alpine_saint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9988280.QE2_to_be_scrapped_/ Should never have gone in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Sail her into the mid-Atlantic, open the sea chests and let nature take its course. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 October, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 October, 2012 So you have no interests in museums then, and live only for the superificial here and now ? You're welcome to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 So you have no interests in museums then, and live only for the superificial here and now ? You're welcome to your opinion. Yes, it simply is that black and white. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Alps, if you care so much about ships, why do you live in a landlocked country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Sink her off the UK for diving purposes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 couldn't care less. It's just a big boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Sink her off the UK for diving purposes Thought about that, sinking her and making a reef. Certainly better than having her sat in port as a "museum". A museum for what? Parts of the QE2 mile in Southampton look decent, so maybe adding to that with features of the ship could be an option (I especially like the anchor outside the old Firkin pub). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 couldn't care less. It's just a big boat. I agree with this. I really couldn't give a toss about a big lump of metal that floats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 I agree with this. I really couldn't give a toss about a big lump of metal that floats. But it's been to Southampton, hypo! It has been named after our Queen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 I'm not that fussed, but I have to say just sinking it in the middle of the ocean seems a waste. We might as well put it in UK waters as a diving spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Just a thought, as an add on to the 'sinking' view, how much would decontamination cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Just a thought, as an add on to the 'sinking' view, how much would decontamination cost? Not as much as you may think as most of the Asbestos has already been removed and wash the fuel tanks and a couple of rinses would just about do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Couldn't we moor it at Pompey, gut the insides and build a new 50,000 seater uber stadium inside for the Fratton Faithful? I can't think of a better use than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Thought about that, sinking her and making a reef. Maybe do it off Boscombe Pier, couldn't be a more costly **** up attempt at a reef than the existing one that doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 you'd get a few quid at Huntleys! Though dont go back in if you have forgotten anything.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 personally couldn't care less if it was scrapped or not, but wouldn't Southampton waterfront be a great tourist spot if the Titanic museum had been located by the wayer and perhaps the QE2 was located close to it and opened to the public? You could add a sailing museum of some sort and maybe a dockyard museum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 personally couldn't care less if it was scrapped or not, but wouldn't Southampton waterfront be a great tourist spot if the Titanic museum had been located by the wayer and perhaps the QE2 was located close to it and opened to the public? You could add a sailing museum of some sort and maybe a dockyard museum... Then think of the council saying "All that waterfront property we could flog off now its worth something" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 personally couldn't care less if it was scrapped or not, but wouldn't Southampton waterfront be a great tourist spot if the Titanic museum had been located by the wayer and perhaps the QE2 was located close to it and opened to the public? You could add a sailing museum of some sort and maybe a dockyard museum... ....and the thread's "first piece of sense" award goes to Chez.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 personally couldn't care less if it was scrapped or not, but wouldn't Southampton waterfront be a great tourist spot if the Titanic museum had been located by the wayer and perhaps the QE2 was located close to it and opened to the public? You could add a sailing museum of some sort and maybe a dockyard museum... Just how much demand is there for a tourist attraction that lets people wander around the restaurants and cabins of a decommissioned cruise liner? Especially in a city which sees cruise liners almost every day of the year. I know the QE2 has had a long history and has a great connection with the city; I'm just wondering what the tangible benefit there is to mooring it up for any extended period of time. Would it be a popular thing; are there any similar examples where this has worked? Personally I can't think of a much more boring tourist attraction than wandering around an out of service liner when we've also upgraded to a bigger and better sister ship. HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, well I get that. The Southampton Hall of Aviation; yep, I get that too. The QE2? