• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Rail accounts for only 2% of all trips made

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A very good point. Even simple things need fixing.

At present, Ormskirk-Preston is operated on a "circuit" of Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool S-Preston-Colne-Preston-Ormskirk. However, each leg is shown as a separate train in the timetable even though it is actually three through services - Ormskirk-Blackpool S, Blackpool S-Colne, Colne-Ormskirk (with a reverse).

The effect of this is that if you try to plan a journey from Ormskirk to Blackpool South, the connection "misses" at Preston (as the stop is only 2 minutes) and so you get shown a journey 62 minutes longer than it actually is. You could think "well, nobody will do that" - but how's about a family day out from Ormskirk to Blackpool Pleasure Beach? No, they'll drive in half what the journey planner tells them.

This is utter lunacy and will be putting people off travelling by train, and it would be so easy to fix. I believe the reason for not showing as through services was to avoid confusion by the lack of direct "train pairs" i.e. that you can get a direct train out but not back. But the downsides to my mind outweigh the upsides massively.

To add insult to injury, RTT suggests that LNR are about to do exactly the same thing at New St.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
Yes. But my local station charges a shedload of cash for parking. We have 3 buses a day from where i live so not help there.

So locals dont use the train. Once you are in your car its easier to just carry on to your destination.

I got a train just after 11 the other day. Rammed. But Northern thought a 2 car 158 was enough. So £7 to stand by the doors listening to the drivers AWS going ping.

Just not enough train so often.
Park and ride works when it is easier and cheaper to park at the interchange that at the destination.
I never drove to work in London as the combination of congesion charge and parking would outweigh the fare and station parking before considering the actual petrol. Similarly to go shopping in Oxford it is cheaper to leave the car at Thornhill even if I forget my ENCTS pass.

On the other hand if I need transport from the destination terminus then it is usually easier and cheaper to drive all the way.

Of course if, apart from a few very specific times, I didn't need to use the car for the first leg of any journey it would be a different matter. Even to become one of those "evil pensioners" who supposedly spend their days exploiting ENCTS I would need to drive to a town and pay for parking in order to get a bus any distance.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
But in the North we actually don't. Platforms are, for historical reasons, far longer than they need to be in most areas. Significant improvement could be brought on by simply ordering rolling stock.

I'm sure others could point out critical stations that certainly need more effective platform space. St Pancras is one that springs to mind, and Manchester Airport. When things are going to plan they cope. Add more length or numbers of trains and then have a few delays and things quickly start to go wrong.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm sure others could point out critical stations that certainly need more effective platform space. St Pancras is one that springs to mind, and Manchester Airport. When things are going to plan they cope. Add more length or numbers of trains and then have a few delays and things quickly start to go wrong.

Without hijacking this thread for it, you already know my views on Manchester Airport, and were they implemented you could easily have longer TPE services terminating in the low-numbered platforms at Picc instead.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
How about looking at things differently. Most of the talk here is about longer trains, more seats, etc., to get even more people onto the already popular/congested routes. Same over on the HS2 thread. I.e. all geared around services that are already well used.

How about looking at areas/services which aren't well used for rail travel due to inadequate timetabling, inconvenient (or no) station locations. What about areas where there is perfectly good infrastructure but poorly timetabled trains? How about looking at areas where most people don't use trains and ask why? What would make them use trains? Look at where, for example, you have two towns, just 20 miles apart, but each on a branch line (both branches coming off a main line), with no direct trains (yet a direct train is possible as the tracks are there), and having to make two changes at a main line station to get from town A to town B which makes a 25 minute car journey into a 90 minute train journey (where less than 30 minutes of that is actually on a train, rest of time is waiting at the 2 stations to change).

Train travel seems to be all about just maintaining diagrams/services from a historical perspective, i.e. what we do today, and no "blue sky thinking" about new routes that could simply and easily be added which have the potential of increasing passenger numbers. Yes, I know there are lots of places that are already "full" with existing services, but there are also lots of areas that aren't.

Indeed, in the South East there's lots of in to/out of London lines, but only a few interact with the around London lines (which in turn tend to be lightly used) very well.

Now if you were to build a junction between the two with outwards facing cords you could allow passengers to travel between the two lines, allow people from the around lines to get to London more easily, allow people to travel more easily between two in/out lines and could increase local train frequencies on the in/out lines which are often limited by capacity further into London.

Mostly the track is there, it's just a case of building a new junction (circa £100 million) which in rail terms isn't a lot, yet would open up a lot of rail journeys which currently aren't possible whist also improving frequencies which makes rail more attractive (you're unlikely to be interested to catch a train when you have to wait 30 minutes between services for a 10-15 minute journey, but cut that to 20 minutes between services and it is a lot more attractive).

