Edinburgh to Glasgow - lack of WiFi, help needed

[DarloRich]

As above, I suspect it is an error and should be 8 units and is in fact referring to the 8 units which do not have First Class fitted
The consultation clearly only refers to Class 170 units fitted with First Class and operate on the "ScotRail Express routes"
There would be little benefit (and some cost savings) in fitting WiFi to these other (6 or 8) specific Class 170 units as they normally operate Glasgow - Alloa, Edinburgh - Dunblane, Fife Circle, and on completion of EGIP these units are likely to be redeployed to Glasgow South
The remaining units are likely to remain on "ScotRail Express" duties plus allowing cascade of other DMUs across the fleet

Equally, the money available from Transport Scotland within the current franchise for this was £0 but ScotRail were encouraged to roll it out at their cost (50% of the consultation cost was met by Transport Scotland)
However, I suspect this cost will be met by Transport Scotland during the next franchise, but there will be little point as the EGIP rolling stock will more than likely have this specified
This would mean no WiFi until at least 2016, which is quite shocking really and probably by then T-mobile will have filled most of the gaps along the route (from now knowing where the poor reception areas are)

But are the units dedicated ONLY to this route or service? If not, how can you prevent them turning up elsewhere?

 

[First class]

The Caledonian Sleepers should be focused on also:

1) No Wifi (coverage not available a lot of the way) but;
2) Power sockets, 2 or 3 in a lounge car, but none in berths.

I would have thought power sockets would now be common in all rolling stock, especially one you can be on for nearly 12 hours!

 

[Butts]

To be honest, I think this thread brings me to mind of modern day Britain.

Is wifi on a 40-odd minute journey really THAT important?
Can people not just rely on the 3g etc from their mobile provider for the duration of the journey?
What tasks that require access to the net could a businessman or woman realistically do in the journey time?

It just shows how much reliance (or misplaced importance placed in) there is in this country on the virtual world, rather than the real world.
There's some great scenery on the lines between Edinburgh and Glasgow (OK, and some really awful views too) so why not appreciate them, step away from the rat race for a while.

I totally agree... whatever happened to reading a book or a newspaper

Luddite about

Was that journalist from The Sunday Sport - their coverage is quite bare or non-existent at times

 

[185]

I dont mean to be rude but you have ten times the amount of radiation leak from chernobyl, still emitting from fukashima in japan, You have an earth core and crust prone to huge earthquakes at any given moment. And you have millions suffering from poverty. Is a headline on scotrail`s wifi, or lack off, so neccessary?

hardly the end of the world

lolol bye buggles

 

[bluenoxid]

The journalist was asking a reasonable question about WiFi. It is a significant issue and you can get a lot done in 40 minutes. I do wonder what some people on this forum are doing as part of their jobs, because a High Speed Internet Connection, even on the shortest of journeys can allow me to tackle my ever mounting inbox.

The shame is that you have just pushed away another potential opportunity to influence a story and future stories as they are produced because it is full of theatrics who have already made up their mind.

When is public flogging of Snapper going to start. Are we going after Mr Webb?

 

[tbtc]

Hello everyone,

I'm a journalist doing a story about WiFi (or the lack of therein) on ScotRail's trains for a national Sunday newspaper in Scotland, specifically, on the Edinburgh to Glasgow 'flagship' route. The story is written but I need a couple of case studies (I have one, so need just one more) from people who travel on that service regularly and who would be described or self-describe as 'businesspeople' - i.e. someone who might use their computer/iPad/smartphone more on the train if they could get decent data speeds.

If anyone fits this bill and would like to be in the paper, please could you contact me ASAP.

Thanks,

John

The journalist was asking a reasonable question about WiFi

I agree with you bluenoxid.

It was a simple question and there may well have been someone on here who could have helped. Since then we've seen a classic example of how a thread can drift and how not to deal with criticism. The "only six units" comment being a great example of how to distract from a sensible point...