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Just how much demand is there for a tourist attraction that lets people wander around the restaurants and cabins of a decommissioned cruise liner? Especially in a city which sees cruise liners almost every day of the year. I know the QE2 has had a long history and has a great connection with the city; I'm just wondering what the tangible benefit there is to mooring it up for any extended period of time. Would it be a popular thing; are there any similar examples where this has worked? Personally I can't think of a much more boring tourist attraction than wandering around an out of service liner when we've also upgraded to a bigger and better sister ship. HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, well I get that. The Southampton Hall of Aviation; yep, I get that too. The QE2? Not so much. Its not much to look at in the engine rooms either as most of the good stuff disappeared when they converted it to ruddy great diesel engines which did nothing for the ride of the passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Just how much demand is there for a tourist attraction that lets people wander around the restaurants and cabins of a decommissioned cruise liner? Especially in a city which sees cruise liners almost every day of the year. I know the QE2 has had a long history and has a great connection with the city; I'm just wondering what the tangible benefit there is to mooring it up for any extended period of time. Would it be a popular thing; are there any similar examples where this has worked? Personally I can't think of a much more boring tourist attraction than wandering around an out of service liner when we've also upgraded to a bigger and better sister ship. HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, well I get that. The Southampton Hall of Aviation; yep, I get that too. The QE2? Not so much. I think it would work as a museum for maritime in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 I think it would work as a museum for maritime in general. So essentially completely strip it out and convert into a museum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 So essentially completely strip it out and convert into a museum? Some parts, yes. It's probably not viable financially but it would work quite well if they fitted out different sections as ships from different eras would have been fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Just how much demand is there for a tourist attraction that lets people wander around the restaurants and cabins of a decommissioned cruise liner? Especially in a city which sees cruise liners almost every day of the year. I know the QE2 has had a long history and has a great connection with the city; I'm just wondering what the tangible benefit there is to mooring it up for any extended period of time. Would it be a popular thing; are there any similar examples where this has worked? Personally I can't think of a much more boring tourist attraction than wandering around an out of service liner when we've also upgraded to a bigger and better sister ship. HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, well I get that. The Southampton Hall of Aviation; yep, I get that too. The QE2? Not so much. You only have to look across the pond to Los Angeles where nearby at Long Beach, they have the former Cunard Queen Mary, close by to the Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" flying boat and the tacky Olde London Town "attraction" The Queen Mary is used as an hotel, although the tourist parts are the atrocious "sound and light" show in the engine room and the upper deck promenades are filled with American junk food outlets. The London feature on the quay is the usual Hollywood idea of what they think London is like and as usual, they are far wide of the mark and have no idea. However, the Spruce Goose is excellent. They must attract many thousands of tourists to these attractions, so no reason that the QE 2 could not be utilised as an Hotel/conference centre and other attractions added to give it extra value, although the only fly in the ointment I could think of is the shortage of waterfront space in the docks because of all the cruise trade we have at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Wes, being located in LA, does that also lend itself to decent weather (i.e. would that type of thing work here?) I've only ever flown into/out of LAX before, never stayed, so have no first hand experience of what you're saying. That also seems to lend itself to an overall image of "Britishness", which we've kind of got everywhere here already! But a top end hotel is an interesting idea; logistically pretty difficult but plausible I suppose. Could that work?? Genuinely interested to see if it could actually be made into a tourist attraction or something worthwhile here, other than being moored up as a token visual note to our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Wes, being located in LA, does that also lend itself to decent weather (i.e. would that type of thing work here?) I've only ever flown into/out of LAX before, never stayed, so have no first hand experience of what you're saying. That also seems to lend itself to an overall image of "Britishness", which we've kind of got everywhere here already! But a top end hotel is an interesting idea; logistically pretty difficult but plausible I suppose. Could that work?? Genuinely interested to see if it could actually be made into a tourist attraction or something worthwhile here, other than being moored up as a token visual note to our history. May be missing the pun or ptake here but thats what a day of Vodka & coke will do to you. It was already a top end Hotel only one that floated, a quick refurb of the rooms and restaurants Bobs your uncle (and auntie if your from down