text:
Sergey Karjakin

Sergey Alexandrovich Karjakin (born 12 January 1990) is a Russian chess grandmaster. A chess prodigy, he previously held the record for the world's youngest ever grandmaster, having qualified for the title at the age of 12 years and 7 months.

Karjakin won the European U10 Chess Championship in 1999 and was the World U12 Chess Champion in 2001. He earned the International Master title at age 11 and was awarded his grandmaster title in 2003. He represented Ukraine at the Chess Olympiad in 2004, winning team and individual gold. He competed in two more Chess Olympiads for Ukraine and won the Corus chess tournament in 2009, before transferring to Russia. He has since represented Russia five times in the Chess Olympiad, winning individual gold in 2010. He also won team gold with Russia at the World Team Chess Championship in 2013 and 2019.

Karjakin won the 2012 World Rapid Chess Championship and the Norway Chess tournament in 2013 and 2014. He competed at the Candidates Tournament 2014, placing second. He won the Chess World Cup 2015, thus qualifying for the Candidates Tournament 2016. He won the tournament and earned the right to challenge for the World Chess Championship. In November 2016, he lost the championship match to Magnus Carlsen in the rapid tiebreaks after drawing 6–6 in the classical games. He won the 2016 World Blitz Chess Championship. He participated in the Candidates tournament again in 2018, placing third, and qualified for the 2022 Candidates by finishing second in the Chess World Cup 2021.

Karjakin's public approval of the Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted the Grand Chess Tour to ban him for future events. He was also banned from playing FIDE-rated events for six months, including the Candidates Tournament 2022. Following the expiration of his ban, Karjakin has refused to participate in events where he is barred from playing under the Russian flag; this, in conjunction with FIDE's ban on Belarusian and Russian flags, meant that Karjakin has been inactive, dropping out of FIDE's rating lists in June 2024.

Prodigy
Karjakin learned to play chess when he was five years old. He joined the A.V. Momot Club in Kramatorsk, Ukraine, and was coached by Vladislav Borovikov, becoming an International Master at age 11 years and 11 months. He won the U10 European championship in 1999 and the U12 world championship in 2001. Also in 2001, Karjakin tied for first place in the U14 European championship with Borki Predojević and Rauf Mamedov, taking the silver medal on tiebreak. In January 2002, he was the official second of fellow Ukrainian Ruslan Ponomariov during the final of the FIDE World Championship, though Karjakin had only just turned 12 at the time.

By scoring grandmaster norms at the Aeroflot Open in Moscow, Alushta tournament in May 2002 and Sudak in August 2002, he surpassed Bu Xiangzhi to become the world's youngest grandmaster at the age of 12 years 7 months―a record that lasted for 19 years until 2021, when American player Abhimanyu Mishra achieved the qualifications for the title at the age of 12 years, 4 months, and 25 days. Both Karjakin and Mishra have faced scrutiny for the methods with which they won their qualification, however; Karjakin's father has been accused of using methods skirting the norms of chess in enabling such an early attainment of the title.

In 2003, Karjakin won a six-game match against Alexandra Kosteniuk ("Dannemann Classico") in Brissago by a score of 4–2 and tied for second in the Ukrainian championship.

He competed in the 2004 FIDE World Championship in Tripoli, where he lost in the first round to Mikhail Kobalia. Soon after, Karjakin took part in the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting. Here he defeated the reigning world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in a blitz game. In October, Karjakin was the only human to win against a computer in the Man vs Machine World Team Championship in Bilbao, Spain, where he was the youngest and lowest-rated player, beating Deep Junior. At the 36th Chess Olympiad in Calvià, he was the youngest member of the gold-medal-winning Ukrainian team. He also won an individual gold medal thanks to his score of 6½/7 points playing the second reserve board. In December 2004, Karjakin finished second, behind Boris Gelfand at the Pamplona tournament. In the following month, he won the Group B of the Corus Chess Tournament in Wijk aan Zee, thus qualifying for the 2006 Group A.

Karjakin entered the world's top 100 in the April 2005 FIDE list, at 64th with an Elo rating of 2635. He scored 8½/11 points (+7=3−1) to win the Young Stars of the World tournament held in Kirishi, Russia in May. In July, he tied for third place in the European Individual Championship.

2006
In 2006, Karjakin played for the first time in the Wijk aan Zee Corus A tournament, scoring 7/13 points (4 wins, 6 draws, 3 losses). In the same year, he took part in the NH Chess Tournament in Amsterdam; it was a match between two teams, "Rising Stars" (made up of Karjakin, Magnus Carlsen, Wang Hao, Daniel Stellwagen, and Jan Smeets) and "Experience" (Alexander Beliavsky, Artur Yusupov, John Nunn, and Ulf Andersson), held with the Scheveningen system. The former won by 28–22.

2007
Karjakin played again in the NH Chess Tournament for team "Rising Stars", which beat "Experience" by 26½–23½. He was the best player, having scored 7/10, and this earned him an invitation for the 2008 Amber chess tournament. In October 2007, Karjakin finished second behind Bu Xiangzhi in the blindfold chess World Cup in Bilbao, scoring 17 points after five wins, two draws and three losses (the scoring system was 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss).

During the Chess World Cup 2007, which served as a qualification tournament for the World Chess Championship 2010, Karjakin reached the semi-finals, in which he lost to Alexei Shirov. On the January 2008 FIDE rating list, published just before Karjakin's 18th birthday, he passed the 2700 mark for the first time, often seen as the line that separates "elite" players from other grandmasters, with a new rating of 2732 and a world rank of 13.

2008–2010
In July 2008, Karjakin convincingly won a rapid chess match against GM Nigel Short 7½–2½.

In February 2009, he won his first elite tournament in the A group of the Corus chess tournament in Wijk aan Zee (category XIX), with a score of 8/13.

He won the ACP World Rapid Cup, which was conducted from 27 to 29 May 2010, defeating Dmitry Jakovenko in the final by 4–3.

2011
In June 2011, Karjakin took second place in the Bazna Kings Tournament in Mediaș, Romania, after sharing the lead with Magnus Carlsen in the final round, and after ranking was then determined by the tournament’s official tie-break regulations. The final standings listed Carlsen followed by Karjakin, then Hikaru Nakamura, Teimour Radjabov, Vassily Ivanchuk, and Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu. The results affected the world rankings, as Carlsen reclaimed first place, and Karjakin passed Kramnik for fourth place.

In November, Karjakin shared third place with Vassily Ivanchuk and Ian Nepomniachtchi in the category 22 Tal Memorial in Moscow.

2012: World Rapid Champion
In July 2012, Karjakin won the World Rapid Chess Championship, a full point ahead of world number one Magnus Carlsen in Astana, Kazakhstan. In the same month, he also tied for first at Dortmund with Fabiano Caruana but came in second after tiebreak. In November–December 2012, Karjakin shared first place with Wang Hao and Alexander Morozevich with 6½/9 in the FIDE Grand Prix event held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

2013–2014
In May, he won the inaugural edition of Norway Chess, scoring 6½/9 (+6−2=1), half a point ahead of Carlsen.

In March 2014, he finished second place in the FIDE Candidates Tournament held in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, behind Viswanathan Anand. His second at the event was former FIDE World Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov.

In June 2014, Karjakin won the Norway Chess tournament for the second year running. In this tournament, he competed against nine other players, six of which were rated in the FIDE top 10.

2015
Karjakin won the Chess World Cup 2015 after going down 0–2 to former World Cup Champion Peter Svidler, eventually winning 6–4 in blitz tiebreaks. By finishing in the top two, Karjakin qualified, along with Svidler, for the 2016 Candidates Tournament.

In the same year, he took part in the Russia–China Challenge Match. The first part of the event took place from 29 July to 1 August in the Heixiazi Island, where Karjakin sequentially knocked out four of the five members in the Chinese team: Wei Yi, Ding Liren, Ni Hua and Yu Yangyi. In the second half of the event, which was held in Harbin in December, he also defeated Wang Yue, leading team Russia to victory.