 

[rail-britain]

The journalist was asking a reasonable question about WiFi. It is a significant issue and you can get a lot done in 40 minutes

My main issue (complaint) is the lack of WiFi on the other "ScotRail Express" routes, in general East Coast (and eventually Cross Country) offer WiFi on their services
Between Edinburgh and Aberdeen I normally travel East Coast (to take advantage of their WiFi), but when travelling ScotRail I have to use my 3 dongle and can only perform specific tasks for short periods due to poor reception

 

[magpie]

Hi everyone.

I made contact with a transport planning gentleman (trains, planes and automobiles) this morning after posting on the scot-rail forum who commutes daily on the EDI QST service. He's my second case study and that marks 100% of respondents in favour of WiFi on ScotRail.

However, reading this thread has been mighty informative, especially with regard to the comments of rail-britain, which have been most helpful in terms of (a small number of!) corrections.

One question remains. Thalys in B/NL/F/D uses (predominantly) a satellite connection, as does EC's WiFi (less so) but no-one has mentioned this as a possibility for SR's hypothetical service. Why?

Thanks for all your help. Even the insults have been amusing!

 

[Marklund]

Deleted

 

[cj_1985]

lets be fair here....
now forgetting about cost of installing equitment and power sockets on a 170...
and forgetting about the extra transmitters or similar equitment that would be required along the route in partnership with the mobile provider and NR...

how many people on here have traveled on a 170 or even a 158 on a peak time service... you can hardly get on board never mind a seat, or space to whip out your laptop, ipod/ipad or whatever else if your stood...

fair enough it is something that will be expected by passengers in years to come... (and now)...
and some routes will require it, while others... maybe not as important...

but at the moment the main route in question has has already been explained) is to be electrified.. which will most likely help cut travel time, require new units which can be fitted with the equitment when built (as explained)

for the time being there are far more important things for TS and ScotRail to focus on...

wifi- would be nice, but not essential
providing faster journeys, and more seats - essential based on current and future passenger levels


and having used wifi on a few train journeys... (not in 1st class) .. cost a lot more for basic access to the net.
and all those journeys have been several hours long... not 30-45 minutes

i do commend the OP for his views and concerns... but its not really worth printing in a newspaper.. with (what i consider the ultimate intention) the intention to paint the railways in a bad light...

 

[rail-britain]

But are the units dedicated ONLY to this route or service? If not, how can you prevent them turning up elsewhere?

As above, I assume it is the 8 ex-SPT units and these are typically allocated to local Glasgow / Edinburgh duties only
It is now very rare for them to appear on "ScotRail Express" duties

 

[NSEFAN]

If wifi is desired, it might as well be fitted to an entire fleet. It would save all this hassle of messing around with sub pools of a class, and would provide the service to users on longer journeys, such as Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness.

One problem would be distinguishing between first and standard class customers, as they are within the same physical carriage. The easiest option would be to provide the same service to all passengers (possibly for free, but then this raises issues about who pays for the service...)

As has been mentioned, if the 3G signal is poor, then any on train wifi based on this would be pointless. There would have to be a different technology in place. Something more like a satellite connection would need to be used to provide a more consistent service.

 

[magpie]

But with 9/10 cars to play with, fitting one of those to a 3 car Class 170 would be, well, problematic.

Why would it be problematic to fit an 'EC-sized' dish to a 170? Please expand.

 

[starrymarkb]

The point still stands that if it's economically viable for a bus operator to fit wifi then there must surely be a case for a rolling stock installation, especially if a nominal (i.e. sub £1) charge is made for say an hours use. I would suggest that fitting Wifi to the First Class fitted Turbostars would be the more sensible option - anything engaged with SPT (156/170/Electrics) isn't really worth it. If the E&G is finally electrified then ideally the new stock should at least be "fitted for, but not with", if not fitted from delivery.



Southern sour grapes?

Bus kit is very cheap though - It could be something as simple as a MiFi running off the 12V supply and local mobile network. The 30m range and a max of maybe 3-4 tablet/smartphone users per journey are fine for a 12m 60 seat bus.

