Tfw Fibre

[Nick Ashwell]

Don't think this has been posted, TfW have decided to use the spare fibre capacity on the Core Valley Lines for a commercial wholesale business.
https://tfw.wales/fibre

We strive to grow and evolve to continue to connect people to one another, bind communities together and enable businesses to grow and expand.

Our innovative fibre optic network will provide next generation connectivity right to the heart of the Core Valley Lines communities we serve, bringing investment and opportunities to local economies.

What is TfW Fibre?​

Groundbreaking full fibre connectivity solutions in areas along the Core Valleys Lines, providing large capacity bandwidth solutions that will improve access to hard-to-reach areas.

Through partnerships with ISPs and mobile operators, we can help our customers receive the broadband and mobile services enjoyed by so much of the rest of the country.

Why fibre?​

Fibre has replaced copper as the preferred cables used to carry our operational signals and communications needed to run the railway.

When TfW took over the CVL network in South Wales, we started an upgrade programme to modernise the rail infrastructure, including the installation of a fibre network for our rail operations.

As a result of this investment, we have spare fibre capacity that we can now use to support the deployment of communication services in the area.

We are working on using the fibre cables that have been laid trackside as part of our Core Valley Lines enhancements to benefit the local communities that we serve and are inviting interest for potential partnerships from connectivity providers.

Seems like a good way to generate extra revenue, increase access to an essential resource, and integrate different types of governmental investment

 

[takno]

Don't think this has been posted, TfW have decided to use the spare fibre capacity on the Core Valley Lines for a commercial wholesale business.
https://tfw.wales/fibre

Seems like a good way to generate extra revenue, increase access to an essential resource, and integrate different types of governmental investment

I look forward to the fall-out when the communications companies they are partnering with discover that they aren't allowed to just pop along and dig up the railway for a week whenever they like to fix faults.

It's not a bad idea as such, but it's an idea that's been had plenty of times before, and there are some reasonably good reasons why it's never really progressed. The specific topography of the area, or even progress in fibre technology, might mean it's more successful here than it has been in the past, but I'm at best cautiously optimistic.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't think this has been posted, TfW have decided to use the spare fibre capacity on the Core Valley Lines for a commercial wholesale business.
https://tfw.wales/fibre

Seems like a good way to generate extra revenue, increase access to an essential resource, and integrate different types of governmental investment

It makes good sense. Electronic interlockings used in modern signalling often use fibre for trunk links to clusters of i/o modules along the trackside. There'll likely be many spare dark fibres in the cables that can be marketed. It's almost a return from the old days when many analogue Post Office Telephone circuits were carried by railway owned pole routes through the valleys and maintained by railway personnel.

 

[mrmartin]

Another hopeless WG commercial idea. Openreach will have a complete fibre network and I assume there will be others (at least Virgin Media will).

No way are they going to make any serious money off this. There is not big money in dark fibre like this and I have absolutely 0 confidence TfW would be able to manage a commercial offering properly.

 

[Geeves]

They were talking about this on the rest of the network back in 2021 but unsure if anything came of it.

Here are the plans regards to HS2

HS2 railway to boost rural broadband speeds by selling spare capacity to providers

Thousands of homes and businesses near the HS2 railway could benefit from faster broadband thanks to a project that will see spare data capacity sold to broadband providers.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

 

[MarkyT]

I look forward to the fall-out when the communications companies they are partnering with discover that they aren't allowed to just pop along and dig up the railway for a week whenever they like to fix faults.

It's not a bad idea as such, but it's an idea that's been had plenty of times before, and there are some reasonably good reasons why it's never really progressed. The specific topography of the area, or even progress in fibre technology, might mean it's more successful here than it has been in the past, but I'm at best cautiously optimistic.

I haven't seen what's been happening in the Valleys for many years, but trackside signalling and comms cables are usually laid in concrete troughing along the lineside in modern schemes rather than being buried, so there shouldn't be much digging involved in routine maintenance and faulting. In the past, railway technicians have been in charge of the cabling maintenance of such shared use schemes on railway land. Of course there'll be some pretty tough quality of service and repair time requirements in the contract. Let's hope TfW get those terms right. In the 80s, with Thatcher's telecoms deregulation, Mercury Communications laid a large figure-8 fibre network around the major cities of the UK, all alongside railways, which the BR telecom division of the time maintained.

