79
Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Connected Train and Customer Communications: … | Connected Train and Customer Communi cations: Rail and Digi tal Industry Roadmap i Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Copyright© Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited, 2018. All rights reserved.

This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the copyright of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the publication specified accordingly. For any other use of the material please apply to RSSB's Head of Research and Development for permission. Any additional queries can be directed to [email protected]. This publication can be accessed by authorised audiences, via the SPARK website: www.sparkrail.org.

Written by:

Saul Friedner, Richard Womersley and Toby Treacher; LS telcom UK

Published:

January 2018

Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Executive summary This report forms the deliverable for RSSB Project T1138, a study sponsored by the Future Communications and Positioning Systems (FCandPS) Advisory Group, Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and Network Rail. It describes a short-term, 3 to 5 year technology roadmap to deliver wireless broadband connectivity for the GB railways.

Digital connectivity in rail remains a problem Digital connectivity along GB rail corridors has been one of the longest running collective failures in the industry. Numerous previous attempts have been made without success, often due a lack of ownership and the misalignment of incentives between rail operators, Network Rail, users and suppliers.

In this study, LS telcom were tasked with undertaking a research sprint to focus on current and immediately emerging technologies that could be deployed on the trackside to deliver digital connectivity within the next 3 - 5 years. In addition, we were asked to identify innovative business models that might stimulate investment in trackside infrastructure.

Those who have been involved in previous attempts to deliver connectivity to the rail corridors will be familiar with the challenges. It is an unavoidable truth that access to assets located trackside is a prerequisite for deployment of wireless infrastructure to address connectivity including in cuttings and tunnels, and this is not straightforward.

Recent technical trials have unequivocally shown that equipment deployed trackside can provide the ubiquitous connectivity that's needed. The question, then, is how this can be achieved in a fair, open, transparent and competitive environment to allow the wireless industry to deploy solutions and serve the growing demand for mobile data on the GB rail corridors.

It is not a technology issueMobile and other wireless technologies are widely used today and available in almost all populated locations. There is an expectation from the general public to have connectivity wherever they live, work or travel. 4G technology is in mass adoption phase with penetration exceeding 70% by most operators in the UK. Upgrades to LTE-Advanced by mobile operators are already taking place to overcome increased congestion on networks. In parallel, Wi-Fi

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap i

ii RSSB | Con

technology has evolved to deliver near Gigabit speeds to users but over a shorter distance compared to 4G.

In the rail environment both 4G and Wi-Fi are proven connectivity platforms that can deliver the necessary capacity to trains. Onboard antennas can support the multitude of frequency bands used today and will support the anticipated increase in bands in the future.

Improvements in antenna design and configuration such as Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO), higher order modulation and coding and carrier aggregation, in which channels are aggregated to provide increased bandwidth will deliver the throughput speeds that meet and likely exceed current requirements. Furthermore, evolutions of both 4G (towards 5G) and Wi-Fi are underway with research and technology development likely to be ready by 2020.

The technology needed to connect trains is largely ready and capable. There are still some technical challenges to overcome such as handover at speed for high bandwidth signals, however, the main issue is how, as an industry, does the technology get deployed where it is needed on the track side?

Infrastructure unlocks wider economic benefits This study has focused on how mobile technology can be deployed on the track side and in particular the different commercial models that could be used. We conducted two workshops and carried out over 20 interviews to understand the challenges and barriers to unlocking the assets. In our analysis, we set out five main options which included:

Do nothing - rail coverage landscape grows according to MNO prerogative.

Single end-to-end supplier - to deploy trackside with single solution.

Network Rail Telecom (NRT) - manage, control, deploy and deliver connectivity.

Neutral host - passive infrastructure deployment trackside hosting multiple technology solutions and operators.

Hybrid - a mix of NRT managed and controlled, with third party infrastructure players deploying passive infrastructure and implementing upgrades.

