Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

PR1Berske · 21 May 2019

If certain candidates are elected as the next Conservative leader, and/or if The Brexit Party has an electoral success which wields significant influence on the Conservative Party, it becomes far more likely that HS2 will be curtailed, mothballed or scrapped. That's not wild accusations or wishful thinking, we know that's possible.

I would love to be on this thread the moment it is announced that a new decision is made regarding HS2 which means, say, the regeneration around Euston will be completed but the entire scheme other than that has been dropped; or that it will be built from OOC to Watford and that's it;.or some other decision relating to it's closure. Because a lot of people will have to think outside their HS2 blinkered vision and come up with a new world view.

I'm afraid that it's true that pro-HS2 voices think they can get away with claiming that the WCML was almost full twenty years ago when the scheme was first launched, yet apparently it still isn't full today. If the southern WCML truly was almost full in 2009 and still not full in 2019, then HS2 is simply and self evidently not required.

I do wonder why it's allowed for pro-HS2 people to demand of antis far more evidence than they require from each other.

RailUK Forums

The Ham · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
Fares will increase to pay for HS2. The railway only gets money from the taxpayer or farepayer it is said.

I've shown how that by having a flat £50 maximum fare with 30% occupy could cover the costs. That's lower than off peak London to Manchester.

No one questioned my maths at the time, even though I asked for people to do so if I was wrong.

Yet there's still an assertion that ticket prices will go up, please explain why this will be.

The Ham · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
How do you do what exactly.
Run longer trains?

It is not difficult to deliver more capacity on the MML long distance services.

Err HS2 is "run longer trains" by ensuring that the infrastructure can accommodate it

The MML could well have longer trains by the time that phase 1 is open, depends on the plans for the new franchise.

The Ham · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
Manchester Picxadilly has 3tph to London.
It needs paths to Liverpool, Leeds, Salford, Bolton and North Wales.

Extra paths from HS2? None.

Extra capacity from HS2 (just on the longer trains which it can run) +55%. That's before you consider what the existing paths could be used for.

The Ham · 21 May 2019

PR1Berske said:
If certain candidates are elected as the next Conservative leader, and/or if The Brexit Party has an electoral success which wields significant influence on the Conservative Party, it becomes far more likely that HS2 will be curtailed, mothballed or scrapped. That's not wild accusations or wishful thinking, we know that's possible.

I would love to be on this thread the moment it is announced that a new decision is made regarding HS2 which means, say, the regeneration around Euston will be completed but the entire scheme other than that has been dropped; or that it will be built from OOC to Watford and that's it;.or some other decision relating to it's closure. Because a lot of people will have to think outside their HS2 blinkered vision and come up with a new world view.

I'm afraid that it's true that pro-HS2 voices think they can get away with claiming that the WCML was almost full twenty years ago when the scheme was first launched, yet apparently it still isn't full today. If the southern WCML truly was almost full in 2009 and still not full in 2019, then HS2 is simply and self evidently not required.

I do wonder why it's allowed for pro-HS2 people to demand of antis far more evidence than they require from each other.

Point of order, where is it claimed that the WCML was full in 2009, at the time it was claimed that by mid 2020's the WCML would be full. Hence why it's not full yet, although it's getting there very quickly.

The Ham · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
HS2 makes a colossal financial loss. That is why it needs huge sums of benefits from the value of time saved to make a so called business case.

The sort of business case that only exists in the public sector - spending £bn on things that lose even more money.

Can you please cite your sources for this.

The Ham · 21 May 2019

Facing Back said:
Good evening all. This is my first post here so please be gentle....

For context, I'm a great fan of HS2. If anything I think that it is not ambitious enough.

I have a question - and it is a question - I'm not a railway insider, my massive expertise comes from 30 years of travelling on the things and my recent extensive reading of these forums.

I believe that Its pretty much a moot point for HS2 - although I recognise not all here share that view.

But why is it "impossible" to add capacity on the MML from St Pancras without adding platforms? I know it doesn't solve the issue but I'm interested in the technical points.

