LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:10 pm

Thanks for the info and keep it coming!

The clear advantage of a splitting distant is to permit a train to run at speed into a branch (or the routes are of equal importance) so I am sure they had their place in certain circumstances. I have trawled through S-R-S and have found an interesting plan further south in Cheshire at the Winwick Junction. The plan is undated but a clue is that track circuits were installed due to a Nasty accident in 1934. There are track circuits in the plan so I assume this plan is post 1934.

Here is a link to the plan:
https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/lmsr/M56.gif

It's a bit hard to work out but it looks to me that levers 44 and 45 are for the WCML and lever 45 is a splitting distant! Note that these signals do not indicate a primary/secondary route and the plan suggests that the junction can be taken at speed! The "branch" runs to Manchester and Liverpool!

James.

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:27 pm

Hi Neil,

"In addition a Google search for images of Low Gill station found one in early BR days with all the visible signals (the down main and down branch homes, and beyond the junction the up homes on a bracket) were all LNWR wooden posts, but with LMS UQ arms. "

I can't find this image, any chance you can share link.

James.

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Neil Smith » Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:51 am

Hi James,

Here is a link to that Low Gill image as requested - it's on a Tweet from the firm that operates out of the old Sedbergh station yard.

https://twitter.com/dawsonsfuels/status ... 8496680962

There has been yet more coming in on the CRA too. This time from Peter Smith, and the image below is his copyright so usual rules re research apply. Given that there is quite a good view of the intermediate block signal and it would appear that the, err, somewhat distant splitting distants could well be of the same pattern of 2 aspect colour lights, this one might also help you should you wish to replicate an LMS colourlight IBS or distant, whether splitting or not.

All the best

Neil

I’ve attached a shot of Settle Jn’s down splitting distant taken on 29th October 1983. The left hand distant routing on to the Wennington line was fixed at caution as part of the remodelling into a single lead junction following the May 1979 derailment and consequent 15mph speed restriction imposed on the diverging route. Prior to the derailment the double junction was, IIRC, a 40mph divergence with the distant operational. 5407 is just about to pass Settle South up IBS controlled from Settle Jn.
Attachments
settlejn.jpg

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Super photos. Especially Low Gill. Thanks for sharing. I’m doing research on LMS colour lights as there were many varieties. There is some info on the LMS Society site but it is not conclusive what would be in place at Low Gill in 37-39. I may go for a splitting distant semaphore because the fictional junction is a major route that could be taken at speed and we have conclusive proof they were in use in the 1930s for such junctions. In the opposite direction I’ll probably choose a colour light distant (as at Low Gill Up). It’s hard to make out if the Junction signal on Low Gill is a wooden post but I think it is. James

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Neil Smith » Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:29 pm

Hi James

Two further bits of info have come to light today.

Firstly the photo near Settle Jn with the IBS - its not clear what date that IBS signal dates to, so there is some doubt whether it is of a design that was in use pre-war.

Secondly, there may have been a LNWR vs MR split in signalling policy right up until when some of these signals were replaced with colour lights in the 1970s. To be more specifc, the LNWR did apparently have a policy of phasing out splitting distants starting in the first decade of the 20th century, and in any case, the CRA thinking is that none of its junctions in what is now Cumbria were high speed enough on the diverging route to justify ongoing retention of a split distant. However the MR was seemingly happier to retain them even for lower speed junctions, and that habit might explain why Torrisholme No 1 had them - although Settle Jn pre-rebuild of the layout might well have qualified for them. The ex FR of course was neither one nor the other - but this might explain a disparity in policy and practice.

However, there were some instances of splitting banner repeaters installed on former LNWR lines including Low Gill, and Oxenholme - and it was suggested these could be eminently modellable given they would be much closer to the homes than the distants were.

Finally - in reply to your last James, re the up home at Low Gill - it has a central post splitting to two dolls which to me points to LNWR wooden post practice (also, the style of the brackets supporting the dolls supports this). In contrast the LMS would most likely have had a steel post with the up main home arm on it, and with a side bracket with arm at lower height to signal onto the line towards Sedbergh, and this would have looked very different from behind.