2016: Candidates winner and World Blitz Champion
In March 2016, Karjakin won the 2016 Candidates Tournament in Moscow and qualified to play a match against Magnus Carlsen for the title of World Chess Champion. He defeated Fabiano Caruana in the last round of the tournament to finish with 8½ out of 14, one point ahead of Caruana and Anand.

The World Chess Championship 2016 took place 11–30 November 2016 in New York City. The format consisted of a maximum of 12 games played under a long classical time control, ending with possible speed chess tiebreak games and an Armageddon game to ensure a winner. Karjakin's record against Carlsen in classical games before the World Championship was: 1 win, 4 losses, and 16 draws. Karjakin won the eighth game,  but lost the tenth, leaving the match tied 6–6. Carlsen defeated Karjakin 3–1 in the rapid tiebreaks and won the match. This remains the last time Carlsen was defeated in a classical or rapid game in the finals of a World Chess Championship having gone unbeaten in the rapid tiebreaks with Karjakin and in his subsequent matches with Caruana in 2018 (both in the classical portion and in the rapid tiebreaks) and Nepomniachtchi in 2021.

Karjakin won the 2016 World Blitz Chess Championship, which took place on 29 and 30 December 2016. Before the last round, Carlsen was leading with 16.0/20, while Karjakin was half a point behind. In the last round, Carlsen drew with Peter Leko, while Karjakin won against Baadur Jobava. Thus, they both finished the tournament with 16½/21. The tie-break (the Elo average of the opponents) was used to decide the winner, and as Karjakin's opponents had the better average, Karjakin was crowned 2016 World Blitz Champion. The extent of Karjakin's and Carlsen's domination in the event was shown by the fact that their closest rivals, Daniil Dubov, Hikaru Nakamura and Alexander Grischuk (three-time world blitz champion), were a full two points behind.

2017–2018
In December, he participated in the London Chess Classic, placing eighth with a score of 3½/9.

In January, Karjakin competed in the Tata Steel Masters. He placed seventh, scoring 7½/13 (+2−0=11).

In March, he competed in the Candidates Tournament 2018. He finished third with 8/14 (+4−2=8), one point behind the winner Caruana.

In April, he participated in the fifth edition of Shamkir Chess, finishing third with a score of 5/9 (+1−0=8).

From 28 May to 7 June, he competed in the sixth edition of Norway Chess, finishing last with 3/8 (+1−3=4).

2019–2020
In March 2019, Karjakin competed as part of the Russian team at the World Team Championship in Astana, Kazakhstan. He was defeated by the Kazakh grandmaster Rinat Dzhumabaev. Despite this, the Russian team took first place in the tournament.

From 31 March to 9 April, he competed in Shamkir Chess 2019. He placed in a tie for second, with 5 points out of 9.

From 5 to 16 December 2020, Karjakin competed in the 73rd Russian Chess Championship. He finished with a score of 7/11, which earned him second place behind winner Ian Nepomniachtchi.

2021
In July–August 2021, Karjakin competed in the Chess World Cup 2021. In round five, Karjakin defeated French GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in the rapid tiebreaker after drawing the classical games. He then knocked out US GM Sam Shankland in the quarterfinals and eliminated Russian GM Vladimir Fedoseev in the semifinals to qualify for the Candidates Tournament 2022. Eventually, Karjakin lost to Polish GM Jan-Krzysztof Duda in the finals to finish second.

Karjakin criticised Daniil Dubov for serving as a second for Magnus Carlsen in the World Chess Championship 2021 against Ian Nepomniachtchi. This was also criticised by Sergei Shipov, who along with Karjakin said that Dubov should not have helped a non-Russian in a match against a fellow Russian. Dubov responded that he considered it to be a match between two individuals and counter-argued that working with Carlsen would improve his chess and hence help the Russian team.

From 26–28 December 2021, Karjakin participated in the 2021 FIDE World Rapid Championship, where he ended up in 11th place with 9/13 points after tiebreaks.

2022–present
In January 2022, he competed in the Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2022, where he finished tied for fifth with a score of 7/13. Controversy arose among spectators after the tenth round when Karjakin and Carlsen drew by three-fold repetition after 16 moves in 20 minutes, with Karjakin's deciding to enter a drawn line of the Berlin Defence. After the game, Karjakin tweeted "#drawmagnus #saynoto2900".

Suspension
In February 2022, the Crimea-born Karjakin, who had transferred from the Ukrainian Chess Federation to the Russian Chess Federation in 2009, came out in vocal support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This led FIDE to refer him (as well as fellow Grandmaster Sergei Shipov) to the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission. While the investigation was ongoing, several chess tournaments and platforms banned Karjakin: the Grand Chess Tour did so in early March, saying "the GCT Board has determined that Grandmaster Sergey Karjakin is banned from all upcoming and future GCT events due to his recent hostile comments on social media supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine", while Chess.com banned him from participating in all prize tournaments that same month.

In March 2022, the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Commission banned him from playing any FIDE-rated events for six months. The Russian Chess Federation filed an appeal, which was denied. The decision meant that Karjakin was not able to participate in the Candidates Tournament 2022. In a post to his Telegram channel, Karjakin denounced FIDE for conflating sports with politics. He further declared that he considers himself a patriot first and a chess player second, and that he did not regret anything. His public approval of the invasion led to Russian President Vladimir Putin awarding him a Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" in June 2022.

After the suspension ended in September 2022, Karjakin continued a self-imposed "ban" by refusing to participate in any tournament where he could not play under the Russian flag. Notably, Karjakin opted out of playing at the 2023 Chess World Cup despite his eligibility to play at the event due to rating, reiterating his disapproval for "the upcoming tournament [where] I can't represent my country, play under my (country's) flag, and if I successfully perform, I will not hear my country's national anthem."

Since January 2022, Karjakin has (as of April 2024) only played two classical FIDE-rated games, at the Russian Team Championship in May 2023.

Playing style
Karjakin is known for his defensive skills, which has earned him an informal nickname as Russia's "Minister of Defense". He successfully defended inferior positions against World Champion Magnus Carlsen – himself known for grinding out wins from slightly superior positions – in the World Chess Championship 2016, especially games 3 and 4. Karjakin has no qualms about entering an endgame with a small disadvantage if he deems it his best option as opposed to playing for complications. He is, however, also capable of aggressive play if the position demands it, such as in a 30-move victory over Veselin Topalov at the Gashimov Memorial 2017.

Personal life
Karjakin is an ethnic Russian.

He is an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Karjakin married Galiya Kamalova, secretary of the Moscow chess federation, in May 2014. They have two sons, one born in 2015 and the other born in 2017. He was previously married since 2009 to Ukrainian chess player Kateryna Dolzhykova.

On 25 July 2009, by the decree of the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, Karjakin adopted Russian citizenship. Later that year he transferred chess federations from Ukraine to Russia. He has lived in Moscow since 2009.

In 2013 he graduated from the Russian State Social University with a degree in social pedagogy.

In January 2024, Karjakin was involved in a very serious motor vehicle accident, being the passenger of the car that flipped multiple times. He suffered rib fractures. However, his injuries were not life-threatening. Later that year, in February 2024, Karjakin visited the ruins of the Ukrainian town Avdiivka, which had recently been occupied by Russian forces. He took selfies there in military gear.

Political views
Karjakin is known for his strong support for Vladimir Putin.