I understand that there are 4 platforms and 5 trains per hour at peak times. I understand that currently 5 car trains are often 2 per platform. With 5 tph though, even 9 or 10 car trains could stay there for 40 plus minutes? What is the need for extra platforms in order to allow for 9 or 10 car trains instead of 5s at the current frequency?

I'm happy with "its expensive" or `'very difficult" or "there is no reason too" but I'm interested in the why's.

Thanks

Welcome to the forum.

On the current service there's not a lot limiting longer services in the MML, however it should be noted that it's not been confirmed what the new franchise is doing, which does include new trains and so could well involve longer trains.

If it does then that will mean that extra capacity could well be expensive to provide.

Aictos · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
Upgrading the WCML to a viable 6 line formation to Watford is not remotely beyond the realms of possible.

Which does bugger all for services north of Watford including no investment in released capacity for Birmingham, Manchester etc which HS2 would deliver.

It’s not just Euston to Watford that’s busy, there are other routes that are busy.

Esker-pades · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
The financial case for HS2 which is what any real business would call the business case, is a published document. It is tens of £bn underwater.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...chment_data/file/286611/hs2-economic-case.pdf

I don't see you assertion within this document.

As for your analysis of how a 3rd pair of lines would work, you have still misunderstood much of what has gone before.

There gets to a point where if you tell everyone that they have misunderstood your ideas, you are the one at fault for not explaining them well enough. Quite a few people replying to you have been met with "you're misunderstanding me". Thus, the onus has to be on you to explain what you are proposing. Start from the beginning, assuming I do not have any context.

Your
mindset is still locked onto the current LO service stopping everywhere taking 50mins as the starting point. They are not pulling their weight.

They are overcrowded, hence the introduction of a 4th train per hour.

PR1Berske said:
If certain candidates are elected as the next Conservative leader, and/or if The Brexit Party has an electoral success which wields significant influence on the Conservative Party, it becomes far more likely that HS2 will be curtailed, mothballed or scrapped. That's not wild accusations or wishful thinking, we know that's possible.

I would love to be on this thread the moment it is announced that a new decision is made regarding HS2 which means, say, the regeneration around Euston will be completed but the entire scheme other than that has been dropped; or that it will be built from OOC to Watford and that's it;.or some other decision relating to it's closure. Because a lot of people will have to think outside their HS2 blinkered vision and come up with a new world view.

I'm afraid that it's true that pro-HS2 voices think they can get away with claiming that the WCML was almost full twenty years ago when the scheme was first launched, yet apparently it still isn't full today. If the southern WCML truly was almost full in 2009 and still not full in 2019, then HS2 is simply and self evidently not required.

As others have pointed out, it was "WCML will be full in X years", not "the WCML is full now". By the time HS2 is actually built, projections are that it will be full.

I do wonder why it's allowed for pro-HS2 people to demand of antis far more evidence than they require from each other.

Not true. Things like the actual route of the new line, the business case, the timetabling and rolling stock constraints. Where it becomes silly is when people ask for proof of what fares will be in 10 years time, or proof of exactly what the timetable will be in 10 years time.

yoyothehobo · 21 May 2019

You claim pro-HS2 people demand more from antis than vice versa, yet you have not answered any reasonable questions on this thread, whilst those in favour of HS2 have spent quite a considerable amount of time explaining things to you.

Any evidence of what you are claiming would be nice, thats all.

LOL The Irony · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
4 paths is not a lot. A new pair of lines through Piccadilly is perhaps 15tph. Not much to show for a £10bn tunnel.

You can get the 2nd Mid-Cheshire and another Stoke out of 4 paths. Then there's the upgrades to exsisting track such as in-cab signaling and widening that can take place with less disruption.

StaffsWCML · 21 May 2019

My only concern with HS2 is that by the time it is delivered the world will have moved on a bit technology wise, we will have spent a hug amount for an outdated technology. Britain used to be a forward think nation leading the way. Why are we still investing so much in old railway technology and not looking a potential alternatives light Maglev/Hyperloop which would most likely be more future proof?

It is absolutely correct that we deliver better connectivity to areas outside London, we should also be reducing reliance on air travel.

I agree with the principals just not sure the chosen delivery method is best in the modern world. What is the fastest these trains will run?

underbank · 21 May 2019

StaffsWCML said:
What is the fastest these trains will run?

