text:
Nottingham Express Transit

Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is a 32 km tram system in Nottingham, England.

The concept of a modern tramway to reduce road congestion and promote urban renewal was formally identified during the late 1980s while detailed planning was undertaken during the early 1990s. The project, then referred to as the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transport (GNLRT), received Royal Assent on 21 July 1994 and central government financing was provided in subsequent years. In March 2000, a 30-year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concession was awarded to the Arrow Light Rail Ltd consortium, which became responsibility for the design, funding, building, operation and maintenance of the line. On 9 March 2004, the system opened to the public; it was originally 14 km long and served 23 tram stops, having been constructed at a cost of £200million, a sum equivalent to £ at price. Line 1 runs between Toton Lane and Hucknall, features a total of 33 or 34 tram stops, depending on direction, and has a journey time throughout of 62minutes.

The tramway's early ridership exceeded expectations, with 8.4 million journeys in 2004-5 and 9.7 million in 2005–6, against targets of 8 million and 9 million respectively; its performance led to the scheme's second phase, under which the tramway would more than double in size, promptly receiving approval on 25 October 2006. Financial backing for the second phase was not fully secured until 2011, while the original concession to operate the tramway was terminated on 16 December 2011. A new consortium, known as Tramlink Nottingham Limited, was finalised in December 2011. Construction of the second phase commenced in 2012, work was protracted and the extension was finally opened on 25 August 2015, roughly two years earlier than had been originally planned. Line 2 runs between Clifton South and Phoenix Park, features 27 or 28 tram stops, depending on direction, and has a journey time throughout of 47minutes.

Presently, the tramway is operated and maintained by Nottingham Trams Ltd on behalf of the Tramlink Nottingham consortium. It has a total length of 32 km As of 2024, the rolling stock consists of 15 Bombardier Incentro AT6/5 and 22 Alstom Citadis 302. Various changes and extensions to the tramway have been mooted, from additional stops along the two existing lines to multiple whole new lines being constructed.

Planning and construction of phase one
Nottingham and the surrounding urban area is the UK's seventh largest and third fastest-growing urban area. Traditionally, Nottingham's economy was to a large extent based on manufacturing and coal mining, and in the second half of the 20th century the area was affected by the decline in these industries. High population density, a road system constrained by crossings of the River Trent, and a concentration of retail and entertainment outlets in the city centre led to road congestion and high bus usage. In the late 1980s, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council identified the possibility of using a modern tramway as a means of stimulating urban renewal, as well as tackling road congestion.

Plans began from around 1990, by Nottingham Development Enterprise, under Malcolm Reece. Studies in Grenoble in France had shown that up to 20% of commuters switched from their car. Possible routes were developed by Bob McKittrick of Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick. The first route was to Hucknall, but would go through the Victoria Centre tunnel. Other routes would follow the railway to Carlton and the railway to Beeston; the consulting engineers' advice was to follow along railway routes, where possible. By 1991, the route under the Victoria Centre was dropped, to follow the present route. It would be twenty five years before the other routes would be built.

The scheme was known as the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transport - GNLRT. The Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transport Act 1994 received Royal Assent on 21 July 1994. At that point, the scheme required £68m of government funding.

During December 1998, Minister of State for Transport John Reid confirmed the availability of £167million funding for a new tram system, to be known as Nottingham Express Transit, to run between Nottingham and Hucknall.

In March 2000, the joint promoters, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, awarded a 30-year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concession to the Arrow Light Rail Ltd consortium, with responsibility for the design, funding, building, operation and maintenance of the line. The consortium was made up of Adtranz (later subsumed into Bombardier Transportation), who were responsible for the trams, Carillion, who were responsible for the infrastructure, Transdev and Nottingham City Transport (NCT).

As originally built, the system was 14 km long and served 23 tram stops. The construction cost a total of £200million, a sum equivalent to £ at prices.

Opening of phase one
Nottingham Express Transit began operation in March 2004, with a line operating north from a terminal at Station Street, just to the north of Nottingham railway station, through the city centre, branching to serve twin termini at Hucknall and Phoenix Park. Once the line was complete, operation was sub-contracted by Arrow Light Rail to the Nottingham Tram Consortium (NTC), an equal partnership between Transdev and Nottingham City Transport.

The new line proved successful, leading to an increase of public transport use for the Nottingham urban area of 8% in the five years to 2008, together with a less than 1% growth in road traffic, compared to the national average of around 4%. The line itself exceeded expectations, with 8.4million journeys in 2004-5 and 9.7million in 2005–6, against targets of 8million and 9million respectively. By 2007–8, ridership had reached 10.2million journeys. This performance bolstered the case for the construction of new lines.

On 27 July 2009, the GMB trade union held a strike in protest at a proposed pay cut of 0.6% offered by Nottingham Tram Consortium. A maximum of five trams out of a normal service of 13 ran from 06:00 until 18:00 on the Hucknall route, with replacement buses running a shuttle from Phoenix Park.

Planning and construction of phase two
In January 2003, even before the first phase had opened, the two councils had decided to start consultation on a second phase to serve the urban areas south and west, with routes to Clifton via Wilford, and to Chilwell via Beeston.

Approval for phase two was given on 25 October 2006 with the British Government agreeing to provide up to £437million in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits. The local councils will also provide up to £141million in PFI credits. The two local councils (Nottinghamshire County and Nottingham City Councils) voted on 22 February 2007 and 3 March 2007 respectively to table an application for a Transport and Works Act Order. The City and County Councils’ application for the order were available to view from 26 April 2007 to 7 June 2007 when it was submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport for consideration. A public inquiry was held in December 2007. The project was given the go-ahead by the government on 30 March 2009.

Following the local elections in 2009, the county council indicated that it was no longer willing to contribute financially to the project, so Nottingham City Council decided to cover the shortfall and be the sole promoter. The county council confirmed that it would not obstruct the project. Funding was approved by the government on 31 July 2009. Selecting and appointing the contractor was expected to take two years. Building work was expected to begin in 2011, in two phases, with trams running from 2014. The scheme survived the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review ordered by the government, and on 24 March 2011 the government confirmed that funding had been approved.

As part of this process, the concession to operate the existing system was terminated. A new concession put out to tender to design and build phase two, to operate and maintain the existing system in the meantime, and to operate and maintain the extended system once completed. Although Arrow Light Rail bid, they lost out to a new consortium known as Tramlink Nottingham Limited, made up of Meridiam (30 per cent), OFI InfraVia (20 per cent), Alstom Transport (12.5 per cent), Keolis (12.5 per cent), Vinci Investments (12.5 per cent), and the Wellglade Group (12.5 per cent). As with the previous consortium, operation was further sub-contracted to a consortium of Keolis (80%) and Wellglade (20%), with maintenance sub-contracted to Alstom Transport. As a result of Wellglade's ownership of Trent Barton, who operate bus services in the Nottingham area, the new concession was referred to, and approved by, the Office of Fair Trading. The finalised contract was signed on 15 December 2011.

The severing of the link between NET and Nottingham City Transport, which affected joint ticketing arrangements, may have contributed to a fall in passenger numbers on phase one. This started in 2008 with the recession of that year, reducing the total number of journeys to a minimum 7.4million by 2013. By 2014–15, passenger numbers had rebounded to 8.1million.

Construction of phase two started in 2012. There were construction delays and by the end of 2014 it was at least six months behind schedule. There were complaints from residents affected by works and traders whose businesses have been damaged by the late running construction. Track laying was completed on 11 December 2014.

Opening of phase two
The two new bridges that form a major part of phase two were both officially named in 2014, in advance of their actual use by trams. The bridge across the Clifton Boulevard (A52) near the Queen's Medical Centre was named the Ningbo Friendship Bridge to acknowledge the links between the city of Ningbo, in China, and the University of Nottingham. The naming took place on 11 June 2014, and was undertaken by the vice-mayor of Ningbo. The bridge constructed over Nottingham railway station was officially opened on 17 October 2014 and named the Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge to acknowledge the technical support provided by Nottingham's twin city Karlsruhe. The opening event also unveiled a new tram named in honour of the late Jim Taylor who developed the initial vision for the tram system.

The first powered test run on a short section of the line took place in the early hours of Friday 22 August 2014, running from Station Street via The Meadows to Wilford, before returning to Station Street. With the completion of track laying and electrification work in early 2015, testing began in earnest.

The first section of phase two to open to the public was the new tram station above Nottingham railway station, which replaced the Station Street stop as the southern terminus of the line on 27 July 2015. The remainder of phase two finally opened at 06:00 on 25 August 2015, with the route from Toton Lane Park and Ride into Nottingham running the first public service.