 

[dosxuk]

There are already significant amounts of fiber routed alongside rail, road and motorway corridors used by all the major communications companies. Access doesn't seem to be much of an issue - for one, you're less likely to have a break in a fiber that's buried two foot under the M1 than you are running through a field; for two - if there's an incident and it does get broken, there's often other cables in the same duct that need repairing to reopen the route, so getting them fixed in a hurry isn't normally a problem.

Besides, this sounds more like they're selling off access to fiber strands in existing cabling (that they already own and maintain), rather than selling off access for others to run their own cables. That access could be arranged for locations away from the trackside, with TFW taking responsibility for the actual cable running on their land. (Again, this is a pretty normal arrangement).

 

[MarkyT]

Something this scheme could offer is a means to encourage cellphone operators to provide better or more redundant coverage/capacity in difficult valley topography, and from TfWs point of view around the rail routes and stations. There's a growing market for dark fibre with new ISPs looking for new ways to establish coverage. There may not be a huge income in it but if costs are kept under control and it washes its face it can't do any harm.

 

[sor]

Another hopeless WG commercial idea. Openreach will have a complete fibre network and I assume there will be others (at least Virgin Media will).

No way are they going to make any serious money off this. There is not big money in dark fibre like this and I have absolutely 0 confidence TfW would be able to manage a commercial offering properly.

Virgin have less of their own infrastructure in areas where they don't have a local cable network - if you look at their network map at https://www.virginmediabusiness.co....usiness-Wholesale-interactive-network-map.pdf you can probably speculate that a number of those cable routes look eerily similar to both major roads and rail lines.

Of course the railway isn't the first to do this. Energis was an early competitor to BT and their business model was to run fibre on National Grid's, er, national grid. Some local electricity firms also did the same, including Western Power Distribution's Surf Telecoms unit (which is now owned by... National Grid)

The US's Sprint and Japan's SoftBank both have railway heritage.

I look forward to the fall-out when the communications companies they are partnering with discover that they aren't allowed to just pop along and dig up the railway for a week whenever they like to fix faults.

It's not a bad idea as such, but it's an idea that's been had plenty of times before, and there are some reasonably good reasons why it's never really progressed. The specific topography of the area, or even progress in fibre technology, might mean it's more successful here than it has been in the past, but I'm at best cautiously optimistic.

Presumably it'd be up to TfW to fix those faults within whatever SLA is agreed between them and their customer - though for "dark fibre" a lot of the possible faults will also impact the railway's own uses and that will drive a fairly urgent fix.

 

[MarkyT]

Besides, this sounds more like they're selling off access to fiber strands in existing cabling (that they already own and maintain), rather than selling off access for others to run their own cables. That access could be arranged for locations away from the trackside, with TFW taking responsibility for the actual cable running on their land. (Again, this is a pretty normal arrangement).

I think that's certain. The railway only needs a tiny number of fibres for operational purposes, so there could be a lot of dark capacity.

 

[mrmartin]

Virgin have coverage on their coax product (which was installed a long time before openreach was even a thing) for a lot of the valleys though. Perhaps it is served by openreach fibre but I suspect they have their own runs, they will have all the ducting etc for it.

Just a bit lost who's meant to be buying this?

Openreach wouldn't - they already have their own network
Other telcos are much more likely to rent from openreach (if they don't have their own network), a total pain to have a seperate provider for a relatively small part of their network from an admin/integration part of it
Businesses themselves - not possible as they only provide a small run, not full internet access. And you'd need to run fibre from the building to the railway 'interconnect' which means someone like openreach, but it is likely to be far more complicated doing that than just buying internet from them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==

FWIW I can sort of see this working for NR if they had a huge national network (still don't think it will be a particularly profitable enterprise). But I really cannot see anyone bothering with all the hassle of getting connected to this when openreach will be able to do it much easier.