On a train there are many more users who are using more bandwidth intense devices like laptops, plus the need for repeaters in each coach and a far higher bandwidth requirement means much bigger and more expensive infrastructure (ie East Coast's Satellite link) hence why T-Mobile say the network near the line would have to be upgraded - of course to be devils advocate if the mobile network was upgraded then there would be less need for WiFi!

With the Scotrail example - I think they might be holding out until the new trains rather then fit to stock that is about to retire (I beleive the initial tender is out)

 

[Clip]

The journalist was asking a reasonable question about WiFi. It is a significant issue and you can get a lot done in 40 minutes. I do wonder what some people on this forum are doing as part of their jobs, because a High Speed Internet Connection, even on the shortest of journeys can allow me to tackle my ever mounting inbox.

As i pointed out earlier - I manage it with just using my blackberry to read the emails and discern which is needing my attention there and then. Anything else with graphs and charts ill just ignore till i get to where im going then use my laptop to view them. I also get lots done by working offline - its not hard to do and costs my company nothing on the installation of wifi on our line. And my company realise that too.

What is so different from me compared to everyone else? Do people not understand all these other tools and functions that can still help you work without being connected to the web? Id suggest that its those that need it on permanently to work when they are just commuting for 40 mins are not doing all their work in their office time and are catching up.

But that would be a bit cheeky if i was to say that wouldnt it

 

[Bon Accord]

Clip,
Presumably, therefore, you'd advocate scrapping Wifi access with East Coast/Virgin as well, seeing as it is unnecessary bearing in mind 3G coverage and the ability to work offline?
Let's not forget that not everyone uses it for purely business reasons - plenty use it for 'leisure' purposes.
I don't often utilise the multimedia entertainment system on long haul flights, but that doesn't mean I begrudge those that do or am minded to ask for its removal or for it not to be fitted to future builds - like most things in life, if it's there people will use it and it will become an 'expected' amenity.

 

[rail-britain]

With the Scotrail example - I think they might be holding out until the new trains rather then fit to stock that is about to retire (I beleive the initial tender is out)

ScotRail will be retaining all the Class 170 units on completion of EGIP, quite complicated but this will allow a cascade of Class 156 and 158 units back to lease company
The remaining Class 170 units will be used to strengthen or improve existing services and will remain throughout the next franchise

 

[Clip]

Clip,
Presumably, therefore, you'd advocate scrapping Wifi access with East Coast/Virgin as well, seeing as it is unnecessary bearing in mind 3G coverage and the ability to work offline?
Let's not forget that not everyone uses it for purely business reasons - plenty use it for 'leisure' purposes.

I think your misinterpreting what im getting at here just ever so slightly.

Im well area of who uses wifi and what they use it for both work and leisure( I mainly use my 3g when on EC should you so wish rather then their wifi) - Im advocating if there is a need for it now to be installed at such a high cost for a short journey - as per the OP - who,I may just add is purely focusing on business users which is why i have not bothered mentioning anything really about leisure users.

Now on receiving further information that the line is going to be electrified and new units to be built then it makes more business sense and cheaper to actually install a much secure wifi system when these things happen.

They can piggyback onto possesions already in place by NR(and therefore not pay as much) so they can install the lineside infrastructure whilst the line is being electrified and whilst the units are being built they can have this as a specification rather then retro fitting them to older units which then may b e sent to work elsewhere thus rendering the wifi useless as the lineside equipment isnt there- waste of money then isnt it?

As a man who works on the railway and has to work to budgets I dont see why money should be wasted just to appease a few people(only 2 case studies for this report remember - I dont think IMO thats really quite an indepth report on the need for wifi) whereas if the longer view wass taken then this would be far more cost effective to not only the tax/fare payer but also would bring along a service that would be cheaper for the end user too.


Unless of course you think that TS and SR are dripping with money and can throw it away on short term ideas.

I don't often utilise the multimedia entertainment system on long haul flights, but that doesn't mean I begrudge those that do or am minded to ask for its removal or for it not to be fitted to future builds - like most things in life, if it's there people will use it and it will become an 'expected' amenity.