Likewise more bimodal trains could allow more local travel between stations either side of the end of electrification.

As a case study, the stopping trains to Basingstoke could be extended to Salisbury given direct services to settlements either side of Basingstoke, which currently often involves a long change at Basingstoke. Given that doing so would result in less movements across the junction at Basingstoke and would be adding 2tph onto a double track railway with 2tph (plus some freight) it wouldn't cause any capacity problems. The other advantage is that smaller stations West of Basingstoke would see an improvement in services, potential from 1tph to 3tph (although chances are the existing services would probably skip or skip/stop these stations, at least of peak, but that's still 2tph Vs 1tph).

The services would also likely be 8 coaches long rather than the typical 3 or 6 coaches, meaning loads of extra space, meaning that you could offer lots of cheap advanced tickets to make it even more attractive. For instance charge £3 (the same as parking in Basingstoke for 2-3 hours) flat rate for any station West of Basingstoke to Basingstoke and you would attract a lot of people.

Open a new station at Oakley or nearby where there's hundreds of hours planned and although you wouldn't fill the circa 500 seats on the trains you would go a LONG way to doing so and therefore justify the extra costs in running the services (break even is probably about 75 to 150 people per train at £3 a return with the higher figure being to allow for loss of income from the previously higher ticket prices).

That's then more passengers on more trains but no extra track required, so a fairly easy win. Especially if you can get the ticket prices right so that it generates extra profits.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
Indeed, in the South East there's lots of in to/out of London lines, but only a few interact with the around London lines (which in turn tend to be lightly used) very well.

Another good example of history and present routes dictating the future, rather than looking at new options.

Just like how most stations are in city centres - fine when people lived and worked in the city centres, but now people live in the suburbs and they work in out of town retail/business parks, so there's the added cost/inconvenience of travel in/out of the city centre. We need loads of "out of town" stations to cater for people who don't live and work in the town centres - yes, I know there are a few, but nowhere near enough if we are serious about increasing train passengers.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Mostly the track is there, it's just a case of building a new junction (circa £100 million) which in rail terms isn't a lot, yet would open up a lot of rail journeys which currently aren't possible whist also improving frequencies which makes rail more attractive (you're unlikely to be interested to catch a train when you have to wait 30 minutes between services for a 10-15 minute journey, but cut that to 20 minutes between services and it is a lot more attractive).
The railway was for the last decade or so been in a position of benefiting from a virtuous circle where investment in small enhancements such as chords and reinstatement of running roads lost in the nationalised era have had massive network effects - a little addition makes all the rest of the network more valuable. While there are a few schemes like this still left, it is just as well we are finally grasping the nettle before the industry has no option but to tackle the really big still like new routes.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,401
In passing, the general public (including me) get a little hacked at this constant reference (TfL especially) that we can "easily" walk or cycle some journey. If it was easy we would do it. Our school (nowadays inner London) is 9 minutes away by car. Walking? Probably 1.5 hours. And do we have to walk home the same afterwards, and walk it again in the afternoon to collect them? Have those suggesting this ever walked such distances with young children?

A 1.5 hour walk in a dense urban area won't be more than 4 miles. That is an easy cycling distance, taking half an hour at the absolute maximum. People make all sorts of excuses for using cars when it is really not as essential as they want to believe, it is largely a combination of laziness and fear of getting wet (which can be solved by dressing appropriately for the conditions). Safety is thrown about as another excuse, but that is another example of perception over-riding reality, cycling is a very safe activity, as safe as walking according to the real world data. It would be even safer if so many people didn't drive distances that could easily be done on foot, bicycle or by bus.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The railway was for the last decade or so been in a position of benefiting from a virtuous circle where investment in small enhancements such as chords and reinstatement of running roads lost in the nationalised era have had massive network effects - a little addition makes all the rest of the network more valuable. While there are a few schemes like this still left, it is just as well we are finally grasping the nettle before the industry has no option but to tackle the really big still like new routes.

It needs to tackle more capacity on existing routes in places like the North before it tackles new routes. The era of the short DMU really has to end.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
How about looking at things differently. Most of the talk here is about longer trains, more seats, etc., to get even more people onto the already popular/congested routes. Same over on the HS2 thread. I.e. all geared around services that are already well used.

