Getting rail to Chadstone and Monash University

It’s a great failure of urban planning that two of the biggest trip generators in the south eastern suburbs were built away from the rail system, especially given how much rail is in the area. Chadstone sits halfway between the Glen Waverley and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines, slightly too far away for either of the lines to be of use. Monash is just that bit too far for the Cranbourne/Pakenhem lines to be useful.

But even if these trip generators were situated on existing rail corridors, the rail catchments would be limited because of the radial nature of the rail networkand the absence . Even Chadstone and Monash were built along the Cranbourne/Pakenham line, passengers living along the Glen Waverley, Belgrave/Lilydale and Alamein lines would still be unable to use rail as an effective substitute for car use, because they would have to travel all the way to Richmond and back out again to get there.

Clearly, a cross town rail link would be required to better integrate these lines with one other. Given that Chadstone and Monash aren’t even on the rail network anyway, such a line could be built to travel to them as well.

The good news is that most of such a line already exists as the Alamein line. Alamein is presently badly underused – extending it could create a viable cross town link and make existing infrastructure earn its keep.

New line

The line would head south from the Alamein line terminus for 1.4km, along the old outer circle alignment to East Malvern station, where an interchange with the Glen Waverley line would be built. The no. 3 tram would be extended 1.1km to meet the new rail interchange.

The line would dive underground at the East Malvern station car park and head south east to Chadtsone shopping centre, where an underground station would be built. The line would then head south and surface at Paddington Rd., Hughesdale. Total length for the underground section would be 2.6km.

From here, an extra pair of tracks would be built beside the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines to Huntingdale, where the line would branch off and follow North Rd. to Monash University. Extra platforms would be required at Oakleigh and Huntingdale stations, and a new station would be built at Monash University. Total length for this section would be 5km.

Cost using the NCCCS

6.4km surface rail @ $4.12m/km = $26.37m
2.6km underground rail @ $47.14m/km = $122.56m
Chadstone station = $58.93m
East Malvern, Oakleigh and Huntingdale station extra platforms @ $10m each = $30m***
Monash University station = $15m***
Monash fwy/Gardiners creek, Huntingdale Rd. and Princes Highway bridge works @ $15m each = $45m***
Substations x 2 @ $0.59m each = $1.18m

= $299.04 million

(*** costs not included in NCCCS – estimated by me)

Cost using empirical data from the Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood lines

6.4km surface rail @ $13.7m/km = $87.68m
2.6km underground rail @ $78.72m/km = $204.67m

= $292.35 million

Interestingly the NCCCS and empirical methods work out about the same because the per km costs that I calculated for Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood were inclusive of stations, bridges etc. whereas the NCCCS figures were not.

Existing line upgrades

Tacking this onto the end of the existing Alamein line wouldn’t work – the line needs upgrading to work efficiently. The 0.8 km of single track from Ashburton to Alamein needs duplicating and Riversdale and Prospect Hill roads need grade separating. Although you could probably get away with keeping the level crossing at Prospect Hill rd, it would be reletively cheap to do if Riversdale rd is being done at the same time (and RIversdale rd really needs doing on account of the tram square alone).

Current station placement is poor – basically none of the existing stations are usable in their current form. The rebuilt line would have stations at Riversdale rd, Toorak rd and High st – a net loss of three stations from the current arrangement.

At Camberwell the decision has to be made whether to run the line as a shuttle or continue it all the way to Flinders St. If the line were to run as a shuttle, a dock platform would be needed at Camberwell (requiring changes to the flyover), and if it were to continue, four tracks would really be needed from Camberwell to Burnley. I’ve got no problem with running the service as a shuttle, but to work properly the Belgrave/Lilydale line needs to be ultra frequent – not just for the expresses, but for the stoppers as well. This may warrant quadruplication to Camberwell or Box Hill anyway. I’d be interested in your thoughts on how to proceed here.