In 2022, he publicly endorsed the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sanctions
In 2022, he was sanctioned by Ukraine for his public endorsement and approval of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

title: Sergey Karjakin


text:
Nastygram

The term nastygram may refer to:
 * A cease and desist letter, often one received from a copyright holder
 * A Christmas tree packet (networking)
 * A demand letter used to collect a debt or penalties due to a breach of contract

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

title: Nastygram


text:
B&W

B&W, B/W or B+W may refer to:

Companies

 * Babcock & Wilcox, an American manufacturing company
 * Brown & Williamson, a former American tobacco company, now merged with R. J. Reynolds
 * Bowers & Wilkins, a British loudspeaker company
 * Bra & Wessels, a Swedish chain of department stores, since 2001 known as Coop Forum
 * Burmeister & Wain, Danish ship yard and diesel engine producer
 * Boeing & Westervelt, precursor company to Boeing
 * B+W Filterfabrik, a photographic filter manufacturer now owned by Schneider Kreuznach

Other

 * Black and white, as it refers to photography or cinematography
 * Grayscale
 * Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White), a computer model made by Apple Computer
 * College van Burgemeester en Wethouders, the Dutch municipal executive
 * Black & White Festival, the Portuguese audiovisual festival
 * b/w (meaning "backed with"), an abbreviation often used to separate the listing of the two sides of a vinyl record, especially a 45 record
 * Blue and White (political alliance), a political alliance in Israel

title: B&W


text:
Kerri Sakamoto

Kerri Sakamoto (born 1960 in Toronto) is a Canadian novelist. Her novels commonly deal with the experience of Japanese Canadians.

Sakamoto's debut novel, The Electrical Field (1998), won the Commonwealth Writers Prize for Best First Book. It also won the Canada Council's biennial Canada-Japan Literary Award and was a finalist for a Governor General's Award. Her second novel, One Hundred Million Hearts, was published in 2003. Her books have been published in translation internationally. Her third novel, Floating City, was published by Penguin Random House in March 2018 and reviewed in Rungh magazine. The book was a finalist for the Toronto Book Award and earned her the Canada-Japan Literary Award for the second time. Sakamoto has given talks and readings and has participated in literary festivals in Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia.

Sakamoto is also known as a writer of screenplays and essays on visual art. She co-wrote (with director Rea Tajiri) the screenplay to the 1997 film, Strawberry Fields. She often collaborates with filmmakers as story editor or script editor on narrative, experimental and experimental documentary works. She has also written on visual art for museums and galleries in Canada and the United States, such as the Walter Phillips Gallery at the Banff Fine Arts Centre, the Whitney Museum of American Art, and the Honolulu Museum of Contemporary Art. In 2004, she contributed a catalogue essay on the work of Painters Eleven abstract expressionist Kazuo Nakamura for an exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

In 2005, Sakamoto was appointed the Barker Fairley Distinguished Visitor at the University of Toronto, and a member of the Toronto Arts Council in 2007. She has also served as a member of the Canadian jury at the Toronto international Film Festival.

In 2020 she was named the winner of the Writers' Trust Engel/Findley Award, a career achievement award for the recipient's body of work presented by the Writers' Trust of Canada.

title: Kerri Sakamoto


text:
Division of Bruce

The Division of Bruce is an Australian Electoral Division in the state of Victoria. The division is located in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It covers an area of approximately 115 km2 including the suburbs of, , , , , , , and ; and parts of , , , , , , and.

Geography
Since 1984, federal electoral division boundaries in Australia have been determined at redistributions by a redistribution committee appointed by the Australian Electoral Commission. Redistributions occur for the boundaries of divisions in a particular state, and they occur every seven years, or sooner if a state's representation entitlement changes or when divisions of a state are malapportioned.

History
The division was created in 1955, and is named for Stanley Bruce, who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1923 to 1929. Unusually, the division was named after a living person, as Bruce did not die until 1967.

Until 1996, the division was based on Glen Waverley and Mount Waverley, and was a fairly safe seat for the Liberal Party, but since then its boundaries have been extended southwards, making it a marginal Labor Party seat.

Its most prominent member was Sir Billy Snedden, Liberal Party leader from 1972 to 1975 and Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983. At the 2011 Census, the division had the nation's highest proportion of residents born overseas (50.8%), and the third highest proportion born in a non-English speaking country (45.4%). It also has the sixth highest proportion speaking a language other than English at home (51.6%), the highest for any Victorian electorate.

The current Member for Bruce, since the 2016 federal election, is Julian Hill, who is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Demographics
Bruce is a diverse and socially conservative electorate and is historically working-class. Bruce has three times the proportion of families with Chinese backgrounds as the state average. While a stronghold for the center-left Labor Party, religious migrant communities in the electorate rallied strongly against the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey in 2017, since the survey process was not trusted by both Islamic and Chinese Christian migrant communities, who believe it had been hijacked by out-of-touch inner-city leaders.

title: Division of Bruce


text: Category:Lipograms

title: Category:Lipograms


text:
Howard Street Tunnel fire

The Howard Street Tunnel fire (also known as the Baltimore Freight Rail Crash) was a 60-car CSX Transportation freight train derailment that occurred in the Howard Street Tunnel, a freight through-route tunnel under Howard Street in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 18, 2001. The derailment sparked a chemical fire that raged for five or six days and virtually shut down the downtown area. In the evening of the first day, a water main ruptured causing significant flooding in the streets above. The accident disrupted Northeast Corridor rail service. It also slowed Internet service in the US for several hours due to the destruction of a cable passing through the tunnel.

The derailment and fire
The train consisted of 60 cars. Cars 46 through 56 derailed in the Howard Street Tunnel at 3:08 PM, and became disconnected from the first 45 cars. The train experienced an automatic emergency brake application resulting from the separation of the train, but the crew didn't realise that a derailment had taken place. Around 3:26 they moved the locomotives out of the tunnel.

Around 4 PM smoke was seen coming from a sewer near the intersection of Howard and Lombard Streets, and the fire department was notified. Later, smoke emerged from the ends of the tunnel and from several manholes. Eventually it was found that one of the derailed tank cars, carrying tripropylene, had ruptured and the escaping flammable liquid had caught fire. This fire also ignited paper and wood products in other cars. Another tank car ruptured releasing 2554 gal of hydrochloric acid. Around 6:15 a 40-inch cast iron water main above the tunnel burst due to deformation, eventually releasing about 14000000 gal of water. The fire burned for about 5 days.

A National Transportation Safety Board report took three years to be prepared. The investigation was not able to find the cause of the accident.

A numerical simulation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the peak calculated temperatures within the tunnel were approximately 1800 °F within the flaming regions, and on average approximately 900 °F when averaged over a length of the tunnel equal to three to four rail car lengths. Due to the insulation of the tunnel's thick brick walls, the temperature was relatively uniform across all the cars, approaching temperatures normally found in an oven or furnace: The peak wall surface temperature reached about 1500 °F where the flames were directly impinging, and on average 750 °F over the length of three to four rail cars.

Impact on Baltimore downtown region
Thousands of Baltimore workers were forced to leave their jobs and unable to come back for several days until the city could assure that there was no further danger from either the fire or the water main flooding. The crash also impacted MARC passenger train service for several days; bus routes were set up by the city to ferry passengers to and from the BWI Amtrak/MARC station as an alternate route. MARC service was restored on July 23, 2001.

Most of the roads around Howard Street, including I-395 spur into Baltimore, experienced extremely heavy congestion due to street closures around the intersection of Howard and Lombard Streets, where the actual water main break occurred. By July 24, 2001, all but the blocks immediately surrounding the water main break were reopened to automotive traffic.

Three weeks later, manhole covers flew into the air as underground explosions along West Pratt Street occurred due to residual explosive chemicals from the fire in the sewers.

Smoke from the incident and flooding from the broken water main caused three Baltimore Orioles baseball home games to be canceled that summer, as Oriole Park at Camden Yards was directly in the danger zone caused by the fire.

Impact on East Coast rail traffic
The Howard Street Tunnel is on the only direct rail link on the CSX rail line from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. The only other direct rail link is the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, a passenger line with only limited freight operations performed by Norfolk Southern Railway. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) report on the incident, officials had long known that the possibility existed for a fire or other disaster to cause a significant problem in the Howard Street Tunnel. An article published in the Baltimore Sun on July 19, 2001, contains a 1985 quote from an unidentified federal transportation safety official who observed, "... the problem would be getting in there to fight the fire... If you had an explosion, fire would shoot out of both ends like a bazooka." However, freight traffic on the line had been increasing for years as CSX and Conrail diverted traffic away from Amtrak lines to avoid Amtrak/Conrail crashes like the one in Chase, Maryland in 1987. Estimates from railway publications put the freight traffic through the Howard Street Tunnel at 28 to 32 trains per day.