See this is actually quite a pathetic arguement. These are requested to be installed at the first fit of brand new aircraft by the people who order them. They are not retro fitted to already built aircraft because it would cost too much. Yes they may have newer screens and so forth but your on a plane for up too 29 hours - stark contrast to 40 mins isnt it?

And basically backs up my arguement that for it to be cost effective you fit it as part of the spec to new orders - not waste money on retro fitting them.

 

[Greenback]

Clip is correct, there would have to be a very strong business case for fitting wi-fi now, as opposed to when the route is electrified and new stock ordered. I doubt such a case exists, myself, but if one can be produced I will happily change my mind.

There is little point in comparing an inter urban journey of less than an hour with long distance train companies and airlines where passengers can be on board the vehicle for a lot longer.

I hope that Magpie's case studies will reveal exactly what use the busines speople will make of wi-fi, and how much benefit this will bring to the local and national economy. Otherwise, it may be one of those 'self evident truths' that don't hold up to too much scrutiny!

 

[Bon Accord]

I think your misinterpreting what im getting at here just ever so slightly.

Im well area of who uses wifi and what they use it for both work and leisure( I mainly use my 3g when on EC should you so wish rather then their wifi) - Im advocating if there is a need for it now to be installed at such a high cost for a short journey - as per the OP - who,I may just add is purely focusing on business users which is why i have not bothered mentioning anything really about leisure users.

Now on receiving further information that the line is going to be electrified and new units to be built then it makes more business sense and cheaper to actually install a much secure wifi system when these things happen.

They can piggyback onto possesions already in place by NR(and therefore not pay as much) so they can install the lineside infrastructure whilst the line is being electrified and whilst the units are being built they can have this as a specification rather then retro fitting them to older units which then may b e sent to work elsewhere thus rendering the wifi useless as the lineside equipment isnt there- waste of money then isnt it?

Why does Wifi have to be provided via lineside only, why not use a satellite system complemented by terrestrial 3G? The 'dish' used on the Mark IV's has already been mentioned, but that is technology already a decade old and I've no doubt it has improved since then in both size, cost and reliability.

As a man who works on the railway and has to work to budgets I dont see why money should be wasted just to appease a few people(only 2 case studies for this report remember - I dont think IMO thats really quite an indepth report on the need for wifi) whereas if the longer view wass taken then this would be far more cost effective to not only the tax/fare payer but also would bring along a service that would be cheaper for the end user too.

Just because an unofficial, journalist led report has only has 2 case studies, is in no way indicative of public 'want' for this system, the aforementioned TS report has already made the case. In any case, you make a distinct presumption that a wifi fit would be 'money wasted' - that is merely your opinion.
These days every man and his dog seems to have an Iphone, smart phone, laptop, Ipad or some such instrument and those people require an internet connection. You only have to look around you in any public space or premises these days to see the number of people hammering away on their electronic toys, something that's far more prevalent amongst travellers.
You keep banging on that you do not feel the need to use Wifi, but it's quite obvious other people do, so as I asked before, do you think that wifi should therefore be removed from East Coast/Virgin services?

See this is actually quite a pathetic arguement. These are requested to be installed at the first fit of brand new aircraft by the people who order them. They are not retro fitted to already built aircraft because it would cost too much. Yes they may have newer screens and so forth but your on a plane for up too 29 hours - stark contrast to 40 mins isnt it?
And basically backs up my argument that for it to be cost effective you fit it as part of the spec to new orders - not waste money on retro fitting them.

Well to bring this back to a railway related theme, FGW seem to be managing to squeeze such technology into their Mk 3s (Sleepers and no doubt the rest of the fleet in due course). Wifi is the next logical step.
Regarding journey time, yes it's 40 minutes on the E&G but the best part of 3+ hours for Aberdeen/Inverness services, and as has been mentioned before there are bus journeys that last within the half hour that have wifi.
If you read my earlier posts I did mention that I advocated a network wide Wifi fitment, as to do so for a limited number of route restricted sets would sooner or late lead to rostering problems. You'll also find that I did mention that if the E&G is eventually electrified, then a Wifi fit should be included in the spec, even if only 'for, but not with'. It's all well and good saying new stock 'might' appear, but we really need to know when and in what numbers. Then, a decision on a Turbostar fit could be made.
In a few years time always on internet access will be demanded or at least expected by the general public anywhere they go, be it land, sea or air, therefore to stick our heads in the sand and not at least make some plan for future implementation is particularly short-sighted.
Saying that, short sightedness seems to be a particularly rampant UK, and indeed UK railway affliction.

 

[Marklund]

Deleted

 

[jopsuk]

What technology is used on the 379s? Are they currently the only "commuter" MUs to have it fitted- admittedly as a "works" feature.

 

[Mainliner]

I am not against wi-fi per se. I just think there are more cost effective ways of improving peoples journeys. If you walk down a train that has wi-fi active you still see a large amount of people using a laptop with a dongle. Suggesting that even when wi-fi is in place it is often not used.
I for one have never used a train wi-fi. If I am using a laptop I use a dongle. If I am using my iPad then I use it's 3G capability. A better thing for me is is the availability of charging points.
It seems the OP has left out a crucial thing in his thinking, and that is is there enough people who would use this to make it pay. I guess he could do a survey of passengers and ask a loaded question and get the answer he wants. But I remain to be convinced it is something the vast majority of travellers would be interested in, especially if it came at the expense of a different scheme

I was about to post a comment on similar lines - i.e. that anyone (particularly business people) for whom connectivity on the move is a necessity will probably have ensured that they already have it, by dongle or other means, as you have said.

I travel on the East Coast main line every week and use a 3G dongle - it's faster than the wifi, which incidentally blocks some sites. And on my Monday morning train this week, it was announced that the wifi was out of action.

 

[Clip]

Why does Wifi have to be provided via lineside only, why not use a satellite system complemented by terrestrial 3G? The 'dish' used on the Mark IV's has already been mentioned, but that is technology already a decade old and I've no doubt it has improved since then in both size, cost and reliability.

Because lineside wifi would make for a more stable and reliable connection - Ive had it drop out on EC many times which is why i now use my 3G connection when travelling with them. This is what long term and long sighted investment should be about not short term stop gaps. With Satellite,again, your looking to rely on the feed being strong throughout and no interference from above. Sky TV regularly drops out when the weather is bad in some areas of the country so why should the same not affect a satellite wifi system?

Just because an unofficial, journalist led report has only has 2 case studies, is in no way indicative of public 'want' for this system, the aforementioned TS report has already made the case. In any case, you make a distinct presumption that a wifi fit would be 'money wasted' - that is merely your opinion.
These days every man and his dog seems to have an Iphone, smart phone, laptop, Ipad or some such instrument and those people require an internet connection. You only have to look around you in any public space or premises these days to see the number of people hammering away on their electronic toys, something that's far more prevalent amongst travellers.
You keep banging on that you do not feel the need to use Wifi, but it's quite obvious other people do, so as I asked before, do you think that wifi should therefore be removed from East Coast/Virgin services?

I think the report was created by SR then given to TS for which TS are still sitting on.

See you have not read what i have written properly,again. If these units are going to then be cascaded downwards onto other routes that will not have wifi along them when the new units come in then it makes the system redundant and therefore something that doesnt work anymore is a waste of money. Does that make it any clearer as to why i said that?

I do look around in every place and see everyone and their dog banging away on their phones just like i did when they could only text each other or play worm - but i should imagine that most of them are using their sturdy 3G services provided by their supplier rather then the currently chaotic(at some places) wifi hotspots that are not even there - google the 'Free public wifi' problem.

You again have not read properly have you. I have said the use of wifi on such a short route which is only 50 minutes end to end. I have not said that wifi is rubbish,indeed i use it at home and when abroad, and i know why people do use it but most places be they shops or coffee house or even wetherspoons have far far cheaper wifi installations which are basically the same wifi you have in your home.

And I should answer your point about whether Virgin or EC should have theirs removed. No. And do you know why? Because its a LONG TERM investment and their units will still be ploughing the same amount of miles long after the SR units have been replaced. That is the difference and its something you are struggling to understand.

Well to bring this back to a railway related theme, FGW seem to be managing to squeeze such technology into their Mk 3s (Sleepers and no doubt the rest of the fleet in due course). Wifi is the next logical step.
Regarding journey time, yes it's 40 minutes on the E&G but the best part of 3+ hours for Aberdeen/Inverness services, and as has been mentioned before there are bus journeys that last within the half hour that have wifi.
If you read my earlier posts I did mention that I advocated a network wide Wifi fitment, as to do so for a limited number of route restricted sets would sooner or late lead to rostering problems. You'll also find that I did mention that if the E&G is eventually electrified, then a Wifi fit should be included in the spec, even if only 'for, but not with'. It's all well and good saying new stock 'might' appear, but we really need to know when and in what numbers. Then, a decision on a Turbostar fit could be made.
In a few years time always on internet access will be demanded or at least expected by the general public anywhere they go, be it land, sea or air, therefore to stick our heads in the sand and not at least make some plan for future implementation is particularly short-sighted.
Saying that, short sightedness seems to be a particularly rampant UK, and indeed UK railway affliction.

No one is sticking their heads in the sand are they? In fact in your last sentence you mention short sightedness on the railway , yet this is exactly the way you are going on - Short term solutions to a problem that isnt even that large nor i should imagine, one that commuters are really that worried about.

The mention of buses yet again is rather not the point. Citywide buses are reliant on the infrastructure that has already been built and is in place.I have mentioned this before so i cant be bothered to again.

The fact is a short term fit out of units now for a short journey is a waste of money when that money could be spent elsewhere at this moment in time. Look for the long term and get things in place that over their lifetime will in fact make money and be easier to maintain then outdated systems that dont work once they have left the area they were intended to and go off somewhere else.

 

[MacCookie]

As above, I assume it is the 8 ex-SPT units and these are typically allocated to local Glasgow / Edinburgh duties only
It is now very rare for them to appear on "ScotRail Express" duties

Diagrams HA771 to HA786 are allocated to 170 3-car suburban units (15 suburban units, plus I think the four Hull units). Of those diagrams, four cover services between Edinburgh and Glasgow for at least one service.

Ewan

 

[MCR247]

I don't know if its all ready been said, but my problem with fitting E-G with wifi, is that ScotRail/TS won't get any money back. There is not enough demand in 1st to make it 1st class free and 2nd class pay, therefore it would have to be free really

 

[SteveP29]

Let's not forget that not everyone uses it for purely business reasons - plenty use it for 'leisure' purposes.

And this goes back to what I posted on page 4.
Is it not possible for people to just take a train journey for 40 minutes or so without having to be online at some point?

It shows some serious social problem IMHO if you just can't tear yourself away from it for that period of time.

EG:
'OMG, Johnny has just posted that he's on his way to the airport for his holiday, I must reply and wish him a good holiday and post that I'm on a train to Edinburgh'
:cry:

 

[cj_1985]

And this goes back to what I posted on page 4.
Is it not possible for people to just take a train journey for 40 minutes or so without having to be online at some point?

It shows some serious social problem IMHO if you just can't tear yourself away from it for that period of time.

EG:
'OMG, Johnny has just posted that he's on his way to the airport for his holiday, I must reply and wish him a good holiday and post that I'm on a train to Edinburgh'
:cry:

totally agree with you... between people needing wifi almost everywhere, and having social networking sites/apps and email on almost every phone...

be honest here...
how many people on here have every got on a queen street - edinburgh train and had the urge to pull out your laptop, tablet or whatever and actually NEEDED to use the internet...?

besides... most phone contracts now for phones and certain tablet devices include fairly hefty data allowances for sending and recieving email, updating your status on facebook or twiter etc or just sending pictures or videos in messages...

again... im not saying that having wifi on the trains wouldnt be usefull... sure people could and probably would use the facility... but its hardly life or death is it... i think the more important thing for most passengers on the queen stree - edinburgh services would be getting a seat on the train.. (be that current class 170s or future AC units)..

i sure as hell know what i would prefer...