Why is Wi-Fi limited and so poor?

[James H]

Seems like the DfT wants to cut costs by removing passenger wifi, according to Christian Wolmar's latest podcast

https://markwalkerg.podbean.com/e/calling-all-stations-with-christian-wolmar-episode-17/

SCOOP! Calling All Stations brings news that the UK Department for Transport is trying to switch off passenger wifi on the train services it controls in Great Britain. Christian Wolmar has the exclusive as our top story.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Makes sense. It's a waste of money providing bad wifi. Either a significant investment needs to go into making it a proper broadband service with a dedicated network of masts following the line, or get rid of it.

The cost of a data SIM card per vehicle must add up.

TBH I think wifi will go the way of the Rabbit phone anyway, increasingly people who need data on the move have a data contract of some kind, and the thing most people want to use it for - streaming films and similar - doesn't work on a low bandwidth connection.

 

[hacman]

Makes sense. It's a waste of money providing bad wifi. Either a significant investment needs to go into making it a proper broadband service with a dedicated network of masts following the line, or get rid of it.

The cost of a data SIM card per vehicle must add up.

TBH I think wifi will go the way of the Rabbit phone anyway, increasingly people who need data on the move have a data contract of some kind, and the thing most people want to use it for - streaming films and similar - doesn't work on a low bandwidth connection.

To be honest a dedicated network of masts isn't the way forward for this. It's been tried in some locations, and always works out to be the solution with the highest TCO.

The solution is working with the cellular operators to improve coverage on the rail network (which will also boost surrounding areas), and this will help fix the issues with WiFi and also provide better mobile data connections for passengers who choose to use their own plans.

I suspect we won't see it removed entirely in the end, and instead see a return to different tiers of service with a paid/premium option for those wishing to do more than just casually browse the web and check e-mail.

Personally I don't see the issue with charging for this outside of first class, as it's ultimately an add-on that not every passenger will wish to take.

 

[Skie]

TBH I think wifi will go the way of the Rabbit phone anyway, increasingly people who need data on the move have a data contract of some kind, and the thing most people want to use it for - streaming films and similar - doesn't work on a low bandwidth connection.

Which is fine on overground commuter networks, but on intercity high speed services that pass through the arse end of nowhere or lines with underground sections it’s not really an alternative. Then some trains are notoriously bad for mobile signal even in a built up area.

 

[islandmonkey]

I agree that if it is a lot of money it either needs to get good or get gone.

Or money needs to be spent on making mobile networks work better on trains. Eastleigh to Basingstoke there is terrible mobile service on the SWML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest a dedicated network of masts isn't the way forward for this. It's been tried in some locations, and always works out to be the solution with the highest TCO.

The solution is working with the cellular operators to improve coverage on the rail network (which will also boost surrounding areas), and this will help fix the issues with WiFi and also provide better mobile data connections for passengers who choose to use their own plans.

The problem is that a box with a SIM card in it on the roof doesn't provide adequate bandwidth for the main use case - streaming video and audio. You need a true broadband solution which can handle maybe 20-30% of people in a coach streaming video. The easiest form of which is probably indeed just to work with operators to ensure high 5G coverage and people just to use their own kit and contracts, as is likely to be the trend anyway.

I suspect we won't see it removed entirely in the end, and instead see a return to different tiers of service with a paid/premium option for those wishing to do more than just casually browse the web and check e-mail.

Personally I don't see the issue with charging for this outside of first class, as it's ultimately an add-on that not every passenger will wish to take.

I'm fine with charging for it BUT it needs to be really high quality and high bandwidth if a charge is being applied. It's likely to be very expensive to get there.

As things stand it's only really useful for kids mucking about with a Web browser on a cheap tablet, and you can tether that to your phone for that use-case.

Which is fine on overground commuter networks, but on intercity high speed services that pass through the arse end of nowhere or lines with underground sections it’s not really an alternative. Then some trains are notoriously bad for mobile signal even in a built up area.

While an aerial on the roof helps a bit, on-train wifi is just a box with a SIM card in it, so if your phone has poor coverage so does the on-train wifi.

(Unless you're on Three, in which case the answer is to leave Three - they are cheap for a reason - their extra-urban coverage is atrocious)

 

[Bigfoot]

There is a lot of rail 5g kit being installed on the swml currently.

 

[hacman]

The problem is that a box with a SIM card in it on the roof doesn't provide adequate bandwidth for the main use case - streaming video and audio. You need a true broadband solution which can handle maybe 20-30% of people in a coach streaming video. The easiest form of which is probably indeed just to work with operators to ensure high 5G coverage and people just to use their own kit and contracts, as is likely to be the trend anyway.

While an aerial on the roof helps a bit, on-train wifi is just a box with a SIM card in it, so if your phone has poor coverage so does the on-train wifi.

