Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[biggus]

It would be a mistake to just reopen Uckfield-Lewes without factoring in the economic case for linespeed improvements, particular as pertain to improved utilisation of stock and traincrew.

Forum readers acquainted with the laws of the known universe may be familiar with the notion that an object travelling at high speed covers a greater distance in a given period of time than an object travelling at lower speed.

In the case of railway operations, increased speed can permit existing services to be extended to more distant destinations at no incremental cost in staff and equipment, say over a re-opened line to Lewes and on towards the South Coast.

I believe the last Network Rail study showed that even in the existing timetable there was almost enough timetable slack for existing services to be extended to a useful destination south of Uckfield.

The scope of said study conspicuously excluded evaluation of how the economic case for Uck-Lewes reopening might be improved if combined with investment (or service changes) to deliver improved journey time over the existing route between London and Uckfield.

Closer examination would reveal whether the business case for Uckfield-Lewes is sensitive to journey times on the existing route... but no such sensitivity analysis has been done, and was excluded from the scope of last Network Rail report, so we just don't know yet.

 

[Antman]

I would have thought there was a clear case for reopening the Uckfield to Lewes section, if it was a road it would have been done yonks ago.

 

[dysonsphere]

I would have thought there was a clear case for reopening the Uckfield to Lewes section, if it was a road it would have been done yonks ago.

If it had been a road it would never have been closed.

 

[mr_jrt]

It would be a mistake to just reopen Uckfield-Lewes without factoring in the economic case for linespeed improvements, particular as pertain to improved utilisation of stock and traincrew.

Forum readers acquainted with the laws of the known universe may be familiar with the notion that an object travelling at high speed covers a greater distance in a given period of time than an object travelling at lower speed.

In the case of railway operations, increased speed can permit existing services to be extended to more distant destinations at no incremental cost in staff and equipment, say over a re-opened line to Lewes and on towards the South Coast.

I believe the last Network Rail study showed that even in the existing timetable there was almost enough timetable slack for existing services to be extended to a useful destination south of Uckfield.

The scope of said study conspicuously excluded evaluation of how the economic case for Uck-Lewes reopening might be improved if combined with investment (or service changes) to deliver improved journey time over the existing route between London and Uckfield.

Closer examination would reveal whether the business case for Uckfield-Lewes is sensitive to journey times on the existing route... but no such sensitivity analysis has been done, and was excluded from the scope of last Network Rail report, so we just don't know yet.

This is probably one of the things that will come into play more when the line is wired up with OHLE, probably when the East Grinsted branch is converted. Improved acceleration would probably enable a few minutes off to Uckfield, and spending those minutes running down to Lewes and thence onward to Seaford (easier) or Eastbourne (arguably more useful if quick enough) would probably make a lot more sense.

 

[paul1609]

Journeytime could be cut even with the existing rolling stock with some infrastrucure improvements. The rationalisation of the line was planned with signalling and track for thumpers. Some of the Souths Heritage Railways have better permanent way than the Uckfield line especially on its Southern End.

 

[telstarbox]

I think I mentioned this earlier but to repeat again to re-open Tunbridge Wells West- Central would mean-

Reconstruction of part of the Homebase store- demolition or bridging across their Garden Centre.
Closure of the access road to Sainsburys car park and construction of new roads on another site..
Considerable work to rip up part of Sainsburys car park and rebuilding thereof. More difficult than it sounds.
Purchase of the car park to Smith & Western who occupy the original station building at TWW. This car park is continually in use so it is more difficult than it sounds.
Demolition of the toilets in Sainsburys, access paths to Sainsburys and excavation of the infilled ground to return to trackbed level.
Demolition of the bus terminal which was built on former infilled railway land.
Demolition of Sainsburys lorry unloading depot and construction of a new one for the huge 44 ton lorries that use it.
Excavation of the partially infilled cutting leading to Grove Tunnel and building new retaining walls because it was infilled to stop ground movement.
Rebuilding of the demolished Cumberland Walk Bridge.
Purchase of the trackbed back from wealthy local residents who purchased sections near Grove Junction.

To summarise- Not actually "wholesale" demolition but there again not just "a toilet block" occupying the trackbed.

It would indeed be a huge undertaking and in my view, unlikely to happen.