We have assessed the feasibility of each option to determine the benefits and challenges against the need to improve connectivity. It was clear that the do nothing option would bring little improvement in connectivity in the 3 to 5

nected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

year time frame. The single end-to-end supplier option has already been attempted without success as it was unable to satisfy the requirements of stakeholders. This leaves 3 possibilities to materially improve trackside asset access on a fair, open, commercial and competitive basis.

We believe that a neutral host option offers the most promising solution; delivering benefits to train operators, rail users, neighbours, rural towns and villages, highways, and the public sector. As a physically separate national telecoms network, it also offers diversity for other critical national infrastructure. In addition to serving the needs of the railway community, a neutral host managed solution could also provide connectivity for rural broadband, remote monitoring, construction, private and public sector organisations using fibre or wireless connectivity either from the trackside or from stations. Independent infrastructure providers provide not only operational expertise and business development for existing passive infrastructure they are also able to deliver much needed private funding to maintain and build additional assets.

Since the assets and infrastructure are currently owned and managed by Network Rail, who via NRT has extensive experience of managing telecoms infrastructure on the rail corridor, it seems likely that a hybrid solution involving third parties and Network Rail would deliver a positive outcome.

Sources of fundingThe Connected Future report produced by The National Infrastructure Commission highlighted the need for improved connectivity along transport routes including rail corridors. In order to respond to such a recommendation, an understanding of the challenges and barriers to accessing the types of infrastructure finance that could be used for a nationwide deployment programme is needed. In our study, we examine a variety of sources of finance that are available for funding large infrastructure projects.

The main three categories of finance for large nationwide infrastructure projects are equity, debt and vendor (corporate). It is still to be established what the commercial model would look like but in order to attract the required levels of finance, we suggest that the model should look as familiar as possible to those providing the sources of finance.

There is a precedent today in that wireless infrastructure projects are either privately financed or procured by government. In the case of the new Emergency Services Network, this will use a public cellular operators' network to deliver mobile broadband for the emergency services in which extended

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap iii

iv

coverage is being paid for by Government. In contrast, the mobile operators have privately funded their network roll outs and neutral host players such as Wireless Infrastructure Group have also delivered privately financed infrastructure roll outs.

The question of who pays depends to what extent private funding is accepted as a model for infrastructure investment on the trackside and the terms that would be attached. Our study finds not just that there are private organisations ready and willing to invest sufficiently to achieve nationwide deployment, but that there also existing public sources of targeted funding that may also be appropriate.

Funding would be used to pay for upgrades to existing infrastructure, such as the masts used for the GSM-R network, connectivity and access into the trackside fibre, access to power and other infrastructure to deploy infill sites along the route to deliver the required ubiquitous coverage.

Commercial innovation will occur naturally once access to infrastructure has been unlocked. Competition between Mobile Network Operators to supply Train Operating Companies with connectivity for franchise periods, technology vendors competing to analyse operating data centrally to deliver efficiencies, enhanced, personalised travel information via apps and APIs will all become possible once ubiquitous connectivity is in place along the rail corridors.

The digital transformation of the rail industry starts with connectivity, which starts with access to the infrastructure.

A hybrid NRT or neutral host solutionWe conclude that a hybrid solution based on NRT infrastructure but operated by private infrastructure specialists is likely be the most viable. This is based on the management and control necessary from a safety, security and experience point of view for NRT and the commercial, practical and cost efficiency drivers of the private sector.