Cost of Alamein line upgrade

0.8km duplication @ $4.12m/km = $3.3m
New stations x 3 @ $10m each = $30m
Riversdale rd grade separation = $15m
Prospect Hill rd grade separation = $8m
Camberwell station works = $10m

= $66.3 million

Cost of Burnley – Camberwell quadruplication

4.7km @ $13.7m/km*** = $64.39 million

(Mandurah line cost used to approximate extra track cost – bridge spans, extra platforms and some earthworks would be required)

Service standard

Trains should run every 6 minutes (10tph) all day every day, giving passengers an average wait time of 3 minutes. Demand variations should be dealt with by running 3 or 6 car sets – not by running less frequent services off peak. Supplier induced demand and low marginal cost makes this a false economy. Because of the nature of the trip generators on the line (a shopping centre and university), there’s unlikely to be a traditional AM-PM peak demand function.

The trains don’t need to be especially comfortable because the average trip length will be reletively short. It’s exactly the sort of line that could see the Comeng trains live out their days over the next 20 years. Interior layout should be similar to now, but with more longitudinal seating around the doors.

Here’s what the line could look like to passengers if it ran as a shuttle from Camberwell.

For more information on why this sort of service standard is so important, I suggest reading Riccardo’s excellent new Training Track series; available here, here, here, here and here.

Costs and Benefits

The total fixed infrastructure cost of the project from Monash to Camberwell would be 292.35 + 66.3 = $358.65 million or 299.04 + 66.3 = $365.34 million, depending on which costing method were used. To upgrade Burnley – Camberwell to enable the line to reliably run to the city, an extra $64.39 million would be required on top of this.

The benefits would be considerable – public transport would be a serious option for the first time for trips to Monash University and Chadstone. Public transport could compete with the car for these trips not just on the Dandenong corridor, but throughout almost all of the middle ring eastern and south eastern suburbs, as well as out to Ringwood. On top of this, the Belgrave/Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines would be properly integrated with one another, making rail useful for a large variety of cross town trips between the various lines. Furthermore, the capital already invested in the Alamein line would be actually generating a return in the form of a service people actually want to use. These works would make it reletively easy to extend the line to Rowville. This project really should be a top rail priority, virtually on par with Doncaster.


39 Responses

  1. I like the worm.

  2. Are there any trams near Chadstone? Maybe you should build a tram. People like catching trams to places, especially if they live nearby. Lots of people who live near Chadstone hate driving there already, due to a lack of available car spaces. So you probably have latent demand.

    • @Jen

      Trams are great and all , but if you were living nearby Monash uni or Chadstone,
      you’d be an idiot to drive there

      A cross link train line as demonstrated in this is clearly for the commuters of far off distances that a tram cannot compete with car or train.

  3. Phin, in your line guide, you have four stations between Camberwell and East Malvern. Is the other station Alamein?

  4. Thanks Jen – I suppose the map does look a bit like a worm. Regarding the tram issue – I’m already proposing extending the no. 3 to East Malvern to connect with the train (at a cost of about $12 million), but I’ll have a follow up post soon which looks at whether a tram would work as a low cost alternative if heavy rail weren’t built.

  5. Thanks for pointing that out Calembeena – the map does seem to have 4 stations between Camberwell and East Malvern. It was only meant to have 3 though. Fixing the mistake now!

  6. I lived right near Chadstone (in the suburb of Chadstone funnily enough, my closest station being Homesglen) for a whole 6 months at the end of 1st year (with a pro-shopping housemate)… and never went there once…. basically because (I’m lazy) I don’t drive and went everywhere via p/t.

    In my opinion it’s a completely wasted opportunity – there’s a reason the new DFO was built on top of Spencer Street (sorry, ‘Southern Cross’) station. Although Melb Central and DFO are positioned on already existing infrastructure (and therefore aren’t the sole reason for commuters to use those train lines) I’d go so far as to say a train line directly connecting to Chadstone shopping centre could itself become a hub from which other businesses could branch off.

    Did any of that make sense? Hmmm, I should really get back to work.

  7. Wow, I have no idea where that smiley face came from…. creepy formatting ghosts…

  8. Thanks Jess – I agree, if you built a station at Chadstone (or anywhere) it should act to encourage transit oriented development, increasing density around the railway station. This makes the railway even more viable. I saw recently that Translink in Vancouver has started buying up land around proposed rail corridors exactly for this purpose.

  9. I`m not sure commuters on a future Rowville line would be happy to be diverted via Camberwell and 4 tracks Huntingdale-Monash Uni might be a little over the top but the two services could run on the same tracks but that would not be good for sectorisation.

