West coast mainline
I thought it went to Glasgow? Hmm, perhaps it has been stopped due to lockdown?
Staying connected on a train in the UK is almost impossible thanks to excruciatingly slow speeds and frequent blackspots. The government hopes to make these gripes a thing of the past by committing £200,000 to research on new track-side antenna technology. The commitment follows the release of the Mott MacDonald Report, which …
It does currently, but sometime in the future the government expects to replace mainline services to "the north" ie. Birmingham and beyond - by HS2, allowing the existing WCML to be downgraded to a much slower commuter only service, giving the "increased capacity" they keep talking about, however don't expect the much needed investment so those trains will be stopping more often, not necessarily at stations... So it is going to be useful to be able to have better mobile connectivity just so that you can be amused by watching ancient football matches...
the WCML doesnt actually go to liverpool, trains do branch off it to travel to liverpool, but the WCML is the direct route London via the Midlands to Scotland
The core route of the WCML runs from London to Glasgow for 399 mi (642 km) and was opened from 1837 to 1869.
London Euston -> Rugby -> Nuneaton -> Tamworth -> Stafford -> Crewe -> Warrington -> Wigan -> Preston -> Lancaster -> Carlisle -> Motherwell -> Glasgow Central
With additional lines deviating to Northampton, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Edinburgh
I've been wondering to myself why this isn't already a thing for ages:
https://www.facebook.com/ben.curthoys/posts/10154848262727110
https://twitter.com/bencurthoys/status/1112998358652727297
I'm sure it's harder than I think it is, but I am surprised that no mobile company has started doing it themselves before now.
>I've been wondering to myself why this isn't already a thing for ages
Cell size and switching speed.
GSM, as originally spec'd, if you were travelling faster than 60mph you would be switching cells faster than the network could keep up...
There was an ElReg piece some years back on mobile coverage for railways, basically, the masts needed to be some distance from the tracks to get a balance of connectivity and coverage.
GSM-R was/is only made by two suppliers - Siemens and Ericsson. the rest quite rightly concluded it was commercially non-viable and a waste of development time.
To be fair, Railtrack did ask the UK operators to quote for it to be installed on WCML but they all declined as the cost was too high and Railtrack only wanted to pay 'on use' and as the operators could generate more revenues on Oxford Street in a day that the WCML would generate in a year, it was a complete non-starter. I know this as I was there.
The main reason why its a problem is the nice, metal laminated windows on the trains and the lack of available inter-carriage connections. You might stick an aerial on one carriage but you cannot route RF through the carriages on the inside very easily, so you're stuck with putting aerials on the top of the train right next to the second biggest source of RF interference where the power lines run parallel with the train.
And as GSM-R is a safety critical system, theres no way anyone on the safety side is going to allow the two infrastructures to join up.
GSM-R was certainly only built for 3G at best on WCML as the good old whining public didnt want to pay for Railtrack to straighten out the curves and lift the track to ground level to speed up journeys and as a result make it better RF coverage from existing towers.
GSM-R was/is only made by two suppliers - Siemens and Ericsson. The rest quite rightly concluded it was commercially non-viable and a waste of development time.
To be fair, Railtrack did ask the UK operators to quote for it to be installed on WCML in the late 90's but they all declined as the cost was too high and Railtrack only wanted to pay 'on use' and as the operators could generate more revenues on Oxford Street shops in a day, at no cost, that the WCML would generate in a year, it was a complete non-starter. I know this as I was there in the discussions. Railtrack as they were then were shocked to find that nobody was interested in them.
The main reasons why its a problem is the nice, metal laminated windows, the sealed metal boxes of the trains and the lack of available inter-carriage connections. You might stick an aerial on one carriage but you cannot route RF through the carriages on the inside very easily, so you're stuck with putting aerials on the top of the train right next to the second biggest source of RF interference where the power lines run parallel with the train.
And as GSM-R is a safety critical system, theres no way anyone on the safety side is going to allow the two infrastructures to join up.
GSM-R was certainly only built for 3G at best on WCML as the good old whining public didnt want to pay for Railtrack to straighten out the curves and lift the track to ground level to speed up journeys and as a result make it better RF coverage from existing towers.
If I'm going on a train (stopped flying years ago), I preload stuff on my laptop to work on or keep me entertained. I also carry a pad of paper and a selection of pens and pencils. I always take an iPod loaded with audiobooks, The Infinite Monkey Cage and music. Not having signal on my mobe isn't going to bring on a full panic attack.
....and Internet service. Maybe it might be a good idea to ask them how the magic is done? (Come to think of it, that's all you're going to get for 200K -- a nicely laser printed report saying "Ask the French/German/Dutch/Spanish/Cezch &tc".)
I thought the problem was too much service anyway. I seem to remember that there was a special window coating provided on some carriages that blocked cell signals so that people could travel in peace ("I'm on the TRAIN. Yes the TRAIN.....").
What's 'overhead line equipment'?
The only electrified line in Wales runs from the border to Cardiff, about 40 miles. Wales has over 900 miles of track (11% of Network Rail total).
So no great hope for improving internet on the rest of the network.
Of course, as of March, the "core Valleys Lines" are owned by Transport for Wales, not Network Rail and some of those are due to be part-electrified* following years of prevarication by others.
But your point is still valid, though I'm not sure that the OLE itself is vital for this role, it'd not be a massive leap to use other trackside equipment for similar purposes.