During the planning and construction phases, the initial system (including both branches) was often referred to as line 1, with the line 2 name used for the new line to Clifton and line 3 for the new line to Toton. With the publication of the timetables covering through running between the initial system and phase two, this terminology was changed, with line 1 referring to the through service from Hucknall to Toton, and line 2 to the service from Phoenix Park to Clifton.

Network
The network consists of two lines that cross the city, running together on a common section for the middle part of their journey, including the city centre section. Line 1 runs between Toton Lane tram stop and Hucknall, features a total of 33 or 34 tram stops, depending on direction, and has a journey time throughout of 62minutes. Line 2 runs between Clifton South and Phoenix Park, features 27 or 28 tram stops, depending on direction, and has a journey time throughout of 47minutes. The system has a total length of 32 km.

Trams on each line run at frequencies that vary between four and eight trams per hour, depending on the day and time of day. These services combine to provide up to 16 trams per hour on the common section.

Toton branch (line 1)
The southern branch of line 1 commences at Toton Lane, a large Park & Ride site that is to the west of Chilwell, north of Toton and south of Stapleford, and is just 1 mi along the Stapleford bypass (A52) from junction 25 of the M1 motorway. The line then proceeds through Chilwell, largely on its own right of way and serving tram stops at Inham Road, Eskdale Drive, Bramcote Lane and Cator Lane, before joining the street at High Road – Central College. From here it runs on street through Beeston, serving tram stops at Chilwell Road, Beeston Centre and Middle Street before reaching the tram stop at University Boulevard. Beeston Centre provides a specially designed interchange with local bus services.

From University Boulevard, the line proceeds on segregated track alongside the road of the same name to the University of Nottingham tram stop, which serves the University of Nottingham's main campus. From here it uses the Ningbo Friendship Bridge to cross the Clifton Boulevard (A52) to the elevated stop at the Queen's Medical Centre, before descending back to street level again. Street stops at Gregory Street, NG2 and Meadows Way West follow, before reaching the junction with the Clifton branch (line 2).

The branch is 9.8 km long, of which about half is segregated. There are 15 tram stops on the branch, and the journey between Toton Lane and Nottingham railway station takes 30minutes. The line from Toton to just before University Boulevard is in the Borough of Broxtowe, with the rest of the branch in the City of Nottingham.

Clifton branch (line 2)
The southern branch of line 2 commences at Clifton South, a large Park & Ride site that lies just to the south-west of the large suburb of Clifton, on the A453. It then proceeds on street through the heavily built up Clifton Estate, serving stops at Summerwood Lane, Holy Trinity, Clifton Centre, Rivergreen and Southchurch Drive North, before entering a newly created right of way out of the estate.

The new right of way joins the route of the former Great Central Railway, serving stops on the old railway formation at Ruddington Lane, Compton Acres and Wilford Lane before reaching the village of Wilford. Here it diverges from the former railway and serves Wilford Village tram stop before crossing the River Trent on the former Wilford Toll Bridge, long closed to motor vehicles, which has been widened to allow pedestrians and cyclists to continue to use it. It then runs through the Meadows residential area, serving tram stops at Meadows Embankment and Queens Walk before reaching the junction with the Toton Branch (line 1).

The branch is 7.6 km long, of which almost two thirds is segregated. There are 12 tram stops on the branch, and the journey between Clifton South and Nottingham railway station takes 21minutes. The stop at Clifton South is in the Borough of Rushcliffe, and the line between just before Ruddington Lane and just before Wilford Village forms the boundary between the Borough of Rushcliffe and the City of Nottingham. The rest of the branch, including the section through the Clifton Estate, is within the City of Nottingham.

Common section (lines 1 & 2)
The two southern branches unite at a junction to the south of Nottingham railway station, which is situated on the southern edge of the city centre. The tramway crosses above the station platforms on its own dedicated bridge, the Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge, that also carries a tram stop that is directly connected to the station concourse.

From Nottingham station the common section runs north through the city centre, serving stops at Lace Market, Old Market Square and the Royal Centre. Leaving the city centre, the line continues, calling at Nottingham Trent University and High School before reaching The Forest. To the north of here is a section of about 1 km, where northbound and southbound trams follow different streets, crossing at each end to run on the 'wrong side'. The line serves different stops in different directions, with northbound trams stopping at Noel Street, Beaconsfield Street and Shipstone Street, while southbound trams stop at Radford Road and Hyson Green Market. The two tracks rejoin at Wilkinson Street, where the depot is situated. Between the station and Wilkinson Street, trams run in the street, but all other traffic is heavily restricted or, in some cases, banned altogether. There are Park & Ride sites at the Forest Recreation Ground and Wilkinson Street.

North of Wilkinson Street, the route joins a former Midland Railway alignment, which it shares with the Robin Hood railway line. The railway and tram lines run next to each other, segregated by a fence, with tram stops at Basford, David Lane and Highbury Vale. At Highbury Vale, the two tram lines again diverge.

The whole common section lies within the City of Nottingham.

Hucknall branch (line 1)
Line 1 continues to run alongside the Robin Hood line north of Highbury Vale as far as its terminus. The line serves Bulwell railway station where railway interchange is provided. North of this station, the tram line becomes single track as far as its terminus at Hucknall railway station, albeit with passing loops at each of the three intermediate stops at Bulwell Forest, Moor Bridge and Butler's Hill. Hucknall station provides interchange with the Robin Hood line, as well as being a Park & Ride site. The branch is within the City of Nottingham to a point just past Moor Bridge, beyond which it is in Ashfield District.

Phoenix Park branch (line 2)
Line 2 diverges from line 1 at Highbury Vale, serving two separate platforms connected to the Line 1 platforms by footpath. Beyond Highbury Vale, the line becomes single track as far as its terminus at Phoenix Park, a Park & Ride site, following the alignment of a former colliery railway. Cinderhill is the only intermediate stop on this branch, and the only stop on the system where trams use the same single platform in both directions. The whole branch is within the City of Nottingham.

Current fleet
NET currently operates the following fleet:

Bombardier Incentro AT6/5
The system started with 15 Incentro AT6/5 trams, similar to those used on the Nantes tramway, built by Bombardier at Derby Litchurch Lane Works. The Flexity Outlook had also been considered and rejected as its large single-leaf doors did not comply with British door-alarm regulations. The AT6/5 trams are articulated in five sections and have with a top speed of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph).

On 8 March 2013, NET announced that all trams would be refurbished and receive a new livery and interior. Refurbishment was completed by September 2014. During 2019, another refurbishment was commenced, which includes replacing the floors and internal fittings, a new livery to match the Citadis trams, and a mechanical overhaul to improve reliability. Tram 203 was the first to be returned to service on 10 May 2019.

Alstom Citadis 302
Twenty two new Alstom Citadis 302 trams were ordered in preparation for the Phase Two extensions to Beeston and Clifton. They have been specially designed to fit in with the operation's pre-existing fleet and to have a 35-year operating life with a forecast annual mileage of roughly 90,000 km. Each tram has a maximum speed of 70 km/h and can carry up to 274 people.

The trams are stored and maintained at the Wilkinson Street depot, which was expanded as part of the phase two works. The first Citadis tram (216) arrived at the depot on 10 September 2013. Along with the current Incentro fleet, they ran test operation on the new lines from Summer 2014 and also on the current network. The first Citadis trams (216-221) entered passenger service for the day on 27 July 2014, as part of a trial for the new timetable, which was then introduced on 26 August 2014.

Ancillary vehicles
NET have a road-rail-equipped Unimog truck. A battery-powered shunter is used to move trams on non-electrified tracks within the depot.

Naming
Each tram in the network is named after "a local hero of the past or present". In November 2015, a tram was named after local screenwriter, playwright and actor William Ivory. In December 2021, a tram was named after Professor Martyn Poliakoff.

List
A list of tram names, along with details can be found the NET website.

Fares and ticketing
All tickets are purchased in advance - passengers need to buy a ticket or validate a smart card before they board the tram. There are ticket machines at all tram stops, where passengers can buy single, return, day and weekly tickets using cash or credit/debit card; tickets can also be bought on the NET app, NETGO! Ticket options such as Robin Hood smartcards and season passes are available on the website and at the NET Travel Centre in the City Centre. Various concessionary schemes are also in place. The validators at each stop also accept payments by contactless credit and debit card including Apple Pay and Android's Google Wallet for single and day fares without the need to buy a physical ticket.