  10. Thanks Tom. There’s a couple of reasons why I’d be happy for a future Rowville line to run via Camberwell:

    1. If frequency were high (and it absolutely has to be for many reasons), passengers from Rowville could change at Huntingdale or Oakleigh for a fast city service. When services are frequent, there’s no need to cling to the single seat journey concept. In any case, rail needs to cater better for non CBD trips – we’d need a good study to see where most of the Rowville patronage is going though.

    2. The need for more independence between lines combined with the desirability of utilising all the infrastructure efficiently dictates that it’s good to move a service from a congested one (Dandenong) to a quiet one (Alamein). With 4 tracks Camberwell-Burnley, getting to the city shouldn’t be such an issue capacity wise.

    I don’t think you could get away with running the new line’s trains on the main line to Dandenong because, as you say, it would preclude effective sectorisation. This line has its own set of problems and trying to put an extra 10tph onto it from Oakliegh to Huntingdale would stop extra services running all the way to Dandenong. There’s probably also an argument that the flyovers required would cost almost as much as laying extra track.

  11. I ment running Rowville-City and Camberwell-Monash Uni on the same tracks Huntingdale-Monash Uni (not as a prefered suggestion). I was not suggesting running the Camberwell-Monash Uni on the Dandenong line.

  12. Any suggestion that makes more efficient use of the Alamein line is a good one. Shuttles would work just fine if the frequency is there at Camberwell, and I like the idea of varying train length rather than time interval at quieter times; the trams already do this at times, and it works well.

    Since you’ve outlined plans for the Alamein and Upfield, which quiet line gets the next Phin treatment?

  13. Excellent stuff. Alamein to GWY line is a no-brainer, and as you said, makes use of very poorly utilised line.

    Combining this with a Oakleigh-Hunt-Monash line takes the cake. If you made Oakleigh and Huntingdale a HK style “double interchange” – like I showed earlier for Caulfield and Malvern on your blog, it would truly work well.

    The East Malvern tram is another op, but of course serving a local market.

    Thanks for the plug for the service standards. I’ll have to put one up on HK-style multiple interchanging.

    Re your shuttle idea, one possibility, out of the box, is that your line continued to Burnley but NOT FURTHER.

    It would be aimed at reducing CBD dependnece and the message could be like the famous HK Yaumatei termination…get off! It could cover the Cam-Burn section in intensive T-u-a-g services with a dock at Burnley, anyone who wants to go further needs to change for GWY (for east rich) or express to the city.

  14. Here was my original comment about the HK multiple interchange solution – done for Caulfield and Malvern.

    Imagine it at Oakleigh and Huntingdale!

  15. Good stuff. Only reason to run it into the CBD would be to provide extra City services from stations Camberwell inwards (which would probably be serviced by local trains from further out perhaps?) – no need for one-seat journeys from Alamein line stations to the CBD. Running Rowville via Alamein is not a bad idea either.

    Agree about Alamein line stations being in poor locations. Apart from Riversdale and possibly Ashburton (which is too far from the bus stop for my liking) none of them are well-located. Alamein itself could be chopped if the line was extended.

    Where do you think most passengers for Chadstone using that extension would come from? I would assume a lot would transfer from trains from the Dandenong line at Oakleigh. A lot of people currently arrive there on the 700 bus from Box Hill – if they could get a (frequent) express train to Camberwell then a frequent shuttle train they would probably use that over the 40/50min bus ride at present.

  16. Thanks for all the comments.

    Tom, I see what you mean now. Camberwell – Monash is getting 10 tph, you could fit another 10 tph in (enough for Rowville direct) without any problems if flyovers were provided. I’d be concerned about exposure to delays on the Dandenong line though.

    Dave, not sure which line I’ll look at next – any ideas? I was thinking of having a look at some of the costs and benefits of express running at some point soon – or perhaps something tram related.

    Riccardo, completely agree re. a Hong Kong style interchange at Oakleigh and Huntingdale. This would be one of the easiest places in Melbourne to convert to this setup – and once people got used to the idea it could potentially be expanded to other areas as well.