All the best

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Noel » Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:50 pm

jamesicunningham wrote:In the opposite direction I’ll probably choose a colour light distant (as at Low Gill Up).


Low Gill Up Distant is a semaphore. The Down Distant is a colour light, but the symbol shown would normally be used for a three aspect signal, in cases where the aspects are not shown, which is consistent with the IB signals. For a marker light I would expect to see something like the IBS down home symbol; what am I missing?
Regards
Noel

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:05 pm

Noel wrote:Low Gill Up Distant is a semaphore. The Down Distant is a colour light, but the symbol shown would normally be used for a three aspect signal, in cases where the aspects are not shown, which is consistent with the IB signals. For a marker light I would expect to see something like the IBS down home symbol; what am I missing?


I stand corrected. The Down distant is a colour light :?

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:14 pm

I found this document on the topic of colour light signals on the LMS society web site.

‎www.lmssociety.org.uk/monologues/M02.pdf

It says:
"There were various types of colour light signals with varying voltages and power, but by 1935 there were three types of colour light signals generally in use by the LMS :-
• (1) Multi unit 24 watts
• (2) Searchlight 12 watts.
• (3) Searchlight 3.3 watts."

Page 18 is pertinent but I am struggling to put it in context of the Low Gill track plan (which, as we know, is undated).

James.

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:40 pm

Quote from Mike Norris on colour light signals at Low Gill 1933:

"Yes, there were many in use, you mentioned Low Gill Jn, in 1933 Dillicar box was closed and IB signals provided which were colour lights, usually approach lit and quite possible with an AUXilary lamp, in case of lamp failure. The LMS had a policy as part of the speeding up of services to add IB signals to remove break section cabins and to split long sections. (other examples include Eamont Jn 1938, Wreay 1935, Bessie Gill c.1939)."

Would be good to know the type of colour light signal that were installed at Low Gill in 1933 and did this include the distant (in addition to the IB signals).

Thanks again,
James.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Noel » Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:44 pm

Noel wrote:For a marker light I would expect to see something like the IBS down home symbol; what am I missing?


I've now done some reading on the LMSS website, and have discovered that the three aspect signal is there because it has two amber aspects, the second being the AUXiliary which is used if the first fails. These were introduced in October 1936 http://www.lmssociety.org.uk/topics/distantSignals.php. The final paragraph states that "at the time of writing (not stated, but for the 2/1937 issue)" five boxes had been so equipped, as part of the 1936 signal renewal programmes, and "further similar renewals are contemplated". The diagram date, on this basis, is either immediately pre-war or possibly post-1945, assuming, as seems likely, that the programme would have been suspended or cancelled during the war.
Regards
Noel

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:33 pm

Noel wrote:
Noel wrote:For a marker light I would expect to see something like the IBS down home symbol; what am I missing?


I've now done some reading on the LMSS website, and have discovered that the three aspect signal is there because it has two amber aspects, the second being the AUXiliary which is used if the first fails. These were introduced in October 1936 http://www.lmssociety.org.uk/topics/distantSignals.php. The final paragraph states that "at the time of writing (not stated, but for the 2/1937 issue)" five boxes had been so equipped, as part of the 1936 signal renewal programmes, and "further similar renewals are contemplated". The diagram date, on this basis, is either immediately pre-war or possibly post-1945, assuming, as seems likely, that the programme would have been suspended or cancelled during the war.


Hi Noel,
I read this and this signal type was being tested in Cheddington, Tring, Northchurch, Berko, Boxmoor (my local patch) ... in 1937 so would not have been at Low Gill in 1933. Hence my question, what type where installed at Low Gill in 1933? The Low Gill track plan is undated but we had a comment from Mike Norris in the CRA that the IB was installed in 1933. This is inconsistent with the LMS society info (Warburton) on evolution of colour light signals. Based on what I have read, limited trial of colour light (mainly searchlight) on LMS by 1933 and not as far as I can tell in Cumbria so there is some discrepancy of info at this stage.

As for split distant... I think they were rare on LNWR by the 30s and on WCML only on high speed junctions (eg Winwick).

I am actually really curious about how much signal development was done 1939 - 1945.

James.

bécasse
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby bécasse » Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:54 pm

jamesicunningham wrote:I am actually really curious about how much signal development was done 1939 - 1945.