Cycle parks
Under a scheme run by Nottingham City Council, the city has covered secure cycle parks that feature CCTV, lighting, Citycard access controlled doors and, at some sites, Citycard activated lockers and 24 hour access. Nottingham Cycle Parks are available at the following tram stops: Clifton Centre, Clifton South, Hucknall, Nottingham Station, Phoenix Park, Toton Lane and Wilkinson Street.

Access was originally free, with a one-off £5 registration charge. However, from July 2020, the council has introduced a revised charging structure, with an annual charge of £7.50, reduced to £5.25 for those paying by annual direct debit.

Ownership and structure
NET is run as a concession by a consortium known as Tramlink Nottingham Limited, to finance, build, operate and maintain two new tram lines (known as phase two) and to operate and maintain the initial tram line (phase one), until 20 March 2034 for the grantor, Nottingham City Council.

Tramlink Nottingham Limited's parent company is Tramlink Nottingham (Holdings) Limited, which in turn is owned by the following shareholders:

Operations are sub-contracted to Nottingham Trams Limited, a consortium of Keolis (80%) and Wellglade (20%), with maintenance sub-contracted to Alstom Transport.

Business trends
The consortium company Tramlink Nottingham Limited has produced annual accounts since April 2011, when it took over the concession, and NET passenger revenue and passenger numbers are published by the Department of Transport.

The key available trends in recent years for Nottingham Express Transit are (years ending 31 March):

Activities in the financial year 2020/21 were severely reduced by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic; during the year Tramlink Nottingham received a Covid grant of £18.5million from the Department for Transport to maintain essential services.

Passenger numbers
Detailed passenger journeys since Nottingham Express Transit commenced operations on 9 March 2004 were:

Additional routes
During the development of NET a number of possible additional routes around the city were considered, although there are no detailed plans for these.

However, in 2009, during the tendering process for phase two, documents contained nine possible routes:
 * Hucknall to Linby.
 * Phoenix Park to Kimberley and/or Watnall
 * Nottingham to West Bridgford and then Gamston/Tollerton/Edwalton/Ruddington.
 * Queen's Medical Centre to Arnold, via Basford.
 * Nottingham to Gedling.
 * Nottingham to Gamston.
 * Chilwell to Ilkeston.
 * Clifton to East Midlands Parkway or East Midlands Airport.
 * Chilwell to Stapleford town centre and/or Sandiacre.

The documentation also raised the possibility of tram-train lines from Nottingham to Gedling and/or Bingham, and to Ilkeston.

Extension of route 2 to Kimberley
Kimberley, Eastwood & Nuthall Tram Action Group (KENTAG) campaigns for an extension from Phoenix Park to Eastwood and Kimberley. In December 2012, Nottingham City Council agreed to seek money to conduct a feasibility study on the route. In a major setback for tram proponents, in December 2014 Broxtowe Borough Council voted to reject a proposal to help fund a feasibility study into a line to Kimberley, due to the problems and delays of Lines 2 and 3. Richard Robinson, Labour Councillor for Kimberley, said the plan was always to bring the proposals back to the table. He said: "The vote in December was a roadblock put in our way, but we will overcome it". Councillors voted 19 to 13 in favour of Cllr Robinson stepping down pending the outcome of an inquiry after he admitted on Radio Nottingham to encouraging a pro-tram campaigner to flood local media with positive letters, while using aliases to make them appear local.

In 2015, Broxtowe Borough Council (jointly with British Land) commissioned a £55,000 study from Mott MacDonald to look into all transport options to reduce congestion along the A610 corridor though Broxtowe. It considered four potential tram routes to the Kimberley retail park. This estimated that the cost of the extension could reach £168million.

Extension of route 1 to serve HS2 at Toton and Derby
News that a station for the proposed HS2 line (the East Midlands Hub) was likely to be built on the site of Toton sidings, only a short distance from the Toton Lane terminus has fuelled speculation that the line could be extended to the new station. In November 2015 there was a proposal for the tram network to be extended from Toton to Derby. Two routes were later proposed by the D2N2 local enterprise partnership for the route to Derby. The first route would be via the A52 while the second would be via Borrowash and Spondon. Land has been protected in planning application for housing developments between the Toton Lane terminus and Toton Sidings.

Extension of route 2 to Fairham Pastures
By mid-2018, a short extension southwards beyond the Clifton South terminus was being investigated, in order to serve the 3,000-home "Fairham Pastures" development next to the A453 road.

Additional stops on existing lines
There is also a proposal for a stop at the redeveloped Broadmarsh Shopping Centre.

Special events

 * On 15 May 2004, a special tram transported members of the Tramway and Light Railway Society on a tour of crossovers and less used sections of track, prior to the society's Annual General Meeting.
 * On 11 June 2014, a technical tour of the Nottingham Tram system was scheduled for delegates of the 9th Annual UK Light Rail Conference meeting at Nottingham Conference Centre.
 * In May 2014, during the construction of the tram extension to Beeston, work was stopped and the road temporarily resurfaced so that a bride could travel to their wedding.
 * In December 2014, tram 209 Sid Standard made a special journey between The Forest and Nottingham Market Square to bring Sid Standard's granddaughter to her wedding at Nottingham Council House.
 * In May 2017, a bride and her group of bridesmaids travelled from Cinderhill tram stop to Old Market Square for her wedding at the Council House.
 * On 7 May 2018, a tram tour of the Wilkinson Street Depot and other rarely used pieces of track was held to raise money for the National Tramway Museum at Crich and the Forever Stars stillbirth charity.
 * On 2 June 2018, a special tram transported a wedding party from Station Street tram stop to Nottingham Trent University tram stop for their wedding at Nottingham Quaker Meeting House. The group had arrived from Beeston along the Nottingham Canal to Castle Lock by boat. Tram fares were donated to Macmillan Cancer Support.
 * On 23 March 2019, a wedding group travelled from Phoenix Park tram stop to Nottingham Market Square for a wedding at the council house, before continuing with a historic bus.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 6 October 2007, a 23-year-old man from Hucknall died after being hit by a tram when he stepped in front of it at Weekday Cross. His death was the first fatality since the trams were relaunched.
 * On 11 November 2011, a 44-year-old man from Barnsley died following an incident close to Wilkinson Street depot.
 * On 28 November 2012, a 13-year-old girl was hit by a tram on the Bayles and Wylies footpath crossing, on the border of Bestwood and Hucknall. She was rushed to hospital but later died from her injuries. The local MP remarked "I am mindful that this is not the first fatality on Nottingham's tramline and we obviously need to look at what's going wrong and how we can fix it." The crossing was subsequently closed and both it and the adjacent crossing, that took the footpath across a nearby railway line, were replaced by a footbridge.
 * On 15 August 2016, late at night, a 51-year-old man was killed by a tram between David Lane and Basford. The man had got off at David Lane and was spotted walking along the tramway, but misunderstandings between control staff resulted in the tram driver not being warned of his presence.
 * On 18 July 2017, a technical fault with a tram caused damage to overhead lines near Basford. The network was unable to run trams between David Lane and The Forest tram stops, causing major disruption over a three-day period.
 * On 6 December 2017, a van collided with a tram on University Boulevard. Four passengers were slightly injured. The incident led to severe traffic jams across much of the city, and the tram service continued to be disrupted for many days afterwards.
 * On 17 December 2017, the raincover of an empty pushchair became trapped in a tram door whilst departing Radford Road stop. After investigating, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch issued a recommendation to all UK-based tram-operators to undertake visual checks, in addition to the automatic electronic door interlocking detection, prior to a tram moving off.
 * On 7 October 2020, a man was injured after he was hit by a tram on Victoria Street.
 * During a heatwave in July 2022, services became extremely disrupted due to the withdrawal of almost half the fleet, as NET were not confident that the trams were fit for service in such conditions. Some trams were out of service until repairs were made.
 * On 30 September 2022, a tram became derailed on the points at Highbury Vale, which caused significant disruption to services throughout the day, particularly affecting passengers travelling to the opening day of Goose Fair, which was taking place for the first time in three years at the Forest Recreation Ground. Services were resumed the following day.
 * On 12 June 2023, tram 232 derailed whilst travelling southbound at Bulwell tram stop. At the end of the single-line section leading to Hucknall tram stop, a set of facing points had not properly reset after another tram travelled over them. When tram 232 then passed over them, its first bogie was routed differently to its second and third, leading to the tram derailing and striking the supporting overhead line equipment.

title: Nottingham Express Transit


text:
Stogi-Przeróbka

Stogi-Przeróbka (Heubude) was one of the administrative districts (dzielnica administracyjna) of Gdańsk, Poland. In 2011, the borough was divided into the districts Przeróbka and Stogi.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Stogi-Przeróbka


text:
2004 Madrid train bombings

The 2004 Madrid train bombings (also known in Spain as 11M) were a series of coordinated, nearly simultaneous bombings against the Cercanías commuter train system of Madrid, Spain, on the morning of 11 March 2004—three days before Spain's general elections. The explosions killed 193 people and injured around 2,050. The bombings constituted the deadliest terrorist attack carried out in the history of Spain and the deadliest in Europe since 1988. The attacks were carried out by individuals who opposed Spanish involvement in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

Controversy regarding the handling and representation of the bombings by the government arose, with Spain's two main political parties—the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and the Partido Popular (PP)—accusing each other of concealing or distorting evidence for electoral reasons. The bombings occurred three days before general elections in which incumbent Prime Minister José María Aznar's PP was defeated. Immediately after the bombing, leaders of the PP claimed evidence indicating the Basque separatist organization ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) was responsible for the bombings, while the opposition claimed that the PP was trying to prevent the public from knowing it had been an Islamist attack, which would be interpreted as the direct result of Spain's involvement in Iraq, an unpopular war which the government had entered without the approval of the Spanish Parliament. The scale and precise planning of the attacks reared memories of the September 11 attacks.

