G Scale Model Train Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
926 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Time to shoot myself in the foot again, so here goes.

I have two Bachmann Connies, which await bashing, and evertytime I look at them I wonder why Lee Riley (that's the design director) chose the prototype he did? I like the idea of an outside frame loco, but why didn't we get a C-21 or something like that instead of this odd-ball Heber Mountain or whatever loco with that unusual valve gear? It seems that every few weeks someone on MLS comes up with a bash of the Connie, in which they replace half the stuff it came with (see Rod Hayword's conversion). My feeling is if Bachmann had chose the right prototype in the first place, we wouldn't have to do all that bashing.

To give praise where praise is due, I like the Mike, which is a beauty, although too big for my railroad. It is at least a faithful reproduction of a very desireable design.

The Mallet, on the other hand, is not for me. Once again, it is kind of an oddball, not something popular like the Mallets that ran on major railroads such as the UP, SP, etc. I'm sure many of you like it, and I'm very happy for you.

Sometimes I think Riley likes to do locos that look cute or have a lot of moving parts that amuse their owners ("you are getting sleepy...". But why can't we have some straightforward locos like the 10-wheeler ( best seller) , which I'd love to see in 1:20.3?

Next topic: Pick a gauge, any gauge.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,695 Posts
I can't answer your question, but I agree with your point. Bachmann does the same thing in On30. Their first On30 loco was a generic Mogul, but at least based upon an American prototype. Then came the Shay - again, all well and good. But then they essentially reproduced the Fn3 Connie in On30. The 4-4-0 they brought out COULD have been a much sought-after model, but instead of a 4-4-0 as was done in Fn3, they instead chose a puny little prototype from Mexico or somewhere south of the border. Their latest offering is an outside frame 4-4-0. Now who ever heard of an outside frame 4-4-0??? Oh, I'm sure one probably existed somewhere, again south of the border, but really... how many On30 modelers model south of the border railroads?

In fairness, they did produce the Climax and the Forneys - terrific if you're doing logging or Maine two-footers. But for the guy who wants to model an average American narrow gauge line, there isn't much there from Bachmann. I have nothing against "generic" locomotives, as On30 modelers are a bunch of freelancers for the most part anyway, but myself, I'd like to see generics based upon something that ran in the USA, or at least close to it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
451 Posts
Oh, now you've gone and done it!


I'm not sure how to even address this topic without igniting a forest fire, but heregoes:

The primary issue (on paper) seems to be the difference between narrow gauge and standard gauge model railroading, in that if you're a model train manufacturer, and you build, let's say a GP-9 or a C-44-8, you can make it in a bunch of different roadnames, and people all over the place will buy lots of them, because if you're modelling "modern" diesel in HO, chances are it would make prototypical sense for your railroad to have lots of these engines .... they're everywhere. And, (for the most part) the locomotives of a particular type on one railroad will look very much like the locomotives of that type on another railroad, except for the paint.

Not so, narrow gauge. When narrow gauge was "in" railroads were a lot newer idea in the United States. The locomotives ordered by one railroad ended up looking VERY different from those of other railroads, partially due to a sense of design and style, and partially because they were either adapted to particular situations, or specially ordered to overcome specific situations. Certainly it was possible to order a "catalog" locomotive, but differences in how railroads did what they did made for "family" appearance in a lot of cases. Also, since (typically) narrow gauge railroads didn't interchange equipment with other railroads, the equipment tended to suit the purposes of the home road (see also tender height and style, modifications for extreme weather, visibility, coupler arrangements, etc.... ) where in Standard gauge, locomotives may end up being a bit more uniform simply because they need to fit intot everyone else's platforms, fuel docks, water towers, etc....

