with people actually choosing of their own free will to do something different.

DynamicSpirit · 11 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
It is a wonder why those who espouse rail travel do not have Damscene moments in their backward-looking view of the future and plead the case for the total canalisation of the railway system.

I don't think that's very fair. I can't speak for everyone, and maybe there are some people who - as you put it 'espouse rail travel' for historical-sentimental reasons. But many of us, myself included, argue for rail travel and against investing in roads for the very practical reason that roads are inherently high-polluting and low capacity, and therefore do not offer a practical long-term solution to congestion etc. It seems to me that it is those who argue for road investment who are by and large backwards looking - because those who argue for road investment have clearly not learned the lessons of the last 50 or so years: That improving road capacity as a way to ease congestion rarely works, and almost always ends up self-defeating.

A0wen · 11 Jul 2018

DynamicSpirit said:
I don't think that's very fair. I can't speak for everyone, and maybe there are some people who - as you put it 'espouse rail travel' for historical-sentimental reasons. But many of us, myself included, argue for rail travel and against investing in roads for the very practical reason that roads are inherently high-polluting and low capacity, and therefore do not offer a practical long-term solution to congestion etc. It seems to me that it is those who argue for road investment who are by and large backwards looking - because those who argue for road investment have clearly not learned the lessons of the last 50 or so years: That improving road capacity as a way to ease congestion rarely works, and almost always ends up self-defeating.

Nice try - except public transport is inherently inefficient - you can only travel at times dictated by others and not necessarily to the destination you require.

With a population heading towards 70 million there needs to be capacity introduced into the transport network which works for the majority. The rail network works if (i) you are close to a station (ii) your destination is close to a station (iii) the train runs when you need it to. Which is why for commuting into London and a slightly lesser extent Manchester or Birmingham makes some sense. And it's why if your commuting from Wellingborough to Kettering it makes precisely no sense at all - for those not familiar, neither have their stations near the main areas of employment in their respective towns and they are about 6 miles apart - by the time you've driven to the station and waited for the train you could have completed half your journey.

Gareth Marston · 11 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Nice try - except public transport is inherently inefficient - you can only travel at times dictated by others and not necessarily to the destination you require.

With a population heading towards 70 million there needs to be capacity introduced into the transport network which works for the majority. The rail network works if (i) you are close to a station (ii) your destination is close to a station (iii) the train runs when you need it to. Which is why for commuting into London and a slightly lesser extent Manchester or Birmingham makes some sense. And it's why if your commuting from Wellingborough to Kettering it makes precisely no sense at all - for those not familiar, neither have their stations near the main areas of employment in their respective towns and they are about 6 miles apart - by the time you've driven to the station and waited for the train you could have completed half your journey.

I, me , me, I never mind the huge downsides on society as whole you want the perceived personal convenience of motoring. That's fair enough but the reality is we have to compromise as not everyone can have what they want and that includes you. The roads are never going to be free from other traffic and congestion unless we have viable alternatives and give people a choice instead of forcing them into unsustainable car dependency.

Once we have achieved that you never know you might be able to drive down the mythical open road to your hearts content?

A0wen · 11 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
I, me , me, I never mind the huge downsides on society as whole you want the perceived personal convenience of motoring. That's fair enough but the reality is we have to compromise as not everyone can have what they want and that includes you. The roads are never going to be free from other traffic and congestion unless we have viable alternatives and give people a choice instead of forcing them into unsustainable car dependency.

Once we have achieved that you never know you might be able to drive down the mythical open road to your hearts content?

Look - if you want to tell people that a journey which should take 30 mins in a car should take over an hour by train and can only be done when the trains are running then fine - you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised if people don't fall into line with your expectations.

As I've pointed out - if people are travelling into London they'll use the train, why? Because it's usually quicker and more convenient. But that applies less in the other major cities in the UK such as Manchester or Birmingham and really doesn't wash in rural or semi rural areas.

The A5 is a major trunk route even now. That it's not been invested in and is now congested is not acceptable, but trying to claim that reinstating a long closed railway line to a town of 17,000 people will solve this is deluded. And therein lies the problem - you want to force people to behave in the way you think they should and they should pay for the privilege, unless you think there is this mythical group of "rich" people who will just pay for all your mad whims.