I used to work at the Sainsbury's in TW. The toilet block is indeed located there for easy demolition. However, during my time there, the store was extended by building a new warehouse in the service yard (in around 2006). The service yard is now much smaller than it used to be and if the railway was ever reinstated there would be no room left for HGVs to reverse into the loading bays - see Street View, the lorry reversing is on the old alignment.

As steamybrian has pointed out, the bus stop would have to be moved. There are at least 10 bus services per hour which use this stop and it is well-used.

There would also have to be some sort of level crossing across the entrance to the customer car park - see Street View here. Assuming 2 trains per hour each way, this could mean 4 closures an hour - traffic would back up to the A26 road as well as within the car park.

And apart from all of this, there is already a good bus route (the Brighton & Hove 28/29) between Tunbridge Wells, Uckfield and Lewes which is very well used.

 

[steamybrian]

It would indeed be a huge undertaking and in my view, unlikely to happen.


There would also have to be some sort of level crossing across the entrance to the customer car park - see Street View here.

.



No chance of a level crossing..! HM Railway Inspectors do not want them on completely new railways because this road/car park did not exist when the railway was there.

There is a chance that level crossings "could" be reinstated between Uckfield-Lewes because they were there originally. In some in cases the rails are still there. (Anchor Lane Level Crossing still has them and I believe they still buried under the road tarmac at Isfield ). The word "could" means I am not saying this for definite but a strong case for asking.

 

[DJ_K666]

Basically the single line has had to be slewed through the position of the former island platform. The 10 mph restriction goes on for some distance. Having tamped this section for the Spa Valley railway I can assure you that the existing formation would not meet a lot of network Rails standards for a new line. The limited clearance sign on the fence next to the nearest house is a bit of a clue.
There are photos that give a better idea of the problem on the disused stations site http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/g/groombridge/index.shtml

Those houses would have to go. Many would argue that they should not have been built there in the first place. The best compensation for the owners would be an identical replacement built further away with any DIY modifications they were planning carried out as new, plus the fact that the proximity of a direct train service to London would probably cause their house values to skyrocket. Much better than using compulsory purchase orders.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any reason you couldn't just slew the line even further to the right to get it away from the fencing?

A speed restriction over that section would probably not be catastrophic if you could get away from demolishing the houses.... which would cost enough to wreck the project by itself.

 

[DJ_K666]

This is probably one of the things that will come into play more when the line is wired up with OHLE, probably when the East Grinsted branch is converted. Improved acceleration would probably enable a few minutes off to Uckfield, and spending those minutes running down to Lewes and thence onward to Seaford (easier) or Eastbourne (arguably more useful if quick enough) would probably make a lot more sense.

I think they should electrify it with a power supply capable of supplying both types, then put down a live rail and convert it to OHLE when the time comes. as then they could more easily unbolt the insulator pots and lift the live rail once that current is off.

 

[MarkyT]

.

No chance of a level crossing..! HM Railway Inspectors do not want them on completely new railways because this road/car park did not exist when the railway was there.

There is a chance that level crossings "could" be reinstated between Uckfield-Lewes because they were there originally. In some in cases the rails are still there. (Anchor Lane Level Crossing still has them and I believe they still buried under the road tarmac at Isfield ). The word "could" means I am not saying this for definite but a strong case for asking.

Both ORR guidance and Network Rail policy state no new level crossings except in' exceptional circumstances'. I suspect if properly argued such circumstances might include exceptional expense that would otherwise completely rule out a particular reopening or new line, particularly one of a rural, low speed or fairly low traffic nature. I fully support the official policy in the case of unmonitored crossing like AHBs, or footpaths protected only by signage or warning lights, but interlocked full barrier MCBs with CCTV, local supervision or automated obstacle detection have proved to be significantly safer, as are the locally monitored ABCL type where the train driver has to slow down or stop and observe the lights working and crossing clear before proceeding across it. The latter type is no different in principle to light rail crossings, examples of which have been permitted widely across new systems.

As Lewes-Uckfield was closed formally a reopening would be treated as a new build under transport and works act legislation, so I don't think old crossings would be any easier to reinstate than any completely new ones, although I do personally think that arguments could be made for either ABCL or full barrier obstacle detector crossings interlocked with signals, especially as the roads concerned are very rural in character except for Uckfield town centre, much less straightforward as an interlocked crossing closed for long periods could contribute to significant road traffic congestion, and there would be a desire to maintain pedestrian access across the line at all times to avoid cutting the town in half.

