LU/Elizabeth Line 4G update

[Alxxxs]

Just got a full signal almost all the way from HPC to Knightsbridge on EE but didn’t test if the internet actually works there

 

[martin2345uk]

I got 5G on the subsurface platforms at Moorgate today. You usually used to get some very spotty signal (presumably from above ground) but this was very strong

Nothing for me there today on EE sadly

 

[jon0844]

Nothing for me there today on EE sadly

EE seemed to do its own thing on the NCL (and other places like HS1 tunnels and St Pancras low level) so it will be nice when the whole of Moorgate is done and other networks will work... but I'm not sure when the NCL will work for anything but EE?

 

[announcements]

I am still surprised how long this whole programme is taking. Why has there been so little progress? It's infuriating having patchy signal and my operator isn't part of the WiFi scheme as an alternative.

 

[Recessio]

I am still surprised how long this whole programme is taking. Why has there been so little progress? It's infuriating having patchy signal and my operator isn't part of the WiFi scheme as an alternative.

Apparently, if your phone has a second SIM slot or supports eSIM, apparently you can get top-up/Pay-As-You-Go SIM cards on Three for cheap, and then use that to access their Underground WiFi scheme for free.

 

[Roy Badami]

There's a good article on Ian Visits about the technology. Even though visible progress has been slow, it sounds like lots of infrastructure has been built out behind the scenes.

Although it’s taken four years to get about half of the London Underground covered with a phone signal, they now expect the rest to take just a year to complete. That’s in part thanks to experience speeding things up, and also because a lot of the equipment has already gone in over the past four years. All they need are the final bits to complete the job and switch it on.

So, most of it should be live by the end of this year, with an expectation that the installers will be packing up their bags for the last time around the middle of next year.

How London finally cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground

Dotted around London, there are a number of private hotels that aren’t the sort of hotel you might expect – they’re needed to make mobile phones work on the London Underground.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

 

[Alxxxs]

Oh it has been “just a year to complete” for more than 2 years now

 

[JonnyM]

Oh it has been “just a year to complete” for more than 2 years now

I reckon 2028 or 2029 at the earliest

 

[AM9]

I reckon 2028 or 2029 at the earliest

Tfl money and time resources are both finite and limited. Better that they concentrate on bringing new (paid for) trains into service than fret about some mobile users not being in touch for every second of the day.

 

[mrmartin]

Tfl money and time resources are both finite and limited. Better that they concentrate on bringing new (paid for) trains into service than fret about some mobile users not being in touch for every second of the day.

TfL aren't paying for this.

 

[AM9]

TfL aren't paying for this.

But it still has a degree of disruption in the operation of the railway, and interfacing with staff.

 

[vuzzeho]

But it still has a degree of disruption in the operation of the railway, and interfacing with staff.

No it doesn't, does it? I haven't seen or noticed any disruption related to the installations.

 

[announcements]

Tfl money and time resources are both finite and limited. Better that they concentrate on bringing new (paid for) trains into service than fret about some mobile users not being in touch for every second of the day.

As opposed to non-mobile users? I can't think of anyone who doesn't have a mobile phone these days.

There are good reasons for having connectivity below ground, including if there is an emergency or if your train is delayed and stuck in tunnel and you need to let someone know you are running late. Additionally, it can allow work benefits e.g. being able to deal with emails while commuting.

I do too choose to read a book. It depends and is personal preference. People do expect connectivity on metro systems these days, as is common around the world.

 

[AM9]

As opposed to non-mobile users? I can't think of anyone who doesn't have a mobile phone these days.

There are good reasons for having connectivity below ground, including if there is an emergency or if your train is delayed and stuck in tunnel and you need to let someone know you are running late. Additionally, it can allow work benefits e.g. being able to deal with emails while commuting.

I do too choose to read a book. It depends and is personal preference. People do expect connectivity on metro systems these days, as is common around the world.

Not every mobil owner spends every minute of their awake hours staring at the screen of thier device. Just because you want something, it doesn't mean that it has to be there for you.
As for the emergency matter, there has been adequate provision for protection of passengers safety in a delayed or stricken train for at least 80 years and being able to call somebody outside does not add anything to rhat. There is no corollary for this insecurity that many have developed since mobile phones were introduced. Tube travel with very occasional delays has been around for many decades.
Continuous communication whilst underground may be handy, but hardly essential.

 

[Mawkie]

Continuous communication whilst underground may be handy, but hardly essential.

Although I do agree with much of your post, the same arguments can be made for platform edge doors, air conditioning, padding on seats, and a host of other things. They are all nice to have, not essential to the running of a railway.

Having made the decision that passengers would appreciate mobile connectivity, they just need to get on with it!

 

[AM9]

Although I do agree with much of your post, the same arguments can be made for platform edge doors, air conditioning, padding on seats, and a host of other things. They are all nice to have, not essential to the running of a railway.