According to a November 2005 report to Congress: "The tunnel closing caused major disruption to CSXT freight traffic, Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) commuter trains, and to Central Light Rail Line trains and bus lines that traversed Howard Street. To avoid the Howard Street Tunnel, CSXT had to send freight trains west to Cleveland, north to Albany, New York, and then south to Baltimore, incurring a three- to four-day delay. Some CSXT trains were rerouted via the busy NS line through Manassas, Virginia, Hagerstown, Maryland, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania." "At one point during the fire, eight CSXT trains that would have used the tunnel were detouring through Cumberland, Maryland, and Youngstown Ohio; five through Hagerstown and Harrisburg; five through Cleveland and Albany, New York; and 12 trains were stopping in various yards."

According to the DOT report on the incident, firefighting efforts could not begin until the exact location of the fire within the tunnel could be found, which finally occurred at 5:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time, 10:00 UTC) on July 19, 2001. Work on repairing the break in the water main enabled the firemen to find a manhole cover on Howard Street through which they could gain access to both the broken water main and the tunnel itself, and firefighting efforts began in earnest. Three rail cars (boxcars of paper and plywood) were removed from the tunnel and their flaming contents were extinguished the morning of July 22, 2001. Once the water main break was finally stopped on the same day, tunnel inspectors could enter the area. Amazingly, there were no significant structural damages, and the tunnel was officially reopened to traffic at 7:45 a.m. on July 23, 2001.

Impact on other services
Beyond the adverse effects on railroad traffic, there was a massive effect on life and activities in downtown Baltimore. The incident forced the closing of streets and business over much of downtown for several days.

According to a November 2005 Report to Congress
 * Officials cancelled three Baltimore Orioles games, resulting in a $5 million loss to the team.
 * They also closed Howard Street, along with 14 other cross streets, for five days.
 * A two-block stretch of Howard Street remained closed for six more weeks.
 * MTA Maryland rerouted 23 bus lines, and MARC Train service to Camden Station was suspended.
 * The fire and burst water main damaged power cables and left 1,200 Baltimore buildings without electricity.
 * Severed fiber-optic lines backed up traffic regionally and nationally because the fiber-optic cable through the tunnel is a major line for the extremely busy Northeast Corridor.
 * The Inner Harbor was closed to boat traffic.
 * A water-main break near the tunnel added to the chaos, causing the collapse of part of a major thoroughfare and power outages.

The severed optical fiber cable in the tunnel was a major east coast internet communication link belonging to WorldCom. The break slowed internet service around the US for several hours; water from the water main break caused further damage to the communication lines. According to the DoT report, WorldCom was able to install a fully redundant network bypass around the incident within 36 hours, allowing resumption of east coast and transatlantic internet communications.

The aftermath of the fire affected some activities for longer periods.
 * MTA shut down light rail service through the city for over seven weeks, with shuttle buses running between the North Avenue and Patapsco stations, and later between North Avenue and Camden.
 * The intersection at Howard and Lombard streets, one of the busiest in the city, was not re-opened until September 5.

title: Howard Street Tunnel fire


text:
Montreal-style bagel

The Montreal-style bagel or Montreal bagel (sometimes beigel; בײגל; Bagel de Montréal) is a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York–style bagel, the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt, and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.

In some Montreal establishments, bagels are still produced by hand and baked in full view of the patrons. There are two predominant varieties: black-seed (poppy seed), or white-seed (sesame seed).

History
Montreal bagels, like the similarly shaped New York bagel, were brought to North America by Jewish immigrants from Poland and other Eastern European countries; the differences in texture and taste reflect the style of the particular area in Poland in which the immigrant bakers learned their trade. Minor controversy surrounds the question of who first brought the bagel to Montreal. They were (reportedly) first baked in Montreal by Chaim (Hyman) Seligman, as verified by Montreal historian Joe King, a historian of Montreal Jewry. Seligman first worked in the neighbourhood community of Lachine and later moved his bakery to the lane next door to Schwartz's Delicatessen on Boulevard St. Laurent in central Montreal. Seligman would string his bagels into dozens and patrol Jewish Main purveying his wares, originally with a pushcart, then a horse and wagon and still later from a converted taxi. Seligman went into partnership with Myer Lewkowicz and with Jack Shlafman but fell out with both of them. Seligman and Lewkowicz founded the St. Viateur Bagel Shop in 1957 and Shlafman established Fairmount Bagel in 1919, which both still exist in the present day.

Dissemination
A substantial proportion of Montreal's English-speaking Jewish community gradually left for other locales. Catering to this population, Montreal-style bagel shops have opened in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary, Whitehorse, and other Canadian, cities. They have even spread to the UK and some US cities, such as Burlington, Houston, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, and Seattle. For a time this style of bagel was almost completely unknown in the northeastern U.S., mainly due to the proximity of the rival New York City bagel. (with one exception having been in Burlington, Vermont, where Myer's Bagels boasts a Montreal-style wood-fired oven and Lloyd Squires, a former St-Viateur Bagel Shop baker). At one point in New York City there were two Montreal-style bagel locations in the borough of Brooklyn within four blocks of each other, but one is now closed and the other no longer offers Montreal-style bagels.

Montreal-style bagels are currently the only style of bagel known to have ventured into space. Gregory Chamitoff, who grew up in Montreal, took three bags of sesame bagels with him on his assignments to STS-124 as passenger and ISS Expedition 17 as crewmember.

Production
Montreal-style bagels are, for the most part, manufactured by the same method used to produce a generic bagel. The Montreal-style method of making bagels builds on the basic traditional method in the following ways:
 * The basic bagel dough recipe includes egg and honey.
 * Honey is also added to the water used for poaching the bagels before baking.
 * The authentic Montreal-style bagels are baked in a wood-fired oven.

Notable bagel shops
Several Montreal bagel factories produce authentic Montreal-style bagels. St-Viateur Bagel, at 263 av. St-Viateur West, and Fairmount Bagel, at 74 Avenue Fairmount Ouest are two notable bagel shops in Montreal. Both claim to be the oldest bagel shop in the city.

title: Montreal-style bagel


text:
Tim Wynveen

Tim Wynveen is a Canadian novelist. His 1997 debut novel, Angel Falls, won the Commonwealth Writers Prize for Best First Book. He subsequently published Balloon in 1999 and Sweeter Life in 2003.

Raised in Leamington, Ontario, he moved to Toronto in the 1970s to play music, his first passion. He was the guitar player for a while with Edward Bear and later Chris De Burgh from Ireland.

title: Tim Wynveen


text:
Derailment

In rail transport, a derailment is a type of train wreck that occurs when a rail vehicle such as a train comes off its rails. Although many derailments are minor, all result in temporary disruption of the proper operation of the railway system and they are a potentially serious hazard.

A derailment of a train can be caused by a collision with another object, an operational error (such as excessive speed through a curve), the mechanical failure of tracks (such as broken rails), or the mechanical failure of the wheels, among other causes. In emergency situations, deliberate derailment with derails or catch points is sometimes used to prevent a more serious accident.

History
The first recorded train derailment in history is known as the Hightstown rail accident in New Jersey that occurred on 8 November 1833. The train was traveling between Hightstown and Spotswood, New Jersey, and derailed after an axle broke on one of the carriages as a result of a journal box catching fire. The derailment resulted in one casualty and twenty-three injuries, and it was recorded that both New York railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt and former U.S president John Quincy Adams were on the train as it took place, in which Adams wrote about the event in his journal.