The collective failure to solve this problem to date, stems largely from the lack of ownership and co-ordination. The suggestion of a hybrid approach runs the risk of perpetuating this lack of responsibility for resolving the connectivity problem. Any form of public/private partnership therefore will require strong and clear leadership, ideally with a single person/department taking ownership of delivering a positive outcome.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Executive summary.............................................................................. i

Digital connectivity in rail remains a problem ............................................................. i

It is not a technology issue ................................................................................................. i

Infrastructure unlocks wider economic benefits........................................................ ii

Sources of funding ............................................................................................................... iii

A hybrid NRT or neutral host solution........................................................................... iv

Introduction...........................................................................................1

Objectives of the study........................................................................................................3

Approach to the study .........................................................................................................5

GB rail connectivity requirements ...................................................................................7

Scenario 1 (peak passenger loading) ..................................................................................................... 9Scenario 2 (rural broadband provision) ................................................................................................. 9Scenario 3 (multiple connectivity provisions) ...................................................................................... 9

GB rail connectivity benefits ..........................................................................................10

Wireless technology overview......................................................11

Wide area technology landscape review ...................................................................12

Licensed technologies.......................................................................................................13

GSM ...................................................................................................................................................................13UMTS ................................................................................................................................................................13LTE .....................................................................................................................................................................145G New Radio................................................................................................................................................16Satellite ............................................................................................................................................................17FWA ...................................................................................................................................................................18

Licence exempt technologies.........................................................................................19

Wi-Fi ..................................................................................................................................................................19

WiGig ................................................................................................................................................................19LTE-U and LTE-LAA......................................................................................................................................20

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 21

Technology readiness and emerging solutions .....................22

Technology trials ................................................................................................................ 22

Project SWIFT................................................................................................................................................23Project Mantra ..............................................................................................................................................24Digital Railway ..............................................................................................................................................24

Telecoms cost trends ........................................................................................................ 25

Review of availability of radio spectrum for rail connectivity............................ 26

Future spectrum access within the next 3-5 years................................................. 28

Future availability of licence-exempt spectrum within the next 3 to 5 years ........................................................................................................................... 29

Licensed or licence-exempt spectrum......................................................................... 29

International developments of track-side solutions.............................................. 30

Germany..........................................................................................................................................................31Italy ...................................................................................................................................................................31USA....................................................................................................................................................................31

Technology roadmap ......................................................................33

Commercial opportunities .............................................................37

Background........................................................................................................................... 37

Stakeholders...................................................................................................................................................39

Requirements summary ................................................................................................... 39

Market ..............................................................................................................................................................40TCO and finance ..........................................................................................................................................40Network Rail ...................................................................................................................................................40

Operators.........................................................................................................................................................40Passengers ......................................................................................................................................................40Government ...................................................................................................................................................40

Vertical integration ............................................................................................................41

Vertical disintegration ......................................................................................................41

Models ..................................................................................................43

Incremental option ............................................................................................................43

Single supplier ......................................................................................................................44

NRT ..........................................................................................................................................45

Neutral host ..........................................................................................................................46

New business opportunities across the rail sector................48

Industry collaboration ....................................................................50

Government and regulation .........................................................52

Regulation .............................................................................................................................52

Government..........................................................................................................................54

Conclusions and recommendations ..........................................55

Co-ordination .......................................................................................................................55

Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................55

Neutral host ..........................................................................................................................55

Investment............................................................................................................................56

Intervention..........................................................................................................................56

Measurement.......................................................................................................................56

Appendix 1: Technology Trials.....................................................58

Appendix 2: Existing connectivity ...............................................60

Appendix 3: Onboard technology review.................................65

Other technologies............................................................................................................. 67

Appendix 4: Stakeholder interviews...........................................68

Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

IntroductionThis study examines the current and immediately emerging technologies that could be used to support the connectivity needs for GB railways over the next 3 to 5 years and the business models that would support the delivery of such connectivity.

The connectivity provision to trains is not currently fit for purpose and the performance is unacceptable given the wider push for ever increasing broadband speeds by consumers and businesses alike. Therefore, part of this study is seeking to determine how improvements to wireless connectivity to trains can be delivered by the digital communications industry.

The challenge in providing ubiquitous connectivity along ‘all’ the rail corridors lies in aligning incentives and benefits among the various stakeholders: train operating companies, Network Rail, passengers, mobile operators and suppliers within a sustainable and beneficial commercial environment.