Following the attacks, there were nationwide demonstrations and protests demanding that the government "tell the truth." The prevailing opinion of political analysts is that the Aznar administration lost the general elections as a result of the handling and representation of the terrorist attacks, rather than because of the bombings per se. Results published in The Review of Economics and Statistics by economist José García Montalvo seem to suggest that indeed the bombings had important electoral impact (turning the electoral outcome against the incumbent People's Party and handing government over to the Socialist Party, PSOE).

After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo tried Moroccan national Jamal Zougam, among several others, for his participation carrying out the attack. Although claims were made that attacks were linked to al-Qaeda, investigations and probes conducted by Spanish officials did not find any links to al-Qaeda. Findings issued by the Spanish judiciary in September 2007 found 21 individuals of participating in the attacks, while rejecting the involvement of an external mastermind or direct al-Qaeda links.

Description

During the peak of Madrid rush hour on the morning of Thursday, 11 March 2004, ten explosions occurred aboard four commuter trains (cercanías). The date, 11 March, led to the abbreviation of the incident as "11-M". All the affected trains were traveling on the same line and in the same direction between Alcalá de Henares and the Atocha station in Madrid. It was later reported that thirteen improvised explosive devices (IEDs) had been placed on the trains. Bomb disposal teams (TEDAX) arriving at the scenes of the explosions detonated two of the remaining three IEDs in controlled explosions, but the third was not found until later in the evening, having been stored inadvertently with luggage taken from one of the trains. The following timeline of events comes from the judicial investigation.

All four trains had departed the Alcalá de Henares station between 07:01 and 07:14. The explosions took place between 07:37 and 07:40, as described below (all times given are in local time CET, UTC +1):
 * Atocha Station (train number 21431) – Three bombs exploded. Based on the video recording from the station security system, the first bomb exploded at 07:37, and two others exploded within 4 seconds of each other at 07:38. The train cars affected were the sixth, fifth and fourth. A fourth device was found by the TEDAX team two hours later in the first car, which was scheduled to explode when emergency services arrived. Two hours after the first explosions, the bomb was detonated by the bomb disposal team in the first car in a controlled manner.
 * El Pozo del Tío Raimundo Station (train number 21435) – At approximately 07:38, just as the train (six cars and double-decker) was starting to leave the station, two bombs exploded in different carriages. The carriages affected were the fourth and fifth. Another bomb was found in the third wagon and was detonated hours later by the TEDAX team on the platform, slightly damaging the third wagon. Yet another bomb was found in the second carriage; it was disabled hours later in the nearby Parque Azorín, and allowed the police to find several suspects.
 * Santa Eugenia Station (train number 21713) – One bomb exploded at approximately 07:38. The only wagon affected was the fourth.
 * Calle Téllez (train number 17305), approximately 800 meters from Atocha Station – Four bombs exploded in different carriages of the train at approximately 07:39. The wagons affected were the first, the fourth, the fifth and sixth. The train was slowing down to stop and wait for train 21431 to vacate platform 2 in Atocha.

At 08:00, emergency relief workers began arriving at the scenes of the bombings. The police reported numerous victims and spoke of 50 wounded and several dead. By 08:30 the emergency ambulance service, SAMUR (Servicio de Asistencia Municipal de Urgencia y Rescate), had set up a field hospital at the Daoiz y Velarde sports facility. Bystanders and local residents helped relief workers, as hospitals were told to expect the arrival of many casualties. At 08:43, firefighters reported 15 dead at El Pozo. By 09:00, the police had confirmed the death of at least 30 people – 20 at El Pozo and about 10 in Santa Eugenia and Atocha. People combed the city's major hospitals in search of family members who they thought were aboard the trains. There were 193 confirmed dead victims, the last victim dying in 2014 after having been in a coma for 10 years due to one of the Atocha explosions and not having been able to recover from their injuries.

The total number of victims was higher than in any other terrorist attack in Spain, far surpassing the 21 killed and 40 wounded from a 1987 bombing at a Hipercor chain supermarket in Barcelona. On that occasion, responsibility was claimed by ETA. It was Europe's worst terror attack since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on 21 December 1988.

Further bombings spur investigation

A device composed of 12 kilograms of Goma-2 ECO with a detonator and 136 meters of wire (connected to nothing) was found on the track of a high-speed railway line (AVE) on 2 April. The Spanish judiciary chose not to investigate that incident and the perpetrators remain unknown. The device used in the AVE incident was unable to explode because it lacked an initiation system.

Shortly after the AVE incident, police identified an apartment in Leganés, south of Madrid, as the base of operations for the individuals suspected of being the perpetrators of the Madrid and AVE attacks. The suspected militants, Sarhane Abdelmaji "the Tunisian" and Jamal Ahmidan "the Chinese", were trapped inside the apartment by a police raid on the evening of 3 April. At 9:03 pm, when the police attempted to breach the premises, the militants committed suicide by setting off explosives, killing themselves and one of the police officers. Investigators subsequently found that the explosives used in the Leganés explosion were of the same type as those used in the 11 March attacks (though it had not been possible to identify a brand of dynamite from samples taken from the trains) and in the thwarted bombing of the AVE line.

Based on the assumption that the militants killed at Leganés were indeed the individuals responsible for the train bombings, the ensuing investigation focused on how they obtained their estimated 200 kg of explosives. The investigation revealed that they had been bought from a retired miner who still had access to blasting equipment.

Five to eight suspects believed to be involved in the 11 March attacks managed to escape.

In December 2006, the newspaper ABC reported that ETA reminded Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero about 11 March 2004 as an example of what could happen unless the government considered their petitions (in reference to the 2004 electoral swing), although the source also makes it clear that ETA 'had nothing to do' with the attack itself.

Aftermath

In France, the Vigipirate plan was upgraded to orange level. In Italy, the government declared a state of high alert.

In December 2004, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero claimed that the PP government erased all of the computer files related to the Madrid bombings, leaving only the documents on paper.

On 25 March 2005, prosecutor Olga Sánchez asserted that the bombings happened 911 days (exactly 2 and a half years) after the 11 September attacks due to the "highly symbolic and qabbalistic charge for local Al-Qaida groups" of choosing that day. Actually, because 2004 was a leap year, 912 days had elapsed between 11 September 2001 and 11 March 2004.

On 27 May 2005, the Prüm Convention, implementing inter alia the principle of availability which began to be discussed after the Madrid bombings, was signed by Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, and Belgium.

On 4 January 2007, El País reported that Algerian Ouhnane Daoud, who is considered to be the mastermind of the 11-M bombings, has been searching for ways to return to Spain to prepare further attacks, though this has not been confirmed.

On 17 March 2008, Basel Ghalyoun, Mohamed Almallah Dabas, Abdelillah El-Fadual El-Akil and Raúl González Peña, having been found guilty by the Audiencia Nacional, were released after a Higher Court ruling. This court also verified the release of the Egyptian Rabei Osman al-Sayed.

Responsibility

On 14 March 2004, Abu Dujana al-Afghani, a purported spokesman for al-Qaeda in Europe, appeared in a videotape claiming responsibility for the attacks.

The Spanish judiciary stated that a loose group of Moroccan, Syrian, and Algerian Muslims and two Guardia Civil and Spanish police informants were suspected of having carried out the attacks. On 11 April 2006, Judge Juan del Olmo charged 29 suspects for their involvement in the train bombings.