During the 19th century derailments were commonplace, but progressively improved safety measures have resulted in a stable lower level of such incidents. A sampling of annual approximate numbers of derailments in the United States includes 3000 in 1980, 1000 in 1986, 500 in 2010, and 1000 in 2022.

Derailments in the United States

Causes

Derailments result from one or more of a number of distinct causes; these may be classified as:

 * the primary mechanical failure of a track component (for example broken rails, gauge spread due to sleeper (tie) failure)
 * the primary mechanical failure of a component of the running gear of a vehicle (for example axlebox failure, wheel breakage)
 * a fault in the geometry of the track components or the running gear that results in a quasi-static failure in running (for example rail climbing due to excessive wear of wheels or rails, earthworks slip)
 * a dynamic effect of the track-vehicle interaction (for example extreme Hunting oscillation, vertical bounce, track shift under a train, excessive speed)
 * improper operation of points, or improper observance of signals protecting them (signal errors)
 * as a secondary event following collision with other trains, road vehicles, or other obstructions (level crossing collisions, obstructions on the line)
 * train handling (snatches due to sudden traction or braking forces, referred to as slack action in North America).

Broken rails
Broken rails are a leading cause of derailments. According to data from the Federal Railroad Administration, broken rails and welds are the most common reason for train derailments, making up more than 15 percent of derailment cases. A traditional track structure consists of two rails, fixed at a designated distance apart (known as the track gauge), and supported on transverse sleepers (ties). Some advanced track structures support the rails on a concrete or asphalt slab. The running surface of the rails is required to be practically continuous and of the proper geometrical layout.

In the event of a broken or cracked rail, the rail running surface may be disrupted if a piece has fallen out, or become lodged in an incorrect location, or if a large gap between the remaining rail sections arises. 170 broken (not cracked) rails were reported on Network Rail in the UK in 2008, down from a peak of 988 in 1998/1999.

 * In jointed track, rails are usually connected with bolted fishplates (joint bars). The web of the rail experiences large shear forces and these are enhanced around the bolt hole. Where track maintenance is poor, metallurgical fatigue can result in the propagation of star cracking from the bolthole. In extreme situations this can lead to a triangular piece of rail at the joint becoming detached.
 * Metallurgical changes take place due to the phenomenon of gauge corner cracking (in which fatigue microcracking propagates faster than ordinary wear), and also due to the effects of hydrogen inclusion during the manufacturing process, leading to crack propagation under fatigue loading.
 * Local embrittlement of the parent metal may take place due to wheel spin (traction units rotating driving wheels without movement along the track).
 * Rail welds (where rail sections are joined by welding) may fail due to poor workmanship; this may be triggered by extremely cold weather or improper stressing of continuously welded rails, such that high tensile forces are generated in the rails.
 * The fishplates (joint bars) in jointed track may fail, allowing the rails to pull apart in extremely cold weather; this is usually associated with uncorrected rail creep.

Derailment may take place due to excessive gauge widening (sometimes known as road spread), in which the sleepers or other fastenings fail to maintain the proper gauge. In lightly engineered track where rails are spiked (dogged) to timber sleepers, spike hold failure may result in rotation outwards of a rail, usually under the aggravating action of crabbing of bogies (trucks) on curves.

The mechanism of gauge widening is usually gradual and relatively slow, but if it is undetected, the final failure often takes place under the effect of some additional factor, such as excess speed, poorly maintained running gear on a vehicle, misalignment of rails, and extreme traction effects (such as high propelling forces). The crabbing effect referred to above is more marked in dry conditions, when the coefficient of friction at the wheel to rail interface is high.

Defective wheels
The running gear – wheelsets, bogies (trucks), and suspension—may fail. The most common historical failure mode is collapse of plain bearings due to deficient lubrication, and failure of leaf springs; wheel tyres are also prone to failure due to metallurgical crack propagation.

Modern technologies have reduced the incidence of these failures considerably, both by design (specially the elimination of plain bearings) and intervention (non-destructive testing in service).

Unusual track interaction
If a vertical, lateral, or crosslevel irregularity is cyclic and takes place at a wavelength corresponding to the natural frequency of certain vehicles traversing the route section, there is a risk of resonant harmonic oscillation in the vehicles, leading to extreme improper movement and possibly derailment. This is most hazardous when a cyclic roll is set up by crosslevel variations, but vertical cyclical errors also can result in vehicles lifting off the track; this is especially the case when the vehicles are in the tare (empty) condition, and if the suspension is not designed to have appropriate characteristics. The last condition applies if the suspension springing has a stiffness optimised for the loaded condition, or for a compromise loading condition, so that it is too stiff in the tare situation.

The vehicle wheelsets become momentarily unloaded vertically so that the guidance required from the flanges or wheel tread contact is inadequate.

A special case is heat related buckling: in hot weather the rail steel expands. This is managed by stressing continuously welded rails (they are tensioned mechanically to be stress neutral at a moderate temperature) and by providing proper expansion gaps at joints and ensuring that fishplates are properly lubricated. In addition, lateral restraint is provided by an adequate ballast shoulder. If any of these measures are inadequate, the track may buckle; a large lateral distortion takes place, which trains are unable to negotiate. (In nine years 2000/1 to 2008/9 there were 429 track buckle incidents in Great Britain).

Improper operation of control systems
Junctions and other changes of routing on railways are generally made by means of points (switches – movable sections capable of changing the onward route of vehicles). In the early days of railways these were moved independently by local staff. Accidents – usually collisions – took place when staff forgot which route the points were set for, or overlooked the approach of a train on a conflicting route. If the points were not correctly set for either route – set in mid-stroke – it is possible for a train passing to derail.

The first concentration of levers for signals and points brought together for operation was at Bricklayer's Arms Junction in south-east London in the period 1843–1844. The signal control location (forerunner of the signalbox) was enhanced by the provision of interlocking (preventing a clear signal being set for a route that was not available) in 1856.

To prevent the unintended movement of freight vehicles from sidings to running lines, and other analogous improper movements, trap points and derails are provided at the exit from the sidings. In some cases these are provided at the convergence of running lines. It occasionally happens that a driver incorrectly believes they have authority to proceed over the trap points, or that the signaller improperly gives such permission; this results in derailment. The resulting derailment does not always fully protect the other line: a trap point derailment at speed may well result in considerable damage and obstruction, and even a single vehicle may obstruct the clear line.

Derailment following collision
If a train collides with a massive object, it is clear that derailment of the proper running of vehicle wheels on the track may take place. Although very large obstructions are imagined, it has been known for a cow straying on to the line to derail a passenger train at speed such as occurred in the Polmont rail accident.

The most common obstructions encountered are road vehicles at level crossings (grade crossings); malicious persons sometimes place materials on the rails, and in some cases relatively small objects cause a derailment by guiding one wheel over the rail (rather than by gross collision).

Derailment has also been brought about in situations of war or other conflict, such as during hostility by Native Americans, and more especially during periods when military personnel and materiel was being moved by rail.

Harsh train handling
The handling of a train can also cause derailments. The vehicles of a train are connected by couplings; in the early days of railways these were short lengths of chain ("loose couplings") that connected adjacent vehicles with considerable slack. Even with later improvements there may be a considerable slack between the traction situation (power unit pulling the couplings tight), and power unit braking (locomotive applying brakes and compressing buffers throughout the train). This results in coupling surge.

More sophisticated technologies in use nowadays generally employ couplings that have no loose slack, although there is elastic movement at the couplings; continuous braking is provided, so that every vehicle on the train has brakes controlled by the driver. Generally this uses compressed air as a control medium, and there is a measurable time lag as the signal (to apply or release brakes) propagates along the train.

If a train driver applies the train brakes suddenly and severely, the front part of the train is subject to braking forces first. (Where only the locomotive has braking, this effect is obviously more extreme). The rear part of the train may overrun the front part, and in cases where coupling condition is imperfect, the resultant sudden closing up (an effect referred to as a "run-in") may result in a vehicle in tare condition (an empty freight vehicle) being lifted momentarily, and leaving the track. This effect was relatively common in the nineteenth century.