How about looking at areas/services which aren't well used for rail travel due to inadequate timetabling, inconvenient (or no) station locations. What about areas where there is perfectly good infrastructure but poorly timetabled trains? How about looking at areas where most people don't use trains and ask why? What would make them use trains? Look at where, for example, you have two towns, just 20 miles apart, but each on a branch line (both branches coming off a main line), with no direct trains (yet a direct train is possible as the tracks are there), and having to make two changes at a main line station to get from town A to town B which makes a 25 minute car journey into a 90 minute train journey (where less than 30 minutes of that is actually on a train, rest of time is waiting at the 2 stations to change).

Train travel seems to be all about just maintaining diagrams/services from a historical perspective, i.e. what we do today, and no "blue sky thinking" about new routes that could simply and easily be added which have the potential of increasing passenger numbers. Yes, I know there are lots of places that are already "full" with existing services, but there are also lots of areas that aren't.
It's a question of degree. There are niches where growth of this sort is possible but it shouldn't be seen as justification for providing new facilities that only serve deep rural areas.

Of the main parts of the passenger railway, and making a few sweeping generalisations along the way:
  • London and the South East is at capacity in the peaks and accommodating extra peak passengers is hugely expensive in trains and infrastructure. The only reasonably straightforward way of carrying more passengers is to encourage more off-peak useage. This probably needs more focus on non-London journeys, since most trips into London even outside the peaks are likely to be using the train already.
  • Intercity trains probably capture most of the time-sensitive centre-to-centre markets already, except for the very longest journeys where air is time-competitive and even HS2 won't make much difference to that. I think the key here is to make the service more accessible, partly by looking at edge-of-town parkways but also by trying to get the integrated transport network I keep going on about, to make existing stations easier to get to.
  • I'd say the biggest opportunity is travel into and between cities outside London. Except where they happen to be part of a London route, these trains are short and often overcrowded, and there are plenty of people still driving on these routes who could be attracted by a fast and frequent train with plenty of seats. Longer trains and platforms and more depot space would cost something but it is tiny compared to the cost of extra capacity for London commuters.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
It's a question of degree. There are niches where growth of this sort is possible but it shouldn't be seen as justification for providing new facilities that only serve deep rural areas.

Depends how you define "deep rural areas". The two adjacent towns only 20 miles apart I was talking about that don't have any direct trains have populations of 50,000 and 30,000 respectively. I'd not really class that as "deep rural". Obviously it's different with smaller towns and villages, but when you start to get to 30,000 plus (just the town itself, not it's surrounding areas), I think it deserves a half decent rail service.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
A 1.5 hour walk in a dense urban area won't be more than 4 miles. That is an easy cycling distance, taking half an hour at the absolute maximum. People make all sorts of excuses for using cars when it is really not as essential as they want to believe, it is largely a combination of laziness and fear of getting wet (which can be solved by dressing appropriately for the conditions). Safety is thrown about as another excuse, but that is another example of perception over-riding reality, cycling is a very safe activity, as safe as walking according to the real world data. It would be even safer if so many people didn't drive distances that could easily be done on foot, bicycle or by bus.
yeah. i really want to cycle the mile from my local station back home after a long day out. there is 100' of height gain too, and most of the road is unlit. Too many commenting here think urban. Rural is so different.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Depends how you define "deep rural areas". The two adjacent towns only 20 miles apart I was talking about that don't have any direct trains have populations of 50,000 and 30,000 respectively. I'd not really class that as "deep rural". Obviously it's different with smaller towns and villages, but when you start to get to 30,000 plus (just the town itself, not it's surrounding areas), I think it deserves a half decent rail service.

Likewise having very cheap train tickets for travel between any station between Basingstoke and Salisbury would serve Basingstoke with 100,000 people, Andover with 52,000 and Salisbury with 45,000 as well as the smaller stations.

By having it only on the existing (but extended) Basingstoke stopping services it would likely free up capacity on the faster Salisbury/Exeter/Bristol services.

Likewise a chord between Farnborough Main and Frimley would serve Basingstoke (100,000), Fleet (32,000), Farnborough (58,000), Camberley (38,000) and Ascot (12,000, with onwards connection to Bracknell 118,000) as well as the other smaller stations and nearby settlements (some of which are due to see some significant house building along the route).
 

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
626
Location
Peterborough
Another good example of history and present routes dictating the future, rather than looking at new options.

Just like how most stations are in city centres - fine when people lived and worked in the city centres, but now people live in the suburbs and they work in out of town retail/business parks, so there's the added cost/inconvenience of travel in/out of the city centre. We need loads of "out of town" stations to cater for people who don't live and work in the town centres - yes, I know there are a few, but nowhere near enough if we are serious about increasing train passengers.