the road) and away you go. Although the plumbing on some of the state rooms was something to be desired when she was last looked at in earnest for a refit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 May be missing the pun or ptake here but thats what a day of Vodka & coke will do to you. It was already a top end Hotel only one that floated, a quick refurb of the rooms and restaurants Bobs your uncle (and auntie if your from down the road) and away you go. Although the plumbing on some of the state rooms was something to be desired when she was last looked at in earnest for a refit. It really wasn't; certainly not for the accommodation in most of the cabins. I can't think of many top end hotels that have no windows, like the inside staterooms (of which there are/were an awful lot. Or that have as small rooms as a lot of the regular outside cabins. Only the suites and higher-end staterooms would suffice in their current incarnations; perhaps not even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 It really wasn't; certainly not for the accommodation in most of the cabins. I can't think of many top end hotels that have no windows, like the inside staterooms (of which there are/were an awful lot. Or that have as small rooms as a lot of the regular outside cabins. Only the suites and higher-end staterooms would suffice in their current incarnations; perhaps not even then. I hear what your saying it could have been done better like the Titanic but then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Aside from that all the modern and she was modern flotels are built to the same model that Ibis and those hotels that Lennie Henry flogs rooms for are they are small square box's with a toilet / shower at one end and and a chair with a desk. Close your eyes and wish you were anywhere they are all the same just a slight variation on theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Wes, being located in LA, does that also lend itself to decent weather (i.e. would that type of thing work here?) I've only ever flown into/out of LAX before, never stayed, so have no first hand experience of what you're saying. That also seems to lend itself to an overall image of "Britishness", which we've kind of got everywhere here already! But a top end hotel is an interesting idea; logistically pretty difficult but plausible I suppose. Could that work?? Genuinely interested to see if it could actually be made into a tourist attraction or something worthwhile here, other than being moored up as a token visual note to our history. There are many different types of tourist or other customers who might be interested in either visiting it or staying on it. As you say, it might have less attractiveness at first sight to British tourists, especially in the major British liner port. But what percentage of the population have actually been on a liner, let alone an iconic one such as the QE2? There is an element for them of seeing how the other half live. Then there are the tourists from other countries, who although they might see lots of liners in the port, don't actually have the opportunity of actually going on board one. Add in the market for an original and iconic Hotel & Conference destination and the investment prospects begin to improve. As I said, whereas the Queen Mary is not a stand alone attraction, I would anticipate that other things might need to be added adjacent to it, such as a decent Maritime Museum, or Titanic Museum. I'd argue that the British weather is actually a plus point, as in LA there was the inclination to do other outdoor things. I was there for the Olympics and went to see the Queen Mary mainly because of her connections with Southampton. Frankly I was horrified with what the bloody Yanks had done to her. There has been discussion in the past I understand about bringing her back here, but I seem to recall that she is no longer in a condition for this to be possible. Shame that the Princess flying boats are no longer here in Southampton, or else we could have had a parallel universe exhibition featuring them, some Yank liner like the SS United States and an Elstree Studio's kitsch version of a mini New York for the Yanks to visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Shame that the Princess flying boats are no longer here in Southampton, or else we could have had a parallel universe exhibition featuring them, some Yank liner like the SS United States and an Elstree Studio's kitsch version of a mini New York for the Yanks to visit. New York New York is just down the road; a lick of paint and a spruce up, that'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint137 Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 She would cost an absolute fortune to maintain wet-docked, and the only dry dock she'd fit is way up in the container port. Unfortunately very little sentiment or compassion for old ships in the shipping trade (I work for P&O), the beautiful Saga Ruby got scrapped last year and she was a much better option for a hotel than QE2. As to other ships around the world, the United States is docked somewhere on the east coast of the US, and there is an old Holland America ship moored in Rotterdam harbour but that's about it. This is what we did to Canberra http://www.thecaptainslog.org.uk/Canberra1995/Gallery/CanberraScrap1w.