No evidence has been found of al-Qaeda involvement, although an al-Qaeda claim was made the day of the attacks by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. U.S. officials note that this group is "notoriously unreliable". In August 2007, al-Qaeda claimed to be "proud" about the Madrid 2004 bombings.

The Independent reported that "Those who invented the new kind of rucksack bomb used in the attacks are said to have been taught in training camps in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, under instruction from members of Morocco's radical Islamist Combat Group."

Mohamed Darif, a professor of political science at Hassan II University in Mohammedia, stated in 2004 that the history of the Moroccan Combat Group is directly tied to the rise of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to Darif, "Since its inception at the end of the 1990s and until 2001, the role of the organisation was restricted to giving logistic support to al-Qaeda in Morocco, finding its members places to live, providing them with false papers, with the opportunity of marrying Moroccans and with false identities to allow them to travel to Europe. Since 11 September, however, which brought the Kingdom of Morocco in on the side of the fight against terrorism, the organisation switched strategies and opted for terrorist attacks within Morocco itself."

Scholar Rogelio Alonso said in 2007, "the investigation had uncovered a link between the Madrid suspects and the wider world of al-Qaida". Scott Atran said "There isn't the slightest bit of evidence of any relationship with al-Qaida. We've been looking at it closely for years and we've been briefed by everybody under the sun... and nothing connects them." He provides a detailed timeline that lends credence to this view.

According to the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, the Islamic extremists' alliance with ETA is highly dubious and "there is not anyway any terror case whatsoever to this day in which islamist internationalists collaborated with non-muslims".

Former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar said in 2011 that Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and current head of the Tripoli Military Council, was suspected of complicity in the bombings.

Allegations of ETA involvement

Immediate reactions to the attacks in Madrid were the several press conferences held by the Spanish prime minister José María Aznar involving ETA. The Spanish government maintained this theory for two days. Because the bombs were detonated three days before the general elections in Spain, the situation had many political interpretations. The United States also initially believed ETA was responsible, then questioning if Islamic extremists were responsible. Spain's third-largest newspaper, ABC, immediately labelled the attacks as "ETA's bloodiest attack."

Due to the government theory, statements issued shortly after the Madrid attacks, including from lehendakari Juan José Ibarretxe identified ETA as the prime suspect, but the group, which usually claims responsibility for its actions, denied any involvement. Later evidence strongly pointed to the involvement of extremist Islamist groups, with the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group named as a focus of investigations.

Although ETA has a history of mounting bomb attacks in Madrid, the 11 March attacks exceeded any attack previously attempted by a European organisation. This led some experts to point out that the tactics used were more typical of militant Islamic extremist groups, perhaps with a certain link to al-Qaeda, or maybe to a new generation of ETA activists using al-Qaeda as a role model. Observers also noted that ETA customarily, but not always, issues warnings before its mass bombings and that there had been no warning for this attack. Europol director Jürgen Storbeck commented that the bombings "could have been ETA... But we're dealing with an attack that doesn't correspond to the modus operandi they have adopted up to now".

Political analysts believe ETA's guilt would have strengthened the PP's chances of being re-elected, as this would have been regarded as the death throes of a terrorist organisation reduced to desperate measures by the strong anti-terrorist policy of the Aznar government. On the other hand, an Islamic extremist attack would have been perceived as the direct result of Spain's involvement in Iraq, an unpopular war that had not been approved by the Spanish Parliament.

Investigation
All of the devices are thought to have been hidden inside backpacks. The police investigated reports of three people in ski masks getting on and off the trains several times at Alcalá de Henares between 7:00 and 7:10. A Renault Kangoo van was found parked outside the station at Alcalá de Henares containing detonators, audio tapes with Qur'anic verses, and cell phones.

The provincial chief of TEDAX (the bomb disposal experts of the Spanish police) declared on 12 July 2004 that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4. An unnamed source from the Aznar administration claimed that the explosive used in the attacks had been Titadine (used by ETA, and intercepted on its way to Madrid 11 days before).

In March 2007, the TEDAX chief claimed that they knew that the unexploded explosive found in the Kangoo van was Goma-2 ECO the very day of the bombings. He also asserted that "it is impossible to know" the components of the explosives that went off in the trains – though he later asserted that it was dynamite. The Judge Javier Gómez Bermúdez replied "I cannot understand" to these assertions.

Examination of unexploded devices
A radio report mentioned a plastic explosive called "Special C". However, the government said that the explosive found in an unexploded device, discovered among bags thought to be victims' lost luggage, was the Spanish made Goma-2 ECO. The unexploded device contained 10 kg of explosive with 1 kg of nails and screws packed around it as shrapnel. In the aftermath of the attacks, however, the chief coroner alleged that no shrapnel was found in any of the victims.

Goma-2 ECO was never before used by al-Qaeda, but the explosive and the modus operandi were described by The Independent as ETA trademarks, although the Daily Telegraph came to the opposite conclusion.

Two bombs, one in Atocha and another in El Pozo stations, numbers 11 and 12, were detonated accidentally by the TEDAX. According to the provincial chief of the TEDAX, deactivated rucksacks contained some other type of explosive. The 13th bomb, which was transferred to a police station, contained dynamite, although it did not explode because it was missing two wires connecting the explosives to the detonator. That bomb used a mobile phone (Mitsubishi Trium) as a timer, requiring a SIM card to activate the alarm and thereby detonate. The analysis of the SIM card allowed the police to arrest an alleged perpetrator. On 13 March, when three Moroccans and two Pakistani Muslims were arrested for the attacks, it was confirmed that the attacks came from an Islamist group. Only one of the five persons (the Moroccan Jamal Zougam) detained that day was finally prosecuted.

The Guardia Civil developed an extensive action plan to monitor records corresponding with the use of weapons and explosives. There were 166,000 inspections conducted throughout the country between March 2004 and November 2004. About 2,500 violations were discovered and over 3 tons of explosives, 11 kilometers of detonating cord, and over 15,000 detonators were seized.

Suicide of suspects

On 3 April 2004, in Leganés, south Madrid, four terrorists died in an apparent suicide explosion, killing one Grupo Especial de Operaciones (GEO) (Spanish special police assault unit) police officer and wounding eleven policemen. According to witnesses and media, between five and eight suspects escaped that day.

Security forces carried out a controlled explosion of a suspicious package found near the Atocha station and subsequently deactivated the two undetonated devices on the Téllez train. A third unexploded device was later brought from the station at El Pozo to a police station in Vallecas, and became a central piece of evidence for the investigation. It appears that the El Pozo bomb failed to detonate because a cell-phone alarm used to trigger the bomb was set 12 hours late.

Conspiracy theories
Sectors of the People's Party (PP), and certain media, such as El Mundo newspaper and the COPE radio station, continue to support theories relating the attack to a vast conspiracy to remove the governing party from power. Support for the conspiracy was also given by the Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo (AVT), Spain's largest association of victims of terrorism.

These theories speculate that ETA and members of the security forces and national and foreign (Moroccan) secret services were involved in the bombings. Defenders of the claims that ETA participated in some form in the 11 March attacks have affirmed that there is circumstantial evidence linking the Islamic extremists with two ETA members who were detained while driving the outskirts of Madrid in a van containing 500 kg of explosives 11 days before the train bombings. The Madrid judge Coro Cillán continued to hear conspiracy theory cases, including one accusing government officials of ordering the scrapping of the bombed train cars in order to destroy evidence.

Invasion of Iraq policy
The public seemed convinced that the Madrid Bombings were a result of the Aznar government's alignment with the U.S. and its invasion of Iraq. The terrorists behind the 11-M attack were somewhat successful because of the election outcome. Before the attack, the incumbent Popular Party led the polls by 5 percent. It is believed that the Popular Party would have won the election if it had not been for the terrorist attack. The Socialist Party, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, ended up winning the election by 5%. The Socialist Party had called for the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq during its campaigning. Rodríguez Zapatero promised to remove Spanish troops by 30 June 2004, and the troops were withdrawn a month earlier than expected. Twenty-eight percent of voters said that the bombings influenced their opinions and vote. An estimated 1 million voters switched their vote to the Socialist Party after the Madrid bombings. These voters who switched their votes were no longer willing to support the Popular Party's stance on war policy. The bombings also influenced 1,700,000 citizens to vote who did not plan on originally voting. On the other hand, the terrorist attacks discouraged 300,000 people from voting. Overall, there was a net 4 percent increase in voter turnout.