To be fair, it's not just rail that needs to be improved for out of town retail/business parks. It's bus links too.

An example of a well-connected business park is Hatfield Business Park. The rail station has fast and frequent services from central London and there are fast and frequent buses to the business park.

But an example of a poorly-connected business park has to be Foxholes Business Park in Hertford. There are no buses which directly serve the park. The best way to get there is to walk 15 minutes from Hertford East station which does not have fast and frequent trains from London.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
yeah. i really want to cycle the mile from my local station back home after a long day out. there is 100' of height gain too, and most of the road is unlit. Too many commenting here think urban. Rural is so different.

Rural is indeed different, but the response was to someone who lives in London and is frankly (in my view) just being incredibly lazy.

That said, a mile (if the road was safer) is not at all far to walk or cycle.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
yeah. i really want to cycle the mile from my local station back home after a long day out. there is 100' of height gain too, and most of the road is unlit. Too many commenting here think urban. Rural is so different.
If it wasn't for the comment about street lights I would have thought that we lived in the same village.

I agree about out of town business parks. I looked at a job once in Hemel Hempstead, public transport would have involved walking a nearly a mile and a half to the bus stop as there is no suitable connecting service in either direction (and a climb of 100 feet on the way back) for an hourly service. Change in Hemel and then a rambling journey through various housing estates before another half mile walk through the business park. I didn't go for the job in the end.

We need a lot more innovation in all aspects of public transport. Carousel's PickMeUp demand responsive service in Oxford looks like it could be the way to go for flows that cannot be catered for by traditional routes.

Peripheral interchanges seem to go in and out of fashion. For me a long distance journey by PT would involve driving to a station then an hour on the Met line before finally racing through stations barely a dozen miles from home. The car usually wins.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Rural is indeed different, but the response was to someone who lives in London and is frankly (in my view) just being incredibly lazy.

That said, a mile (if the road was safer) is not at all far to walk or cycle.

A crow could fly 0.38 miles direct to my house from the nearest station.

Walking from the station on often muddy, mostly unlit footpaths through woods is 0.60 miles, rising about 180 feet, and takes me about 15 minutes - fortunately it's slightly quicker going downhill to catch a train!

I've never cycled the route, but by road the shortest distance is 1.42 miles, rising 300 feet. An alternative route is 1.86 miles rising 250 feet. I allow 10 minutes by car for traffic. When travelling outwards I add on an extra 10 minutes to find a place to park and walk to the station.

There is no bus route to connect the area where I live to the area of my nearest station.

Factors like these are very material when making decisions on how to complete a journey, the extra time, effort and inconvenience very relevant considerations. Every journey is different, and everyone of us is different. On fine days I choose to walk, but I'm in a local minority with that.

We want to take the train to Manchester Airport in a few weeks time. 6 days a week there are two direct early morning trains that could be suitable, and 3 more that could possibly be used with changes at Piccadilly. 7 days a week there's an hourly direct evening train back again that would cover any delayed flight, plus hourly slower trains by changing at Piccadilly.

4 rail trips in total will not be made because there are no trains of any sort on the outgoing Sunday morning early enough to get us to the airport in time (without an overnight stay in the airport area). It's the car for us.

There's plenty of scope to increase rail use, but there are a lot of small details needing to be fixed to do that.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
This probably needs more focus on non-London journeys, since most trips into London even outside the peaks are likely to be using the train already.
It's a non-Londoner view that most trips into London are by rail. That may be true for the limited confines of Zone 1 (ie inside the Circle Line) but there is a vast amount of road commuting elsewhere. For construction workers living in Gravesend but having work this year in Hackney, how do you do it?

I wonder how people here think crews manage to report at rail depots like Stewarts Lane for first train 05.30 starts, or last train finishes at 01.00.
 

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
626
Location
Peterborough
I agree about out of town business parks. I looked at a job once in Hemel Hempstead, public transport would have involved walking a nearly a mile and a half to the bus stop as there is no suitable connecting service in either direction (and a climb of 100 feet on the way back) for an hourly service. Change in Hemel and then a rambling journey through various housing estates before another half mile walk through the business park. I didn't go for the job in the end.

We need a lot more innovation in all aspects of public transport. Carousel's PickMeUp demand responsive service in Oxford looks like it could be the way to go for flows that cannot be catered for by traditional routes.

Ouch - that seems much worse than the Hertford one!

Hatfield and St Albans do it right, public transport wise. Buses are right from the station doorstep and they whisked me to several employment clusters throughout the town with no hassle.