My understanding is that quite a lot of work was done with the aim of reducing the use of material, especially steel. Certainly what might be described as more spindly tubular signal posts were introduced during the war years and they can be seen in some photos. However that particular development seems to have proved a false economy as the LMS reverted to the standard specification tubular posts once the supply of steel became a little less restricted.

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:09 pm

bécasse wrote:
jamesicunningham wrote:I am actually really curious about how much signal development was done 1939 - 1945.


My understanding is that quite a lot of work was done with the aim of reducing the use of material, especially steel. Certainly what might be described as more spindly tubular signal posts were introduced during the war years and they can be seen in some photos. However that particular development seems to have proved a false economy as the LMS reverted to the standard specification tubular posts once the supply of steel became a little less restricted.


That would explain converting wooden posts to upper quadrant!

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Neil Smith » Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:24 pm

jamesicunningham wrote:That would explain converting wooden posts to upper quadrant!


Hi James,

There is possibly slightly more to this that just that... The thin wood of a signal arm would not be as durable as a post assuming the latter does not rot in the ground, so arms would need replacing more often. In addition, I would suggest that at some point there was a drive to switch as many arms as possible on the fast routes to UQ to standardise what the drivers see, as a way of reducing the misreading of signals. If that did happen, then it would seem silly to fell a perfectly sound wooden post and replace it with an expensive steel one, when you could just fit the new arm and associated fittings onto the wooden post.

All the best

Neil

bécasse
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby bécasse » Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:54 pm

The LMSR official drawing for 3-lens colour light signals to replace semaphore distant signals is dated 30 January 1936. Except for a few experimental installations colour light distants would not therefore have been installed before early 1936.

And to expand on an earlier post of mine, no one in company days (or most of BR days either) would replace a wooden post in good repair with a steel tubular post just for the sake of it, arms could and would be replaced as necessary and, once UQ became standard at the end of the 1920s, an UQ arm would replace a LQ one - but normally only when it required replacement anyway.

Even a wooden post that required repair would have been evaluated to ascertain whether a replacement steel tubular post was required or whether grandfathering the wooden post would be both sufficient AND cheaper.

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Neil Smith » Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:15 pm

Hi James

The wisdom keeps on coming from the CRA, now turning to the banner repeaters...

First from Richard Foster:

Banners were introduced for this purpose in the mid to late 1920s
The banners at Low Gill seem to date from the 1930s (certainly there by 1942) and most likely were put in at the same time as the junction bracket signal was renewed.
That raises the question of whether in the CRA collection (or anyone’s) there are any photos which show the junction signals pre around 1930 (pre renewal). It would be interesting to know what they looked like.


However then Mike Norris got back involved with more precise detail:

The banners must have been in for some time as they appear to have been renewed in 1951, along with the Up Homes (U/Q at this time).
The Down Distant was replaced circa 1942 to a 3 aspect C/L 'Y/G/Y' with AUX aspect.


There was also a photo posted of the junction by Ron Herbert, his credit, taken in March 63 (of a diverted S&C train to Glasgow) which shows the replacement junction bracket signal, which in contrast to my earlier posting suggesting a single post with side bracket was of two dolls - however this one does appear to be significantly shorter than the one in that tweet I posted the link to earlier. See below.

All the best

Neil
Attachments
ronhlowgill.jpg

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:33 pm

Hi Neil,

“The Down Distant was replaced circa 1942 to a 3 aspect C/L 'Y/G/Y' with AUX aspect.”. Good to have a date for that.

A contact in the LMS society and SRS told me that track circuits were installed 42-45 so makes sense the work done at same time. I can rule out a colour light distant now.

Agree regarding the height of the old LNWR bracket signal. It’s got me wondering why so high and what that implies for a model? There is a photo in Peter Squibb’s “Semaphore Signal Construction” of an LNWR bracket that is being replaced by a tubular steel bracket at Blisworth showing similar difference in height.

I’ve asked SRS about heights. I need to investigate that now!

Thanks, James

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:07 pm

“ There was also a photo posted of the junction by Ron Herbert, his credit, taken in March 63”
Love this photo but I’m miffed because I can see that the box has a stone base and mine is brick! School boy error!