 

[paul1609]

.



No chance of a level crossing..! HM Railway Inspectors do not want them on completely new railways because this road/car park did not exist when the railway was there.

There is a chance that level crossings "could" be reinstated between Uckfield-Lewes because they were there originally. In some in cases the rails are still there. (Anchor Lane Level Crossing still has them and I believe they still buried under the road tarmac at Isfield ). The word "could" means I am not saying this for definite but a strong case for asking.

This is not absolutely correct. ORR/ HMRI have not banned new level crossings where a risk assesment shows the risk is acceptably low.
Im not suggesting this would be the case at Tunbridge Wells.

It is a Network Rail policy that there will be no level crossings on new passenger lines. That is why Uckfield- Lewis was costed on replacing all the crossings with bridges in the 2008 study.




--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there any reason you couldn't just slew the line even further to the right to get it away from the fencing?

A speed restriction over that section would probably not be catastrophic if you could get away from demolishing the houses.... which would cost enough to wreck the project by itself.

The limiting factor is the bridge. Unfortunately to move the bridge to the right you would have to demolish more mature houses on the lane above

 

[DJ_K666]

Both ORR guidance and Network Rail policy state no new level crossings except in' exceptional circumstances'. I suspect if properly argued such circumstances might include exceptional expense that would otherwise completely rule out a particular reopening or new line, particularly one of a rural, low speed or fairly low traffic nature. I fully support the official policy in the case of unmonitored crossing like AHBs, or footpaths protected only by signage or warning lights, but interlocked full barrier MCBs with CCTV, local supervision or automated obstacle detection have proved to be significantly safer, as are the locally monitored ABCL type where the train driver has to slow down or stop and observe the lights working and crossing clear before proceeding across it. The latter type is no different in principle to light rail crossings, examples of which have been permitted widely across new systems.

As Lewes-Uckfield was closed formally a reopening would be treated as a new build under transport and works act legislation, so I don't think old crossings would be any easier to reinstate than any completely new ones, although I do personally think that arguments could be made for either ABCL or full barrier obstacle detector crossings interlocked with signals, especially as the roads concerned are very rural in character except for Uckfield town centre, much less straightforward as an interlocked crossing closed for long periods could contribute to significant road traffic congestion, and there would be a desire to maintain pedestrian access across the line at all times to avoid cutting the town in half.

Anchor crossing could be removed by putting the car park the other side and having a footbridge in. No need for an expensive bridge if all it served was a pub car park. An occupation crossing here would probably be necessary. Or an underpass as I believe water board vehicles have to access the sluices on the river there.

 

[yorksrob]

It would indeed be a huge undertaking and in my view, unlikely to happen.

I used to work at the Sainsbury's in TW. The toilet block is indeed located there for easy demolition. However, during my time there, the store was extended by building a new warehouse in the service yard (in around 2006). The service yard is now much smaller than it used to be and if the railway was ever reinstated there would be no room left for HGVs to reverse into the loading bays - see Street View, the lorry reversing is on the old alignment.

As steamybrian has pointed out, the bus stop would have to be moved. There are at least 10 bus services per hour which use this stop and it is well-used.

There would also have to be some sort of level crossing across the entrance to the customer car park - see Street View here. Assuming 2 trains per hour each way, this could mean 4 closures an hour - traffic would back up to the A26 road as well as within the car park.

And apart from all of this, there is already a good bus route (the Brighton & Hove 28/29) between Tunbridge Wells, Uckfield and Lewes which is very well used.

If Sainsbury's were allowed to renege on their commitment to protect the trackbed right of way simply by building over it, wouldn't that set a rather unfortunate precedent allowing big business to weasel out of it's planning terms elsewhere as well?

I'm also not convinced the link between Central and West is quite as insurmountable as made out. With regard to providing access to the supermarket, wouldn't customers just access it via Broadwalk lane? Same goes for Homebase, which is actually South of the existing railway anyway.

