What do you think the future holds for WiFi on trains?

[sjoh]

Would the railway get away with using the same sites? They must have got some special leeway for safety equipment as there are quite a few which are jolly ugly in otherwise pretty locations. Can’t see a mobile mast being popular in the same places

Given that GSM-R masts are already installed across most of the railway, I'm not sure how much of an extra eyesore the extra 4G/5G gubbins would really be. What I don't know, however, is what level of interference it might cause. As far as I know, 2G equipment is routinely sited along with newer 4G and 5G equipment, so I don't think it'd be an insurmountable problem, but I'm certainly no expert. I'm also not sure whether it'd be possible to install 4/5G equipment onto the same masts or whether they'd need seperate masts.

 

[Meerkat]

Given that GSM-R masts are already installed across most of the railway, I'm not sure how much of an extra eyesore the extra 4G/5G gubbins would really be. What I don't know, however, is what level of interference it might cause. As far as I know, 2G equipment is routinely sited along with newer 4G and 5G equipment, so I don't think it'd be an insurmountable problem, but I'm certainly no expert.

The GSM-R masts look much lighter in construction than mobile masts??

 

[sjoh]

The GSM-R masts look much lighter in construction than mobile masts??

I suspect part of the reason for this is because the GSM-R masts only carry equipment from one operator, whereas many phone masts you see will have equipment from all 4 of the big operators. Potentially also that GSM-R masts only need to propogate the signal in two directions, rather than 4.
Therefore, if the preferred solution is to install 4G/5G along the railway in order to power on-train wifi, presumably there'd only be need for one operator, and two directions. If the solution is to provide better mobile phone coverage along the railway, then presumably you'd want to do so for all operators, and not just the one that provides service for onboard wifi.

I can't say I've spent enough time looking at either to be able to compare - you may well be right!

 

[Tio Terry]

Would the railway get away with using the same sites? They must have got some special leeway for safety equipment as there are quite a few which are jolly ugly in otherwise pretty locations. Can’t see a mobile mast being popular in the same places

As I said previously. NetworkRail have vigorously opposed public carriers coming anywhere near their sites. I can't see that changing so the chances of mast sharing is nil!

 

[DB]

A lot of business types use it but on train it seldom works. You ring up and report it to be told it must be working as 53 devices are connected to it. Ok so why are so many complaining? As far as the provider is concerned as long as the signals there it is working. It doesn't matter that nobody can connect or log in to it or having IP connection issues.

As I understand it the systems all rely on multiple 4G networks, and with a moving object such as a train it's inevitable that signals will be weaker or non-existent in some areas.

 

[jon0844]

The limited data capacity that GSM-R has is reserved for railway operational use, it is not available for public use. Sharing sites would need to be very carefully managed to ensure two systems didn't interfere with each other. Generally, NetworkRail object to any public GSM service provider coming anywhere near their sites.

I am not sure if the installation of 4G/5G equipment would have any impact on the GSM-R service interference wise. They have their own spectrum, and it is already possible to site share for other networks with no impact. GSM can and does co-exist with LTE and now NR.

It would clearly need its own antennas and backhaul, but the poles/masts would offer the same benefits as GSM-R does (many sites positioned to cover cuttings and tunnels).

Maybe in the future, the Government could consider a collaboration that could see the railway upgrading to LTE-R. Obviously there's a huge cost and looking at how the Government has managed the Emergency Services Network roll out so far, it doesn't inspire confidence!! I get that Network Rail may have safety concerns, just as years ago it would never seem possible that people would be actively encouraged to use mobiles and laptops on a plane.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Do trains use 4G for the internet or do they use Satellite? If so what network?

Also realistically given that GSM-R now covers the whole network would it be feasible to utilise the GSM-R sites to also provide an internet connection?

No, GSM-R has a very small, restricted frequency band for a start. Also GSM-R refers to a specific set of services beyond voice and data.

 

[AM9]

At the end of the day, wi-fi on trains is becoming less of a usp. Those that need a signal can now easily get one other than in areas where a train installation would have just as many problems. If it is for business purposes, then it would be an allowble business expense. Just how many journeys would actually be lost if trains only provided a basic voice/text/low bandwidth service allowing users to get updates on train services?
About the only step that the railway needs to take regarding wi-if provision is to replace windows that by virtue of their coating render comms. unusable.

 

[Meerkat]

Do the GSM-R towers have cabling along the railway (some of them are quite remote)?
Would the railway be keen to have the mobile companies cables on the railway, and would the mobile companies want that, with the extra cost and the lack of access?

 

[thenorthern]

Do the GSM-R towers have cabling along the railway (some of them are quite remote)?
Would the railway be keen to have the mobile companies cables on the railway, and would the mobile companies want that, with the extra cost and the lack of access?

Depends if one mobile company signed an agreement then it would be a unique selling point of "100% coverage on trains".

 

[Tio Terry]

Depends if one mobile company signed an agreement then it would be a unique selling point of "100% coverage on trains".

Which is a good reason for not allowing it! We are supposed to be promoting competition, not stopping it!

But, in anycase, I seriously doubt anyone wants to write and present to the ORR/DfT any form of safety argument proving that commercial GSM can not, in any way, compromise the data capabilities for GSM-R which, of course, is designed to carry safety critical data for railway operations.

 

[DB]

At the end of the day, wi-fi on trains is becoming less of a usp. Those that need a signal can now easily get one other than in areas where a train installation would have just as many problems. If it is for business purposes, then it would be an allowble business expense. Just how many journeys would actually be lost if trains only provided a basic voice/text/low bandwidth service allowing users to get updates on train services?
About the only step that the railway needs to take regarding wi-if provision is to replace windows that by virtue of their coating render comms. unusable.