So, the result is, while there were a bunch of railroads that had Consolidations that might be a D&RG C-16 "inside" how they looked "outside" was often very different. That means that any model you release of a narrow gauge engine is not going to be as "generic" as a standard gauge locomotive model. Consider the recent K-27 ... the only place this locomotive was ever found was the Denver and Rio Grande System, and later the Rio Grande Southern. If you're an RGS modeler, that limits you to the 455 and the 461 if you're sticking to the prototype. If you're a D&RG modeler, you have your choice of 450-464 ... but even then Bachmann can't make ONE K-27 model and put fourteen numbers on it, because several have outside piston valves, and several have inside (slant) ones, the tenders are different from locomotive to locomotive, and one was wrecked and rebuilt with completely different equipment! And then, depending on WHEN someone's modelling, the locomotives had vauclain gear, then slide valves, then piston valves ... and the colors and graphics vary, but it's not random, specific colors and lettering go with specific versions .... by the time it's over, you either have to make one or two types (which means the folks who want the other ones won't buy them) or make ALL of them and watch some sit on shelves unwanted, while more "popular" versions sell out. Unlike the F-40PH which was different (at least to most) only in the number and the paint version, it's hard to make a "generic" K that lots and lots of people will buy.... and if you're a model railroad manufacturer, that's the bottom line.

So... you try to find something a little more generic. Something with "Classic" lines .... the original Shay is an excellent example of this. Go look at the www.shaylocomotives.com database ... certainly logging companies modified their locomotives, but through the forests of chains, buckets, and toolboxes, the underlying locomotive is the same basic design in many, many cases. So, you can make a Shay, slap a lumber company (real or imagined) label on it, and include some "do it yourself" details, and you can make a locomotive that will appeal to many, many people. And, while you might be able to find a photo or twelve on Ely Thomas #6, you probably WON'T find photos that document every week of its life like you would for a K-27, so as long as it's "close" it'll make sense to a lot of people.

Now, when people clamor for a rod engine, you can go and find a generic one, something that resembles the catalog entry, with NO railroad specific details, and while the folks who want K-27 #453 wtih slide valves as it appeared in the winter of 1938 will hate it, a lot of folks will do exactly what you did, and buy two to bash. The folks who just want a cool miniature train will be impressed by all of the detail and valve motion, and lots of them will sell. And... they have. It's as close to a generic, mass produced narrow gauge engine as you can get.... and you don't have to be modelling any particular railroad to use it. The reverse argument, that it doesn't fit with ANY railroad is also valid, if you're a strict-to-history modeler, but the gamble is there are more folks who don't mind generic, or will want one or two to bash than there would be folks who wanted a C-16 as it appeared on January 24, 1911 on th RGS.

When you combine all of this with rumors (and... this is a RUMOR, plain and simple) of bad blood between certain key Bachmann players and existing Colorado narrow gauge venues, you can see how quickly the search for something else might begin. Once personality and ego figure in the equation, there's often no coming back, which is why everyone was initially so elated about the K-27, which, by all accounts would previously never have been considered because of the rumored flap that had effectively disqualified anything Colorado prototype from consideration.

Finally, think of it this way: There are a lot of people who have become authorities on Colorado narrow gauge, through lots of research, reading, and studies of the equipment that's left. Particularly with the Internet being available to most, the information is certainly out there and accessible, and there are a lot of really wonderful books. Many of these folks are also really good model makers, and have an eye for very exacting detail. When presented with a model of something specific, say, C-16 #268 they're going to know immediately if something is not as it should be, and notice it. It's like asking Emeril what he thinks of the new recipe for truffle stuffed pressed goose under glass you've come up with .... whatever's going on with the recipe, you're going to hear about it, chapter and verse. Not so for the fellow who hands him his coffee and donut on the way in to the studio in the morning ... he probably doesn't even notice anything in partiular about it unless something's really (salt instead of sugar) wrong with it. So, when a D&RGW expert encounters a generic, prototoype-unspecific catalog outside frame 2-8-0, typically they're going to say, "Well, it's not Rio Grande, but yeah, it's a steam engine".... and then probably start making plans to modify it. East Broad Top experts will do the same thing, as will White Pass types... and suddenly we've sold two more of them than we would have if we'd made a railroad-specific loco and made one expert happy, and two annoyed. And the modelers galleries on this and other websites bear this out, as do the two that you bought to "bash" yourself. How many K-27's have you seen "bashed" into something else? Not many, I'd guess.