Many people claim the UK rail network is inferior to others on Europe - but take a look at rural areas of France, they don't have anything like the rail network you're suggesting rural areas of the UK should have. The French have also invested quite heavily in their road network.

yoyothehobo · 11 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Look - if you want to tell people that a journey which should take 30 mins in a car should take over an hour by train and can only be done when the trains are running then fine - you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised if people don't fall into line with your expectations.

As I've pointed out - if people are travelling into London they'll use the train, why? Because it's usually quicker and more convenient. But that applies less in the other major cities in the UK such as Manchester or Birmingham and really doesn't wash in rural or semi rural areas.

The A5 is a major trunk route even now. That it's not been invested in and is now congested is not acceptable, but trying to claim that reinstating a long closed railway line to a town of 17,000 people will solve this is deluded. And therein lies the problem - you want to force people to behave in the way you think they should and they should pay for the privilege, unless you think there is this mythical group of "rich" people who will just pay for all your mad whims.

Many people claim the UK rail network is inferior to others on Europe - but take a look at rural areas of France, they don't have anything like the rail network you're suggesting rural areas of the UK should have. The French have also invested quite heavily in their road network.

I guess it all comes down to what you want the railway to do and what you think it is best at. I recently with my wife traveled from Leeds to Hitchin and back via Northampton on the next day. Leeds to Hitchin by Train is nice and easy, it was an easy drive as well, but about an hour longer than the train.
The problem is getting to Northampton than back to Leeds the next day, the quickest way was into London then out to Northampton. Then its awkward to get from Northampton back to Leeds. That journey was over twice as long as the car.

The cost of that one journey at late notice for two people without a rail card was more than the combined cost of fuel for the journey, my insurance for the month and my payment for the car for the month.

Now you could say that if there was an east-west rail link (imagine) nearby that would solve the problem, but it would still result in myriad changes of trains which we know people dont particularly like doing and every change results in a longer journey. This situation will exist in multiple variations over the country and would only really be changed by having a very dense rail network that would be completely unworkable and unsustainable.

I envy the French network, not for its local connections but for the availability (and cheapness) and speed of getting quickly between cities.

The Ham · 11 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
As I've pointed out - if people are travelling into London they'll use the train, why? Because it's usually quicker and more convenient. But that applies less in the other major cities in the UK such as Manchester or Birmingham and really doesn't wash in rural or semi rural areas.

Remind me to quote this post when people complain about their not being enough money spent on Rail in their area!

In seriousness, rail is never going to cater for all travel. However by making small step changes across the network as a whole, (such as small reopenings, funding ways of increasing frequencies and capacity, new trains, electrification, etc) then more people would be included to use rail.

If more people use rail then (if in large enough numbers) there should be less need for new roads and the problems that they cause (including increasing congestion elsewhere).

AndrewE · 11 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
You are more fortunate than I in that our residence is two miles away from the nearest railway station and the nearest bus stop.

If there isn't a suitable bus service within walking distance you could always use a pushbike, or get a taxi if you had too much luggage. It works in Holland, the trouble is that in the UK people think that using their own muscles is beneath them. And look at the relative levels of health & fitness (and pollution) in the 2 countries.

Altfish · 11 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
If there isn't a suitable bus service within walking distance you could always use a pushbike, or get a taxi if you had too much luggage. It works in Holland, the trouble is that in the UK people think that using their own muscles is beneath them. And look at the relative levels of health & fitness (and pollution) in the 2 countries.

That's fine if you are not 60+ years old with arthritis.

A0wen · 11 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
If there isn't a suitable bus service within walking distance you could always use a pushbike, or get a taxi if you had too much luggage. It works in Holland, the trouble is that in the UK people think that using their own muscles is beneath them. And look at the relative levels of health & fitness (and pollution) in the 2 countries.

Perhaps another factor is country size and population density?

Holland 5,488 sq km, population density 1,200 / sq km.
Netherlands 41,543 sq km, population density 415 / sq km
UK 242,495 sq km, population density 270 / sq km.

A0wen · 11 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
Remind me to quote this post when people complain about their not being enough money spent on Rail in their area!

In seriousness, rail is never going to cater for all travel. However by making small step changes across the network as a whole, (such as small reopenings, funding ways of increasing frequencies and capacity, new trains, electrification, etc) then more people would be included to use rail.

If more people use rail then (if in large enough numbers) there should be less need for new roads and the problems that they cause (including increasing congestion elsewhere).