True, car parking would need to be rearranged, but it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has ever been done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And apart from all of this, there is already a good bus route (the Brighton & Hove 28/29) between Tunbridge Wells, Uckfield and Lewes which is very well used

The fact that it is already a popular public transport corridor is surely an argument for reinstating the rail link not obstructing it.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Journeytime could be cut even with the existing rolling stock with some infrastrucure improvements. The rationalisation of the line was planned with signalling and track for thumpers. Some of the Souths Heritage Railways have better permanent way than the Uckfield line especially on its Southern End.

There does appear to be a huge amount of engineering work on the line. I noticed that yet again this Sunday it was a rail replacement bus service and virtually every time I want to catch the last train from London its replaced by a bus. Is there any site which can tell us what the works are actually to do? WOuld have thought by now the whle line should be perfect!

However I digress because I was wondering how the single line sections work if one speeds up the service. The twin track bits are relatively long but I believe that is just to give a bit of flexibility in the event the trains are running late. Presumably changing the linespeed affects when and how the trains pass through the single line sections.

Just a shame that Southern didnt come along before the single track was doing as they have proved what demand there is for the service. The passengers always said the demand was there just in the old days no one would make the investment to prove it!

 

[djwhisky]

The road entrance to Sainsburys could just be moved to come in off broadwater lane where there is already an existing service road that's just blocked off with a large gate.

The bus station could then be moved to use part of the old station forecourt and maybe some of the waste land to that sits between the main road and the Spa Valley engine shed.

Although in an ideal world I would redevelop the whole area as the car park is a massive waste of space that could be used either for railway infrastructure or additional retail if it was rebuilt as a small scale multistory.

 

[Antman]

If Sainsbury's were allowed to renege on their commitment to protect the trackbed right of way simply by building over it, wouldn't that set a rather unfortunate precedent allowing big business to weasel out of it's planning terms elsewhere as well?

I'm also not convinced the link between Central and West is quite as insurmountable as made out. With regard to providing access to the supermarket, wouldn't customers just access it via Broadwalk lane? Same goes for Homebase, which is actually South of the existing railway anyway.

True, car parking would need to be rearranged, but it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has ever been done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



The fact that it is already a popular public transport corridor is surely an argument for reinstating the rail link not obstructing it.

Yes the reason bus routes 28/29 are so busy is because there is no rail alternative. Brighton & Hove run a good service but its still nearly two hours on the bus from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton.

 

[steamybrian]

The road entrance to Sainsburys could just be moved to come in off broadwater lane where there is already an existing service road that's just blocked off with a large gate.

The bus station could then be moved to use part of the old station forecourt and maybe some of the waste land to that sits between the main road and the Spa Valley engine shed.

Although in an ideal world I would redevelop the whole area as the car park is a massive waste of space that could be used either for railway infrastructure or additional retail if it was rebuilt as a small scale multistory.

....The no. 29 bus route Brighton-Tunbridge Wells has proved so popular that a few years ago the Mon-Saturday service was increased from hourly to half-hourly and Sunday service was increased to hourly. I agree that the journey time is timetabled for nearly two hours but in reality can take much longer due to traffic congestion.
....I agree that there is a service road entrance off Broadwater Lane, TW to Sainsburys car park but if used as a public entrance would require installation of roundabouts (or traffic lights) similar to that which controls the road traffic to/from the existing entrance off Nevill Terrace.
I agree that the bus station station can be moved and all the other work, etc.
The total bill to reinstate the railway would run into £millions.
....Someone suggested demolishing the houses at Groombridge alongside the railway to straightening the track- 30 houses at (average value) £250,000 plus some legal costs we are talking £8 million.
.....Finally the spare ground behind the Spa Valley Engine Shed (former Plant & Tools site) is proposed for small houses/apartments.

Lets get back to the subject matter Uckfield-Lewes....

 

[sarahj]

Simples, since the new line would join the Lewes-Wivelsfield line north of the town:

You run:
Seaford-Uckfield shuttles, 1 x hour (connections at Lewes for Lewes-Brighton shuttles)
Eastbourne-Uckfield shuttles 1 x hour, (again conx at lewes for btn)
You put a turn back siding in between lewes junction and the river bridge. Used to be one, the space is there, then brighton-uckfield (london) could be done. When the line between preston park and burgess hill blocks, we often do reverses at lewes, this would stop them being on the through line.
Nothing to stop these being 4 cars in the off peak, becoming 8 at uckfield.