On curved sections, the longitudinal (traction or braking) forces between vehicles have a component inward or outward respectively on the curve. In extreme situations these lateral forces may be enough to produce derailment.

A special case of train handling problems is overspeed on sharp curves. This generally arises when a driver fails to slow the train for a sharp curved section in a route that otherwise has higher speed conditions. In the extreme this results in the train entering a curve at a speed at which it cannot negotiate the curve, and gross derailment takes place. The specific mechanism of this may involve bodily tipping (rotation) but is likely to involve disruption of the track structure and derailment as the primary failure event, followed by overturning.

Fatal instances include the Santiago de Compostela derailment in 2013 and the Philadelphia train derailment two years later of trains traveling about 100 mph. Both went at about twice the maximum allowable speed for the curved section of track.

Flange climbing
The guidance system of practical railway vehicles relies on the steering effect of the conicity of the wheel treads on moderate curves (down to a radius of about 500 m, or about 1,500 feet). On sharper curves flange contact takes place, and the guiding effect of the flange relies on a vertical force (the vehicle weight).

A flange climbing derailment can result if the relationship between these forces, L/V, is excessive. The lateral force L results not only from centrifugal effects, but a large component is from the crabbing of a wheelset which has a non-zero angle of attack during running with flange contact. The L/V excess can result from wheel unloading, or from improper rail or wheel tread profiles. The physics of this is more fully described below, in the section wheel-rail interaction.

Wheel unloading can be caused by twist in the track. This can arise if the cant (crosslevel, or superelevation) of the track varies considerably over the wheelbase of a vehicle, and the vehicle suspension is very stiff in torsion. In the quasi-static situation it may arise in extreme cases of poor load distribution, or on extreme cant at low speed.

If a rail has been subject to extreme sidewear, or a wheel flange has been worn to an improper angle, it is possible for the L/V ratio to exceed the value that the flange angle can resist.

If weld repair of side-worn switches is undertaken, it is possible for poor workmanship to produce a ramp in the profile in the facing direction, that deflects an approaching wheel flange on to the rail head.

In extreme situations, the infrastructure may be grossly distorted or even absent; this may arise from a variety of causes, including earthwork movement (embankment slips and washouts), earthquakes and other major terrestrial disruptions, or deficient protection during work processes, among others.

Wheel-rail interaction
Nearly all practical railway systems use wheels fixed to a common axle: the wheels on both sides rotate in unison. Tramcars requiring low floor levels are the exception, but much benefit in vehicle guidance is lost by having unlinked wheels.

The benefit of linked wheels derives from the conicity of the wheel treads—the wheel treads are not cylindrical, but conical. On idealised straight track, a wheelset would run centrally, midway between the rails.

The example shown here uses a right-curving section of track. The focus is on the left-side wheel, which is more involved with the forces critical to guiding the railcar through the curve.

Diagram 1 below shows the wheel and rail with the wheelset running straight and central on the track. The wheelset is running away from the observer. (Note that the rail is shown inclined inwards; this is done on modern track to match the rail head profile to the wheel tread profile.)

Diagram 2 shows the wheelset displaced to the left, due to curvature of the track or a geometrical irregularity. The left wheel (shown here) is now running on a slightly larger diameter; the right wheel opposite has moved to the left as well, towards the centre of the track, and is running on a slightly smaller diameter. As the two wheels rotate at the same rate, the forward speed of the left wheel is a little faster than the forward speed of the right wheel. This causes the wheelset to curve to the right, correcting the displacement. This takes place without flange contact; the wheelsets steer themselves on moderate curves without any flange contact.

The sharper the curve, the greater the lateral displacement necessary to achieve the curving. On a very sharp curve (typically less than about 500 m or 1,500 feet radius) the width of the wheel tread is not enough to achieve the necessary steering effect, and the wheel flange contacts the face of the high rail.

Diagram 3 shows the running of wheelsets in a bogie or a four-wheeled vehicle. The wheelset is not running parallel to the track: it is constrained by the bogie frame and suspension, and it is yawing to the outside of the curve; that is, its natural rolling direction would lead along a less sharply curved path than the actual curve of the track.

The angle between the natural path and the actual path is called the angle of attack (or the yaw angle). As the wheelset rolls forward, it is forced to slide across the railhead by the flange contact. The whole wheelset is forced to do this, so the wheel on the low rail is also forced to slide across its rail.

This sliding requires a considerable force to make it happen, and the friction force resisting the sliding is designated "L", the lateral force. The wheelset applies a force L outwards to the rails, and the rails apply a force L inwards to the wheels. Note that this is quite independent of "centrifugal force". However at higher speeds the centrifugal force is added to the friction force to make L.

The load (vertical force) on the outer wheel is designated V, so that in Diagram 4 the two forces L and V are shown.

The steel-to-steel contact has a coefficient of friction that may be as high as 0.5 in dry conditions, so that the lateral force may be up to 0.5 of the vertical wheel load.

During this flange contact, the wheel on the high rail is experiencing the lateral force L, towards the outside of the curve. As the wheel rotates, the flange tends to climb up the flange angle. It is held down by the vertical load on the wheel V, so that if L/V exceeds the trigonometrical tangent of the flange contact angle, climbing will take place. The wheel flange will climb to the rail head where there is no lateral resistance in rolling movement, and a flange climbing derailment usually takes place. In Diagram 5 the flange contact angle is quite steep, and flange climbing is unlikely. However, if the rail head is side-worn (side-cut) or the flange is worn, as shown in Diagram 6 the contact angle is much flatter and flange climbing is more likely.

Once the wheel flange has completely climbed onto the rail head, there is no lateral restraint, and the wheelset is likely to follow the yaw angle, resulting in the wheel dropping outside the rail. An L/V ratio greater than 0.6 is considered to be hazardous.

It is emphasised that this is a much simplified description of the physics; complicating factors are creep, actual wheel and rail profiles, dynamic effects, stiffness of longitudinal restraint at axleboxes, and the lateral component of longitudinal (traction and braking) forces.

Rerailing

Following a derailment, it is naturally necessary to replace the vehicle on the track. If there is no significant track damage, that may be all that is needed. However, when trains in normal running derail at speed, a considerable length of track may be damaged or destroyed; far worse secondary damage may be caused if a bridge is encountered.

With simple wagon derailments where the final position is close to the proper track location, it is usually possible to pull the derailed wheelsets back on to the track using rerailing ramps; these are metal blocks designed to fit over the rails and to provide a rising path back to the track. A locomotive is usually used to pull the wagon. A disadvantage of doing it this way is that the ramps can seriously damage the infrastructure. Because of which, this procedure may not be used in several countries.

If the derailed vehicle is further from the track, or its configuration (such as a high centre of gravity or a very short wheelbase) make the use of ramps impossible, jacks may be used. In its crudest form, the process involves lifting the vehicle frame and then allowing it to fall off the jack towards the track. This may need to be repeated.

A more sophisticated process involves a controlled process using slewing jacks in addition. This combination of lifting and sliding is called a hydraulic rerailing system. A system consisting of high pressure hydraulic lifting jacks (used for lifting the train) so a sliding system can be positioned underneath the vehicle. The sliding system consist of a beam (also called a bridge) with sleds or carriages which are moved laterally with a horizontally positioned high pressure hydraulic jack to push the vehicle back above track. After which it is lowered again on the track.

Photographs of early locomotives often indicate one or more jacks carried on the frame of the locomotive for the purpose, presumed to be a frequent occurrence.

When more complex rerailing work is needed, various combinations of cable and pulley systems may be used, or the use of one or more rail-borne cranes to lift a locomotive bodily. In special cases road cranes are used, as these have greater lifting and reach capacity, if road access to the site is feasible.

In extreme circumstances, a derailed vehicle in an awkward location may be scrapped and cut up on site, or simply abandoned as non-salvageable.