    Hadn’t considered terminating at Burnley, but seems like an entirely reasonable idea to me. A question though, would you make Hawthorn and Auburn (but probably not Glenferrie) only served by this line – making these passengers change at Burnley too?

    Somebody, I’d hope that the new line would draw a lot of passengers from not only the Dandenong line, but from the Belgrave/Lilydale and Glen Waverley lines as well. there’s a lot of people from these areas using Chadstone, but many of them tend to drive rather than use the bus. Essentially, I think there’s a high level of latent demand in places like Camberwell, Surrey Hills etc. that a bus probably wouldn’t capture (unless it were really good), but that metro style rail probably would get.



  17. I like this idea. This corridor (Camberwell, Ashburton, Chaddy, Oakleigh) is not properly linked and this upgrade would bring so many benefits to the area. With tram services linked to stations (existing 72, 70 and 75 plus proposed 6, 5 and 3), the line could become Melbourne’s first cross town, high frequency link. This would help promote decentralization and high/medium density development.

    I wish you and Riccardo were in Parliament…

  18. Its a pity about the Chandler Highway on the old Outer Circle alignment between Kew & Fairfield, otherwise you could take your “brown line” back the other way, tying in a couple more tram services and the Eltham/Hurstbridge line as well.

    But then maybe I wish for too much …

  19. Thanks Colin. I too think it would be great to get the outer circle all the way back to Fairfield. I don’t think the major challenge is at the Eastern Freeway/Chandler Highway though – it’s with the Camberwell residents who have houses which back onto the old alignment which is now a park. They would go nuts at such a proposal – just look at how organised they got over Camberwell station!!

    I think this factor alone will stop the outer circle going anywhere north. Extending the 72 is a consolation prize, and would be both economically and politically feasible. You can find my old post about it at

  20. Good ideas, although I’m a fan of the Rowville line, I also think it coulbe be viable to build a tram route along North Road connect to Monash University via Huntingdale station. This would complement and extend the established logica tram grid as well as create pedshed mode transfer in underserviced southern areas of the city. I believe that there were plans for a North Road tram line as early as the 1920s but it never eventuated.

  21. HI Phin,
    I have only recently come across your great site, well done. I don’t know whether you have looked at it, but I have always thought that the one thing Melbourne is missing is a genuine underground Circle line, joining all the existing radial network.

    My suggestion connects as follows. Flemington Racecourse station to Highpoint West SC, Milleara Rd (Kangan TAFE) station, to Airport West SC, Glenroy Station, Fawkner Station, Reservoir Staion, Latrobe Uni, Northland SC, Heidelberg Station, Bulleen Station, Doncaster SC, Box Hill Station, Deaking Uni. Burwood, Tally Ho Business Park, Glen Waverley Station, Monash Univ, Clayton Station/Monash Hosp, Kingston Centre, Southland SC, Sandringham Station.

    Now of course this would all cost a lot of dollars, but it is this type of project that Melbourne needs to make the transport system work. I have aligned the suggested route to areas of high demand such as shopping centres and universities or workplaces. It has the potential to make a serious reduction in the amount of cross town travel that now occurs by car.

    I would welcome any comments.

  22. Hi Graeme – if I may. Of the top off my head I can’t see any problem with your suggestion other than price.

    I would make the point though that you will need a mixture of ‘origins’ (ie where people live) and ‘destinations (where they work, shop etc). Your list is mostly destinations, but do I correctly infer that you would have other stations in between that serve places where people live?

    The other comment that could be made is that some of your route is ‘outer’ and some is ‘inner’.

    My gut reaction is some of what you might think is outer is no longer outer, and a better service to outer Melbourne might encompassing linking Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston, for example, Greensborough or Eltham, Werribee on the other side and so on.

    But look, it isn’t a bad plan when all is said and done, you’ve at least considered the point that rail lines need to link known traffic generators – a point which is lost on gunzels and planners alike – who often prefer to link places like Rushall or Macaulay which any fool can tell you, just aren’t being used.

  23. Sorry for the late reply Graeme – stuck with damned exams at the moment. I think there’s a strong case for much better cross town links in Melbourne. Some of this (like the Alamein line, and perhaps even north along the outer circle) has merit as rail, but as Riccardo points out, rail can be expensive and it needs to be targeted where it is most needed. Better cross town buses would be a very good start – Smart Bus is an attempt at this but really buses need to be running at least every 10 minutes all day every day to be effective here. Trams could play a greater role in some cases (like the Ivanhoe to Caulfield tram proposal) but they too can be costly. I think you’re exactly right about targeting public transport to patronage generators.