(Unless you're on Three, in which case the answer is to leave Three - they are cheap for a reason - their extra-urban coverage is atrocious)

Except the box (not on the roof - only the antenna is up there) can and in some cases does provide adiquate bandwidth for these things.

Train WiFi isn't "just" a single SIM in a small router, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. And it IS a "broadband solution". The onboard WiFi antenna has a gain that is orders of magnitude higher than that of a consumer device, and the antenna is outside the body of the train which is essentially a giant Faraday cage. Some installations also have noise filters and amplifiers too, which also contributes greatly.

The issue comes from the fact that operating this costs money, and TOCs have a finite amount of money they can dedicate to WiFi and other things that come under the umbrella of "passenger experience".

Having a trackside network of masts providing connectivity with some technology that isn't GSM costs an utterly insane amount of money, even compared to boosting cellular capacity. And in the vast majority of cases the technical outcome is worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except the box (not on the roof - only the antenna is up there) can and in some cases does provide adiquate bandwidth for these things.

I have never, ever experienced on-train wifi providing better connectivity or bandwidth than using the data connection on my iPad (which to be fair generally gets a better connection than my phone because the aerial is bigger - put up in the overhead luggage rack of a Voyager or Pendolino I can happily work all the way from MKC to Edinburgh via Birmingham other than the short bit over Shap with a good connection the whole way).

Avanti's is particularly useless.

I'd be interested to know usage stats. If only a tiny proportion of passengers are using it, given the considerable cost, it would strike me as not being worthwhile. Not having it won't prevent people from going by train. Any business user who has a laptop will also have a phone with a data contract (some companies now require that you don't use public wifi for security* reasons anyway), and you can always download films for the kids. Certainly if things need to be cut it (alongside catering) seems to be very low-hanging fruit.

* Slightly false ones, as a VPN is secure whatever you run it through, but that doesn't stop the ban existing.

 

[hacman]

I have never, ever experienced on-train wifi providing better connectivity or bandwidth than using the data connection on my iPad (which to be fair generally gets a better connection than my phone because the aerial is bigger - put up in the overhead luggage rack of a Voyager or Pendolino I can happily work all the way from MKC to Edinburgh via Birmingham other than the short bit over Shap with a good connection the whole way).

Avanti's is particularly useless.

The WCML fleet in particular is bad. That I will agree with. And again the issue was VTWC not wanting to spend money to sort it out. I’m sure Avanti are not doing much better in that regard.

However your experience is not universal, and there are many people who use train WiFi happily daily, and some systems both here and abroad that deliver a vastly better experience to what is commonly seen.

 

[Energy]

Train WiFi isn't "just" a single SIM in a small router, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. And it IS a "broadband solution". The onboard WiFi antenna has a gain that is orders of magnitude higher than that of a consumer device, and the antenna is outside the body of the train which is essentially a giant Faraday cage. Some installations also have noise filters and amplifiers too, which also contributes greatly.

You can get a lot of bandwidth over mobile. 150-180mbps is achievable on 4G with good hardware (much stronger than what is in your phone) with 5G hitting 3-4x that. Mobile coverage is the bigger issue.

Not sure what it is about Chiltern but I always struggled to get pass the captive portal a few years ago. I suspect chiltern weren't locally hosting it.

 

[Peter0124]

I would rather stronger 4G/5G data signals on the mainlines than WiFi.

Lancaster station was a blackspot for me on EE when we were held there for 50 minutes. Maybe its a Pendolino thing though.

I got good signal in the Merseyrail Wirral line stations despite them being 20m below street level.

 

[hacman]

You can get a lot of bandwidth over mobile. 150-180mbps is achievable on 4G with good hardware (much stronger than what is in your phone) with 5G hitting 3-4x that. Mobile coverage is the bigger issue.

Not sure what it is about Chiltern but I always struggled to get pass the captive portal a few years ago. I suspect chiltern weren't locally hosting it.

Indeed. Even 7-8 years ago we were performing tests with configurations that were providing gigabit speeds to trains, and it was only using LTE at the time!

The captive portal experience seems to be universally crap, which absolutely lets the whole thing down.

Sadly phone manufacturers don’t make life easy in this regard.

 

[Energy]

The captive portal experience seems to be universally crap, which absolutely lets the whole thing down.

Sadly phone manufacturers don’t make life easy in this regard.

Captive portals are universally bad though a necessary evil due to terms and conditions.

 

[Skie]

While an aerial on the roof helps a bit, on-train wifi is just a box with a SIM card in it, so if your phone has poor coverage so does the on-train wifi.