The thing with reopenings though is they need to be sensible and serve a useful purpose.

The Borders line did - places like Hawick and Galashiels were over 30 miles from the nearest railhead, clearly putting them at a disadvantage.

Oswestry (the subject of another thread) is less than 4 miles. Of the Aberystwyth - Camarthen line there it's less than 20, because for places like Lampeter the link is onto the HoW line at Llandovery.

Reopenings should be focused on places where there are already capacity issues, just tacking odd places of 10,000 - 20,000 back onto the network isn't going to achieve anything useful. Wisbech is a case in point - yes, you can run trains from Wisbech to Cambridge, except the lines from Cambridge are already busy and sending a train to Wisbech means it won't be sent to somewhere where there is already higher demand.

The Ham · 11 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Perhaps another factor is country size and population density?

Holland 5,488 sq km, population density 1,200 / sq km.
Netherlands 41,543 sq km, population density 415 / sq km
UK 242,495 sq km, population density 270 / sq km.

However if you excluded the fairly empty Scotland and Wales; England had a population density of 420 / sq km (even then there's lots of areas where population levels are low, for instance Cornwall and the Lake District).

With parts of London having figures of over 10,000 / sq km.

As such where the majority of people live population density is comparable or higher.

[Edit, corrected typo]

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
If there isn't a suitable bus service within walking distance you could always use a pushbike, or get a taxi if you had too much luggage. It works in Holland, the trouble is that in the UK people think that using their own muscles is beneath them. And look at the relative levels of health & fitness (and pollution) in the 2 countries.

I have just been speaking on the telephone to my consultant and put the point about the use of a bicycle in my post-stroke condition (suffered in July 2012) at my current age of 73 and his response was.....

"Since I asked you to give up driving the car because the daily six-drug medication prescribed affects your spatial awareness, you would still be a risk to other road users if riding a bicycle"

My good lady wife, Patricia, at the vintage age of 76 and with the constitution of "a spring chicken" still drives her Land Rover Discovery.

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
However if you excluded the fairy empty Scotland and Wales; England had a population density of 420 / sq km (even then there's lots of areas where population levels are low, for instance Cornwall and the Lake District).

I am saddened to hear that fairies have become extinct in both of Scotland and Wales.

Llanigraham · 11 Jul 2018

Try looking at the population densities in this part of the world:
Powys 27 people per sq km
Ceredigion 129 p/sq km

And this map:
http://www.plumplot.co.uk/Dyfed-population.html

There is no way that a line between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen can be economically viable, and that ignores the sheer expense of what really would be building a new line over much of the route.

yoyothehobo · 11 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am saddened to hear that fairies have become extinct in both of Scotland and Wales.

Probably more chance of the fairies coming back than Carmarthen to Aberystwyth

The Ham · 11 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am saddened to hear that fairies have become extinct in both of Scotland and Wales.

They have gone to where the work is!

DynamicSpirit · 11 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Look - if you want to tell people that a journey which should take 30 mins in a car should take over an hour by train and can only be done when the trains are running then fine - you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised if people don't fall into line with your expectations.

Since this this is more relevant to the Oswestry thread, I've replied to this post here (post 258)

AndrewE · 11 Jul 2018

Altfish said:
That's fine if you are not 60+ years old with arthritis.

I (and my wife) are both well over 60, and may not have arthritis because we cycle. Try reading this:https://www.livestrong.com/article/178752-how-to-cycle-with-knee-arthritis/

Arthritis in the knee can cause pain and stiffness and it may seem best to avoid exercise. However, the right level and kind of exercise can actually help improve symptoms. Bicycling is often a good option because it is non weight bearing and can help to strengthen the muscles of the legs.

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I have just been speaking on the telephone to my consultant and put the point about the use of a bicycle in my post-stroke condition (suffered in July 2012) at my current age of 73 and his response was.....
"Since I asked you to give up driving the car because the daily six-drug medication prescribed affects your spatial awareness, you would still be a risk to other road users if riding a bicycle"

My good lady wife, Patricia, at the vintage age of 76 and with the constitution of "a spring chicken" still drives her Land Rover Discovery.

You won't pose much of a risk to others though... but I wonder how much others are at risk from her driving? Far too many cyclists are killed by elderly motorists who won't admit they should have given up, fortunately my father in law only killed himself, and both my parents gave up voluntarily in good time. Your wife might go on a lot longer too if she starts taking exercise...