Having made the decision that passengers would appreciate mobile connectivity, they just need to get on with it!

I think platform edge doors are a safety and health issue that although difficult to provide, should ne there wherever practicable. Your other examples are comfort issues and similarly aren't universal on metro systems elsewhere.

 

[jon81uk]

Tfl money and time resources are both finite and limited. Better that they concentrate on bringing new (paid for) trains into service than fret about some mobile users not being in touch for every second of the day.

TfL aren't spending money on this. One contractor (paid for by the mobile networks) installing mobile signal is not related to TfL sorting out signalling for new trains.

 

[announcements]

Not every mobil owner spends every minute of their awake hours staring at the screen of thier device. Just because you want something, it doesn't mean that it has to be there for you.
As for the emergency matter, there has been adequate provision for protection of passengers safety in a delayed or stricken train for at least 80 years and being able to call somebody outside does not add anything to rhat. There is no corollary for this insecurity that many have developed since mobile phones were introduced. Tube travel with very occasional delays has been around for many decades.
Continuous communication whilst underground may be handy, but hardly essential.

Nice try, but there is a strong business case for mobile connectivity and the plan is for it to go ahead. Delays to roll out leads to increasing costs for everyone. As the other poster has said, let's get on with it!

 

[mmh]

I don't think many will use it for phone calls

People will answer their phone if it rings.

 

[AM9]

Nice try, but there is a strong business case for mobile connectivity and the plan is for it to go ahead. Delays to roll out leads to increasing costs for everyone. As the other poster has said, let's get on with it!

"Nice try" at what?

 

[announcements]

At making it out that people who advocate for this project to be completed on time are somehow addicted to starring at their screen. lt is a very limiting viewpoint.

 

[AM9]

At making it out that people who advocate for this project to be completed on time are somehow addicted to starring at their screen. lt is a very limiting viewpoint.

Wrong!I was just expressing my view on the relative importance of a neverending access to phone services, compared to a basic train service and certain safety issues. It may be that such an unbroken phone coverage for some, trumps the safety of every other user of the tube. You may be one of them, - I neither know nor care.

 

[boiledbeans2]

Every major metro system I've been on outside the UK is able to receive mobile signals underground. They are not brand new metros, but old metros. The UK is still living in the 19th century. Even the new Elizabeth line still has spotty coverage, especially the Liverpool Street to Stratford bit.

 

[bluegoblin7]

During a recent trip to New York I rarely had mobile signal in the tunnels. It's certainly not every.

 

[vuzzeho]

During a recent trip to New York I rarely had mobile signal in the tunnels. It's certainly not every.

Well, they did say every one they'd been on, not every single one.

 

[AM9]

Well, they did say every one they'd been on, not every single one.

Another case of 'if I hadn't seen it then it didn't exist'.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Exactly. It’s being used as a stick to beat TfL with and being selective in the comparisons made. Indeed, I can think of several metros internationally where I haven’t had mobile data in the tunnels, including old and new.

This isn’t to say that the roll out hasn’t become protracted, but TfL are far from the only metro network not providing such.

 

[Watershed]

It's hardly selective to note that the overwhelming majority of metro systems across the world have mobile signal underground. New York is an outlier, just like London, in not having it. Being one of a couple of stragglers is hardly a strong argument that it's not necessary or valued.

 

[xtmw]

Nice try, but there is a strong business case for mobile connectivity and the plan is for it to go ahead. Delays to roll out leads to increasing costs for everyone. As the other poster has said, let's get on with it!

Quite - with the enabling works of 4G/5G/WiFi, the CLIP programme is benefitting from this, with live data being accessible when the train is moving between stations

 

[boiledbeans2]

It's hardly selective to note that the overwhelming majority of metro systems across the world have mobile signal underground. New York is an outlier, just like London, in not having it. Being one of a couple of stragglers is hardly a strong argument that it's not necessary or valued.

Agreed.

Visited HK in the mid-2000s and there was already mobile signal underground. Did a bit of Googling and 3G was introduced in 2005 in the MTR network (built in the 70s) according to the article below:

CK Hutchison Holdings Limited - Media Centre > Press Releases

www.ckh.com.hk

In 2011, Singapore completed 3G introduction to their MRT network (built in the 80s) according to the article below. Prior to that, 2G was already available.

S'pore 'on track' to enable 3G underground

Upgrade of high-speed wireless Internet network in country's 2G-only underground subway routes on schedule, with works completed in areas with heaviest commuter traffic, says SingTel.

www.zdnet.com

Closer to home, I was recently on the Brussels Metro (built in the 70s), Milan Metro (built in the 60s) and Lisbon Metro (built in the 50s), and all had good mobile coverage underground.

Wiki says mobile phone coverage was introduced to the Milan Metro in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Metro#Mobile_phone_coverage

In contrast, the far newer 90s built LU JLE only had mobile coverage in 2020.