  24. Hi Ricardo & Phin,

    Yes, it would cost a lot, but you have to start somewhere, and something like this could be built in stages. My idea was to stimulate some discussion, routes could be developed along the way.

    I would include stations between the lines, but my primary aim was to remove the need to go into the edge of the CBD to be able to access other areas. All of the connected lines would be the providers of your “origins”, as the could use the new line to get to their destinations. For example, my son used to travel in a beaten up old car from Eltham to Rusden in Burwood, a car was the only option. In this plan, he could have caught the train to Heidelberg, then swapped to a train on this loop that would drop him at Rusden. A lot of other uni students are in the same boat.

    There is a considerable amount of cross town traffic that has no choice other than to use cars, and despite all the best intentions of the Smart Bus, it will fail unless it has dedicated bus lanes for a full journey, not likely to happen.

    What I did not put in my last post was the idea of having other “outer” lines connecting areas such as Dandenong to Ringwood to Eltham to South Morang, etc. To me it would make more sense to do a loop in the general areas descibed in my previous post as a first option, with an outer loop as a later option.

    The bottom line is that nothing is impossible, and if Kevin Rudd gets his Infrastructure fund off the ground, this is exactly the type of project which should be funded. If other world cities can do massive underground rail, why is it always put in the “too hard” basket in Melbourne?

  25. What an excellent idea. Well done. The only issue will be that the underground portion will have to start close to Alamein as East Malvern Station is at grade with the Monash Fwy and Gardiners Creek.

  26. I firmly believe that re-opening the outer-circle line as defined would be far more practical than the Eddington Tunnel.

    Have you taken this idea to anyone with power to promote it?

  27. Is it true that Monash Uni (Clayton), Chadstone and even the old VFL park were built where they were on the basis that a train service would be built in that corridor?

  28. Monash Uni was promised a train line either at inception or shortly thereafter (it was in the 1969 Melbourne Transport Plan… gives you faith in the latest one, right!!).
    I don’t think Chadstone ever had plans for rail, we all wanted hectares of car park at that stage. Waverley Park, not sure.

  29. Aaron,

    You are correct re: Waverly Park, like Monash Uni it was going to benefit from the Roweville line set out in teh ’69 transport plan. Unfortunately H Bolte preferred to 500km of freeways also proposed in the plan and we got no Roweville.

    This is a great plan and definitely one that has been getting attention from the like of Mees of late. As Andrew Peters said I think the Alamein extension would need to be in tunnel from Alamein to East Malvern to go under Malvern Valley (Gardiners Creek) and the Freeway, I doubt having a 500m bridge would be accepted by the local community. To save money I’d also cut and cover to chadstone as much as possible using the Outer Ring reserve and Dandenong Road.

    Big problem with the costings particularly for the Rowville section is grade separation with roads. The whole train line would need to be tunnelled or built on structure to avoid having level crossings at Clayton, Princes Highway, Blackburn, Springvale, Stud Roads. Probably either add 10-15 million for each of those (plus other) interesections or just cost it at the tunnel rate. which adds about $100 millino to project cost only as far as Monash Uni.

  30. Hi Phin/Riccardo

    Monash/Camberwell line is a fantastic idea. My comments are:

    1. I prefer this line to extend to Rowville to serve thousands of households not currently served to the city by train. I will also include new station at VFL Park, Springvale Rd and maybe Stud Rd to link up with north-south bus routes and new housing/community development.

    2. I prefer this service to go all the way into the city. At the city loop it could use tunnel 1 Epping/Hurstbridge currently underutilised. Camberwell-Burnley should also be non-stop. I believe that a permenent all day City-Box Hill service should be introduced to serve the inner eastern suburbs; skipping this sector makes a quicker journey into the city for outer suburban residents.

    3. Agree with Alamein line reforms; duplicate track where necessary, close existing stations and build 3 stations so that they integrate with tram lines + Ashburton.