Matthew (OV)

PS. Simply because of the sensitive nature of this discussion, I want to stress here that I'm talking about Bachmann's models as MODELS of locomotives. There is a seperate issue lurking around out there involving electrical and mechanical features and issues, and I am deliberately NOT venturing into those waters here, even though I am acutely aware that they also have a great deal to do with the popularity, and ultimate success or failure of various models released by Bachmann, and the various technical aims of that company with respect to model trains in general. For this particular discussion, I am deliberately sticking to issues related to prototype selection, and hoping that others will do the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
937 Posts
I actually think Bachmann does a pretty good job at picking the locos to model. Take the Connie you mentioned,yeah a lot of people kitbash it, but if you look at those peoples models, they tend to kitbash almost everything they own. Yeah, Bachmann could have put the headlight in the 'correct' location and made the pilot shorter. But the locomotive makes a terrific platform to customize it into your own. I think the new mallet is going to be a great locomotive to customize into your own also. I plan on getting one after the second run comes out and maybe some of the bugs have been worked out of them. My new 3-truck shay is on it's way, and it won't remain stock. I guess it depends on if you want to customize your loco, or take it out of the box and just run it.

I pretty much look at it this way, I can spend $399 on a Bachmann Connie and kitbash it to make it my own, or I can spend $3000 on a Brass Accuraft loco that I would be afraid to put outside.

You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people some of the time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
687 Posts
I agree fully with Matt's analysis. And would like to extend one small point about it.

Most of the USA ng was constructed in the late 19th century and a great deal of the equipment dated from that almost prehistoric period. But the fascination with Colorado ng focusses most often on its more recent past say 1920-1950. Other than the D&RGW and industrial lines, the only American ng with any 20th century equipment were the EBT, the Tweetsie and the WP&Y (plus we should add my favourite though it is not American ... the Newfoundland RR). That leaves us a bit short of prototypes for any generic locos unless one looks to the rest of the Americas or of course to industrial lines.

Personally, since I do not model directly Colorado ng, I have no quibble with B'mann's choices. And for all those Americans who feel that the only place for a headlight is atop the boiler ... I would suggest that the feedwater heater or the bell and numberboards belongs there a la Canadian National and the headlight properly should be centred on the smokebox front. I love my Connie and also see no need whatsoever to Coloradoize it.

Regards ... Doug
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,746 Posts
Posted By Dwight Ennis on 02/15/2009 11:05 PM
I can't answer your question, but I agree with your point. Bachmann does the same thing in On30. Their first On30 loco was a generic Mogul, but at least based upon an American prototype. Then came the Shay - again, all well and good. But then they essentially reproduced the Fn3 Connie in On30. The 4-4-0 they brought out COULD have been a much sought-after model, but instead of a 4-4-0 as was done in Fn3, they instead chose a puny little prototype from Mexico or somewhere south of the border. Their latest offering is an outside frame 4-4-0. Now who ever heard of an outside frame 4-4-0??? Oh, I'm sure one probably existed somewhere, again south of the border, but really... how many On30 modelers model south of the border railroads?

In fairness, they did produce the Climax and the Forneys - terrific if you're doing logging or Maine two-footers. But for the guy who wants to model an average American narrow gauge line, there isn't much there from Bachmann. I have nothing against "generic" locomotives, as On30 modelers are a bunch of freelancers for the most part anyway, but myself, I'd like to see generics based upon something that ran in the USA, or at least close to it.


It has been said many times, fact or fiction, that for the On30 they would NOT be picking 3' gauge locos for prototypes, but 30" or lower prototypes. (Watch them do a C-16 now that I said that tho.)

Granted, much of their early offerings are 3' gauge prototype/influcenced, as many were reportedly "designed/influenced" by Ed Cass' Ohio River Western drawings in the late 1990s Gazzettes.

The current outside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 is a thing of beauty, is a surprisingly large loco (same length as the On30 Connie), and yes, Oeste de Minas, in Brazil.