A very large proportion of the population don't need trains to be faster than they are already. The UK is a small Island and most journeys are relatively short. Should we really be spending £55bn on a project aimed at attracting a relatively small number of air passengers on to the trains by concentrating on speed? That makes it look like a project "for the few, not the many". For the greatest benefit to far larger numbers of people, we should be concentrating on improvements of the train service for the many, not the few, who are happy with current speeds but would like a more frequent and reliable and integrated service throughout the country.

jfowkes · 21 May 2019

StaffsWCML said:
My only concern with HS2 is that by the time it is delivered the world will have moved on a bit technology wise, we will have spent a hug amount for an outdated technology. Britain used to be a forward think nation leading the way. Why are we still investing so much in old railway technology and not looking a potential alternatives light Maglev/Hyperloop which would most likely be more future proof?

It is absolutely correct that we deliver better connectivity to areas outside London, we should also be reducing reliance on air travel.

I agree with the principals just not sure the chosen delivery method is best in the modern world. What is the fastest these trains will run?

Maglev has been tried elsewhere and largely been found to be inferior to conventional high-speed rail in all aspects except speed. I could go into detail, but basically it's very energy hungry (because most of the energy at high speed is about aerodynamics, not steel-on-steel friction), and it's not compatible with conventional rail. HS2 trains will be able to run to Scotland on the normal network. We'd have to build a completely seperate maglev network to do the same.

Hyperloop has all the problems that maglev has (except air resistance) and some more. It's completely unproven - we'd have to wait another 20 years before the technology is mature enough to consider using, and then another 20 years planning and building.

High-speed rail is a proven, reliable, safe, environmentally-sound method of transporting large numbers of people long distances.

Maybe if there is an astonishing breakthrough in the alternatives in a few decades, we can look again. But we need something now.

Bletchleyite · 21 May 2019

StaffsWCML said:
My only concern with HS2 is that by the time it is delivered the world will have moved on a bit technology wise, we will have spent a hug amount for an outdated technology. Britain used to be a forward think nation leading the way. Why are we still investing so much in old railway technology and not looking a potential alternatives light Maglev/Hyperloop which would most likely be more future proof?

Because they're not more future-proof. Two bits of steel two horses' backsides apart have proven worldwide to be a reliable technology with plenty of life in it yet. Whereas both of those are simply expensive gimmicks.

StaffsWCML · 21 May 2019

Fair enough I just wondered that's all. It is just an alternative viewpoint.

underbank said:
A very large proportion of the population don't need trains to be faster than they are already. The UK is a small Island and most journeys are relatively short. Should we really be spending £55bn on a project aimed at attracting a relatively small number of air passengers on to the trains by concentrating on speed? That makes it look like a project "for the few, not the many". For the greatest benefit to far larger numbers of people, we should be concentrating on improvements of the train service for the many, not the few, who are happy with current speeds but would like a more frequent and reliable and integrated service throughout the country.

Its not relatively short to get to Scotland 4/5 hours from London, 4/5 hours to the far South West. Certain lines are terrible. I agree more investment should be targeted at improving existing routes, or reopening old lines

Not sure if it is intended but the 'for the many, not the few' sounds like a Corbyn party political broadcast!

We should be getting people off of planes, for sustainability reasons. A lot of business people fly between major cities on shuttle airlines. There is no reason why rail shouldn't be able to compete with this price wise and time wise.

We shouldn't be settling for extreme averageness just because it is available for the masses, we should push the bar higher. Why don't the 'many' deserve a better service? We have a strange mentality on the British railways of accepting mediocracy or worse.

We deserve a better/faster more reliable service north of London, and HS2 is the most realistic was of delivering this. We need a better railway to deliver growth, and wealth to those outside London.

DynamicSpirit · 21 May 2019

underbank said:
A very large proportion of the population don't need trains to be faster than they are already. The UK is a small Island and most journeys are relatively short. Should we really be spending £55bn on a project aimed at attracting a relatively small number of air passengers on to the trains by concentrating on speed? That makes it look like a project "for the few, not the many". For the greatest benefit to far larger numbers of people, we should be concentrating on improvements of the train service for the many, not the few, who are happy with current speeds but would like a more frequent and reliable and integrated service throughout the country.