I think TfW is supposed to take ownersip (has already done so?) of pretty much all the rest of the track in Wales at some point too - though not the "main line" between the Severn Tunnel and Swansea / Carmarthen.
M.
*e.g. I believe the Rhymney line is only to be electrified from just north of Queen Street to about Ystrad Mynach, with the line from there to Rhymney and "awkward" bits such as the Caerphilly Tunnel left as they are. The new trains on this line are to be "tri mode"; electric and battery most of the time with Diesel backup. So you'd still have a blackspot for a mile and a quarter under Caerphilly mountain
Do we have a scouse hack?
First time I’ve heard the West Coast Main Line described as the line which links Liverpool and London (That fine Merseyside city usually mentioned alongside Manchester and Glasgow). Also the focus on the very recently wired L&M.
Strange, considering the majority of Liverpool’s suburban railways are electrified using a 3rd rail, which are of no consequence to the plan.
Also, mobile connectivity on the railways is a bigger problem in areas like Northumberland, Cumbria and Dumfries-shire (all of which contain electrified High Speed mainlines), as opposed to the well populated and fairly continuously inhabited areas between Merseyside and Euston.
I can save the Government some of the £200,000.
The chances of working through technical issues, permissions and protocols for attaching any sort of equipment to the Overhead Line Equipment structures is naff all.
As part of the 25 Kv AC overhead line system the structures are also part of the traction 'Earth Return' path. Active electronics attached to them will require considerable protection from the high currents and impulse noise in the contact wire while trains pass through drawing potentially 200 odd amps.
Any power supply, for the BTS, will require considerable filtering and will itself have to be protected by, externally, becoming part of the return current system to prevent dangerous touch potentials. What about battery support? where will that be located? There is often little room in the railway corridor for more infrastructure. In many cases there are no general power supplies (as in domestic types) in the vicinity of the track anyway, providing those will add to costs. Tapping the OLE power could be an option - but at high cost and unreliability, as sections of OLE can be isolated for railway maintenance activities. (as a side note I don't think the Railways supply agreements for the use of OLE power allow them to use it for non operational purposes anyway) Solar cells and the like is even more infrastructure to go wrong (and be stolen).
Providing telecoms links to the units will offer similar complexities.
Then you have the matter of BTS maintenance. The Railway Electrical Engineers will most likely refuse access to the structures, to maintain the BTS equipment, unless under an isolation i.e. the OLE disconnected and earthed. You can't have some random Telco tech climbing ladders up the gantry to attend to a broken BTS. The permissions and protocols for work on OLE are onerous, and take time to arrange, but they need to as 25 Kv is unforgiving.
When there is a derailment the OLE tends to suffer significantly so any BTS will be wiped out.
Ask yourself why the Railways signal engineers do not save money and attach signals to the OLE? It is just far too problematic, even passive signs (speed limits, restricted clearances etc.) are, in most cases, considered a no no.
Then ask why Network Rail spent millions building new towers/rooms for the the GSM-R equipment if they could have just stuck it on the OLE gantry.
This has been talked about in many railways over many years and large scale implementations, to my knowledge, have never materialised. I'm aware of some limited implementation on some European lines for GSM-R but am not aware of any public BTS kit attached to OLE structures.
The report is thus simple;
No option for using existing railway operational infrastructure exists. Improvement of public wireless coverage in the railway corridor can only be effectively achieved by Telcos developing stand alone masts and infrastructure, preferably a safe distance from the railway safety zones. Some opportunity exists for sharing of existing railway buildings and apparatus rooms but it is not considered that this opportunity helps in many areas where existing coverage is poor. Improvements in wireless distribution, inside trains, can be made but these will only be successful if Telcos provide the necessary improvement in coverage and capacity to the areas along the rail corridors - much as they do for the motorway corridors.
(please remit £199,999.99)
Maybe they could use some of the comms infrastructure they have already... https://www.ft.com/content/173b6c06-f1da-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a
If they've worked out a way to give you a 3G signal all the way through the channel tunnel through leaky feeders, I can't see what's blocking progress here, apart from not wanting to spend any money!
4G in the underground looks like the cables are a lot smaller, but requires repeaters every 15km (which may not be practical). Alternatively, there was this earlier in the year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51652934. Combine it with 4G mobile masts at the doorway of tunnels (that the tech on the train can handover to) and you could get full coverage
Maybe the crappy latency will get people to reconsider how chatty some apps and websites need to be!
The problem there is that you'd need an satellite dish that would track on the satellite to a reasonably high level of accuracy since houses don't normally move at a hundred miles an hour.
Happily, these are already available for ships that pitch and roll and aircraft which travel at high speeds.
One imagines that one or the other solution would probably work off the shelf with OneWeb and frankly it's probably a cheaper and more readily deployable solution than adding hundreds of new mobile phone masts.
And the basic point here...
Only around a third of the UK's rail network is run using overhead line electrification. The balance isn't electrified because the revenue return doesn't justify the investment - same reason that a lot of that two thirds of the network has 20-30 year old trains running it - the crap "cascaded" when the electrified routes got shiny new electric or bi-mode trains.
So, a great piece of government BS where project BoJo can say it's doing some serious feasibility (not that serious for £200k) only to be amazed, and of course disappointed for the travelling public that the cost per mile to design, test and install the necessary kit isn't justified. I smell the foul stench of a Cummings "kill it" project!