But the antenna isn’t in the faraday cage, unlike the passengers phone! I invested in a suction cup to hold a mifi device against the glass on 390s that made a massive difference. Though weaver junction is still a complete dead zone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the antenna isn’t in the faraday cage, unlike the passengers phone! I invested in a suction cup to hold a mifi device against the glass on 390s that made a massive difference. Though weaver junction is still a complete dead zone.

A train body with windows isn't really a Faraday cage, though ones with metallic window tints (Voyagers!) come close. I don't have a problem in Pendolinos, I'd suggest a better device!

 

[Annetts key]

A train body with windows isn't really a Faraday cage

No, but depending on the position of your device and the position of the transponder mast, it may attenuate the signal. Or result in an intermittent signal. And passengers can’t always sit in a good position in the train.

With radio frequency signals in the bands used by mobile communications, having an antenna on top of the train is always going to be better than having an antenna inside the train.

But yes, there are many problems with the WiFi. And certainly some trains are better than others.

 

[nr758123]

Would the removal of train wi-fi also affect the ability to display tickets on mobile phone apps, and to use phone apps to track whether your connecting train is running on time or cancelled. I travel on Transpennine Express, so being able to track whether or not my connecting train is running or cancelled is quite important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would the removal of train wi-fi also affect the ability to display tickets on mobile phone apps

No, because they are downloaded on purchase.

and to use phone apps to track whether your connecting train is running on time or cancelled. I travel on Transpennine Express, so being able to track whether or not my connecting train is running or cancelled is quite important.

Only if you don't have any data on your phone. And if you don't, get some. It's cheap these days, and the amount you use to display train running information is negligibly low, so if that's all you do the lowest amount per month will do you fine, if indeed contracts without a data allowance at all even exist now.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Im a Thameslink user and half the trains have never had wifi fitted anyhow and it soon became evident that the phone works better over most of the route anyhow. When i used WiFi for the laptop it rapidly degraded when the train filled up but given even cheap sim only tariffs give you plenty of data now most people don't bother with it so if its a hefty expense then doing away with it seems sensible.

 

[jfollows]

I have never, ever experienced on-train wifi providing better connectivity or bandwidth than using the data connection on my iPad (which to be fair generally gets a better connection than my phone because the aerial is bigger - put up in the overhead luggage rack of a Voyager or Pendolino I can happily work all the way from MKC to Edinburgh via Birmingham other than the short bit over Shap with a good connection the whole way).

Avanti's is particularly useless.

I'd be interested to know usage stats. If only a tiny proportion of passengers are using it, given the considerable cost, it would strike me as not being worthwhile. Not having it won't prevent people from going by train. Any business user who has a laptop will also have a phone with a data contract (some companies now require that you don't use public wifi for security* reasons anyway), and you can always download films for the kids. Certainly if things need to be cut it (alongside catering) seems to be very low-hanging fruit.

* Slightly false ones, as a VPN is secure whatever you run it through, but that doesn't stop the ban existing.

I've had the same experience - iPhone in pocket of jacket on the luggage rack, iPad on the table in front of me, EE network, worked better than the Avanti wi-fi on the WCML down to Crewe.
The Guardian reports the story today also (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...england-could-lose-wifi-access-amid-cost-cuts):

Rail industry

Rail passengers in England could lose wifi access amid cost cuts​

DfT tells operators wifi is low priority for travellers and they need to justify business case for it

Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent
@GwynTopham
Mon 22 May 2023 13.08 BST
Train passengers face losing access to wifi after the government told rail companies to stop providing the service unless they can demonstrate its business case.
The move is being pushed by the Department for Transport (DfT) in order to cut costs as it looks to “reform all aspects of the railway”.

Most British train services now provide free wifi as standard but the DfT has told its contracted operators in England that they should cease offering it if they cannot justify it financially.
The department said it was looking for “value for money” and wifi was low on passenger’s priorities, particularly on shorter journeys.

The drive was questioned by passenger groups and industry figures who said the railway should be continuing to do all it could to attract people back, with peak commuter numbers still significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels.
Christian Wolmar, who revealed the proposals on the Calling All Stations podcast, said it was a “ridiculous measure”, adding: “The DfT actually wants to reduce the quality of the train service by saying to passengers: sorry, you can’t access wifi.
“It’s all about saving money. But we’re trying to attract commuters back on to the railway, and people like to get on their phone or laptops.
“They’re going backwards. My view is that wifi is as essential as toilets now – people expect to be connected.”
Bruce Williamson from the passenger campaign group Railfuture said: “One of the great things about travelling by train is that you can work or watch a video or listen to a podcast – and wifi is pretty essential for that.
“We should be encouraging passengers to get back on the trains and this is a good example of a move that is going to make rail less attractive.”
A DfT spokesperson said: “Our railways are currently not financially sustainable, and it is unfair to continue asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which is why reform of all aspects of the railways is essential.