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Couldn't we moor it at Pompey, gut the insides and build a new 50,000 seater uber stadium inside for the Fratton Faithful, and then sink it? I can't think of a better use than that. Gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 (edited) She would cost an absolute fortune to maintain wet-docked, and the only dry dock she'd fit is way up in the container port. Unfortunately very little sentiment or compassion for old ships in the shipping trade (I work for P&O), the beautiful Saga Ruby got scrapped last year and she was a much better option for a hotel than QE2. As to other ships around the world, the United States is docked somewhere on the east coast of the US, and there is an old Holland America ship moored in Rotterdam harbour but that's about it. This is what we did to Canberra http://www.thecaptainslog.org.uk/Canberra1995/Gallery/CanberraScrap1w.jpg United States is in Philadelphia: http://www.ss-united-states.com/i2.html One of her propellers is in a corner of a yard up a side street opposite the USS Intrepid in Manhattan. The France (later Norway) was eventually scrapped in 2008. Edited 17 October, 2012 by Whitey Grandad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint137 Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Love the SS-US, if there was one ship in all of recent history I'd liked to have sailed on its her. The Concorde of ocean liners, crazy feat of engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 She would cost an absolute fortune to maintain wet-docked, they seem to be able to be able to make the Warrior pay its way. Very little to see on that IMO, yet still the tourist come year after year. I think people overestimate what a tourist requires. I know a guided tour of a real ship beats walking round a room with photos of ships. I've not been to the Titanic museum but I bet there is plenty of that. Pompey Historic dockyard has got a good thing going. If they added a modern day warship it wouldn't do any harm, but I dare say they have plans for something like that. Southampton can piggyback on what they do. Tourists to Pompey wouldn't have far to go to travel to see more great sea based museums in Southampton. And why wouldn't they? If the cities started trying to outdo each other pretty soon the South coast would become a major nautical tourist attraction, then when foreigner come over they might go from London to the south coast rather than the usual London/Manchester/Liverpool/Dublin kind of route. Southampton, like many cities up and down the country are seeing big companies shut down their offices and moving out of town or abroad. The council needs to stop relying on the football club to keep it on the map. A 20 year plan to make it the maritime centre of the world should be well under way by now. Instead of travellers only departing from Southampton they should be stopping for a day or two. But tell me what the hell is there worth stopping to see right now? A Saints game and a b-rate version of a West Ed show in the Mayflower? Money is tight. It always will be, but by the time the council realises that something significant needs to be done to attract money it will be too late. It's time to think big and the city will reap the rewards for decades to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 17 October, 2012 Share Posted 17 October, 2012 Not as much as you may think as most of the Asbestos has already been removed and wash the fuel tanks and a couple of rinses would just about do it. Would that be enough? I ask because I watched quite an interesting programme where an old US warship was stripped out and scuttled to form a reef. Purely from it's previous use I can understand why the decontamination was a lot more intricate but even the wiring was ripped out! That was not a financial decision because it cost more to strip out than what would have been gained from the scrap conductive cores etc. On the emotive side, and purely dreaming here, wouldn't it be great to see her moored alongside, as a Hotel/Attraction, with a walkway connecting to S.M.S. and a revitalised surround? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 I hear what your saying it could have been done better like the Titanic but then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Aside from that all the modern and she was modern flotels are built to the same model that Ibis and those hotels that Lennie Henry flogs rooms for are they are small square box's with a toilet / shower at one end and and a chair with a desk. Close your eyes and wish you were anywhere they are all the same just a slight variation on theme. it's a complete myth that Titanic was luxurious. This was a 1912 ocean liner , most of her passengers were accommodated in dormitories! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 Why not combine a couple of the ideas from the this thread, sell it to Joseph Cala, and let him sink it in Portsmouth harbour as his first underwater hotel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 The costs and source of funding will never add up for this type of vessel. People point to other maritime heritage attractions the vast majority of these live hand to mouth and have to establish a brand much wider than a single ship. The sheer scale of the QEII means that she would not be an easy vessel to interpret and present to the general public and I cannot see any business case where she would be self financing. HMS VICTORY does not pay her way, the MoD subsidise her upkeep to the tune of several million pounds and yet she is possibly the most famous preserved ship in the UK if not the world. The current project to ensure the continued preservation and viability of HMS ALLIANCE, the only WWII designed SM in the UK, will cost close to £7m and has required a significant grant from the Lottery (approx 50%). The reefing option is not as simple as people seem to think HMS SCYLLA