Trial
Judge Juan del Olmo found "local cells of Islamic extremists inspired through the Internet" guilty for the 11 March attacks, rather than the Armed Islamic Group or the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group. These local cells consisted of hashish traffickers of Moroccan origin, remotely linked to an al-Qaeda cell that had been already captured. These groups bought the explosives (dynamite Goma-2 ECO) from low-level thieves, police and Guardia Civil informers in Asturias using money from the small-scale drug trafficking.

According to El Mundo, "the notes found on the Moroccan informer 'Cartagena' prove that the Police had the leaders of the cell responsible for the 11 March attacks under surveillance." However, none of the notes refer to the preparation of any terrorist attack.

The trial of 29 defendants began on 15 February 2007. According to El País, "the Court dismantled one by one all conspiracy theories" and demonstrated that any link with or involvement in the bombings by ETA was either misleading or groundless. During the trial the defendants retracted their previous statements and denied any involvement. According to El Mundo the questions of "by whom, why, when and where the Madrid train attacks were planned" are still "unanswered", because the alleged masterminds of the attacks were acquitted. El Mundo also claimed -among other misgivings  that the Spanish judiciary reached "scientifically unsound" conclusions about the kind of explosives used in the trains, and that no direct al-Qaeda link was found, thus "debunking the key argument of the official version". Anthropologist Scott Atran described the Madrid trial as "a complete farce" pointing out the fact that "There isn't the slightest bit of evidence of any operational relationship with al-Qaida". Instead, "The overwhelming majority of [terrorist cells] in Europe have nothing to do with al-Qaida other than a vague relationship of ideology."

Though the trial proceeded smoothly in its opening months, 14 of the 29 defendants began a hunger strike in May, protesting against the allegedly "unfair" role of political parties and media in the legal proceedings. Judge Javier Gómez Bermúdez refused to suspend the trial despite the strike, and the hunger strikers ended their fast on 21 May.

The last hearing of the trial was held on 2 July 2007.

On 31 October 2007, the Audiencia Nacional of Spain handed down its judgements. Of the 28 defendants in the trial, 21 were found guilty on a range of charges from forgery to murder. Two of the defendants were sentenced each to more than 40,000 years in prison.

Police surveillance and informants
In the investigations carried out to find out what went wrong in the security services, many individual instances of negligence and miscoordination between different branches of the police were found. The group dealing with Islamist extremists was very small and in spite of having carried out some surveillances, they were unable to stop the bombings. Also, some of the criminals involved in the "Little Mafia" who provided the explosives were police informants and had leaked to their case officers some tips that were not followed up on.

Some of the alleged perpetrators of the bombing were reportedly under surveillance by the Spanish police since 2001.

At the time of the Madrid bombings, Spain was well equipped with internal security structures that were, for the most part, effective in the fight against terrorism. It became evident that there were coordination issues between police forces as well as within each of them. The Interior Ministry focused on correcting these weaknesses. It was Spain's goal to strengthen its police intelligence in order to deal with the risks and threats of international terrorism. This decision for the National Police and the Guardia Civil to strengthen their counter-terrorism services, led to an increase in jobs aimed at preventing and fighting global terrorism. Counter-terrorism services increased its employment by nearly 35% during the legislature. Human resources in external information services, dealing with international terrorism, grew by 72% in the National Police force and 22% in the Guardia Civil.

Controversies
The authorship of the bombings remains a controversial issue in Spain. Sectors of the Partido Popular (PP) and some of the PP-friendly media outlets (primarily El Mundo and the Libertad Digital radio station) claim that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the Spanish judicial investigation.

As Spanish and international investigations continue to claim the unlikeliness of ETA's active implication, these claims have shifted from direct accusations involving the Basque separatist organisation to less specific insinuations and general scepticism. Additionally, there is controversy over the events that took place between the bombings and the general elections held three days later.

Reactions
In the aftermath of the bombings, there were massive street demonstrations across Spain to protest against the train bombings. Two people died in political violence about the ETA controversy. The international reaction was also notable, as the scale of the attack became clearer.

Memorial service for victims
A memorial service for the victims of this incident was held on 25 March 2004 at the Almudena Cathedral. It was attended by King Juan Carlos I, Queen Sofía, the victims' families, and representatives from numerous other countries, including British prime minister Tony Blair, French president Jacques Chirac, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Specifically about the 2004 Madrid bombings

 * Atocha station memorial
 * Brandon Mayfield, wrongfully identified via fingerprints
 * Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings
 * Forest of Remembrance
 * Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings
 * José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
 * 2004 Madrid train bombings suspects
 * Rabei Osman

Other

 * List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems
 * 2000 Madrid bombing
 * February 2004 Moscow Metro bombing, a very similar attack barely five weeks before.
 * 2006 Madrid–Barajas Airport bombing
 * 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings
 * 7 July 2005 London bombings
 * 21 July 2005 London bombings
 * 2006 German train bombing attempts

title: 2004 Madrid train bombings


text:
Przekop Wisły

The Przekop Wisły (, often shortened to just Przekop) is a branch of the Vistula river in its delta. It was created artificially in 1895 (hence its Polish name "Przekop" in this case meaning "river cutoff"). Since then, it has formed the most direct route from the Vistula to the Baltic Sea.

History
Work on the Przekop began in June 1891. 1,000 workers and 40 steam machines were dedicated to the project. 7000000 m3 of dirt was displaced from the construction site. 20 million marks were spent on the project in total. An opening ceremony was not held once the canal was finished—at 3:45p.m. on 31 March 1895, president of East Prussia Gustav von Goßler was sent a telegraph signal by Wilhelm II, German Emperor, to open the canal. He followed the Emperor's orders and opened it by himself.

Measurements
The Przekop is 7.1 km long and 250 to 400 m wide, with shallows measuring 1 m in depth. In June 2022, the water levels of the Przekop reached 526 cm.

Geology
The deposition of the sediments on the canal's surface is progressing at a fast pace and its surface is mostly made up of coarse sands with leptokurtic distribution.

title: Przekop Wisły


text:
Vinculum (ligament)

In anatomy, a vinculum (: vincula) is a band of connective tissue, similar to a ligament, that connects a flexor tendon to a phalanx bone. They contain tiny vessels which supply blood to the tendon. In vertebrate anatomy, they are referred to as mesotendons.

For example, in the fingers and toes of humans and related vertebrates, vincula are responsible for the direct vascularization of the flexor digitorum superficialis and profundus tendons to the intermediate and distal phalanges in each finger. These vincula are four folds in the synovial membrane that carry blood vessels to the body and insertion of the tendon. The tendon receives some additional nutrition directly from the synovial fluid in the sheath, which is important in case of partial loss of direct vascularization from the vincula.

In the chick, vincula are much larger and more complex than in humans. Though they contain blood vessels, these only make up a very limited portion of the total mass of the vincula, most of which consists of collagen and elastic fibres.

A vinculum is also found in insects' male genitalia. Unlike the vertebrate structures, it is part of the exoskeleton, being formed by the ventral part of the ninth abdominal segment. It retains the aedeagus and the clasper attaches to it.

title: Vinculum (ligament)


text:
Cymbalaria

Cymbalaria is a genus of about 10 species of herbaceous perennial plants previously placed in the family Scrophulariaceae, but recently shown by genetic research to be in the much enlarged family Plantaginaceae.

The genus is native to southern Europe. It is closely related to the genera Linaria and Antirrhinum, differing in having creeping growth and flowers borne singly rather than in dense erect spikes. The common name toadflax is shared with Linaria and other related genera. The scientific name means "resembling a cymbal" for the somewhat rounded leaves.

By far the best known species is Cymbalaria muralis (also called ivy-leaved toadflax, and Kenilworth ivy), native to southwest Europe. It has widely naturalised elsewhere and is commonly sold as a garden plant. C. muralis characteristically grows in sheltered crevices in walls and pathways, or in rocks and scree, making a trailing or scrambling plant up to 1 m long.

Species list
Accepted species are:
 * Cymbalaria aequitriloba (Viv.) A.Chev.
 * Cymbalaria bakhtiarica Podlech & Iranshahr
 * Cymbalaria glutinosa Bigazzi & Raffaelli
 * Cymbalaria hepaticifolia (Poir.) Wettst.
 * Cymbalaria longipes (Boiss. & Heldr.) A.Chev.
 * Cymbalaria microcalyx (Boiss.) Wettst.
 * Cymbalaria muelleri (Moris) A.Chev.
 * Cymbalaria muralis G.Gaertn., B.Mey. & Schreb.
 * Cymbalaria pallida (Ten.) Wettst.
 * Cymbalaria pluttula (Rech.f.) Speta
 * Cymbalaria pubescens (J.Presl & C.Presl) Cufod.