The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway, these were TINY locos used for the resort there in the 1800s, so not South American. Granted, they are obscure, reportedly the only 2' gauge 4-4-0s used in the US?

Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to relize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado....

And to the original question, why does Bachmann pick what they do? Not to be smart, but it is becuase they can. And so far, they have had several good ones that have sold well.

Who would have thought 20 years ago that we would be seeing so much RTR narrow guage stuff?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,695 Posts
The current outside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 is a thing of beauty
Each to his own. :)
The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway
Lee Riley said differently. Somewhere there was a photo posted of the prototype upon which he said the 4-4-0 was based, and it was from down south.
Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to realize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado
I fully agree and myself have no real interest in modeling Colorado... however, I (and I think many others based upon what I've heard/read) would prefer locos bearing resemblance to things that ran in the USA. Xenophobic? I guess one could look at it that way if they choose. I'd rather call it "preference." My heart lies in California narrow gauge like the NPC, SPC, SC&F, MB&S, NCNG, and Pacific Coast Railway.

Like I said, each to his own. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
926 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Once again, I am impressed with the posts and the replies to them, on MLS. You guys are eloquent! On a preference basis, I'm kinda in Dwight's camp, although I do understand and respect the choices of others. Ain't his fun?!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,960 Posts
I keep going back and forth about whether I "agree" with Bachmann's choices for prototypes. Every time I think "what were they thinking?", I start examining things and see things from--what I assume to be--their perspective.

The Shay, Climax, and Heisler are all models of specific locomotives, but there were plenty of examples which were merely minor variations one way or the other from the models. Since logging seems to be popular, each of these locos has proven to be successful. Heck, I'm not a logging fan, but customized the Heisler to run on my railroad. It's my most reliable "open house" locomotive. (No front pilot truck to derail on my reverse loop switches.)

The 2-8-0 always gets flack for not being a C-21 or C-25, but something of a more generic model of a locomotive that spent most of its time south of the border. I can't speak for others, but its lack of "Colorado" heritage was really what appealed to me when it came out. I got it specifically because it wasn't "Colorado." Yes, I thought it could definitely be improved upon from an aesthetic sense (and did so to my liking), but had it been a "Colorado" locomotive, I would likely have passed on it. I don't know how many people share my sentiment, nor how many didn't buy it because it wasn't "Colorado." Note how when B'mann introduced the On30 version of it, they extended the smokebox and raised the headlight--by far the most common cosmetic change made by 1:20 modelers.

The 4-4-0 and its sister 2-6-0 may be painted for eras which few model, but those styles of locos served many narrow gauge lines (including those in Colorado), often up to their ends. They're also small enough to "play well" with 1:22 equipment--certainly a consideration, though perhaps not an absolute requirement. Those two get high marks in my book for choices.

The K-27 is an obvious choice, and--despite what I consider to be less than optimum marketing and PR surrounding it--seems to be popular.

The Davenport has been getting some undue negative press lately calling its scale "accuracy" into question. The claim is that since the seat is so small, and they're releasing it under the "Liliput" brand with a string of 1:22.5 cars, that it's really 1:22.5 or thereabouts. That's a thin argument at best, and one that didn't rear its head until Bachmann decide to reuse its molds for another product line. For a choice of prototype, it made perfect sense. Regardless of what scale it "really" is, it's representative of a class of locomotives that came in many sizes, so in that regard, scale is somewhat irrelevant. Industrial switchers came in a lot of different sizes. (Look at the EBT's M-4 and M-6.) Because the loco plays so well with both scales, it makes it an even more obvious choice. It most decidedly fills a niche, and if it's anything like its On30 counterpart, will be wildly popular with kitbashers wishing to customize it.

The Mallet was an interesting choice. On one hand, it's unusual to produce a model of a locomotive that was never built. On the other hand, how many LGB articulateds have we seen kitbashed over the years? Clearly people have demonstrated a desire for that type of locomotive, even if there wasn't a "true" prototype. I can't fault them for tapping into that market. I think it's a well proportioned loco that should do quite well. One can argue that they could have produced the Uintah articulateds, but those were BEASTS! They would dwarf most everything on the market. Bachmann learned that lesson with their center cab diesel. There is such a thing as "too big" in this market.