 

[MarkyT]

Presumably it'd be up to TfW to fix those faults within whatever SLA is agreed between them and their customer - though for "dark fibre" a lot of the possible faults will also impact the railway's own uses and that will drive a fairly urgent fix.

If the main fibre cable carrying the long line datalinks gets damaged, there should be redundant routing. Usually, this is done using ring topology via an alternative route. I don't know what they've done in the valleys but a a third-party connection off railway property between railway cables at the heads of the valleys could offer huge operational resilience to many parts of the network. Sometimes a diverse route can simply be separate concrete troughs on opposite sides of the railway.

 

[takno]

Presumably it'd be up to TfW to fix those faults within whatever SLA is agreed between them and their customer - though for "dark fibre" a lot of the possible faults will also impact the railway's own uses and that will drive a fairly urgent fix.

It's definitely more workable now than it has been in the past, since in most cases it's about providing extra peak capacity and there are already other redundant routes to provide basic connectivity. On the other hand the price you can get for that kind of capacity is rather lower. It's not that it can't succeed, it's just not exactly groundbreaking, and it's not really going to move the dial much on profitability.

I guess you wouldn't get the coverage if you wrote a press release saying that a couple of people had spent a year working on a project which was going live and might net the railway a couple of hundred grand a year, with a small number of valleys residents now being able to watch Netflix in 4k.

 

[MarkyT]

Virgin have coverage on their coax product (which was installed a long time before openreach was even a thing) for a lot of the valleys though. Perhaps it is served by openreach fibre but I suspect they have their own runs, they will have all the ducting etc for it.

Just a bit lost who's meant to be buying this?

Openreach wouldn't - they already have their own network
Other telcos are much more likely to rent from openreach (if they don't have their own network), a total pain to have a seperate provider for a relatively small part of their network from an admin/integration part of it
Businesses themselves - not possible as they only provide a small run, not full internet access. And you'd need to run fibre from the building to the railway 'interconnect' which means someone like openreach, but it is likely to be far more complicated doing that than just buying internet from them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==

FWIW I can sort of see this working for NR if they had a huge national network (still don't think it will be a particularly profitable enterprise). But I really cannot see anyone bothering with all the hassle of getting connected to this when openreach will be able to do it much easier.

Smaller Telcos/ISPs like to have options for their trunk links for cost and engineering exigencies. My sister's ISP employer is building a large rural network, almost all on other companies' dark fibres. They obviously use Openreach a lot, but they routinely also seek other alternatives where they can, and Openreach hasn't got infinite capacity everywhere. They often find when they attempt to exercise powers to install in such sites that other ISPs have got in there before them and used existing capacity or equipment space; I don't think the process at the OR end is particularly well organised, as in her words, it's a bit like the Wild West out there. A couple of years ago they were looking at ways to expand from the west country where they're already well established into South Wales, as apparently dark fibre availability was limited across the Severn. I suggested they spoke to NR as there might be some capacity through the tunnel.

 

[Prime586]

The TFW Fibre system will most likely be using DWDM to multiplex the outside customer's data over the existing railway fibre network by using different wavelengths of light, rather than access to any 'dark fibres'.

Of course the railway isn't the first to do this. Energis was an early competitor to BT and their business model was to run fibre on National Grid's, er, national grid. Some local electricity firms also did the same, including Western Power Distribution's Surf Telecoms unit (which is now owned by... National Grid)

My previous employer was one of the equipment suppliers to the Energis SDH network. Norweb up here in the north-west also had their own fibre network (and a commercial telephone network) which we were a supplier to. The fibres were carried along the earth wire between the tops of the pylons. That same previous employer then set up a joint venture called Fibreway with British Waterways to build a national network by laying fibres along the canal network.

Virgin have coverage on their coax product (which was installed a long time before openreach was even a thing) for a lot of the valleys though. Perhaps it is served by openreach fibre but I suspect they have their own runs, they will have all the ducting etc for it.