With respect, that remark shows that you have completely misunderstood the main purpose HS2. At the Southern end, it's primarily about capacity. The point of HS2 is that it takes the fastest long distance trains off of the overcrowded WCML, MML and ECML. That frees up a huge amount of capacity on all three lines, which can then be used to provide more (and much needed) commuter services, as well as better connections to the North of England from intermediate towns on those lines (Watford, Milton Keynes, Luton, Stevenage, Rugby, Nuneaton, etc.). No-one has ever shown a way that you can provide all that extra capacity in a cheaper way than by building HS2.

A rather nice bonus is that, because the fastest trains (London-Leeds, London-Scotland, London-Manchester, and fast London-Birmingham, etc.) will get their own freshly built line, they'll be able to run faster than at present, cutting journey times to all those cities. That's where the 'high speed' bit comes in. And I would say you're plain wrong when you say that's for the few, not the many. Very large numbers of people need to travel across the country at least a few times a year to visit friends, go on holiday, or go on business trips. All the evidence from previous speed upgrades is that very many people do appreciate having faster trains... look how much travel on the WCML has increased since it went to 125mph running 12-ish years ago. HS2 really is for the many, not the few.

Also, when talking about speed, don't forget that HS2 will improve both speed and capacity between many Northern/Midland cities. For example, it currently takes a ridiculous 2 hours to get from Birmingham to Leeds by train - HS2 will drop that to under an hour (and allow more trains to run).

RLBH · 21 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
For example, it currently takes a ridiculous 2 hours to get from Birmingham to Leeds by train - HS2 will drop that to under an hour (and allow more trains to run).

To be fair, about half of the improvement would be achievable just by treating the existing Birmingham to Leeds route as an intercity railway, rather than as a regional route with low speed limits and stops everywhere.

DynamicSpirit said:
HS2 really is for the many, not the few.[/QUOTE
I think that the 'long distance travel is for the elite' argument comes from people who haven't noticed the change in the economy. Up to maybe twenty or thirty years ago, lowly workers had a particular place of work where they stayed, and travelling to other offices was the realm of management. With few people travelling on business, First Class was an affordable perk that employers could offer, restaurant cars and sleepers made sense, and long distance travel was something of a luxury.

Today, that's not the case. Relatively large numbers of people, at relatively junior grades, are expected to travel for work. With that many people travelling, businesses can't afford the perks, so restaurant cars have gone away whilst First Class and sleepers are clinging on by the skin of their teeth. And since we're all richer (on average at least) we want to travel more for leisure purposes. It's still a bit of a treat, but everything's gotten very busy and we're more interested in the destination than the journey.

Unfortunately, we still have a railway built around the 'old' way of working. It has built in capacity problems, because people were expected to live locally to where they worked when it was built. Journey times are long, but that wasn't an issue because not many people needed to travel and the infrastructure could cope with all the facilities to do it.

Now, commuter service is crowding out long distance services. The long distance services are themselves becoming crowded, but can't run faster. The facilities needed to make long, slow journeys acceptable have been squeezed out to try and take the edge off the capacity problems - but that's only a temporary fix, and passengers aren't happy with what it entails.

What's needed to make rail travel suitable for modern requirements is to get long distance services out of the way of commuter services, and to allow the long distance services to travel fast enough and with enough capacity to relieve the pressure on them. HS2 does both of those things. There are other approaches that might do one or the other, but generally they cost as much as HS2 whilst only solving half of the problems.

So yes, HS2 helps all sections of society. It's not a panacea, there are plenty of problems it won't really solve (despite grand claims to the contrary). It may even cause new problems in places. But it's the right sort of approach to deal with a rail network that's already congested and looking to get worse.

yoyothehobo · 21 May 2019

RLBH said:
To be fair, about half of the improvement would be achievable just by treating the existing Birmingham to Leeds route as an intercity railway, rather than as a regional route with low speed limits and stops everywhere.