was the first ship reefed in the UK in 2002 (I think), not accounting for all of the work by the MOD in striping her of equipment and asbestos prior to transfer for the reefing preparation work that cost £1m. Asbestos is only one of many environmental issues that need to be addressed, also to ensure divers safety a great deal of the structure and systems has to stripped out. The desire to preserve historic icons must be tempered by the reality that the preservation and maintenance of complex engineering structures is an extremely costly enterprise, for an example see the recent stories on VULCAN XH558, and not everything can be preserved and funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 18 October, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 October, 2012 The costs and source of funding will never add up for this type of vessel. People point to other maritime heritage attractions the vast majority of these live hand to mouth and have to establish a brand much wider than a single ship. The sheer scale of the QEII means that she would not be an easy vessel to interpret and present to the general public and I cannot see any business case where she would be self financing. HMS VICTORY does not pay her way, the MoD subsidise her upkeep to the tune of several million pounds and yet she is possibly the most famous preserved ship in the UK if not the world. The current project to ensure the continued preservation and viability of HMS ALLIANCE, the only WWII designed SM in the UK, will cost close to £7m and has required a significant grant from the Lottery (approx 50%). The reefing option is not as simple as people seem to think HMS SCYLLA was the first ship reefed in the UK in 2002 (I think), not accounting for all of the work by the MOD in striping her of equipment and asbestos prior to transfer for the reefing preparation work that cost £1m. Asbestos is only one of many environmental issues that need to be addressed, also to ensure divers safety a great deal of the structure and systems has to stripped out. The desire to preserve historic icons must be tempered by the reality that the preservation and maintenance of complex engineering structures is an extremely costly enterprise, for an example see the recent stories on VULCAN XH558, and not everything can be preserved and funded. But XH558 isnt being scrapped. Have you seen the Ve3 proposal from the VTTS Trust ? (was chuffed I saw her in the sky from a Red Funnel Ferry at Cowes in August 2009 as she was flying on her way to the Bournemouth Airshow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 No she isn’t, but it illustrates the problems with keeping a complex engineering structure viable. Aviation preservation is in reality far less complex than maritime and especially something like the QEII. Strangely for a maritime nation aviation heritage seems more able to get public support than maritime heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 18 October, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 October, 2012 No she isn’t, but it illustrates the problems with keeping a complex engineering structure viable. Aviation preservation is in reality far less complex than maritime and especially something like the QEII. Strangely for a maritime nation aviation heritage seems more able to get public support than maritime heritage. Hmm, I am struggling with this statement. An aircraft is a complex system where everything has to function to keep the thing in the air. If you are following the XH558 issue you will know the main problem is reliable engine supply - she stripped 2 turbines at the beginning of this year's flying season. Thats a pretty major problem, and if it happens again she wont even get through the last planned flying season next year. The QE2 is several thousand tons of steel, in principle. A rusty patch isnt going to kill anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 You are right I should have said that ships have a greater degree of complexity; aircraft have far fewer systems than a ship. The majority of preserved aircraft are static, the range and scale of operational systems required to maintain a ship the size of QEII in a static condition and allow public access is significantly greater than that required for static aviation exhibits (that in the main are only viewed from afar). XH558's problems stem from a very laudable desire to keep her flying and the complex problem with the turbines not present in static preservation; her problems are a function of failure of a complex system and the absence of a supply chain. QEII would require the majority of her non propulsion systems to either be live or at least replicated and functioning, HVAC, Lighting, safety systems, flood control, fire protection, watertight subdivisions, potable water, waste disposal, power distribution and possible generation etc. whilst in addition other (new) systems would be required to comply with the necessary H&S legislation to gain a safety certificate for public access. I am a very keen supporter of aviation and maritime the preservation scene having been a volunteer at an aviation museum and actively supported maritime projects, but the preservation of something like QEII is in all honesty is wholly impracticable and the amount of money required would be far better spent on a wider range of projects. For another sad example see HMS Plymouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 18 October, 2012 Share Posted 18 October, 2012 Would make a superb floating boozer on match days if she was tied up at the gravel wharves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now