Taxonomy
Described as Cymbalaria by the English botanist, John Hill in 1756.

title: Cymbalaria


text:
Breakup

A relationship breakup, breakup, or break-up is the ending of a relationship. The act is commonly termed "dumping [someone]" in slang when it is initiated by one partner. The term is less likely to be applied to a married couple, where a breakup is typically called a separation or divorce. When a couple engaged to be married breaks up, it is typically called a "broken engagement". People commonly think of breakups in a romantic aspect, however, there are also non-romantic and platonic breakups, and this type of relationship dissolution is usually caused by failure to maintain a friendship.

Susie Orbach (1992) has argued that the dissolution of dating and cohabiting relationships can be as painful as or more painful than divorce because these nonmarital relationships are less socially recognized.

Kamiar-K. Rueckert argues with the works of Donald Winnicott that the ability to be alone is an essentially healthy sign of emotional development and maturity. Once a child has obtained closeness and attachment by their early caregivers, they are able to develop autonomy and identity. If children have not introjected the good and protective qualities of their parents, they will fear separation and break-ups.

Models
Several psychological models have been proposed to explain the process of a relationship breakup, many suggesting that relationship dissolution occurs in stages.

Mark L. Knapp, a foundational scholar on the subject of interpersonal relationships, created a model called Knapp's relational development model. He describes two separate phases of relationships, coming together and coming apart.

The coming together phase is meant to be long-term, beginning in the initiation phase and becoming deeper with time and intimacy. In the coming apart phase, differentiating begins. This is when the individuals began noticing differences that may seem unnegotiable or place pressure on the relationship. This leads to circumscribing where the individuals begin to pull apart, set boundaries, and have their own independent lives. This may cause issues to arise. At this point, the relationship reaches stagnation where the couple stays together for other reasons rather than their will to do so. Examples include children. The next stage is avoidance in which the individuals try to stay away from each other as much as possible. They, then, reach termination, where the relationship is over and they go their separate ways.

Stages leading to a breakup
L. Lee proposes that there are five stages ultimately leading up to a breakup. • # Dissatisfaction: one or both partners grow dissatisfied with relationship

• # Exposure: both partners mutually become aware of problems in relationship

• # Negotiation: both partners attempt to negotiate solutions to problems

• # Resolution and transformation: both partners apply outcome of their negotiation

• # Termination: proposed resolution fails to rectify issues and no further solutions are accepted or applied

Cycle of a breakup
Steve Duck outlines a six-stage cycle of relationship breakup: • # Dissatisfaction with relationship

• # Social withdrawal

• # Discussion of reasons for discontentment

• # Going public

• # Tidying up of memories

• # Recreating sense of social value

Factors that predict a breakup before marriage
Hill, Rubin and Peplau identify five factors that predict breakup before marriage: • # Unequal involvement in the relationship

• # Age difference

• # Different educational aspirations

• # Difference in intelligence

• # Difference in physical attractiveness

Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution
Gottman and Levenson (1994) outline the Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution, in which four negative nonverbal behaviors lead to the breakdown of a marriage/relationship:

• # Criticism

• # Defensiveness

• # Contempt

• # Stonewalling

• # Suspicious

Uncoupling theory
In 1976, sociologist Diane Vaughan proposed an "uncoupling theory", where there exists a "turning point" in the dynamics of relationship breakup – 'a precise moment when they "knew the relationship was over," when "everything went dead inside – followed by a transition period in which one partner unconsciously knows the relationship is going to end, but holds on to it for an extended period, even for years.

Vaughan considered that the process of breakup was asymmetrical for initiator and respondent: the former 'has begun mourning the loss of the relationship and has undertaken something tantamount to a rehearsal, mentally and, to varying degrees, experientially, of a life apart from the partner'. The latter then has to play catch-up: 'to make their own transition out of the relationship, partners must redefine initiator and relationship negatively, legitimating the dissolution'.

As a result, for Vaughan 'getting out of a relationship includes a redefinition of self at several levels: in the private thoughts of the individual, between partners, and in the larger social context in which the relationship exists'. She considered that 'uncoupling is complete when the partners have defined themselves and are defined by others as separate and independent of each other – when being partners is no longer a major source of identity'.

Conscious uncoupling
Katherine Woodward Thomas, a licensed marriage and family therapist, originated the term "conscious uncoupling"  in 2009. Thomas began teaching this new approach to divorce to students throughout the world.

The term received popularization by Gwyneth Paltrow, who used the phrase to describe her divorce with Chris Martin. Paltrow had her doctors Dr. Sherry Sami, and Habib Sadeghi and his wife explain the Conscious Uncoupling when she first made the news of her divorce public. A "conscious uncoupling is the ability to understand that every irritation and argument [within a marriage] was a signal to look inside ourselves and identify a negative internal object that needed healing," Habib Sadeghi explained. "From this perspective, there are no bad guys, just two people, it's about people as individuals, not just the relationship".

Consequences
Depending on the individual, breakups can be stressful, unpleasant, and traumatic events. Both parties could feel a large number of negative effects as a result of the relationship's dissolution, and these events often gain the reputation for being some of the worst events in people's lives. These could include psychological distress symptoms, grief reactions, an overall decline in psychological well-being, and potential stalking behaviors. Individuals often work hard to keep their relationships intact because of how significantly distressing and problematic these negative effects can be, even in the face of potential complications in their relationship, for as long as they can bear it.

Psychological distress symptoms
Individuals who had just recently experienced the dissolution of a romantic relationship reported several symptoms of acute psychological distress. These included flashback and intrusive memories associated with their partner, often triggered by important dates associated with either the relationship or the breakup. These intrusive distress symptoms manifested in various ways for both the individual who initiated the breakup and their partner, such as being reminded of certain aspects of their behavior or their preferences.

Another set of psychological distress symptoms that were reported by individuals who had experienced a romantic relationship breakup fell under the category of avoidance behavior. Being without their partner causes their self-concept to shift as they struggle through emotional distress. This involves an active attempt at denying or ignoring the circumstances of the current situation, or those that led to the dissolution of the relationship. In relation to this, individuals also noted feeling numb and uninterested with the world around them because of the breakup.

The combination of this desire to engage in avoidance behaviors and the intrusive memories that may naturally come up cause individuals to feel significant emotional swings and outbursts in the form of irritation, anger, and startle responses. Individuals were noted as being far more paranoid, suspicious, and jealous, often tied towards a desire to know information about their ex-partner.

Overall, these psychological distress symptoms come together to result in a significantly lower level of self-esteem among individuals who have just undergone the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Additionally, individuals undergo a significant redefinition of their self-concept, as they attempt to understand who they are without their ex-partner. This compounds upon the psychological distress symptoms that they feel from the loss of the relationship and is the most significant negative effect that people undergoing a breakup experience.

Grief reactions
A natural effect of the loss of a relationship that an individual had hoped to keep is grief, because the desire to keep relationships intact despite problems and complications is a natural human desire. This results in individuals undergoing a breakup displaying grief reactions that include symptoms like sleeplessness, depression, and suicidal thoughts. This tendency to express grief and depression is so prevalent that researchers point to it being a significant contributor to the first onset of major depressive disorder in young adults.

The extent of these grief reactions is not limited to the time frame immediately following the dissolution of the romantic relationship. Even some time after the breakup, people who are asked to recall depressing or negative events in their lives commonly make reference to traumatic events of this nature. This negative effect can be attributed to the severity of the grief reaction that people who suffer through a breakup display, making a significant mark in their lives that they are unlikely to forget.

Decline in psychological well-being
In addition to these specific negative effects, individuals who are suffering through a breakup report a general decline in their psychological well-being. The general negative emotion that they feel often triggers other behaviors and habits that are either detrimental to their mental health or signify poor mental health conditions. These include:

 * increased alcohol use
 * weight loss
 * worsening physical health
 * admissions to psychiatric services
 * increased criminal behavior
 * increased risk of suicide
 * negative emotions and feelings (such as guilt, anger, or rejection)

Stalking behaviors
A behavior that has been noticed following some breakups is the prevalence of stalking as one partner attempts to maintain contact with the other, however unwanted it may be. This type of behavior exists on a scale that stretches from an amicable breakup with no unwanted harassment behaviors all the way to stalking behaviors that are threatening and distressful to the partner. This behavior stems from an unhappiness with the circumstances following the dissolution of the relationship, as well as a misguided belief that the stalking behavior may result in the reforming of the relationship. There is no clear definition of stalking behavior that differentiate it from socially acceptable activities; they become more sinister when they are unwanted and form a persistent pattern.