You could do that, however I am not sure the people of Sheffield, Rotherham, Derby, Nottingham, Chesterfield would take to kindly to you canning all their local services to allow better Leeds-Brum services.

si404 · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
To say there is no benefit outside the M25 is to completely misunderstand the entire concept.

You'll note that I didn't say "no benefit", but "no benefit except" - and then give precisely the one and only benefit you say - the removal of Watford passengers from services to/from beyond the M25.

You have enough arguments against your proposal to rebut without having to make up ones that no one is making!

Are the DC line trains now pretty empty? I find that hard to believe.

They are already less busy than the other trains in NW London, and are going to have a 25% increase in capacity by the end of the year at the latest.

The increase to 4tph (when the ongoing introduction of new stock allows - the timetable now has a gap for that 4th train to slot into) isn't driven by PIXC or even giving standees seats, but by the desire to have the magic 'turn-up-and-go' service level at South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Headstone Lane and Hatch End (and to a lesser extent stations outside the GLA boundary), ticking London Travelwatch's box. That they didn't bother considering this last time they ordered new trains for the Overground tells you that this really wasn't a pressing matter.

It also solves any future crowding problem - have a look at these 2041 crowding maps: with only committed schemes, with TfL's full strategy. There's literally no difference on the DC line trains, because this year's 25% increase in capacity means there's enough seats that fewer than 1 person per metre squared is standing anywhere on the line in the morning peak, even 22 years later!

I'd suggest that having near zero levels of am peak standees on trains that are designed to maximise standees (and thus capacity) 22 years from now with no upgrade planned beyond the imminent boost to 4tph, is very much proof of the trains being "pretty empty".

making the Bakerloo line 30tph to Wembley rather than 10.

Why though - again, this is literally the pair of tracks with the least crowded trains in NW London, and frequency increases can be done relatively easily with the coming of new Bakerloo stock in the mid-2020s (which also increases capacity). The 2018 Mayor's Transport Strategy does propose further increase the frequency (beyond any 2020s increase) on the Bakerloo as an as-yet-uncommitted extension to Lewisham, a move that removes most of the low density standing the 2020s upgrade leaves on the line north of Paddington. We're certainly not talking, north of Queens Park, about anything in the 30tph ballpark though! Especially not at Wembley (as the additional trains from the BLE boost seem to turn at Stonebridge Park, not being particularly needed north of there).

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
How do you do what exactly.
Run longer trains?

It is not difficult to deliver more capacity on the MML long distance services.

The MML isn't the main issue. The WCML is the main issue.

And you can't provide extra capacity between Coventry and Birmingham or between Stockport and Manchester by waving a magic wand over the DC lines between Queens Park and Watford Junction.

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
This has been recycled how many times?
Same paths.
Same platforms.
The trains are twice as long.

Er, if the trains are twice as long into (e.g.) Manchester, Liverpool, Stockport, Crewe ... how do you fit them into the "same platforms" ?

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
You do enjoy making every issue sound intractable and every problem sound insoluble don't you?

So if it's not insoluble how do you suggest solving it?

(I'm not a big fan of HS2 but any alternative needs to be realistic.)

O L Leigh · 21 May 2019

RLBH said:
To be fair, about half of the improvement would be achievable just by treating the existing Birmingham to Leeds route as an intercity railway, rather than as a regional route with low speed limits and stops everywhere.

If you made the service call at Derby and Sheffield only you might shave a few minutes off the journey time but, as has already been hinted, what happens at Tamworth, Burton, Chesterfield and Wakefield? I suppose you could run other slower services along the route to serve these locations, but then these fast trains will just have more trains to trip over than they currently do.

But the biggest hold-up on that route is getting through Sheffield and Leeds. You couldn't simply raise the linespeed because the infrastructure wouldn't allow it. Plus you have all those pesky slower trains to contend with. The only real answer would be to build a whole new section of route specifically for these services so that they could run at high speed completely unfettered by the frustrations of the conventional network. Then, with these services neatly segregated, it would free up the capacity for service enhancements on the conventional network as well as taking away a sizeable portion of the overcrowding issue that currently affects the XC core.

Heck, we could even call it HS3 or somesuch!!

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
Upgrading the WCML to a viable 6 line formation to Watford is not remotely beyond the realms of possible.