User avatar
Neil Smith
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:53 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby Neil Smith » Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:16 pm

jamesicunningham wrote:I’m miffed because I can see that the box has a stone base and mine is brick! School boy error!


Hi James

Well - if it's any consolation, the boxes at the next two junctions going south - the several at Oxenholme, and the one at Hincaster Jn - were all, as far as I can see looking at old photos, built with brick bases.

All the best

Neil

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:57 pm

The rather tall junction signal at Low Gill.....

I am reading up on signal height now.... Warbuton, LMS signals. I quote "AF Bound decreed that there should be no more lofty signals such as the LNWR used. Where sighting was inadequate, electric banner repeaters would be used!"

James
ps I am reassured by Neil that other boxes on the line are brick!

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:58 pm

Hi All,

Thank you very much for all the helpful information, references and photos. I think the topic is probably now exhausted so I thought it would be helpful to summarise the conclusions I have drawn from everybody's comments. In particular pointers from Keith Norgrove, Cumbria railway knowledge and photos from Neil/CRA and signalling expertise from Reg Instone of the LMS and Signal Records Societies.

A reminder of my questions:
- Should I install splitting distant signals?
- When the secondary route home is clear should a single distant be at caution or clear?

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

- Splitting distant were very rare on the WCML by the 1930s. In general splitting distant were being removed early in the 20th century across all railway companies. In a search of John Swift's track plans on SRS, I only found one example of a splitting distant on the WCML which was at Winwick in Cheshire.
- The distant should be at caution when the secondary route home is at clear.

DETAILED FINDINGS

During discussion I introduced the Low Gill track plan (part of the John Swift collection, dated 1950s) and this generated lots of additional interesting observations. These mainly centred on the installation of colour light signals, banner repeaters and renewal of signals. Also a couple of really interesting photos. Dates are important to me as my layout is modelling 1937-1939.

COLOUR LIGHTS, BANNER REPEATERS

Mike Norris (CRA):
"Yes, there were many colour lights signals in use in the 1930s, you mentioned Low Gill Jn, in 1933 Dillicar box was closed and IB signals provided which were colour lights, usually approach lit and quite possible with an AUXilary lamp, in case of lamp failure. The LMS had a policy as part of the speeding up of services to add IB signals to remove break section cabins and to split long sections. (other examples include Eamont Jn 1938, Wreay 1935, Bessie Gill c.1939)."

Mike Norris (CRA):
"The banners must have been in for some time as they appear to have been renewed in 1951, along with the Up Homes (U/Q at this time).
The Down Distant was replaced circa 1942 to a 3 aspect C/L 'Y/G/Y' with AUX aspect"

Reg Instone (SRS):
"Semaphore IB signals were used by many companies before 1910, and installation of these continued into the 1920s and beyond. Colour-light signals were pioneered by Thorrowgood on the SR and Tattersall on the LNER. The LMS was not in the forefront, but did have colour-light installations such as Bow Road to Barking in 1926 and Manchester Exchange /Victoria in 1929. These are covered in detail in articles in "LMS Journal".

"Following these forays, and the formation of an independent S&T Dept in May 1929, under AF Bound, the LMS developed its own design of colour-light IB signals. These were given added impetus by the drive to make cost savings as a result f the dire economic situation. Due to the lack of mains power in rural areas, many of the early installations were fed by batteries and approach-lit. The first examples were Hargate on the ex-MR 17.4.32 and Scorton on the ex-LNWR 11.12.32. Many more followed in 1933-35. Dillicar IB, between Low Gill and Tebay No.1, were commissioned 29 Oct 1933 with Track Circuits 1942 to 1945, replacing a very old break-section box."

SPLITTING DISTANT

Reg Instone (SRS):
"Junction signalling is an interesting subject. In the period from the 1880s until the 1910s it was customary to provide full signalling for each possible route, including splitting distants. The LNWR was no exception to this. Around 1905/10 there was some discussion about the sense of clearing a distant signal for a diverging junction at which speed needed to be reduced significantly. Most companies decided this was not sensible, and so the majority of splitting distants were removed, leaving only those where the divergence could be taken at (say) 40mph or more. The GWR and LNWR began removing theirs in 1905 [LNWR Signalling p66], while the GNR, for example, removed a huge number of theirs in one go in 1912. There were a number of accidents around this time which influenced this decision."