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
You won't pose much of a risk to others though... but I wonder how much others are at risk from her driving? Far too many cyclists are killed by elderly motorists who won't admit they should have given up, fortunately my father in law only killed himself, and both my parents gave up voluntarily in good time. Your wife might go on a lot longer too if she starts taking exercise...

Patricia, having seen what you say above, responds with the fact that she has for very many years been an "advanced driver" to use a commonly-known name and she is a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. As part of our personal medical package, she is evaluated on an annual basis on matters such as reaction times, spatial awareness, etc. She always achieves a high assessment rating score. I hope that allays your fears stated in your posting.

Patricia was somewhat annoyed to see that you think she does not take enough exercise and wonders how you came to such a reasoning without any knowledge of how much exercise she takes. She assures you, nonetheless, that she takes brisk daily walks in the rural area in which we so reside.

ChiefPlanner · 12 Jul 2018

yoyothehobo said:
Probably more chance of the fairies coming back than Carmarthen to Aberystwyth

Bilingual please - "Tylwyth teg / Fairies"

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
Even in new build houses a three bedroom house will often have two or three car parking spaces, which take up 25-40m2 of side whilst the house will often take up about 50m2 whilst the garden (if you are lucky) will be circa 75m2.

That means of a total 150-165m2 plot size about 15-25% of the land you own is used for parking. For flats it's not uncommon for 50% of the land space needed for parking. Then there's so the work spaces (which are empty when the house spaces are full) which again can be 50% of the land use. That's a lot of wasted space which could be used for other things. It's also a lot of space which needs to be drained which adds to development costs.

How do housing associations allow for this in their new-build properties?

A0wen · 12 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
How do housing associations allow for this in their new-build properties?

Because 'The Ham's figures are wrong. I believe the current government guidance for a 3 bed house is 1.5 spaces / house - less for a smaller house.

So with flats for example you may have less than 1 space / flat.

The Ham · 12 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Because 'The Ham's figures are wrong. I believe the current government guidance for a 3 bed house is 1.5 spaces / house - less for a smaller house.

So with flats for example you may have less than 1 space / flat.

The national government has no guidelines for parking provision.

Local governments (District Councils) have various standards depending on where they are. London will have much stricter standards than somewhere much more rural.

Even then some parking standards are minimums whilst others are maximums.

As such 2 or 3 parking spaces is not uncommon for 3 bed houses (although this often includes their provision for visitor spaces).

Again flats can have more than 1 parking space, especially when you consider the visitor parking provision. However it's also possible for blocks of flats to have a handful of parking spaces (way less than 1 space per flat, sometimes less than 1 space per 10 flats).

Rhydgaled · 15 Jul 2018

A0wen said:
Nice try - except public transport is inherently inefficient - you can only travel at times dictated by others and not necessarily to the destination you require.

With a population heading towards 70 million there needs to be capacity introduced into the transport network which works for the majority. The rail network works if (i) you are close to a station (ii) your destination is close to a station (iii) the train runs when you need it to.

Public transport; inherently inefficient???? No, just NO. What you have described is not inefficientcy but a lack of flexibility. Public transport is inherently inflexible; it is private motorised transport that is inherently inefficient.

Llanigraham said:
There is no way that a line between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen can be economically viable, and that ignores the sheer expense of what really would be building a new line over much of the route.

Very few railways (in the UK at least) are truely economically viable (as in financially profitable). For me, the question with Carmarthen-Aberystwyth is whether it would induce sufficient modal shift from private cars to result in an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions. I am not sure whether it would or not, and for that reason am not sure whether I should support the scheme or oppose it.

It would be interesting to know what the running costs of an hourly 2-car train (assume class 158s) between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen would be; and similarly what the running costs of a bus service are. I wonder if the following bus services (frequencies in buses per hour (bph)) could be provided for less than the cost of the train service:

1bph TrawsCymru Aberystwyth-Aberaeron-Lampeter-Pencarreg-Alltwalis-Carmarthen (NOTE: Pencader would not be served by this service)
1bph Aberystwyth-Llanfarian-Llanilar-Tregaron, with 0.5bph continuing to Lampeter (and Aberaeron / New Quay) as part of the following service
0.5bph (New Quay)-Aberaeron-Cribyn-Llanwnnen-Lampeter-Tregaron
0.5bph (New Quay)-Aberaeron-Lampeter-Llanwnnen-Pencader-Alltwalis-Carmarthen
0.5bph Llandysul-Pencader-Alltwalis-Carmarthen
0.5bph Pencader - Llanfihangel-ar-arth - Llanwnnen - Lampeter

The above would combine to give:

2bph between Aberaeron and Lampeter
1.5bph between Lampeter and Carmarthen
1bph between Pencader and Carmarthen
1bph between Pencader and Lampeter

A0wen said:
Look - if you want to tell people that a journey which should take 30 mins in a car should take over an hour by train and can only be done when the trains are running then fine - you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised if people don't fall into line with your expectations.