    4. We should also consider the Caulfield-Dandenong line as aline in need of urgent attention itself. My opinion of Dandenong line is that it needs to be 6 tracks, 2 stops all stations, 2 VLine and express metro services, 2 freight dedicated railways. Widening need to take place in this sector and 4 grade separations as well; how are we going to integrate it with new line to Camberwell?

    5. The next line for the Phin treatment should be the Dandenong line.

    6. Thanks for the costings; $400m for city-monash is money well spent considering benefits you have described above. Isn’t it shocking that for 100 years we have had 3 suburban lines within 3 km from each other with coverage to about 1/3 of Melbourne’s suburbs and no one has built a small link to connect each line.

  31. Indeed the under used and mostly existing infrastructure of the Alamein Line to Monash Uni, via a new Chaddie tunnel / stn is a great idea. Your proposal can be expanded with of course extending the line out to Rowville, and possibly the requirements for relocation of Riversdale and Ashburton Stations could be avoided as they are close to those main roads. They would have to be remodled to serve a line duplication.

    Another potential, although costly and long term, proposal of mine would be to construct a bidirectional tunnel from just west of Camberwell Station (0.0KM) with underground island platforms at Glenferrie Stn (2.0KM), a Kew Juction Stn (4.0KM), then tunnel emerging out into a cut placed station under the Eastern Fwy median, here therefore would be a two level Willsmere Stn (6.0KM) as interchange on the much required Doncaster Line. Then the above mentioned line would continue over the Yarra River, going through the old Amcor site onto Fairfield Stn (8.0KM), then dual tunnelling to Essendon Stn (17.7KM distance from Camberwell Stn), with stops at Northcote (10.0KM), Brunswick (13.4KM). Optional stations at East and or West Brunswick. From Essendon further tunnelling via Essendon Fields (21.5KM), tunnel portal at 22.8KM with its dual line running on Tullamarine Fwy median with an elevated loop line to Airport (29.9KM – Terminal 1). Of course before Essendon Stn another Airport route should connect with this line and run on the existing Broadmeadows Line before joinning up with the Essendon Fields tunnel.

    Basically my line is an “Inner City Circle Metro Line” – irronic as it follows part of what was once the Outer Circle Line. However importantly it would not conflict with your proposal and merely expands on it.

  32. At Smart Passengers we have a basically similar proposal – a line from Camberwell up Burke Road (in a tunnel – tunnels under roads are cheaper to build than under buildings) to the old Outer Circle reservation then along it at grade (cheaper again) to Harp Junction, under High Street then continuing along the reservation in a cutting (so no level crossings) to the Eastern Freeway, at grade in the freeway median to Victoria Park station (interchange by footbridge) then along Alexandra Parade at grade where there’s a median, then into a tunnel again to Royal Park.

    Stations at Balwyn (Burke and Cotham Rds), Kew (Harp Road and High Street), Chandler (Chandler Highway and Eastern Freeway), Yarra (Yarra Boulevard and Eastern Freeway), Victoria Park, Fitzroy (Alexandra Parade and Brunswick Street), Parkville (Royal Parade and Macarthur Road) and Royal Park.

    The major difference is that our proposal is for a light rail line – with high performance, high capacity trams (110km/h, 600 passengers) but without the restrictions in turning circle and gradient that heavy rail trains have. That means the tunnels can follow roads which brings the cost down significantly.

    I’m interested in your alignment – I could follow the placement of the stations all except for Essendon Fields, where’s that? Can you draw up a map of your proposal?

  33. Sorry Michael about the delay. I had only stumbled on this site the day I left the above messege!

    Interesting that there is somebody else out there in PT phantasy land like myself. However I have put quite alot of serious planning into my scenario Melbourne Metro. I have been just recently with the latest Melways laying out the final drafts for my envisaged network alignment and station placements. Scanning maps will follow and some how with assistance from an IT expert will have them up soonish for public display and comment. This will be a new blog devoted entirely to LRT and Metro network planning.

  34. bunch of dreamers

  35. tossers

  36. having a wank over a melwys map what next

  37. This is excellent. Great work also on estimating the cost as well.
    I agree totally with the fact that a cross town rail line is needed, and making use of the virtually useless Alamein Line to get to Chadstone and Monash is resourceful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: