Brighton Mainline 4G/5G upgrades

[Gigabit]

The plan was always for all 4 MNOs, I believe. There's sufficient infrastructure (4 sets of radio panels) in the planning docs for this.

View attachment 157028

I believe so but contractual agreements could be imposed to force them to join every site rather than a selection.

Thanks, you have been a font of knowledge on this.

Sorry for the slightly dumb questions but if one MNO has good coverage on a part of the route already, are they going to let other MNOs use the site under this scheme or will they build a new one? I understood one of the tunnels had a situation with good coverage on O2/VF but not EE and Three.

Additionally, I understood they planned to install infrastructure in the tunnels too and also some specialist solutions in the cuttings, do these also require planning permission?

I am also always curious what "good" coverage on a train is, is there a figure the MNOs will target to consider sufficient coverage?

Thanks!

 

[MrJeeves]

Thanks, you have been a font of knowledge on this.

Most of my knowledge comes from what others have taught me over years. I should be thanking them too!

Sorry for the slightly dumb questions but if one MNO has good coverage on a part of the route already, are they going to let other MNOs use the site under this scheme or will they build a new one? I understood one of the tunnels had a situation with good coverage on O2/VF but not EE and Three.

No plans for site sharing I'm aware of, other than the general agreements operators have.

The BML isn't quite bad enough to need a Shared Rural Network style solution being rolled out elsewhere. Much rather let private equity backed firms do it and then try to make it profitable.

Additionally, I understood they planned to install infrastructure in the tunnels too and also some specialist solutions in the cuttings, do these also require planning permission?

It depends... Stuff like the radio rooms may do, if they are going to require building modifications or new buildings like that one at Haywards Heath did.

The actual equipment, though, shouldn't need planning permission to add into tunnels and the like. That's all hidden away

I am also always curious what "good" coverage on a train is, is there a figure the MNOs will target to consider sufficient coverage?

Each network has their own coverage standards they try to meet.

I remember that Vodafone used to have their own minimum throughput for a "good 4G connection" which was something like 128 Kbps! That was a number of years ago now, and I'd like to think that's changed.

Some will use RSRP predictions (essentially the signal strength) while others will also throw in interference predictions (RSRQ/SINR) and others will throw in capacity/demand information too. Some networks pretend the entire country is completely flat, too, but I think that one might no longer apply as of a few weeks ago but I've forgotten now.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Whilst this is still being constructed, what's currently the best MNO for an average punter on the BML?

 

[MrJeeves]

Whilst this is still being constructed, what's currently the best MNO for an average punter on the BML?

No clear answer, really. I find O2, then Vodafone most reliable from end to end.

But EE shine more towards the southern end, post Haywards Heath as well as after East Croydon. They're terrible between Haywards Heath and Three Bridges though.

Three is just a laughing stock throughout, and I wouldn't recommend them unless you happen to live in an area well-covered by their 5G (which is actually the fastest in the country).

 

[Gigabit]

Most of my knowledge comes from what others have taught me over years. I should be thanking them too!

No plans for site sharing I'm aware of, other than the general agreements operators have.

The BML isn't quite bad enough to need a Shared Rural Network style solution being rolled out elsewhere. Much rather let private equity backed firms do it and then try to make it profitable.

It depends... Stuff like the radio rooms may do, if they are going to require building modifications or new buildings like that one at Haywards Heath did.

The actual equipment, though, shouldn't need planning permission to add into tunnels and the like. That's all hidden away

Each network has their own coverage standards they try to meet.

I remember that Vodafone used to have their own minimum throughput for a "good 4G connection" which was something like 128 Kbps! That was a number of years ago now, and I'd like to think that's changed.

Some will use RSRP predictions (essentially the signal strength) while others will also throw in interference predictions (RSRQ/SINR) and others will throw in capacity/demand information too. Some networks pretend the entire country is completely flat, too, but I think that one might no longer apply as of a few weeks ago but I've forgotten now.

Thanks again.

But I am still a bit confused how they will choose where to put the sites if there is no sharing of existing sites going on, is it just places where there is currently no coverage from any of the MNOs? I am struggling to see how that would provide coverage for every operator as there would presumably be places left where some cover but others don't?

There are some lines I use often which pass through areas of no coverage particularly on MOD land, which I assume have never been tackled for that reason. My hope would be that some day there can be a solution to those but I suspect it would require putting equipment on Network Rail's land.

 

[MrJeeves]

Thanks again.

But I am still a bit confused how they will choose where to put the sites if there is no sharing of existing sites going on, is it just places where there is currently no coverage from any of the MNOs? I am struggling to see how that would provide coverage for every operator as there would presumably be places left where some cover but others don't?

A great question which only Cellnex can answer. I assume it's planned for not spots for most operators (probably favouring Three). I'd imagine the main focus for Cellnex is the infrastructure inside tunnels, though, considering they'll likely have a monopoly on that for the BML.

There are some lines I use often which pass through areas of no coverage particularly on MOD land, which I assume have never been tackled for that reason. My hope would be that some day there can be a solution to those but I suspect it would require putting equipment on Network Rail's land.

Likely so.

 

[infobleep]

Thanks, you have been a font of knowledge on this.

Sorry for the slightly dumb questions but if one MNO has good coverage on a part of the route already, are they going to let other MNOs use the site under this scheme or will they build a new one? I understood one of the tunnels had a situation with good coverage on O2/VF but not EE and Three.

Additionally, I understood they planned to install infrastructure in the tunnels too and also some specialist solutions in the cuttings, do these also require planning permission?

I am also always curious what "good" coverage on a train is, is there a figure the MNOs will target to consider sufficient coverage?

Thanks!

What led to O2 having good coverage in the tunnels? It comes across as unusual for them to have good coverage. In Surbtion, where I am from time to time the coverage is poor to non-esitsnt and that isn't just on the railway but in the urban area.

 

[MrJeeves]

What led to O2 having good coverage in the tunnels? It comes across as unusual for them to have good coverage. In Surbtion, where I am from time to time the coverage is poor to non-esitsnt and that isn't just on the railway but in the urban area.

See Post 48: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/brighton-mainline-4g-5g-upgrades.243539/page-2#post-6415267

This is just one specific example of good tunnel coverage.

Ironically, EE have a similar setup, yet end up with terrible coverage. Potentially because of them only using 2 degrees of downtilting on the radio panels, meaning it's not really aimed towards the tunnel well enough to be effective.

 

[infobleep]

See Post 48: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/brighton-mainline-4g-5g-upgrades.243539/page-2#post-6415267

This is just one specific example of good tunnel coverage.

Ironically, EE have a similar setup, yet end up with terrible coverage. Potentially because of them only using 2 degrees of downtilting on the radio panels, meaning it's not really aimed towards the tunnel well enough to be effective.

View attachment 157056

Fascinating. I must have forgotten that post from Septemeber 2023.

 

[dastocks]

On my trip down that line last week, my train to Brighton didn't have any internet assess at all (Thameslink) despite attempting to connect to it. Fully working though when I returned, so puzzled as to why the former occured? Is it something to do with the train or the signal?

My general experience with the wi-fi on Thameslink is that it's piss-poor at best and frequently not working at all. I had a slightly weird experience the other day when a 'Great Northern' wi-fi popped up at Brighton, and it seemed to work. I think I was on a GX flavoured train.

 

[MrJeeves]

Don't quote me on this, but I think the site near Haywards Heath which I mentioned back in post 13 may be live now on EE?

There's a new site on CellMapper which I've mapped a few times over the last week but the location is a bit dodgy at the moment.

Wasn't the Cellnex site.

Another additional site effectively adjacent to Copyhold Jn (43018 in the image below):

 

[Gigabit]

Wasn't the Cellnex site.

Another additional site effectively adjacent to Copyhold Jn (43018 in the image below):

View attachment 157076

So this is a new site EE have built to improve coverage seperate to the main scheme?

Coverage doesn’t look too terrible on the map there, would red indicate unacceptable or would that be okay from the MNO point of view do we know?

 

[MrJeeves]

So this is a new site EE have built to improve coverage separate to the main scheme?

Coverage doesn’t look too terrible on the map there, would red indicate unacceptable or would that be okay from the MNO point of view do we know?

Yeah, new site separate to the Cellnex scheme.