RSSB set out a scope to assess the Connected Train and Customer Communications with a view to develop a rail and digital industry roadmap that spans a 3-5 year time frame. Support from the steering group which consists of RSSB, Rail Delivery Group, Network Rail and techUK provided the guidance and facilities to help deliver the two workshops, the contacts of industry stakeholder within the telecommunications and rail sector for gathering primary research via interviews.

Many of the technical, practical and commercial issues in providing trackside to train connectivity have been explored within the last decade and are well known. In addition, a number of the mainline train operators have offered Wi-Fi for many years which in turn has led to an understanding of the mix of issues.

We recognise that the two current methods in use today for providing train connectivity include:

Direct cellular coverage provided by the mobile network operators to passengers devices on board the train and to the TOCs and FOCs themselves.

Onboard solutions that provide in-train connectivity to passengers’ devices using Wi-Fi. The wireless backhaul from the train is provided by aggregating the available mobile broadband data services from each of the mobile operators.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 1

2

Besides the connectivity requirements for passengers that are currently built into the franchises, there is also a wider government opportunity to unlock national telecommunications assets for use of enabling other policy commitments such as rural broadband or connecting the highways or utilities. This wider industry drive to improve wireless connectivity to people wherever they live, work and travel could deliver significant benefits (in national productivity) in addition to those for rail passengers, train and freight operating companies.

In the past few years the rail industry has been faced with a fragmented and complex market resulting in a varied mix of technical solutions that does not fully meet all stakeholders’ requirements. It could be argued that the requirements may have not been properly articulated, or not all aspects fully defined, or a deeper understanding of the implications of connectivity was needed.

In order to achieve this wider collaboration and understanding of the different requirements, funding sources, technical aspects, barriers and challenges need to be understood. This report aims to bring together some of these aspects to help inform government how both the rail sector and the digital industries can collaborate to meet the wider industry connectivity requirements and needs of government.

It is widely known that public cellular connectivity along the rail corridors outside of the urban and suburban areas is patchy, or in some cases, non-existent, especially along routes which pass through large rural areas. Furthermore, tunnels and cuttings cannot practicably be served by the MNOs without access to trackside infrastructure. This is unsurprising given the traditional network investment methods for mobile network operators is in areas that offer return on investment and economic certainty and growth. The conundrum that mobile connectivity along the rail corridors tries to solve is a challenge to MNOs traditional business models given there is limited investment in areas of low population and demand.

Furthermore, there have been numerous attempts at developing a solution that addresses the key connectivity requirements for train operators and passengers in the last few years. These attempts have been unsuccessful for different reasons, typically due to the commercial arrangements. Therefore, a focus for this study is to examine the business models that could underpin a marketplace for the rail sector to confidently procure technology that is affordable and meets their needs.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

The previous failings to successfully meet the perceived needs of all stakeholders can be attributed to a lack of motivated co-ordination. The identification and leverage of real incentives needs to be correctly aligned to the commercial interests of all those involved in order to achieve consensus and move forward. At each stage, each of the stakeholders must understand ‘what's in it for them’, and be comfortable articulating these benefits to their shareholders and boards. The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has an interest in delivering connectivity in the widest possible sense, the Department for Transport (DfT) has an interest in connectivity specifically as it relates to the running of the railway, while Ofcom has the ability to attach conditions to license operators that have resulted in widespread 4G network deployments. The time has come for leadership and co-ordination to provide the railway with a sustainable platform for innovation.

We consider a number of potential models and configurations that would allow the suppliers of today's technologies better upstream access to infrastructure while unlocking downstream customers. The UK rail sector is a significant and potentially attractive market segment however; to non-rail organisations it can seem complex and archaic. The industry needs to find a mechanism to embrace the innovation, engineering and commercial flexibility on display around it and put these opportunities to work directly on improving rail connectivity. Train operators should be able to work with universities, vendors and network operators to create technology solutions that truly differentiate their services. Delivering genuine commercial opportunities for widest possible group of stakeholders will ensure the successful creation of a sustainable platform for connectivity. The key will be designing the foundations to support the ecosystem that will flourish.