Well, you're correct on this at least.

But it only works if the problem of the WCML exists only south of Watford.

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
To say there is no benefit outside the M25 is to completely misunderstand the entire concept.

Are the DC line trains now pretty empty? I find that hard to believe. The 3rd pair of lines need to be a viable 90mph railway, minimum 8 cars. That is a big change in capacity as is making the Bakerloo line 30tph to Wembley rather than 10. Watford is currently taking half the slow line train capacity while the DC lines are not pulling their weight.

If the DC lines are to become a 90mph AC route which stations would you retain?

si404 · 21 May 2019

underbank said:
A very large proportion of the population don't need trains to be faster than they are already. The UK is a small Island and most journeys are relatively short. Should we really be spending £55bn on a project aimed at attracting a relatively small number of air passengers on to the trains by concentrating on speed?

The cost difference between building a 125mph line and a 300mph line is about £5bn of that £55bn.

And the benefits of going twice as fast aren't only for the handful of airline passengers - all relevant intercity passengers get to benefit from it. And most of those city pairs don't have flights between them anyway (eg Birmingham to anywhere but Glasgow and Edinburgh).

6Gman · 21 May 2019

jayah said:
In the context of HS2 being scrapped it is highly relevant.

It really isn't.

HS2 is a capital project.

The NHS, social care etc need revenue funding.

6Gman · 21 May 2019

PR1Berske said:
If certain candidates are elected as the next Conservative leader, and/or if The Brexit Party has an electoral success which wields significant influence on the Conservative Party, it becomes far more likely that HS2 will be curtailed, mothballed or scrapped. That's not wild accusations or wishful thinking, we know that's possible.

I would love to be on this thread the moment it is announced that a new decision is made regarding HS2 which means, say, the regeneration around Euston will be completed but the entire scheme other than that has been dropped; or that it will be built from OOC to Watford and that's it;.or some other decision relating to it's closure. Because a lot of people will have to think outside their HS2 blinkered vision and come up with a new world view.

I'm afraid that it's true that pro-HS2 voices think they can get away with claiming that the WCML was almost full twenty years ago when the scheme was first launched, yet apparently it still isn't full today. If the southern WCML truly was almost full in 2009 and still not full in 2019, then HS2 is simply and self evidently not required.

I do wonder why it's allowed for pro-HS2 people to demand of antis far more evidence than they require from each other.

1. Yes, HS2 could well be scrapped. Doesn't mean it's the right decision. Personally I wouldn't want to put the future of this country (whether that's transport, NHS, social care or anything else) into the hands of Johnson, Truss or Farage.
2. Your gloating if it is cancelled would be unattractive. The people working on HS2 are trying to do their best to deliver benefit to the country (whether you agree with the project or not).
3. They will come up with a "new world view" as you put it. Of course, it may be delayed, be less effective and have a poorer economic benefit but there we go.
4. Will WCML be full by the opening date of HS2? Almost certainly. (Incidentally, how do you give Knutsford a half-hourly service without sorting out Stockport-Manchester?)
5. HS2 has been subject to huge scrutiny right up to Parliamentary Committee level, Parliamentary Petition etc etc So hardly a lack of evidence.

RLBH · 21 May 2019

O L Leigh said:
You couldn't simply raise the linespeed because the infrastructure wouldn't allow it. Plus you have all those pesky slower trains to contend with.

Of course, we can't turn Leeds-Birmingham(-Bristol) into a conventional 125mph railway now. It was left out in the cold for too long. If it had been treated similarly to other main lines since the 1950s, it might be a different story, allowing Tamworth, Burton, Chesterfield and Wakefield on the Cross-Country line to be treated similarly to Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, and Wakefield on the ECML, or Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Stafford on the WCML. Regional services, using the slow lines to keep out of the way of the inter-city expresses.

What's being done with HS2 achieves the same thing, in the same way that HS2 achieves the same thing as 6-tracking the southern WCML. The difference is, 4-tracking the Cross-Country line probably could have been done decades ago if it had been seen as a main line rather than a distraction.

Much too late for that now, and going straight for high-speed rail makes vastly more sense.

Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member