Examples
Note: there is a large list of railway accidents in general at Lists of rail accidents.

Primary mechanical failure of a track component
In the Hatfield rail crash in England in 2000, which killed four people, rolling contact fatigue had resulted in multiple gauge corner cracking in the surface; 300 such cracks were subsequently found at the site. The rail cracked under a high speed passenger train, which derailed.

In the earlier Hither Green rail crash, a triangular segment of rail at a joint became displaced, and lodged in the joint; it derailed a passenger train and 49 persons died. Poor maintenance on an intensively operated section of route was the cause.

Primary mechanical failure of a component of the running gear of a vehicle
In the Eschede train disaster in Germany, a high speed passenger train derailed in 1998, killing 101 people. The primary cause was the fracture from metal fatigue of a wheel tyre; the train failed to negotiate two sets of points and struck the pier of an overbridge. It was the most serious railway accident in Germany, and also the most serious on any high speed (over 200 kph) line. Ultrasonic testing had failed to reveal the incipient fracture.

Dynamic effects of vehicle–track interaction
In 1967 in the UK there were four derailments due to buckling of continuously welded track ("CWR"): at Lichfield on 10 June, an empty carflat train (a train of flat cars for transporting automobiles); on 13 June an express passenger train was derailed at Somerton; on 15 July a freightliner train (container train) was derailed at Lamington; and on 23 July an express passenger train was derailed at Sandy. The official report was not entirely conclusive as to the causes, but it observed that the annual total of buckling distortions was 48 in 1969, having been in single figures in every previous year, and that [heat-related] distortions per 1,000 miles per annum were 10.42 for CWR and 2.98 for jointed track in 1969, having been a maximum of 1.78 and 1.21 in the previous ten years. 90% of the distortions could be attributed to one of the following:
 * failure to comply with the instructions for laying or maintaining CWR track
 * recent interference with the consolidation of the ballast
 * the effect of discontinuities in the CWR track such as points etc.
 * extraneous factors such as formation subsidence.

Improper operation of control systems
In the Connington South rail crash on 5 March 1967 in England, a signaller moved the points immediately in front of an approaching train. Mechanical signalling was in force at the location, and it was believed that he improperly replaced the signal protecting the points to danger just as the locomotive passed it. This released the locking on the points and he moved them to lead to a loop line with a low speed restriction. The train, travelling at 75 mph, was unable to negotiate the points in that position and five people died.

Secondary events following collision
A passenger train was derailed in the Polmont rail accident in the UK in 1984 upon hitting a cow at speed; the train formation had the locomotive at the rear (propelling) with a light driving-trailer vehicle leading. The cow had strayed on to the line from adjacent agricultural land, due to deficient fencing. 13 persons died in the resulting derailment. However this was thought to be the first occurrence from this cause (in the UK) since 1948.

Train handling effects
The Salisbury rail crash took place on 1 July 1906; a first class only special boat train from Stonehousepool, Plymouth England, ran through Salisbury station at about 60 mph; there was a sharp curve of ten chains (660 feet, 200 m) radius and a speed restriction to 30 mph. The locomotive overturned bodily and struck the vehicles of a milk train on the adjacent line. 28 people were killed. The driver was sober and normally reliable, but had not driven a non-stopping train through Salisbury before.

There have been several other derailments in the UK due to trains entering speed-restricted sections of track at excessive speed; the causes have generally been inattention by the driver due to alcohol, fatigue or other causes. Prominent cases were the Nuneaton rail crash in 1975 (temporary speed restriction in force due to trackwork, warning sign illumination failed), the Morpeth accident in 1984 (express passenger sleeping car train took 50 mph restricted sharp curve at full speed; alcohol a factor; no fatalities due to the improved crashworthiness of the vehicles)

title: Derailment


text:
Wardell Pomeroy

Wardell Baxter Pomeroy (December 6, 1913 – September 6, 2001) was an American sexologist. He was a frequent co-author with Alfred C. Kinsey.

Biography
Pomeroy was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the son of Percy W. and Mary A. Pomeroy. He graduated from Indiana University (BA, 1935; MA, 1942) and earned a Ph.D. in psychology in 1954 from Columbia University. While working as a psychologist in an Indiana state hospital, he met Kinsey and came to work on his seminal sex-research project. Pomeroy personally recorded approximately 6,000 sexual histories. He was co-author with Kinsey on the landmark books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). He went into the private practice of sex therapy in New York City in 1963 and wrote books about adolescent sexuality for popular consumption. In 1976, he became dean of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and an adjunct professor at California Medical School and California State University at Northridge. In 1978 he was on the board of advisors for Rupert Raj's Foundation for The Advancement of Canadian Transsexuals (F.A.C.T.) Pomeroy retired due to declining health in 1983 and died in Bloomington, Indiana of Lewy body dementia.

Pomeroy was portrayed in the 2004 theatrical film Kinsey by Chris O'Donnell.

Reception
Pomeroy's Boys and Sex and Girls and Sex books have frequently been banned or challenged. Both books landed on the American Library Association's list of most frequently banned and challenged books from 1990 to 1999. Boys and Sex landed the 61st position, and Girls and Sex landed the 98th position.

title: Wardell Pomeroy


text:
Talk:Nasturtium (plant genus)

It should be noted that ITIS only includes Nasturtium gambellii (S. Wats.) O. Schulz in this genus, and places the watercresses in Rorippa WormRunner | Talk 00:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, as you well know, these things change all the time. Rorippa is an old name, and maybe the species have been moved back into it.  These things are always difficult to track down, as one never knows from one (or several) source(s), what is current or most accepted.  My source is 1999, but a revised version (I can only assume the taxonomy was all revised up to 1999). I think we can only note what we find, and that allows others to modify conservatively towards the "correct" or most modern taxonomy. Do you want to add something from the ITIS? - Marshman 01:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I went ahead and did the change per ITIS - Marshman 02:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * My main point was to note somewhere that there was disagreement over the placement. I do not know whether the ITIS version is the best or not, but the fact that some references place the watercresses here and others place them in Rorippa should be available somehow in the article or its discussion page. -- WormRunner | Talk 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rorippa or Nasturtium