That argument applies more to bus services than to rail. A bus journey, outside a big congested city with bus lanes, will almost always take longer than by car. The same is not true of trains. Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury takes around 2 hours, both by rail and by car; other routes are faster than driving and, yes, some are slower. IF the plans for a new Carmarthen-Aberystwyth line would result in a journey time slower than driving then I absolutely agree with those who say that it would be a waste of money to build the line. Beat the car journey time or don't bother with a railway, simple as that.

If a rail link cannot compete on journey time, then you might as well run buses. If pepole are made to understand the environmental benifits of travelling by bus and the buses are cheap enough, run frequently enough and are not excessively slow then we might be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions without the expense of building a railway.

Bald Rick · 15 Jul 2018

Rhydgaled said:
Public transport; inherently inefficient???? No, just NO. What you have described is not inefficientcy but a lack of flexibility. Public transport is inherently inflexible; it is private motorised transport that is inherently inefficient.

Very few railways (in the UK at least) are truely economically viable (as in financially profitable). For me, the question with Carmarthen-Aberystwyth is whether it would induce sufficient modal shift from private cars to result in an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions. I am not sure whether it would or not, and for that reason am not sure whether I should support the scheme or oppose it.

It would be interesting to know what the running costs of an hourly 2-car train (assume class 158s) between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen would be; and similarly what the running costs of a bus service are. I wonder if the following bus services (frequencies in buses per hour (bph)) could be provided for less than the cost of the train service:

1bph TrawsCymru Aberystwyth-Aberaeron-Lampeter-Pencarreg-Alltwalis-Carmarthen (NOTE: Pencader would not be served by this service)

1bph Aberystwyth-Llanfarian-Llanilar-Tregaron, with 0.5bph continuing to Lampeter (and Aberaeron / New Quay) as part of the following service

0.5bph (New Quay)-Aberaeron-Cribyn-Llanwnnen-Lampeter-Tregaron

0.5bph (New Quay)-Aberaeron-Lampeter-Llanwnnen-Pencader-Alltwalis-Carmarthen

0.5bph Llandysul-Pencader-Alltwalis-Carmarthen

0.5bph Pencader - Llanfihangel-ar-arth - Llanwnnen - Lampeter

The above would combine to give:

2bph between Aberaeron and Lampeter

1.5bph between Lampeter and Carmarthen

1bph between Pencader and Carmarthen

1bph between Pencader and Lampeter

That argument applies more to bus services than to rail. A bus journey, outside a big congested city with bus lanes, will almost always take longer than by car. The same is not true of trains. Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury takes around 2 hours, both by rail and by car; other routes are faster than driving and, yes, some are slower. IF the plans for a new Carmarthen-Aberystwyth line would result in a journey time slower than driving then I absolutely agree with those who say that it would be a waste of money to build the line. Beat the car journey time or don't bother with a railway, simple as that.

If a rail link cannot compete on journey time, then you might as well run buses. If pepole are made to understand the environmental benifits of travelling by bus and the buses are cheap enough, run frequently enough and are not excessively slow then we might be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions without the expense of building a railway.

Public transport is grossly inefficient if there’s no demand.

You can be reasonably sure that, with the demand of this line, the emissions (of all types) from an hourly 2 car 158 would be substantially higher than if every passenger on the route drove a reasonably modern car for the journey.

Running costs for an hourly service on the line would be in the order of £5m-£7m pa and that doesn’t include track access charges (which would be another couple of million or so). And that assumes someone is happy to build a billion pound railway and not pay back the debt or interest.

You can get a phenomenal amount of bus / coach mileage for that sort of cash, and save the country a billion pounds for far more important things.

Altfish · 15 Jul 2018

You can fall asleep on the train or admire the scenery.

Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member