For me, it's a solution looking for a problem. Ten or more years ago it was good to have. Today, I don't care. However removing it for reasons of saving money might not be wise anyway, if it puts off a percentage of people from travelling that's the last thing that we should want to see at the moment.

 

[Goldfish62]

Makes sense. It's a waste of money providing bad wifi. Either a significant investment needs to go into making it a proper broadband service with a dedicated network of masts following the line, or get rid of it.

The cost of a data SIM card per vehicle must add up.

TBH I think wifi will go the way of the Rabbit phone anyway, increasingly people who need data on the move have a data contract of some kind, and the thing most people want to use it for - streaming films and similar - doesn't work on a low bandwidth connection.

You're assuming there's a good mobile signal everywhere.

I rely on the train WiFi on my work-related journeys on the Waterloo - Reading line due to there being several mobile signal blackspots.

There's also of course the message that such petty cost cutting sends in that the railway is gradually being run down and passengers are just a nuisance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're assuming there's a good mobile signal everywhere.

I rely on the train WiFi on my work-related journeys on the Waterloo - Reading line due to there being several mobile signal blackspots.

The railway could and should work with the mobile networks to ensure good quality coverage, e.g. by allowing networks to put masts on spare railway land at low cost.

There's also of course the message that such petty cost cutting sends in that the railway is gradually being run down and passengers are just a nuisance.

This is true, but we are where we are, and if wifi is costing a lot and it's a choice between that and reducing train lengths the wifi can go any day. I bet the vast majority of people don't use it anyway (I would love to know figures).

 

[Alex C.]

I’ve started using the wifi much more on SWR recently - on the Portsmouth Direct I can get decent wifi about 75% of the route, on o2 that’s probably about 25%.

Definite improvement in speed over the last few years as well (and I have streamed stuff without a problem)

 

[Parjon]

Regulation of mobile signal repeaters has been significantly loosened recently. These use an external antenna to relay signal and retransmit it indoors.

Fitting these would be cheaper than providing WiFi, and mean people can use their own data more reliably.

 

[Couru]

BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65673622

In my experience, there are three reasons people are using mobile data over WiFi:
- Train WiFi being less reliable/slower
- Lack of advertising
- Clunky connection method (authentication via captive portal is just bad)

All of this could be fixed with investment, since as the article says it hasn't been updated since 2015. I imagine the amount of money spent on WiFi provision is utterly paltry compared to the overall costs of the network; would this really save that much money when staff use the WiFi anyway?

 

[sor]

I have to admit I normally use my own connection for the aforementioned reasons - even if it's working it tends to be slow, and they are probably artificially limiting certain services too. It could be a lot better than it is, and I'm of the view that it should be retained and modernised to make it fit for purpose, as not everyone has a data plan (or at least one that would work adequately for tethering) and it would be a draw away from the car. Especially if you're on there for a few hours.

Perhaps an avenue for partially UK govt owned OneWeb - avoids the issues of rolling out new masts (which would likely be mired in planning permission hell, even if the mobile operators would jump at it) and can provide coverage everywhere. You would imagine the rail industry is a big enough customer for either satellite or mobile - the service costs should not be that large (though as with everything pre-GBR, perhaps the fragmentation adds costs and reduces the economy of scale)

 

[Peter0124]

Not only that but you can watch youtube on the train using your own data and hotspot onto laptops etc (provided it's over around 50GB).

The downside is the WCML signal reception being poor. So I generally just download videos anyway.

Would be good if signal reception was improved. HS1 despite being deep below London, has almost perfect signal.

 

[AdamWW]

While an aerial on the roof helps a bit, on-train wifi is just a box with a SIM card in it, so if your phone has poor coverage so does the on-train wifi.

I take it they no longer use satellite down-links then.

Of course the coverage will depend on the network, so regardless of aerial placing wifi may be better than someone's phone - particularly if the train system uses multiple SIMs to access different networks.

I get a better connection on my commute with the train wifi when it's working than I do on my phone.

Perhaps an avenue for partially UK govt owned OneWeb - avoids the issues of rolling out new masts (which would likely be mired in planning permission hell, even if the mobile operators would jump at it) and can provide coverage everywhere. You would imagine the rail industry is a big enough customer for either satellite or mobile - the service costs should not be that large (though as with everything pre-GBR, perhaps the fragmentation adds costs and reduces the economy of scale)

I think Brightline (private US train operator) is planning on using Starlink for high speed on-train wifi.

 

[Goldfish62]

I’ve started using the wifi much more on SWR recently - on the Portsmouth Direct I can get decent wifi about 75% of the route, on o2 that’s probably about 25%.

Definite improvement in speed over the last few years as well (and I have streamed stuff without a problem)

Yes, it was upgraded a year or two ago and I find it very reliable. Certainly far more than trying to get a mobile signal.