The colour just represents signal strength (RSRP), and nothing about usability. This area has always had a lack of usable internet on EE for me, so it's a welcome change (even if I've not noticed any immediate improvements because I didn't know where/when to look!)

Worth remembering that the coverage stretches well beyond the range of the railway line, too. The polygons in the image below detail where signal has been recorded through the Cellmapper Android app from this particular site (almost all of the data from me I think ).



The colour scale is below, but I'd personally say anything red would be unacceptable for a major railway line. The coloured pixels on the Cellmapper map represent the highest signal level ever recorded in that specific location.

 

[Gigabit]

Yeah, new site separate to the Cellnex scheme.

The colour just represents signal strength (RSRP), and nothing about usability. This area has always had a lack of usable internet on EE for me, so it's a welcome change (even if I've not noticed any immediate improvements because I didn't know where/when to look!)

Worth remembering that the coverage stretches well beyond the range of the railway line, too. The polygons in the image below detail where signal has been recorded through the Cellmapper Android app from this particular site (almost all of the data from me I think ).

View attachment 157128

The colour scale is below, but I'd personally say anything red would be unacceptable for a major railway line. The coloured pixels on the Cellmapper map represent the highest signal level ever recorded in that specific location.

View attachment 157129

So has the map just not updated yet as looks like a bit of red even around the new site?

I would be interested to know what Cellnex will be targeting for their sites in order to achieve the "uninterrupted" promise, whatever that means.

It looks like even in this area there would be a lot more sites needed?

Also @MrJeeves I think I've found your site: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0221176,-0.1081219,39m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.

 

[MrJeeves]

So has the map just not updated yet as looks like a bit of red even around the new site?

Or my phone's GPS didn't record in the same exact location as that red. Or (as the app can only record, say, one data point every second) it didn't record a data point exactly as I passed over that point.

But yes, the maps generally update every week or two compared to the actual data which updates almost instantly when uploaded by members with a premium (CAD$3/mth) subscription.

Also @MrJeeves I think I've found your site: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.0221176,-0.1081219,39m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.

Yep, that's the one

I found it through the Mid Sussex planning portal map (it's not got an application, but does have a property marked on the map).

 

[MrJeeves]

Turns out that the joint operator technical specification for rail coverage released back in February. It gives some indications on how trackside infrastructure will look like.

Yagi/log periodic antennas at tunnel portals:







Leaky feeders through tunnels:




It's also got various interesting plots of GSM-R coverage across the rail network.

Orange line is the percentage of GSM-R sites at that specific height (scale on right) and blue is the cumulative distribution curve of the same data:


Distance between GSM-R sites:



Exeter to Penzance GSM-R signal measurements (badly compressed):



Thameslink core signal propogation loss as measured on a 377 (supposedly, but I assume it was actually a 387/700 unless this is really old data -- don't think 377s have really gone through TL since the 700s were delivered):



And also dual-track and single-track tunnel length cumulative frequency diagrams, too:

 

[Gigabit]

Heh, that's quite cool and they look smaller than I thought they would. Do these provide better coverage than just sticking a traditional mast next to the line?

 

[MrJeeves]

Do these provide better coverage than just sticking a traditional mast next to the line?

The in-tunnel stuff, definitely.

Other stuff not much difference, but the benefit on Network Rail agreeing this makes it easier to roll out than trying to negotiate rent with private landlords, etc.

 

[Gigabit]

The in-tunnel stuff, definitely.

Other stuff not much difference, but the benefit on Network Rail agreeing this makes it easier to roll out than trying to negotiate rent with private landlords, etc.

So is this just for the Brighton Mainline or is the idea they're going to start erecting sites across the network?

 

[MrJeeves]

So is this just for the Brighton Mainline or is the idea they're going to start erecting sites across the network?

This is just a generic document for the entirety of the Network Rail managed infrastructure

 

[Gigabit]

This is just a generic document for the entirety of the Network Rail managed infrastructure

What does

Network Rail managed infrastructure

mean? Is the idea they'll allow MNOs to use their masts, is that what these examples would be? I am struggling to understand the context.

 

[MrJeeves]

Is the idea they'll allow MNOs to use their masts, is that what these examples would be?