Objectives of the studyThe RSSB has set out clear objectives for this study which are:

Conduct a landscape review of current and immediately emerging technologies considering GB rail scenarios, barriers, costs and insertion points for current and projected 3 to 5 years’ deployment.

Identify innovative business and ROI models combined for mobile network operators (MNO), train operating companies (TOC), Network Rail, 3rd party wireless communications wholesalers – promoting collaboration across the rail and digital value chains and stimulate investment for improved mobile coverage and broadband services on GB rail routes.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 3

4

Consider the impact any new technology could have on the replacement of, or addition to legacy rail wireless systems and applications such as GSM-R, remote condition monitoring, on train condition or status data export.

Consider the impact any new technology could have on the current framework of GB mainline railways remaining in place, such as franchised or locally concessioned TOCs, public sector infrastructure manager – Network Rail.

Separation between track and train continuing to be maintained and managed via contractual relationships.

Produce a high-level roadmap that clearly frames the technical and commercial options available for review and further development strategies to improve internet connectivity across the rail network.

Seek to provide information to government that will help to respond to the recommendations published in the Connected Future report from the National Infrastructure Commission.1

There has been a growing level of government interest in connectivity for trains, this combined with the Rail Technical Strategy2, digital railway initiative3 and the need for supporting passenger journeys including passenger information present a great opportunity to focus attention on improving trackside connectivity. Furthermore, there is a willingness and potential commitment from industry to provide the coverage and capacity necessary to meet the connectivity requirements. This study aims to determine the technical and commercial basis from which government can set policy and also set out a framework upon which both the rail and digital industries can build a marketplace to procure and supply connectivity respectively.

1 Connected Future Report, National Infrastructure Commission, Dec 2016,

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/connected-future

2 Rail Technical Strategy, RSSB, 2017, https://www.rssb.co.uk/rail-technical-strategy 3 Digital Railway project, http://digitalrailway.co.uk/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Approach to the studyWe have approached this study on the basis of gathering primary research via two workshops and around twenty interviews with specific telecommunications market players and rail sector participants. We also conducted desktop research of developments in wireless technologies from vendor white papers and latest technical research from mobile industry standards bodies (such as 3GPP and IEEE) and examined innovative business models from adjacent industries and international rail connectivity deployments case studies.

The two key themes of the study were to:

develop a technology roadmap that describes the current and immediately emerging technologies suitable for deployment within a 3-5 year timeframe and able to improve internet connectivity on GB rail routes

Identify innovative business models that promote collaboration across rail and digital value chains and which stimulate investment delivering improved internet services for passengers and operations on GB rail routes.

The method shown in Figure 1 presents the approach taken to derive the technology roadmap and business models. We used information gathered from the workshops and interviews to determine the usage scenarios, requirements, and demand for connectivity from train and freight operating companies, passenger requirements, and Network Rail.

We used our desktop research and interviews to produce the technology roadmap and determine the different technology options that fed into the second workshop. The proposed business model options were analysed prior to the second workshop in which a preferred solution emerged that would meet the criteria for success.

We combined all research and analysis into this report.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 5

6 RS

y

SB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Figure 1 - Overview of approach to the stud

GB rail connectivity requirementsOne of the major drivers for the development of the connectivity requirements is the Department for Transport’s push to improve onboard connectivity for passengers within renewed franchises. It is worth noting that the explicit requirement for voice does not appear to exist any longer; this is likely due to the move to full IP in which voice is one application that is supported. Thus, solving the data connectivity problem overcomes any issues pre-existing concerns with voice.