There's even a good bus service to the Birchwood area of Hatfield and that doesn't have that many offices.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Only 65% of users rated the service as positively.......!!

So, not excellent/wonderful/very good etc - just 'positively' ........

That sounds pretty damming to me.
 

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
1,039
So, not excellent/wonderful/very good etc - just 'positively' ........
That sounds pretty damming to me.
Depends how the question was phrased. If the choice was only positive/negative/neutral then 65% is a pretty good result.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
I'm surprised that those who never travel by car are most likely to have not used a railway. They presumably have very stationary lifestyles !
 

neilmc

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2011
Messages
1,028
I use the train whenever I can. A ten-minute drive to Shap, park anywhere I like and I'm on the West Coast Main Line. Well, in an alternate universe maybe. In this real one Shap station closed along with most of the other small stations around 50 years. So if I ACTULLY want a train to go anywhere, it's a 15 mile drive to a town where the parking costs the earth, get on a train and see it pass near to my house an hour after I left home. So even though I've got a Senior Citizens railcard with all these wonderful savings, I've never used it in three months and only used the previous one a couple of times. The cost of purchasing and using a brand new and reliable car has increased at a much lower rate than the costs of train tickets so the car is used for almost EVERY journey. And, if there's two of us in the car, it would STILL be a no-brainer even if the WCML was diverted to stop outside my front door!

I reckon the people who use UK trains are largely

a) commuters to big towns where the parking is exorbitantly expensive
b) enthusiasts, and staff using PRIV tickets
c) people who've never learnt to drive or are too incapacitated
d) people whose trip involves consumption of alcohol

I'd like to use the train more, I really would, but it's too expensive and the network is inadequate to make more than a fraction of the potential journeys.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
A crow could fly 0.38 miles direct to my house from the nearest station.

Walking from the station on often muddy, mostly unlit footpaths through woods is 0.60 miles, rising about 180 feet, and takes me about 15 minutes - fortunately it's slightly quicker going downhill to catch a train!

I've never cycled the route, but by road the shortest distance is 1.42 miles, rising 300 feet. An alternative route is 1.86 miles rising 250 feet. I allow 10 minutes by car for traffic. When travelling outwards I add on an extra 10 minutes to find a place to park and walk to the station.

There is no bus route to connect the area where I live to the area of my nearest station.

Factors like these are very material when making decisions on how to complete a journey, the extra time, effort and inconvenience very relevant considerations. Every journey is different, and everyone of us is different. On fine days I choose to walk, but I'm in a local minority with that.

We want to take the train to Manchester Airport in a few weeks time. 6 days a week there are two direct early morning trains that could be suitable, and 3 more that could possibly be used with changes at Piccadilly. 7 days a week there's an hourly direct evening train back again that would cover any delayed flight, plus hourly slower trains by changing at Piccadilly.

4 rail trips in total will not be made because there are no trains of any sort on the outgoing Sunday morning early enough to get us to the airport in time (without an overnight stay in the airport area). It's the car for us.

There's plenty of scope to increase rail use, but there are a lot of small details needing to be fixed to do that.

I have thought about using the train to go to the airport. But where do you leave your car for a week or 10 days? how much will that cost? Then your return flight is delayed and you are stuck at the airport at 2am with no car and the next train is after 6.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm surprised that those who never travel by car are most likely to have not used a railway. They presumably have very stationary lifestyles !

I suspect people in here are hugely better-travelled than most. Poorer people tend to live most of their life very locally, with bus, taxi and bike being the modes of transport mainly used. Only in places like Merseyside with a very good local rail service that is well-used for journeys that *don't* go into the city centre is it otherwise.

Hard as it may be to contemplate, there are people in MK who have never been to London.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I have thought about using the train to go to the airport. But where do you leave your car for a week or 10 days? how much will that cost?

Less than it will at the airport! (Luton Airport Parkway is, or was last time I checked, the cheapest parking at Luton Airport).

Then your return flight is delayed and you are stuck at the airport at 2am with no car and the next train is after 6.

That is the main problem.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
I suspect people in here are hugely better-travelled than most. Poorer people tend to live most of their life very locally, with bus, taxi and bike being the modes of transport mainly used. Only in places like Merseyside with a very good local rail service that is well-used for journeys that *don't* go into the city centre is it otherwise.

Hard as it may be to contemplate, there are people in MK who have never been to London.

That is a very peculiar thought !
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
We don't need to order more rolling stock. We're going to have many 319s, 321s, 323s,350/2s, 360s, 455s, 458s, and 707s looking for new homes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top