Positive effects
Evidence shows that even in the direst of situations, there is a chance for positive emotions and growth. Breakups are no different, giving victims opportunities for stress-related growth, improving their performance in future relationships, and providing feelings of relief and freedom. Jessica Kansky and Joseph P. Allen conducted a study that followed 160 20 to 25-year-olds, or emerging adults, and observed their romantic and close friend relationships. There were a significant number of findings, but one finding was that the experience of a break-up did prove positive in the long run for several individuals, especially if they knew the reason(s) the relationship ended.

Stress-related growth
Individuals that are placed under stressful situations are often faced with an opportunity for growth and development as a result of this stress. Without this push to improve, individuals are often pushed towards complacency and refuse to make the necessary efforts to progress through life. Different ways in which people have exhibited growth following a stressful life event include improvements to the way a person views themselves, the way they connect with other people around them, or their overall approach to life. Research shows that breakups are highly representative of this type of stressful situation, as individuals experience them several times throughout their lives and have been known to self-report instances of growth because of the experience.

Improved future relationships
Another positive outcome that has been observed to follow breakup has to do with the lessons that people may have learned from going through the painful experience. The stress-related growth that a person is forced to experience following a breakup causes improvements to their overall character, self-image, and ability to interact with others. These improvements have the potential to improve the quality of future romantic relationships with other people. This is due to the increased level of maturity displayed by the individual as well as, to a lesser extent, insight into certain things that they must avoid in a relationship to ensure better relationships in the future.

Feelings of relief and freedom
While this may not necessarily be a universal positive consequence that affects all people going through a breakup, there is significant evidence towards certain individuals experiencing feelings of relief, freedom, and happiness following the end of a relationship. There is a high likelihood that these individuals were the one who initiated the breakup in the first place, but research has shown that there have been cases where individuals that have been victims of a breakup recognize that their past relationship was sub-optimal, which allows them to display the same emotions of relief, freedom, and happiness.

Mitigating factors
While individuals that have experienced a breakup are likely to experience a number of different positive and negative effects once the relationship has run its course, different people can expect these to manifest in varying degrees. This is because there are several mitigating factors that can either minimize or amplify the extent to which one feels the consequences of a breakup. The list of potential factors that have been shown to moderate the effects that an individual might feel are categorized and listed below:

 * Relationship quality
 * Duration of relationship – longer relationships are more likely to be more painful after the breakup
 * Admission of love for ex-partner – relationships that report to be filled with love may exacerbate the consequences that victims feel following a breakup
 * Satisfaction levels of both parties – relationships that report both parties feeling satisfied are more likely to suffer during breakups
 * Level of investment in maintaining the relationship – high levels of relationship investment translate to a much larger loss caused by the dissolution of the romantic relationship
 * Proportion of positive and negative relationship memories – individuals that had a high number of positive relationship memories were less negatively affected by the breakup when compared to those that would constantly dredge up negative memories of their ex-partner
 * Romantic situation following breakup
 * Ease of finding an alternative partner – being able to find a new partner immediately following a breakup allowed the individual to better weather the negative emotions and problems associated with the dissolution of a romantic relationship
 * Willingness to begin a new relationship – an openness to the formation of a new relationship was shown to translate to a lower level of victimization and negative consequences after a breakup
 * Circumstances of the breakup
 * Initiator of the dissolution of the relationship – while both the initiator and the victim were shown to experience consequences following the breakup, the former displayed less of these symptoms and in some cases experienced positive effects because the relationship ended
 * Certainty of the reasons for the breakup – being unsure about the initiator's reasons for breaking up caused higher levels of anxiety and other stress symptoms in the victim, while achieving closure was an important step for most individuals seeking to move on from a breakup
 * Characteristics of the participants
 * Hardiness – individuals that displayed above average levels of hardiness were unfazed by the dissolution of their romantic relationship and were less likely to be bothered by its consequences
 * Attachment styles can play a big role in why a breakup occurs in the first place. Attachment styles define the expectations an individual has when in a relationship based on the relationship they had with their caregivers during childhood. The four attachment styles are Avoidant Attachment ( which is characterized by avoiding communication and withdrawing), Anxious / Ambivalent Attachment ( which is characterized by fear that a partner will not reciprocate the same love that the individual gives), Fearful Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment (which is characterized by a fear of relationships and attempts to avoid them even while craving love and intimacy), and Secure Attachment (which is the style that is characterized by strong, healthy relationships). These attachment styles can affect the behavior of one partner towards another and different attachment styles can clash. For instance, if one partner has an avoidant attachment and dates someone with a secure attachment style, the two partners may clash due to a lack of communication and several misunderstandings as these attachment styles come with expectations that are acted out in behavior that can eventually lead to a breakup.
 * Self-esteem levels – high levels of self-esteem allow people to be less stressed during the dissolution of a relationship and alleviate the most severe negative consequences
 * Mental health – individuals that display lower levels of mental health and substance abuse have reported magnified consequence levels when going through the breakup process
 * Self-complexity – people that exhibit a complex self-image, which references an ability to perceive oneself as more than just who they are in their romantic relationship, are less likely to be debilitated by the consequences of a breakup
 * Sex – several studies observed that females on average exhibited larger negative symptoms during the breakup process
 * Implementation of coping strategies
 * Distancing – avoiding the problem has been observed to translate to negative coping outcomes and a worsening of the consequences reported by the victim, while a willingness to confront the matter and engage in problem-solving has shown overall mitigative effects to breakup consequences
 * Benefit-finding – the willingness to objectively assess the relationship, as well as an ability to find benefits that resulted from its ending allowed victims to display less stress symptoms during the breakup
 * Perceived social support – individuals that felt like people in their social group were on their side and would support them during this stressful time reported being less affected by the breakup and loss of a romantic relationship

Online breakups
The technologically advanced society that currently exists means that much of people's lives are online. People can date online via dating apps or using social media platforms such as Instagram or Facebook. Many relationships have been able to manifest from mediated communication and last a similar amount of time as relationships that were started in person. Others, however, have not been as long-lived. The presence of social media and technology also plays a part in relationships that began and exist in person, as well. There has been much controversy about the stress that online dating places on relationships. The constant and wide range of accessibility provided by technology and internet access can lead to a plethora of issues that may result in break-ups. An example of this is that those already in a relationship can have multiple partners that are also dating using online platforms that have no knowledge of each other due to the unlimited access they have to meet people from all over the world. Once a partner discovers the infidelity, this could result in a breakup. Online dating may also prohibit choices that could save a relationship. To further elaborate, many times in relationships, space is necessary to collect thoughts and feelings after an argument, however, the usage of social media allows access to one's partner at all times. This constant accessibility may result in disruption of both space and boundaries necessary for a healthy relationship.

LGBTQ relationship dissolutions
While public opinion has become more accepting of different forms of relationships, including those that are not heterosexual, LGBTQ couples often face adversity when it comes to maintaining their relationships due to societal-based homophobia. According to researchers Lahti and Kolehmainen, studies have shown that LGBTQ couples tend to feel pressured by society to maintain long, monogamous, and healthy relationships. They may struggle in silence and refuse to seek help or end a relationship when it may be in their best interest mentally and emotionally because of this pressure. Their studies also indicate that most counseling services, or other means of salvaging a relationship, have heteronormative assumptions. This makes it difficult for LGBTQ couples to find help for their relationships that caters to the issues they struggle with personally.

Other unique issues arise out of LGBTQ relationship dissolutions when children are involved. According to researchers Goldberg and Allen, LGBTQ separations involving children can become legally confusing. In lesbian relationships, there are two mothers, so the question arises of who would receive full custody of the child(ren). Many times, the court system favors the birth mother, however, in lesbian relationships, one mother could carry the egg of another, so it becomes challenging to determine who the child(ren) biologically belongs to. In gay male relationship dissolutions, this also causes confusion as the majority of gay male parents adopted their children. Due to the heteronormative society that currently exists, LGBTQ couples often deal with challenges post-break-up.

There is a lack of research on LGBTQ relationship dissolutions as these relationships are fairly recent to acceptance and legality in history.

title: Breakup


text:
Śmiała Wisła

The Śmiała Wisła is a distributary river branch of the Vistula in northern Poland that flows to the Gdańsk Bay.

The Śmiała Wisła is a western border of Sobieszewo Island and was created during the 1840 flooding when it became a new mouth of the Vistula. Literally it means Daring Vistula.

title: Śmiała Wisła