Yep! Shared infrastructure for all 4 networks, plus Network Rail GSM-R

 

[Gigabit]

Yep! Shared infrastructure for all 4 networks, plus Network Rail GSM-R

When do you think this might actually start to happen? Certainly seems like the best way to get the coverage up to where it should be, as I assume Network Rail already cover most of the network, including in areas the MNOs cannot reach (e.g. MOD land etc.)

 

[MrJeeves]

Planning application for a new monopole site from Cellnex in the south of Haywards Heath was approved by Mid Sussex last month (ref DM/24/1513).

https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=SF9Y5CKT07E00

This site appears to be located just south of the Ashenground Road bridge over the railway line, on the western side of the line.

This planning app also contains drawings of the "generic DAS" setup Cellnex have planned (attached). I'm not particularly sure what relevance this holds, since the application was for an 8.1m high monopole site with four antennas and nothing to do with a DAS solution.

 

[stuving]

This planning app also contains drawings of the "generic DAS" setup Cellnex have planned (attached). I'm not particularly sure what relevance this holds, since the application was for an 8.1m high monopole site with four antennas and nothing to do with a DAS solution.

Cellnex do describe this as a "DAS base station", in place of the "macro-level base station" proposed earlier. I can't work out exactly what they are basing that distinction on, but I think it's about "cell" size (coverage is one-dimensional). They are not duplicating existing MNO coverage of the areas outside stations where that works inside trains, just filling in gaps caused by cuttings, bridges, and tunnels. Here they seem to have found the gap is small enough they don't need the antennas and mast of a macrocell, and this single-point DAS-on-a-pole is cheaper.

 

[MrJeeves]

Cellnex do describe this as a "DAS base station", in place of the "macro-level base station" proposed earlier. I can't work out exactly what they are basing that distinction on, but I think it's about "cell" size (coverage is one-dimensional). They are not duplicating existing MNO coverage of the areas outside stations where that works inside trains, just filling in gaps caused by cuttings, bridges, and tunnels. Here they seem to have found the gap is small enough they don't need the antennas and mast of a macrocell, and this single-point DAS-on-a-pole is cheaper.

I'm more confused about the fact that the diagram illustrates it being trackside as far as I can tell, and being only 6.6m tall, while the application is for a location that is not trackside and mentions 8.1m!

To me, DAS suggests that the radio equipment and baseband is elsewhere (potentially in the new radio room on Network Rail land near Haywards Heath station) and this is just a "dumb" head node that spews out whatever its told rather than having any kind of networking equipment itself, which would make sense.

The area isn't in that deep of a cutting, and I personally haven't ever really had any connectivity issues here (lest we start discussing Balcombe or the Redhill/Quarry Tunnels!), but anything is a nice addition I suppose!



I can't see the prior application you were referring to though, except one from December 2003!

 

[stuving]

I'm more confused about the fact that the diagram illustrates it being trackside as far as I can tell, and being only 6.6m tall, while the application is for a location that is not trackside and mentions 8.1m!

The drawing shows the mast as 1250+6630+230=8110 high in all! But you need to read the 13-page submission "letter" for DM/24/1513 to get all the details. The 20-25m mast was I think one of four options proposed within Cellnex, but rejected before they went to planning.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

(lest we start discussing Balcombe

that’s odd; I find Balcombe Tunnel to be the best bit on the entire line for connectivity! the worst is the entire section from Balcombe Tunnel Jn to the northern portal of the Quarry Tunnel (excl Gatwick station itself)

 

[MrJeeves]

The drawing shows the mast as 1250+6630+230=8110 high in all!

Ah... yes I missed the wider section at the bottom at first!

But you need to read the 13-page submission "letter" for DM/24/1513 to get all the details. The 20-25m mast was I think one of four options proposed within Cellnex, but rejected before they went to planning.