Off course this means electrification of the line and the uckfield route.
A new block also would need to go in between falmer and brighton. Its a major bottleneck at the moment, esp during match days. At the moment:
Lewes-Btn. Train cannot leave falmer until the one in front has cleared london rd viaduct and is heading into the station.
Btn-Lewes. Trains must wait at london rd until the train in front has cleared falmer station.

Noteeaford branch from harbour to seaford cannot cope with 8 cars or two trains at the same time without a power supply upgrade.

 

[yorksrob]

....Someone suggested demolishing the houses at Groombridge alongside the railway to straightening the track- 30 houses at (average value) £250,000 plus some legal costs we are talking £8 million.
.....Finally the spare ground behind the Spa Valley Engine Shed (former Plant & Tools site) is proposed for small houses/apartments.

Given the amount of development that has foolishly been allowed to go ahead on the station site, it probably would be cheaper to reconstruct the road bridge. Since the line already exists, I wonder whether NR could give themselves speciel dispensation to use the existing alignment temporarily with a view to replacing the bridge later on.

 

[paul1609]

If Sainsbury's were allowed to renege on their commitment to protect the trackbed right of way simply by building over it, wouldn't that set a rather unfortunate precedent allowing big business to weasel out of it's planning terms elsewhere as well?

I'm also not convinced the link between Central and West is quite as insurmountable as made out.

I think whats interesting is that the Supermarket would have had to safeguard the line at the standards required 25 years ago, wherras Network Rail would be looking to build a line to modern standards, with the event of increased clearances for 25KV electrification and walking cesses etc its quite likely that the provision made 25 years ago is no longer adequate for the purpose of reinstating the railway.

 

[steamybrian]

I think whats interesting is that the Supermarket would have had to safeguard the line at the standards required 25 years ago, wherras Network Rail would be looking to build a line to modern standards, with the event of increased clearances for 25KV electrification and walking cesses etc its quite likely that the provision made 25 years ago is no longer adequate for the purpose of reinstating the railway.

25kv overhead through Tunbridge Wells particularly Wells AND Grove Hill Tunnels..!hock: hock:
There is only just (extremely tight!!!) clearance for the existing EMU stock.
Remember prior to electrification in 1986 the line from Tunbridge Wells- Tonbridge was Restriction 1 gauge and between Tunbridge Wells- Battle was Restriction O -- "Hastings Gauge".

 

[MarkyT]

25kv overhead through Tunbridge Wells particularly Wells AND Grove Hill Tunnels..!hock: hock:
There is only just (extremely tight!!!) clearance for the existing EMU stock.
Remember prior to electrification in 1986 the line from Tunbridge Wells- Tonbridge was Restriction 1 gauge and between Tunbridge Wells- Battle was Restriction O -- "Hastings Gauge".

Assuming we're not re-equipping the whole southeastern division in one go, I would put the transition between OHLE and 3rd rail at Tunbidge Wells West station, where trains could changeover at a stand and the risk of breakdown during the procedure would be removed from the busier main line station.

In the beginning, if the Sainsburys rebuild looks time-consuming for any reason, perhaps needing to fit in with broader roadworks or other infrastructure changes awaiting their respective budget owners programme 'slots', early reopening might be achieved cost effectively by terminating from the west at the existing Tunbridge Well West station, with extension to Tonbridge and beyond following later.

 

[JamesRowden]

Assuming we're not re-equipping the whole southeastern division in one go, I would put the transition between OHLE and 3rd rail at Tunbidge Wells West station, where trains could changeover at a stand and the risk of breakdown during the procedure would be removed from the busier main line station.

In the beginning, if the Sainsburys rebuild looks time-consuming for any reason, perhaps needing to fit in with broader roadworks or other infrastructure changes awaiting their respective budget owners programme 'slots', early reopening might be achieved cost effectively by terminating from the west at the existing Tunbridge Well West station, with extension to Tonbridge and beyond following later.

In a Network Rail presentation that someone on this forum was able to show part of, it showed that Network Rail are/were considering converting the Hastings line to OHLE south of Tunbridge Wells.

This would be considered because the power rating of the present 3rd rail system can only power the odd 12-car (as is happening preeently during the peak). The RUS concluded that all peak services along the Tonbridge main line would need to be 12-car in the future but that the process required ot upgrade the 3rd rail suply to power these services south of Tunbridge Wells would be the equivalent of 'electrifying an unelectrified line.'

I think that it might be possible to have the wires very close to the train through the tunnel with the current low speed limit.

 

[MarkyT]

In a Network Rail presentation that someone on this forum was able to show part of, it showed that Network Rail are/were considering converting the Hastings line to OHLE south of Tunbridge Wells.

This would be considered because the power rating of the present 3rd rail system can only power the odd 12-car (as is happening preeently during the peak). The RUS concluded that all peak services along the Tonbridge main line would need to be 12-car in the future but that the process required ot upgrade the 3rd rail suply to power these services south of Tunbridge Wells would be the equivalent of 'electrifying an unelectrified line.'

I think that it might be possible to have the wires very close to the train through the tunnel with the current low speed limit.

There are space saving rigid overhead power rail systems available now that can be attached to a tunnel roof in place of traditional cables. These have been installed recently for Thameslink modernisation and are used widely in continental Europe .

I can appreciate OHLE would be an excellent way to improve capacity and performance on the Hastings line. The power changeover might still better take place south of Tunbridge Wells though, so DC only trains could continue to terminate in the platforms or siding there without the complications of dual fitting both systems throughout the whole main station, tunnel and junction complex. Wadhurst might be a suitable alternative as all passenger trains also stop there, and the layout and environs are much simpler.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I have a better idea. Lets improve the bus service from Eridge Station to Tunbridge Wells Central and run it so it connects with the trains. Will be just as quick as rail for that section, and save an absolute fortune in rebuilding the track. Now we have saved millions in that section of track lets spend it on reopening Uckfield to Lewes ......oh!

 

[yorksrob]

I think whats interesting is that the Supermarket would have had to safeguard the line at the standards required 25 years ago, wherras Network Rail would be looking to build a line to modern standards, with the event of increased clearances for 25KV electrification and walking cesses etc its quite likely that the provision made 25 years ago is no longer adequate for the purpose of reinstating the railway.

If that is the case, hopefully it will be similar to the situation regarding curvy platforms whereby you must not - repeat not build a curvy railway platform (unless you really have to).

 

[steamybrian]

I have a better idea. Lets improve the bus service from Eridge Station to Tunbridge Wells Central and run it so it connects with the trains. Will be just as quick as rail for that section, and save an absolute fortune in rebuilding the track. we have saved millions in that section of track lets spend it on reopening Uckfield to Lewes ......oh!

There is already 4 buses an hour from Eridge-Tunbridge Wells. No. 29 every half hour. Nos. 228 and 229 each run hourly from Crowborough- TW.

.. SouthEastern Trains do not connect with their own trains. :roll: so there is no chance they will connect with buses.

 

[yorksrob]

25kv overhead through Tunbridge Wells particularly Wells AND Grove Hill Tunnels..!hock: hock:
There is only just (extremely tight!!!) clearance for the existing EMU stock.
Remember prior to electrification in 1986 the line from Tunbridge Wells- Tonbridge was Restriction 1 gauge and between Tunbridge Wells- Battle was Restriction O -- "Hastings Gauge".

I always though that the 1 gauge restriction was due to Somerhill tunnel, which as it is now effectively a single track in a double track tunnel, will have an unusually large clearance for ohle.

Either way, wiring up the Southern (if it ever happens) is going to be a truly massive engineering undertaking, which will swamp works around Tunbridge Wells, so you may as well get the railway open and let the conversion project worry about it at the time.

 

[steamybrian]

I have a better idea. Lets improve the bus service from Eridge Station to Tunbridge Wells Central and run it so it connects with the trains. Will be just as quick as rail for that section, and save an absolute fortune in rebuilding the track. we have saved millions in that section of track lets spend it on reopening Uckfield to Lewes ......oh!

There is already 4 buses an hour from Eridge-Tunbridge Wells. No. 29 every half hour. Nos. 228 and 229 each run hourly from Crowborough- TW.

.. SouthEastern Trains do not connect with their own trains. :roll: so there is no chance they will connect with buses.