Not really true. While I agree that patchy coverage will also affect a train, my understanding is that train system have SIMs on several (or all) the major networks so have a higher chance of getting a signal, plus they have larger antennae, usualy up somewhere on the roof, so are more likely to get a signal.

In addition, the construction of some trains (Voyager, 185s, etc) tends to block mobile signals, meaning that getting a signal on a mobile inside them can be difficult. I'm not sure to what extent this is film on the windows - I was under the impression that it was more than that, including some of the toughened glass used.

 

[markymark2000]

Could we perhaps see some mobile operators jumping onto train wifi? O2 for example do a lot of free Wifi partnerships around the UK. BT offer free wifi but also have an interesting thing for some other areas where it is paid wifi but you can get it for free if you are an existing BT customer. Could this sort of thing be jumped on to reduce the subsidy from the TOCs as these big companies use the data for personal gain or sell it so they can make money, less cost to train operators and more free wifi?

 

[AM9]

Not really true. While I agree that patchy coverage will also affect a train, my understanding is that train system have SIMs on several (or all) the major networks so have a higher chance of getting a signal, plus they have larger antennae, usualy up somewhere on the roof, so are more likely to get a signal. ...

My real point is that wi-fi is no longer the pull for most rail users just as shops, cafe's etc., offering wifi doesn't really make any difference to footfall these days. There is a case for travellers to have access to information that is relevant to their specific journey such as customer service twitter, service updates and timetable info. When wi-fi was first available on some trains, the basic service was just that i.e. free access to the TOC's web pages. Anything else was chargeable which didn't interest most passengers. The problem now is that unless the train is virtually empty, everybody complains that the bandwidth is insufficient, - mainly because a few users were selfishly taking as much as they could, leaving little services for others. Not all free wi-fi installations manage bandwidth. There is no point in TOCs (or anyone else like shops) getting into an ever more expensive race to feed an insatiable appetite of the few for free bandwidth at the expense of most others.

... In addition, the construction of some trains (Voyager, 185s, etc) tends to block mobile signals, meaning that getting a signal on a mobile inside them can be difficult. I'm not sure to what extent this is film on the windows - I was under the impression that it was more than that, including some of the toughened glass used.

I believe that the Voyagers have gold sputtered glass (on the inside of one of the leaves) which absorbs infra red thereby giving the air conditioning an easier task in the sunshine. Interestingly later rolling stock does not seem to have this now.

 

[jon0844]

Not really true. While I agree that patchy coverage will also affect a train, my understanding is that train system have SIMs on several (or all) the major networks so have a higher chance of getting a signal, plus they have larger antennae, usualy up somewhere on the roof, so are more likely to get a signal.

In addition, the construction of some trains (Voyager, 185s, etc) tends to block mobile signals, meaning that getting a signal on a mobile inside them can be difficult. I'm not sure to what extent this is film on the windows - I was under the impression that it was more than that, including some of the toughened glass used.

Yes there are multiple SIMs and I believe GTR has both EE and Vodafone SIM cards, which are arguably the two best networks - perhaps with Three in third place. O2 now has some more spectrum, but it's probably too little too late given how many customers it has over Three -- spreading said spectrum rather thinly.

Modern trains don't appear to have solar reflective glass that also acted like a Faraday cage, no doubt significantly improving the chances of getting a good signal inside the train whereas before the onboard Wi-Fi had the benefit of roof mounted antennas.

 

[sjoh]

Could we perhaps see some mobile operators jumping onto train wifi? O2 for example do a lot of free Wifi partnerships around the UK. BT offer free wifi but also have an interesting thing for some other areas where it is paid wifi but you can get it for free if you are an existing BT customer. Could this sort of thing be jumped on to reduce the subsidy from the TOCs as these big companies use the data for personal gain or sell it so they can make money, less cost to train operators and more free wifi?

I doubt it would save train operators much, if anything. In the scenarios you're referring to someone still pays for the wifi service - just not the customer. ie. McDonalds pays o2 for their customer wifi, Wetherspoons pays Sky to provide TheCloud in their pubs etc.

 

[markymark2000]

I doubt it would save train operators much, if anything. In the scenarios you're referring to someone still pays for the wifi service - just not the customer. ie. McDonalds pays o2 for their customer wifi, Wetherspoons pays Sky to provide TheCloud in their pubs etc.

OH right, I thought companies worked together on it as O2/Sky can get money by selling and using data so the overall cost was reduced.

 

[jfollows]

I find that on-train wi-fi is yesterday's solution to yesterday's problem.

When it was first rolled out on Virgin Trains (for me), it was great. In that it was "something" versus nothing. It might not always have worked, but there really wasn't much alternative either.

Now I find that - with the caveat that I use EE's network - I can get just as good a service myself directly on the WCML between London and Wilmslow. And that's just about the only place where it matters to me. I'm quite happy using my direct network connection.

I don't see on-train wi-fi as important any more. It's just something that should be provided as a matter of course, rather than something I'd consider paying extra for. And even if it is, I might not use it.

 

[DB]

I doubt it would save train operators much, if anything. In the scenarios you're referring to someone still pays for the wifi service - just not the customer. ie. McDonalds pays o2 for their customer wifi, Wetherspoons pays Sky to provide TheCloud in their pubs etc.

Indeed, and it would be much more expensive to provide it than in something like a coffee shop. Hence there are companies who specialise in things like train wifi.