From reading the text on page 3, it seems the planning authority were fine with it, but there is actually no need for it upon further evaluation of existing coverage

In this case, the development proposed will provide coverage to a stretch of the railway line as it runs through the south of Haywards Heath. Pre-application engagement for the options to provide coverage to this stretch of the railway line was undertaken in June 2022 and a response provided on 21 July 2022 under case reference DM/22/1865. At that time, it was envisaged that we would need to deploy a 20-25m high lattice mast to provide macro coverage to this stretch railway line (ascribed reference S5_10 in our radio plan) with the preferred option being located further to the south at OS Grid Reference 532631,122741 on the edge of Ashenground and Bolnore Woods, and the application site identified as the back-up candidate. In summary, the advice received was that both options were likely to be acceptable, subject to the need to take account of Natural England’s guidance in relation to development near Ancient Woodland, but the siting proposed at Ashenground and Bolnore Woods was favoured due to the lesser visual impact of a 20-25m high mast there in views from Ashenground Bridge.

Since that engagement, we have further reviewed the extent of radio signals being provided by the Mobile Network Operators (“MNOs”) and this has confirmed that an acceptable degree of coverage can now be provided by antennas installed on the 8.1m high pole now proposed rather than the 20-25m high lattice mast originally required. Furthermore, the application site has been chosen as this is a better fit with the MNOs current coverage and it will avoid the impacts on open space and ecology/woodland habitats that would be required to develop trackway to provide construction and maintenance access, as well as a permanent power supply, to the originally preferred location at Ashenground and Bolnore Woods.

There's also some other interesting extracts from that document too:

DAS installations to provide very localised coverage to sections of the railway that are not provided with coverage from the MNOs existing base stations and will not be reached by radio signals from the macrolevel base stations being developed by Cellnex. This will typically involve coverage to railway cuttings, within and near tunnels, and to some stretches of the railway elsewhere. We expect that 19 DAS systems will be required based upon the current radio plan, along with the installation of antennas and other apparatus providing improved indoor coverage at London Victoria, London Bridge, and Clapham Junction Railway Stations. The DAS systems providing coverage outside these three railway stations involve 8-10m high slimline monopole masts with attached antennas and an equipment cabinet installed on Network Rail land immediately alongside the railway line. The application before you is for one of these DAS base stations.

Our agreement with Network Rail requires specified connectivity rates of 100Mb/second per train. To achieve this, the proposed macro-level base stations will provide fourth-generation (4G) services for all MNOs where required with sufficient structural and other capacity to host 5G equipment to ensure that they are future-proofed. By contrast, the DAS systems masts will deliver 4G coverage but cannot be upgraded to provide 5G.

I'm not sure why they say they cannot be upgraded to provide 5G... 5G functions on effectively all the same spectrum as 4G, and most of the networks would probably only want low or mid-band 5G for this anyway because high-band like n78 3400-3800 MHz would cover such a small area.

This image also confirms it is on the embankment rather than actually trackside, and within the Network Rail abandoned unused land next to the bridge.

that’s odd; I find Balcombe Tunnel to be the best bit on the entire line for connectivity! the worst is the entire section from Balcombe Tunnel Jn to the northern portal of the Quarry Tunnel (excl Gatwick station itself)

It's very much network dependent, and I think I've discussed this on here before. Balcombe Tunnel is actually well-served by sites from both O2/Vodafone (this is actually the host network divide for the south of England, where O2 control sites on the BML south of Balcombe Tunnel and Vodafone handle north of the tunnel).



Likewise, EE has sites at either end of the tunnel too (shared with Three to some extent)



My issue comes with the coverage between Copyhold Jn and the approach into Balcombe station, which I find dire on EE. Three is absolute trash generally, while O2 typically works but is slow because it's O2. Vodafone is alright because they share basically the same sites and spectrum as O2, while having many fewer customers!

Here's some signal strength (RSRP) plots I've collected on EE for both the stretch between Copyhold Jn and the approach to Three Bridges, as well as the section just before and after the Quarry/Merstham Tunnel. Generally, I find it can take a good 45s to reconnect to the network post-Quarry Tunnel heading north, and the reason is quite clear from the signal strength indicated on the map.

The stretch around Balcombe and into Three Bridges is also just suffering from poor coverage due to the cutting the track sits in as well as the sector configuration of nearby sites meaning that there is basically no site that points at the railway on EE between the footpath over the railway just south of the M23 until you're sat in/slowing down into Three Bridges.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

NR installing fibre optic cables at Haywards Heath across 8 nights later this month