"After this date, the majority of boxes controlling diverging junctions had just a single distant arm. It would be cleared for the main (high speed) route, but the interlocking would not allow it to be cleared for the divergence and such trains would pass it at danger."

"So even Weaver Junction didn't have a splitting Down Distant? The divergence to Liverpool was 50mph compared with 55 for the main line to The North."

SIGNAL HEIGHT

Finally, on the topic of the tall UP LNWR bracket signal at Low Gill (which was replaced by an LMS tubal steel main mast bracket at some point in the late forties or early 50s) ......

I have been trawling through my reference books and found the following in Warburton's LMS Signals (Page 12). AF Bound decreed that there should be no more lofty signals such as the LNWR. Where sighting was inadequate, electric banner repeaters would be used on the approach. Further reading indicates that these "lofty" signals were mainly installed in curved cuttings.

I have looked at the topography of the approach to the Up bracket signal. Low Gill is perched on the side of the Lune Gorge. On the approach, the land drops from right to left down to the river Lune. Furthermore, the approach is a right handed curve so the the signal height would be required for sighting above the right hand bank.

I studied the facinating photos of Low Gill shared by Neil..... I estimate that the signal box is about 22 feet high. The main stem wooden post on the ex-LNWR signal is circa 30 feet! There is an image of an LNWR bracket of a similar height in Peter Squibb Semaphore Signal Construction (page 29). Therefore, one assumes that banner repeaters would be installed at the time of the bracket signal renewal (which based on Mike Norris's info was probably 1951). I estimate that the main stem on the LMS steel tube bracket is circa 16-17 feet (standard height).

IN CONCLUSION
I hope this summary proves useful,
James.
ps this morning, I have ordered:
- LNWR signalling, Richard D Foster.
- Layout Plans of the 1950s West Coast Main Line Euxton to Mossband. (John Swift Collection).

jamesicunningham
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:10 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby jamesicunningham » Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:12 pm

Stop press: Charles Clinker has Low Gill down distant being replaced by colour light in December 1943.

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3505
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby grovenor-2685 » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:05 pm

grovenor-2685 wrote:Like most phasing out, a very long process, changes would only be made if the location concerned had significant work underway. On main lines such as the WCML the LMS had a policy for upgrades and renewals to the block system that involved installation of colour light distants so as that took effect then the splitting distants would go.
Info on the block system policy here, http://www.norgrove.me.uk/signalli-LMS.htm
I don'y have anything definitive on the colour light distants except a small article in the Model Railway Constructor but they do show up on many of the signalling plans, finding the date of installation is not so easy however.

Just for completeness on this here is Graham Warburton's MRC article and a couple of pics of the searchlight version I made for Bill Richmond and sent off to New Zealand.
LMS-cl-sigsScan.pdf
(1.9 MiB) Downloaded 16 times

billsig-2.jpg
billsig-2.jpg (42.01 KiB) Viewed 770 times

billsig-8.jpg
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

bécasse
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: LMS/LNWR 1930s junction distant signalling

Postby bécasse » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:11 am

The drawing of the three-aspect signal doesn't give a spacing for the ladder rungs. Normally LMS signal ladders were 10" wide with the rung centrelines spaced 9", and the two searchlight signals at Weedon appear to conform with this. However, the drawing for the three-aspect signal at Boxmoor shows the ladder width as only 8" and this does seem to conform with what can be seen in the photograph (possibly a GRS standard?). The angle from which the Boxmoor photo is taken makes it difficult to be precise about the ratio between the ladder width and the rung spacing, but the rung spacing is clearly close to 9" but may be a little less, 8½"perhaps.

Keith's (very nice) model appears to be a bit of a hybrid between the two types in so far as the ladder and its attachments are concerned, such hybrids may well have existed, of course, but it is still a little surprising that the LMS (and, perhaps more to the point, its S&T technicians) should have found the narrower ladder acceptable when a lot of effort had gone on not much more than a decade earlier to find an optimum arrangement for adoption company-wide.


Return to “Semaphore Signals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest