UK train passengers face loss of free wi-fi

[SCDR_WMR]

But by the time they were removed mobiles were widespread, so it was a bit of a non-problem, like the issue of WiFi being withdrawn. People will get used to it, adapt and catch up with their personal phone arrangements where it really is an issue. It’s just progress and as usual there’s a vocal minority that have a genuine issue (but which there is probably a solution for that issue), a section of society that likes to get outraged about anything and journalists that need to justify their existence.

It's not progress though. It's a reduction in the offering

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==

They're simple installs not moving at up to 125 mph.
They're also not free, they have a cost to the business. Someone's tins of beans are more expensive because you don't want to pay for data.

Yes it's a cost to the business, nobody is arguing there isn't a business cost. But that cost is soaked up in the overall business costs, not added to the product costs. Especially not at supermarkets where pricing is so competitive

 

[Davester50]

Especially not at supermarkets where pricing is so competitive

Do the deep discounters supply public Wi-Fi? I've never looked in Lidl or Aldi for a signal.
If they don't, that's telling you something.

 

[12LDA28C]

We did.

They weren't cheap to use though!

Indeed. Gobbled up your Phonecard (remember them?) in seconds!

 

[LOL The Irony]

Do the deep discounters supply public Wi-Fi? I've never looked in Lidl or Aldi for a signal.
If they don't, that's telling you something.

Aldi does, I don't know about Lidl.

 

[43066]

It's not progress though. It's a reduction in the offering

It seems a strange hill to die on though, when fewer and fewer people use it.

This morning I had to turn my Wi-Fi off because my phone had slowed down. The reason? I had boarded a Southeastern networker and my phone had connected to its (rubbish) Wi-Fi, prioritising it over 4g/5g.

 

[Mag_seven]

It seems a strange hill to die on though, when fewer and fewer people use it.

This morning I had to turn my Wi-Fi off because my phone had slowed down. The reason? I had boarded a Southeastern networker and my phone had connected to its (rubbish) Wi-Fi, prioritising it over 4g/5g.

The message I keep getting when I use GWR Wi-Fi is "switching to mobile data".

 

[Davester50]

It seems a strange hill to die on though, when fewer and fewer people use it.

Agreed. It's not 2005 any more.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

4g/5g are now where it's at. So the on-rail systems are going to be less useful anyway.... surely? Presumably LNER, AWC, XC, EMR (Mainline) might retain theirs anyway, perhaps GWR on IEPs, if they think it helps attract business travel back on to the trains.....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Maybe no for you, but to me £30 is a lot of money. I pay £8 per month for my mobile plan, I can't afford any higher and many people also can't. Any other spend comes out of the family food budget. Doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy WiFi onboard, which I also get for free at supermarkets, coffee shops and many other places. As I said, it's a value proposition. Something that makes customers more likely to travel/visit more often.

Supermarkets? Can't say I've ever noticed free WiFi in supermarkets, and I can't see what the point would be, unless it's intended specifically for the in-store cafes. The last thing I want to do when I'm wandering down the fruit and veg aisle is check my emails, and I doubt Sainsburys wants me loitering there to do that either! Coffee shops and similar places - definitely, and the added value of the WiFi is obvious, since the business model relies on you wanting to spend time sitting there.

To my mind railways are similar-ish in that regard to coffee shops to the extent that the railway business model relies on people being willing to sit on their trains for - maybe, longish, periods of time - to the extent that they'll choose sitting in a train over sitting in a car: Offering WiFi gives some extra added value to motivate people to do that.

 

[Crossover]

I must say, the best on train WiFi I experienced in this country was on XC when it was paid for - I was travelling for work (part of the reason for purchasing a WiFi package) and managed to maintain a VPN connection for most of two hours from Birmingham to West Yorkshire, with a VPN client that was notoriously flaky even with a wired connection!

They put equipment in to improve it fairly soon after they were built. They have effectively got a repeater inside the train. The 390s also have. It impacted the higher frequencies more than the lower ones, so back when they were introduced Orange (remember them) struggled more than 02 / Voda. I am sure photos exist with the "improved mobile coverage sticker".

People did select GNER at the time to keep the signal even if it meant an extra change.

Yes, I remember my first trip on a Voyager back in 2007 and my Orange mobile having next to no signal. I remember the stickers about improved coverage and was of the belief there was a repeater (I was once on a Pendo which was rebooted at Coventry and whilst powered down, the mobile signal dropped to next to nothing (this would have been Feb 2010)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==

Supermarkets? Can't say I've ever noticed free WiFi in supermarkets, and I can't see what the point would be, unless it's intended specifically for the in-store cafes. The last thing I want to do when I'm wandering down the fruit and veg aisle is check my emails, and I doubt Sainsburys wants me loitering there to do that either! Coffee shops and similar places - definitely, and the added value of the WiFi is obvious, since the business model relies on you wanting to spend time sitting there.

Sainsburys definitely have as it is used for Scan and Shop (or whatever it is called) - now, it works fine on mobile data but the app did advise me to connect to WiFi for better accuracy. I declined and just stayed on 5G, but then again, I have a reasonable data bundle (though not bottomless)

 

[AdamWW]

Yes it's a cost to the business, nobody is arguing there isn't a business cost. But that cost is soaked up in the overall business costs, not added to the product costs. Especially not at supermarkets where pricing is so competitive

And indeed they are presumably offering it because they think it's a net financial gain to the company (more people come in and buy tins of beans because of it).

 

[Davester50]

Coffee shops and similar places - definitely, and the added value of the WiFi is obvious, since the business model relies on you wanting to spend time sitting there.

Only if you're spending though. Not a small coffee every 3 hours taking up a table over the busy lunch period.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only if you're spending though. Not a small coffee every 3 hours taking up a table over the busy lunch period.

That is true. But I'm sure the calculation is that enough of the people who are staying longer for the free WiFi do in fact buy more coffees, so that it is on balance worth while to offer it. (Plus of course the people who wouldn't come in at all if you weren't offering free WiFi)

 

[stuu]

Has any source ever said what the actual cost of wifi provision is? Does anyone have any idea?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is certainly an issue with the coating on 222 windows preventing mobile signal

The 221s have the same problem.

Unless you stand in the vestibule, that is. Only the cabin windows have the notorious coating on them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They're simple installs not moving at up to 125 mph.
They're also not free, they have a cost to the business. Someone's tins of beans are more expensive because you don't want to pay for data.

Given that even the smallest shops now require Wi-Fi for POS machines, SumUp readers, etc, giving the public access to the Wi-Fi is such a marginal cost it barely registers.

Same on the trains. Many on-board systems will continue to require Wi-Fi so the equipment will still be required. Removing access to it from the public will likely save absolutely naff all.

 

[yorksrob]

Is Southern still restricting wifi to 25mb free, using 5mb of that just to reach their landing page after you have loggedin ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==


Is lighting and toilets commercially beneficial ?
seats are certainly optional.

maybe reducing windows is next ?

railways heading back to 1829’s level of service.

I would argue its at a minimum its an emergency informative service. Trains breakdown, the driver tells you nought, your sealed into a box carriage and twitter is the only route of communication with a toc.

Indeed. My network coverage has improved greatly over the last ten years, however I don't know whether that's the case for everyone.

It's the fact that DfT are micromanaging the train operators to this extent that is indicative.

Maybe no for you, but to me £30 is a lot of money. I pay £8 per month for my mobile plan, I can't afford any higher and many people also can't. Any other spend comes out of the family food budget. Doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy WiFi onboard, which I also get for free at supermarkets, coffee shops and many other places. As I said, it's a value proposition. Something that makes customers more likely to travel/visit more often.

The choice is never train ticket or data (or paid WiFi). I would imagine the vast majority of people plan their travel costs, and regular travel/commuting is part of their weekly/monthly expenditure.

The only issues I have with WiFi onboard are on very busy trains where you don't always get a connection, but once connected I've always been able to browse or watch at my heart's content (WMR/Avanti services).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==


Exactly, the response wasn't tha WiFi wasn't needed/wanted. Just that other answers had a higher priority.

Surely it's obvious that lower fares, punctual and reliable services and hopefully trains with working toilets scores higher than WiFi which is more of a luxury. Doesn't mean we should get rid

Indeed. This should be a decision at the train operator level.

 

[ar10642]

They're simple installs not moving at up to 125 mph.
They're also not free, they have a cost to the business. Someone's tins of beans are more expensive because you don't want to pay for data.

I doubt if providing Wifi is in any way a significant cost to the railway given the amount of money it burns through every day.

 

[Davester50]

Given that even the smallest shops now require Wi-Fi for POS machines, SumUp readers, etc, giving the public access to the Wi-Fi is such a marginal cost it barely registers.

The ones I've seen in use are built in with mobile data, so no public wi-fi needed

Same on the trains. Many on-board systems will continue to require Wi-Fi so the equipment will still be required. Removing access to it from the public will likely save absolutely naff all.

There's two things in play. Infrastructure and contracts. The infrastructure will still be needed as you say, but is this the DfT forcing the contract providers to reduce the costs?

 

[Gaz55]

For the minuscule amount that getting rid of free wifi will actually save the bean counters, is it really worth the hassle. To me, this just seems like another retrograde step by this government and it's attitude to the railway in general.

If they do cut free wifi it won't end there. It will be plug sockets that will be up for the chop next.

 

[gabrielhj07]

If they do cut free wifi it won't end there. Plug sockets next?

That would require physical work. I assume they can just flick a switch to disable public Wi-Fi.

 

[Gaz55]

That would require physical work. I assume they can just flick a switch to disable public Wi-Fi.

While I am being slightly facetious, It really wouldn't suprise me if they did rip out sockets.

 

[gabrielhj07]

While I am being slightly facetious, It really wouldn't suprise me if they did rip out sockets.

I see it as more likely that they fail to install new ones (cough cough 700s).

 

[jon0844]

Supermarkets? Can't say I've ever noticed free WiFi in supermarkets, and I can't see what the point would be, unless it's intended specifically for the in-store cafes. The last thing I want to do when I'm wandering down the fruit and veg aisle is check my emails, and I doubt Sainsburys wants me loitering there to do that either! Coffee shops and similar places - definitely, and the added value of the WiFi is obvious, since the business model relies on you wanting to spend time sitting there.

To my mind railways are similar-ish in that regard to coffee shops to the extent that the railway business model relies on people being willing to sit on their trains for - maybe, longish, periods of time - to the extent that they'll choose sitting in a train over sitting in a car: Offering WiFi gives some extra added value to motivate people to do that.

Sainsbury's and others have Wi-Fi to aid their self scanning services. I use an app to scan and pay, and in some stores I lose mobile signal in places (due to the building construction) and can't scan items - so the app recommends using the shop provided Wi-Fi.

I expect staff also use the same Wi-Fi (via another SSID) for their equipment so the infrastructure is needed anyway, so why not let the kids browse while the parent(s) shop? They may not have a phone but rather a kids tablet or something. Indeed, having that might bring them more custom.

 

[nw1]

I’ve always been somewhat confused in this day and age of mobile data why Tocs and the taxpayer have invested millions into on-train Wi-Fi. To me it has always been a thing where they fund this over any meaningful investment in the customer experience to give them some positive PR. The only exception possibly would be on rural routes in Scotland I have used it where there was no mobile signal but the Wi-Fi worked.

Because, IMX, mobile data is expensive, subject to usage caps which run out readily, and relatively slow, and wifi is (often) free and relatively fast - albeit rather unreliable.

 

[jon0844]

I doubt if providing Wifi is in any way a significant cost to the railway given the amount of money it burns through every day.

Three offers unlimited data SIMs to businesses for £2+VAT per month (this was two years ago, but I expect it hasn't changed much by now). Now I think most TOCs use EE or Vodafone, or even both, but their rates are likely similar. So the cost to run the kit, that was also not that expensive in the grand scheme of things, is minimal. Same for bus companies.

But I guess if you are some bean counter told to save every penny, it all adds up.

I hope the DfT will remember that the new trains will still need a data connection to report various information in real time to control, such as reporting faults, coach temperatures, passenger occupancy etc. I am not sure but can still images or even video be streamed from the CCTV in emergency situations?

Like supermarkets, you've got the kit installed for other purposes anyway.

 

[nw1]

Story in The Times, see UK train passengers face loss of free wi-fi. Kite fying?
Passengers face losing access to wi-fi on trains after ministers told rail companies to cut costs.

"Ministers"?

Yet another way in which this Government is making our lives more difficult.


I have never known a Government, of either party, which has acted against the personal interests of such a wide range of the electorate as unambiguously as this lot. They are a nightmare combination of fiscal and social conservatism (I won't give examples of the latter as it's OT, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at). Cameron and Osborne, for all their faults, never interfered with the railways to such an extent (I don't remember any rail cuts during their time in power) and of course were much more socially liberal.

 

[Bartsimho]

Removing WiFi would be a backwards step for the railways.

It has to make itself an attractive mode for traveling and WiFi can have a big impact on this for business passengers due to the ability to work it provides which can't happen on other modes of transport (Planes or Cars).

Want somebody to attend a meeting in Glasgow when they work in London they have all 3 options. Driving is annoying and stressful, so it's between flying and taking the train. Flying is quicker but has the inability to connect while in the air and the stress of an airport. If the train is offering WiFi they can work during their journey without the stress. Remove the WiFi and they are better flying as they are unable to work for less time.

If the railways are to be at least financially sustainable they have to add value to the journey as they are not the quickest anymore.

Some train WiFi's have been good for me (the 195's have been very good) as I was able to watch some live sport travelling from Lincoln to Worksop but some have been bad (Class 222's) but if they can be offered as standard to a good quality it is waht people want. Also if we are moving to e-tickets what happens if there isn't WiFi and the Phone signal is poor in that area (such as very rural or in a tunnel).

 

[ar10642]

"Ministers"?

Yet another way in which this Government is making our lives more difficult.


I have never known a Government, of either party, which has acted against the personal interests of such a wide range of the electorate as unambiguously as this lot. They are a nightmare combination of fiscal and social conservatism (I won't give examples of the latter as it's OT, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at). Cameron and Osborne, for all their faults, never interfered with the railways to such an extent (I don't remember any rail cuts during their time in power) and of course were much more socially liberal.

The only things I can think of that have been in any way helpful (outside of Covid) are £2 bus fares and the energy bill rebate. I think the £2 bus fare thing is fantastic and should continue. Other than that, just about nothing else works.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, the bus fare cap was/is good*. Not so sure about the energy bill rebate because the taxpayer funded it, rather than imposing tougher caps on energy companies as other countries did.

* Obviously the bus fare cap is taxpayer funded also, but you get what I mean. Also, it needs to become permanent or else once it ends and some fares double or triple, people will stop using buses again and it won't have achieved anything.