The Virgin Cable network only uses coax from the street cabinets to the customer premises. They have SDH multplexers in the street cabinets that are teed into their fibre rings to distribute the TV and broadband (we also supplied the SDH and telephone exchange kit to most of the original cable operators that were merged into NTL and Telewest, and eventually Virgin).

 

[MarkyT]

The TFW Fibre system will most likely be using DWDM to multiplex the outside customer's data over the existing railway fibre network by using different wavelengths of light, rather than access to any 'dark fibres'.

DWDM totally blew my mind when I first found out about it. I instinctively understood the idea of multiple frequencies in the same 'conductor', as I had experience designing reed fdm systems for signalling schemes previously. Suppliers keep further increasing capacity with ever more precise frequency tuning and thus more channels. I visited a company in Leeds who supplied the original London congestion charge camera transmission network, sending analogue HD video using the technique. They were transmitting some 800 separate video signals back through a single fibre with zero lag! That was nearly 20 years ago, so goodness knows what the limits of the technology are today. One thing for sure is the continued ever-increasing demand for data transmission which DWDM has allowed, and we've still got all that dark fibre out there, each one of which can be given the DWDM treatment when capacity demands its lighting.

 

[Meerkat]

Probably a stupid question as I am non-technical but I thought the railway liked to keep its communications very separate for security reasons?

 

[dosxuk]

Probably a stupid question as I am non-technical but I thought the railway liked to keep its communications very separate for security reasons?

If it's a separate fiber core in a cable, then they are physically separated. Data can not pass between fibers in a single cable.

If they're using DWDM and control the cable end-to-end, again, they are physically separated, this time by the wavelength of the signal being used. If you don't have control of the cable end-to-end, it would be possible for another user to use the same wavelength and receive or disrupt data intended for another channel.

I would expect anyone needing to ensure the security of the data on a channel to specify a dedicated single user fiber for that data.

 

[MarkyT]

If it's a separate fiber core in a cable, then they are physically separated. Data can not pass between fibers in a single cable.

If they're using DWDM and control the cable end-to-end, again, they are physically separated, this time by the wavelength of the signal being used. If you don't have control of the cable end-to-end, it would be possible for another user to use the same wavelength and receive or disrupt data intended for another channel.

I would expect anyone needing to ensure the security of the data on a channel to specify a dedicated single user fiber for that data.

I believe that's how NR still do it today. They installed a huge nationwide fibre network over the last few decades known as the FTN (fixed telecom network). Most of it is trackside, but some crucial links are implemented across other 3rd party routes, primarily for redundancy. Mission critical operations data such as signalling and voice comms are carried in a handful of dedicated fibres. Any third party use is in separate fibres. I can't see TfW deviating from established NR practice as they're trying to maintain much of the valleys network as heavy rail, capable of hosting other traffic such as freight, not just their own tram-trains.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

Does TFW have a SCADA system installed? I know that SCADA system I've seen has its own dedicated 48 fibre cables. That might prove better for spare fibre capacity than the FTN or at least offer diversity.

 

[MikePJ]

Selling either wavelengths, spare dark fibres, or the rights to install new cables is quite a common technique used by a lot of infrastructure owners. A few years ago, Cambridgeshire was installing empty fibre ducts under new cycle paths (a relatively small extra cost when you already have workers on site) that ran from Cambridge to several local villages, with a view to improving local broadband and making a little bit of ground rent income. Here in Wales there's a community-oriented fibre operator, Ogi (https://ogi.wales/) that already operate in some of the Valleys towns, so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up working with TfW.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Selling either wavelengths, spare dark fibres, or the rights to install new cables is quite a common technique used by a lot of infrastructure owners. A few years ago, Cambridgeshire was installing empty fibre ducts under new cycle paths (a relatively small extra cost when you already have workers on site) that ran from Cambridge to several local villages, with a view to improving local broadband and making a little bit of ground rent income. Here in Wales there's a community-oriented fibre operator, Ogi (https://ogi.wales/) that already operate in some of the Valleys towns, so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up working with TfW.

Ogi was my thought as well, they've had a mass rollout recently which seems to have kicked Openreach into a faster rollout.