In truth, the center cab is really the only loco they've done that I can't rationalize. There were smaller 40-ton narrow gauge switchers that would not have had nearly the bulk of the prototype they chose. (I believe the "original" center cab diesel they proposed years before was of a smaller prototype which would have been ideal.) I'm still a bit confused as to how simply putting a new chassis under a 1:22.5 model automatically makes it "Spectrum" quality, but that's another story.

Would Bachmann have more success if they stuck with popular prototypes? Who's to say? I'd like to see a plastic EBT mikado as much as the guy sitting next to me would like to see a plastic K-36. They haven't, and my railroad is what it is because of that. I'm just as happy, as it's opened my eyes to some other fascinating railroads that ran right along the EBT.

Later,

K
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
I am so digging ALL of this! Sure I ask myself the same questions and whine about lack of product available for my specific wants or needs. Then all of a sudden some sage will offer their advice and like my "garage moment" a light will go off in my head (my wife says it is called a stroke) and it is all apparent to me. This hobby is fueled by our tastes. It would be grand if manufacturers made items that fit all our designs. The reality is they can not effectively (or efficiently) produce items for all our wants. I get a little envious of youse guys here when I see your pictures and read your posts. I sometimes wish I was able to model 1:29/1:32 instead of the Narrow Guage I started out with. There is no reason why I can't have it all (if and only if SHE says I can of course), but my fancy currently is in the Narrow Guage. It boils down to the proverbial eye of the beholder. I see the manufacturers developing product that will attract the tastes of a larger customer base and not the entire hobby. I see "us" purchasing what we want or need, then modifying whatever product to meet those needs. That is just another beauty of this hobby and I thank all of you for providing me with the knowledge to continue with this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,746 Posts
Posted By Dwight Ennis on 02/16/2009 11:10 AM

The inside frame Baldwin 4-4-0 loco is from Pennsylvania, ran on the Mt. Gretna Narrow Gauge Railway
Lee Riley said differently. Somewhere there was a photo posted of the prototype upon which he said the 4-4-0 was based, and it was from down south.
Bachmann is doing a great job of shattering xenophobia of modellers to realize there is more to narrow gauge than Colorado
I fully agree and myself have no real interest in modeling Colorado... however, I (and I think many others based upon what I've heard/read) would prefer locos bearing resemblance to things that ran in the USA. Xenophobic? I guess one could look at it that way if they choose. I'd rather call it "preference." My heart lies in California narrow gauge like the NPC, SPC, SC&F, MB&S, NCNG, and Pacific Coast Railway.

Like I said, each to his own. :)" src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />


Interesting, I think it was from a Bachmann source that I had heard it was Mt Gretna. NGSLG had drawings published, this would tell that fact, but then, if the S/A prototype was 30", it would make sense. Either way, it is a TINY loco and the wheel base is a bit odd looking.

CA narrow gauge is also of interest to me, and yes, there are some voids to be filled there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,746 Posts
Posted By East Broad Top on 02/16/2009 12:13 PM

The Davenport has been getting some undue negative press lately calling its scale "accuracy" into question. The claim is that since the seat is so small, and they're releasing it under the "Liliput" brand with a string of 1:22.5 cars, that it's really 1:22.5 or thereabouts. That's a thin argument at best, and one that didn't rear its head until Bachmann decide to reuse its molds for another product line.
Later,

K


That was an interesting move, and I am sure a "jump" to get into the "domestic" large scale market in Europe, but then, what was with the simple re-marking of US stuff other than a low cost effort? I have not done my homework to see if they are using the Bachmann sheetmetal track....