 * Discussion moved here from User talk:Marshman

Hi Marshman, I posed a question about the integration of Rorippa and Watercress at Talk:Watercress and I'd appreciate if you could voice your opinion on it. TeunSpaans 07:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Marshman,
 * I noticed you changed the genus of watercress back to Nasturtium. But according to APG II at http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/orders/brassicalesweb.htm#Brassicoideae, latest update 2005, Nasturtium is not mentioned as a genus in brassicaceae. TeunSpaans 04:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since not all Nasturtium were moved to Rorippia and not all Rorippia were moved back, I would be a little nervous about using the absence of Nasturtium from a website list as a basis for changing things either way. If you can cite a paper that solves the mystery, then that would work for me - Marshman 30 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)
 * As far as I know all Nasturtium were moved to Rorippa. I must admit I have been unable to locate any articles about a move back. I am interested in your sources - at the moment we have a very inconsistent situation. TeunSpaans 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I do have the reference for the "move back" listed on the Nasturtium page, I believe. It involved only a selective move back from Rorippa based upon genetic studies. Of course, the APG, like any other botanists, are free to accept or not the authors' suggestion. We cannot resolve, only report the facts. At this point, it seems appropriate to mention that Nasturtium is no longer recognized or included by APG, but that would not be a reason to change the article. Taxonomy changes by (typically) slow acceptance of "expert" opinion, not by "official edict". The APG may represent expert opinion, but that is all it represents. - Marshman 9 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
 * From a wiki point of view, I would like to see the following articles give a consistent view of the current situation: Rorippa - Watercress - Nasturtium (scientific name). (Also, checking ITIS I found they seem to have moved Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek back to Rorippa again, or perhaps they havent moved it to nasturtiuj back again.) At the moment, Rorippa lists both watercress species. But the taxonomy table lists them as Nasturtium. Nasturtium mentions them, but lists only 1 species, which is not one of the two watercress species. Also, we shouldnt refer to ITIS if it does not support the current view. I dont mind very much if it is in Rorippa (which I have a slight pref for) or Nasturtium, as long as it is consistent. As you seem more knowledgable than I am, could you please fix it? TeunSpaans 9 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try and maked things consistent. That would be our responsibility. But I do not see anything wrong with listing ITIS because it does not comport with what we present. There is not necessarily one "current view" so it is better to include uuseful sources whatever view they present - Marshman 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
 * I agree TeunSpaans 22:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Nasturtium (plant genus). There is broad agreement that the current title is imprecise and that "Nasturtium (crucifer)" is neither well recognizable nor consistent. Opinions are split as whether "(genus)" or "(plant genus)" is a better disambiguator. Since the majority somewhat prefers the latter, citing weak ambiguity with Tropaeolum, I'm picking that up as the target (notwithstanding AjaxSmack's well-reasoned last point.  No such user (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nasturtium (plant) → Nasturtium (crucifer) – This article is about the genus Nasturtium (common name: watercress), but the problem is that nasturtium is the common name for members of the unrelated genus Tropaeolum. This article isn't the primary topic (see e.g. Wikinav), so a disambiguator is needed. The current choice – "(plant)" – won't do because the other nasturtiums are plants too. For the 16 years until last week, the title used to have "(genus)", which may appear better as the term is the scientific name of only this genus, but the other topic, Tropaeolum, also constitutes a genus, so that's not precise enough. I'm proposing "(crucifer)", using what I hope is the still-not-obsolete common term for members of this family, but there's a second option: to go directly for the name of the family: Nasturtium (Brassicaceae). – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Question Is this dab term used anywhere else? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In article titles? Not really. Except for this one redirect I created earlier. There's similarly a single redirect with "Brassicaceae". You can look at another family, one with more species: there are 71 redirects with "(orchid)" vs. 3 with "(Orchidaceae)"  (though the situation isn't exactly comparable, as "orchid" is a more commonly known term than "crucifer"). – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an analogous situation with the lotuses: Lotus (plant) redirects to what is effectively a dab page, the plants most commonly known as lotuses are at the scientific name Nelumbo, while the genus named Lotus is at Lotus (genus). Just like with Nasturtium, the last title seems ambiguous: Nelumbo is also a genus (even though lotus is the common, and not scientific, name for the plants). – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Geranium is another one where a genus name is used as a common name for a different genus. I think Geranium should be a disambiguation page, but some incoming links would be hard to resolve (although I suspect Pelargonium is mostly what's intended outside of strictly botanical contexts). Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For technical reasons, it's better to have the disambiguation term starting with a lower case letter (it's then easy to automate the distinction between zoological subgenera, which have a capitalized second word in parentheses, and disambiguations), so I would prefer either "Nasturtium (plant genus)" or "Nasturtium (crucifer)" if it's agreed that "Nasturtium (plant)" isn't acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (plant) is the most common dab term for plant genera with ambiguous names. There are a few articles using (genus), which I think is unavoidable in some cases; e.g. Asparagus/Asparagus (genus), Stevia/Stevia (genus) and Vanilla/Vanilla (genus) are articles about a plant product derived from a single species in a genus that shares a name with the plant product; (plant) is potentially ambiguous with the species that is the source of the product (Rhinoceros (genus) is also unavoidable; the article rhinoceros is about the family that includes the genus). The only plant genus articles that use a dab term other than (plant) or (genus) are: Mahua (moss) and Calamus (palm). Mahua is also a common name for plants in the genus Madhuca, and there is Mahua (plant) that existed as a redirect before the article on the moss genus was created (mahua is common enough that it is listed in dictionaries). Calamus is a common name for Acorus calamus, and is also the name of a genus of fishes (so Calamus (genus) is ambiguous).

 * I'm in favor of moving away from (genus) as a disambiguator. Too often, the source of ambiguity for a genus name is another genus published under a different nomenclatural code. However, I don't think aiming to completely eliminate (genus) as a dab term is feasible (what other dab term would work for Rhinoceros (genus))? I think Nasturtium (genus) is fine as it was (and Lotus (genus) is fine too); see Talk:Paw Paw for extended discussion about using (genus) as a disambiguator with a common name (Pawpaw (genus) in that case).

 * (plant genus) isn't currently used for the title of any articles, but there are some redirects with this form. I guess I'd be OK with "Nasturtium (plant genus)". (plant genus) could also be used for Calamus and Mahua and some other articles. E.g. Silphium (plant) is potentially ambiguous with Silphium (antiquity); and I think the primary plant related meaning of kumara is the New Zealand English word for sweet potatoes, not the genus at Kumara (plant). Plantdrew (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. Clearly not the commonest plant called a nasturtium. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Nasturtium (genus) or Nasturtium (plant genus). Either of of these disambiguators is sufficient. No need to introduce a new disambiguator, "(crucifer)" that is only going to be used by one article.Plantdrew (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination raises the concern that Tropaeolum is also a genus -- wouldn't the proposed disambiguator of genus therefore create some potential ambiguity? If that's the case, the proposed title seems preferable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an issue with articles where a term is used as both scientific name of one genus and the English name of another, which, I agree, does make just "(plant)" somewhat problematic. However, I do think that consistency is very important (it's one of the WP:AT criteria) as it helps both editors creating articles and reader finding them. Using a one-off disambiguation like "(crucifer)" is therefore not a good idea. Perhaps we could agree that where the genus name alone is not sufficient to identify a genus article:
 * if there is no other plant-related use, we will continue to use "(plant)" as we do now
 * if there is another plant-related use, we will in future use "(plant genus)".
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree consistency is very important, but the main purpose of a disambiguator is to disambiguate. Distinguishing between one genus and other by using the term "genus" fails the most basic purpose of disambiguation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck my suggestion of (genus) as a potential title. I still don't think it's really ambiguous enough to be a problem though. I suppose somebody who knows that nasturtiums/Tropaeolum are a genus but has forgotten the scientific name might try putting nasturtium+genus into a search engine to find it, but I don't think anybody would type "Nasturtium (genus)" for that purpose. However, the first page of search results for "nasturtium" on Google, Duckduckgo and Bing is entirely about Tropaeolum (although Bing does display a knowledge graph for the genus). If I want to find information about the genus with a search engine, nasturtium+genus seems like a reasonable search term (results for this search still pull up a lot of Tropaeolum pages, but do include the genus in some of the results on the first page). Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support Nasturtium (genus) or Nasturtium (cress), but not the proposal. Srnec (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It seems we are all in agreement that the current name is not proper. But while having consistency across disambiguating terms is preferable, if doing so does not actually address the ambiguity the term is meant to resolve it would not be acceptable. Using (genus) would fail our requirements for a disambiguator, as it would not address the ambiguity of distinguishing the term from another genus. If there are two painters who are known as Bob Smith, Bob Smith (painter) would not be an acceptable title even if it is consistent with titles for other painters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bob Smith (painter) could be an acceptable title if one of them is much better known than the other. I disagree with that, but see Partially disambiguated page names for a list of articles where Wikipedia has decided to use a disambiguator that isn't unique to a single subject. Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That page explains that partially disambiguated titles are in principle possible, but that the standard is higher than for normal primary topics. But here we don't have such an overwhelming primary topic, and in fact, we don't have a primary topic at all. – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Commment; there's now a discussion at Talk:Silphium (plant) to move that to Silphium (plant genus) (Silphium (antiquity) is also a plant). Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a move for procedural reasons (to overturn an undiscussed controversial move——see WP:RMUM) and on the merits. Move it to something but "crucifer" is a little too abstruse.  I prefer Nasturtium (genus).  The Tropaeolum nasturtium is not a genus.  It is the common name for plants in that genus.  The genus is Tropaeolum.  I don't get the point of "plant genus" since there are no animals to disambiguate from.  —  AjaxSmack  04:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nasturtium (plant genus)