I look forward to the fall-out when the communications companies they are partnering with discover that they aren't allowed to just pop along and dig up the railway for a week whenever they like to fix faults.

It's not a bad idea as such, but it's an idea that's been had plenty of times before, and there are some reasonably good reasons why it's never really progressed. The specific topography of the area, or even progress in fibre technology, might mean it's more successful here than it has been in the past, but I'm at best cautiously optimistic.

Can any ISPs dig up the infrastructure provider's cables? Most ISPs use Openreach infrastructure which they most definitely aren't allowed to dig up the infrastructure of. That would be at best criminal damage and quite probably something more severe.

Virgin have coverage on their coax product (which was installed a long time before openreach was even a thing) for a lot of the valleys though. Perhaps it is served by openreach fibre but I suspect they have their own runs, they will have all the ducting etc for it.

Just a bit lost who's meant to be buying this?

Openreach wouldn't - they already have their own network
Other telcos are much more likely to rent from openreach (if they don't have their own network), a total pain to have a seperate provider for a relatively small part of their network from an admin/integration part of it
Businesses themselves - not possible as they only provide a small run, not full internet access. And you'd need to run fibre from the building to the railway 'interconnect' which means someone like openreach, but it is likely to be far more complicated doing that than just buying internet from them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==

FWIW I can sort of see this working for NR if they had a huge national network (still don't think it will be a particularly profitable enterprise). But I really cannot see anyone bothering with all the hassle of getting connected to this when openreach will be able to do it much easier.

There are some major companies in the Valleys that may like the security offered by a physically separate connection between their sites rather than just using Openreach, as well as the redunancy provided by multiple providers. As someone who manages multiple fibre lines I want as much resiliency as possible. For example one site has two lines in for the office, one going one way one another and also prefer separate infrastructure to minimise the chances of failure

 

[mrmartin]

Can any ISPs dig up the infrastructure provider's cables? Most ISPs use Openreach infrastructure which they most definitely aren't allowed to dig up the infrastructure of. That would be at best criminal damage and quite probably something more severe.

They actually can (assuming they work with openreach), its private infrastructure access and allows any ISP to use Openreach's ducts and poles to lay fibre.

Selling either wavelengths, spare dark fibres, or the rights to install new cables is quite a common technique used by a lot of infrastructure owners. A few years ago, Cambridgeshire was installing empty fibre ducts under new cycle paths (a relatively small extra cost when you already have workers on site) that ran from Cambridge to several local villages, with a view to improving local broadband and making a little bit of ground rent income. Here in Wales there's a community-oriented fibre operator, Ogi (https://ogi.wales/) that already operate in some of the Valleys towns, so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up working with TfW.

Why would they though? It costs ~£10,000/year from openreach for a 10G backhaul link - and this has completely nationwide coverage. I cannot see how they would sell more than a handful of them in the best case which cannot be worth the hassle.

There are some major companies in the Valleys that may like the security offered by a physically separate connection between their sites rather than just using Openreach, as well as the redunancy provided by multiple providers. As someone who manages multiple fibre lines I want as much resiliency as possible. For example one site has two lines in for the office, one going one way one another and also prefer separate infrastructure to minimise the chances of failure

I get that but TfW isn't offering a product like that. It's from basically railway line to cardiff. So unless you pay £loads for your own ducting and/or poles to be built from the site to the TfW network, it wouldn't work.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

They actually can (assuming they work with openreach), its private infrastructure access and allows any ISP to use Openreach's ducts and poles to lay fibre.

I get that but TfW isn't offering a product like that. It's from basically railway line to cardiff. So unless you pay £loads for your own ducting and/or poles to be built from the site to the TfW network, it wouldn't work.

Access to ducts and providing the fibre are two separately different things though. Most ISPs using Openrech are using their exchanges. You're comparing apples and oranges here

The second one is fair

 

[m0ffy]

Having previously worked for a telco mentioned upthread, Openreach are an utter pain to work with. Long lead times, no appetite for dark fibre, and complete inflexibility make them a less favourable option for many operators. I think this gives telcos another, welcome, option for medium distance dark fibre.