Maybe one can hope Kader can expand Liliput's efforts like Bachmann USA with the F/On30 model interchange to their Austrian H0e line, of which, I own several of their models.... And maybe make an Austrian U class with the correct cab height unlike LGB?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,602 Posts
I too agree with Matt's take on the situation. It seems that in narrow gauge, you can either please a few of the people by producing models of specific popular prototypes, while annoying everyone else; or please most of the people by producing models drawn from obscure or "almost-was" prototypes while annoying fewer people. Or something like that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
246 Posts
Posted By SlateCreek on 02/16/2009 5:39 AM
in Standard gauge, locomotives may end up being a bit more uniform simply because they need to fit intot everyone else's platforms, fuel docks, water towers, etc....




I would love to see Bachmann release a standard gauge version of the Annie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
687 Posts
Bachmann does not seem poised to enter the 1:29 or 1:32 arenas so a standard gauge Annie is pretty far out there. Those of us who model non Colorado narrow gauge always eagerly look forward to B'mann's next offerings ... they are totally unpredictable and capricious but you have to admit, give us all a chance to second guess what they are doing.

It is interesting that the Colorado crowd whose interests are just about the monopoly of Accucraft, would like to also monopolize the B'mann offerings as well. The recent speculation of AMS locos would no doubt ease some of that but I have my doubts that Accucraft can bring locos to production with a street price as low as B'mann. Some will point to the rolling stock noting that AMS cars are somewhat less expensive than the B'mann offerings but this is the issue of when the dies were made and their initial cost.

In any case, I am one of those who owns a fleet of B'mann Fn3 locos and who has no particular quibbles with their choice of non Colorado prototypes. I do not expect to ever own a Davenport as it is too tiny but I do have a Dizzy! All of us wish that B'mann produced better mechanisms but ... the mechs are normally correctable while if the base model is just plain out of scale, nothing can be done. As Matt pointed out, mechanical deficiencies are not the subject here - this discussion centres on choice of prototype.

Regards ... Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
In the UK Bachmann, being the importer/distributor of Aristo-Craft, probably feels that 1:29 is well covered by other manufacturers. They did order a 1:29 loco for Europe which was made by Aristo namely the UK Class 66 and its European sisters. As many know the 1:1 versions of this loco is built in Canada.

I can't post pics here but maybe someone else will if they feel it necessary.

Bachmann are of course the big boys in the UK as far as OO/HO is concerned. For anyone interested in their UK web site here is the link.


http://www.bachmann.co.uk/index.php
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,911 Posts
I too agree with Matt's take on the situation. It seems that in narrow gauge, you can either please a few of the people by producing models of specific popular prototypes, while annoying everyone else; or please most of the people by producing models drawn from obscure or "almost-was" prototypes while annoying fewer people. Or something like that.


It's not the 'annoying' that's important - it's the total number of people who are so annoyed they don't buy one!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,297 Posts
I have to admit when I saw the outside frame American on that Japanese website and there was some question that it could be issued in 1/20, I for one was very excited, then to find it was in On30 had me ticked off, why do they always get the really cool models and all we get is reissues.

The K may be welcomed by some but I'll never own one, way too big, too expensive. While the dinky American might have usable on my layout, the trend towards ever bigger engines like the K and the Mallet has kinda left small layout guys like me out in the cold. I'm seriously jealous of the On30 guys, they get the best stuff, several new items per year, and we get one or two items per year, for me mostly costly oversized stuff I can't use. I find myself hoping they make a large scale version of the cool On30 railbus and trailer, will they? I doubt it. Not likely to get anything new this year with the economy in the stinker.

Best they can hope for this year is that they can sell off their existing inventory, once they have done that then decide which products already in production will be best for this economy. Gaurentee you it will not be anything new thats big like the Mallet or the K or the 3 truck Shay, i'd be very surprised if anyone comes out with any big ticket items. I expect at best to see new, maybe a reissue of the Climax and thats pretty much it, and what recurring items they do continue to produce will be at reduced production runs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
246 Posts
Posted By Great Western on 02/17/2009 10:51 AM
In the UK Bachmann, being the importer/distributor of Aristo-Craft, probably feels that 1:29 is well covered by other manufacturers.



Then theres Bachmann brassworks, 1/32 gauge one, very reasonable for brass and quite allright (according to reviews)
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top