We gathered primary research on the demands and usage scenarios from the connectivity requirements workshop. This covered the following rail areas:

Passenger connectivity requirements

Train operating company requirements

Freight operating company requirements

Network Rail requirements

The outcome from our first workshop revealed that not much has significantly changed in the past few years in terms of the above connectivity requirements across the rail sector. We found from the first workshop that similar themes emerging from each of the groups as had been found in previous RSSB projects (T964, T817 and T809) except for greater demand on the quantity of bandwidth for some operational applications such as CCTV or increased volume of devices for IoT. We summarise the key connectivity requirements that were gathered across the rail and digital industries sector:

100% reliable and available coverage across the entire route

Minimum capacity to be available to support all current and potential rail applications

CCTV is the application which requires the largest amount of bandwidth for train operations, all other applications are low bandwidth (sub 2 Mbps)

Passenger connectivity aspirations range from basic browsing (10’s kbps) to video conferencing (2+ Mbps)

In addition to 100% coverage, the connectivity requirements for the operational aspect of train and freight companies led to a relatively thin capacity layer (in order of maximum 20 Mbps) to support all the possible services and applications they would use within the next 3 to 5 years at least. In addition, Network Rail would also be able to support the majority of its non-safety critical applications with this amount of capacity. It should be noted

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 7

8

however, that freight may have some particularly special requirements given parts of the network are freight only.

It was recognised that passenger connectivity differs across passenger types and journeys (length, commuter, long distance) on different routes on the rail network which was captured by Figure 2. This has already been taken into account and established by DfT within its passenger connectivity KPIs. Therefore the types of technology, spectrum and network architecture can be established based on the estimated growth in data usage of passengers balanced against the capabilities and investment to deliver capacity along each of the rail routes.

Figure 2 - Passenger connectivity usage types

It is clear that passenger data growth will drive the architecture, shape and size of the network and will be dependent on a number of pre-existing factors including:

Growth of MNO and/or other wireless technology (Wi-Fi) coverage and capacity along each rail route.

Access, site availability and potential of trackside or adjacent land for new site builds.

Condition, capability and availability of existing trackside infrastructure.

Onboard equipment capable of supporting emerging technology and spectrum bands.

We would foresee a number of scenarios which drive capacity to different levels based on geographical location, length of route, origin and destination, route clutter and terrain that could determine future network architecture.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Below we highlight some example usage scenarios that will drive the network architecture.

Scenario 1 (peak passenger loading)

Approach to any mainline city station (London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow) served by multiple trains operating companies during rush hour morning or evening, serving in the order of 10-20000 passengers per hour

Scenario 2 (rural broadband provision)

Two way high speed mainline service running through remote parts of Britain including Wales, Cumbria and Scottish Borders at peak time of day with full passenger capacity with users already 2 plus hours into their journey

Scenario 3 (multiple connectivity provisions)

A service with extreme peak loading start/finish in major city, rural broadband provision and connecting surrounding towns around major hub, serving a mix of commuter passenger journeys of less than 1 hour with peak loading for half the journey, longer distance faster, express type routes serving a diverse mix of passengers with a wide mix of connectivity requirements

There are a number of routes which align with the above scenarios each with a different set of requirements in terms of ability to serve the demand.

The particular conditions, physical environment and commercial drivers will determine how to deliver the required bit rates to each passenger along the rail route.

More specific requirements have been set out by the DfT for connectivity requirements to be provided by TOCs as part of the renewed franchises. A list of the KPIs for connectivity that TOCs are to meet includes:

KPI 1 –Minimum speed per passenger

KPI 2 –Availability of service over routes carrying 85% or 100% of passengers

KPI 3 –Minimum data quantity per passenger

KPI 5 –Delivery timescales

In addition, there were, at time of writing, two PIN notices issued for train connectivity which highlight the type of requirements train operators are seeking. The train operators were Transport for London (TfL) and Mersey

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 9

10

Travel. In both these urban cases they are mainly serving tunnel routes. However, we have extracted some of the specific requirements to illustrate the essential needs:

Transport for London: Deployment of a public cellular network and Wi-Fi network on London Underground tunnels and TfL assets. In particular the PIN states: ‘Other opportunities that have been identified include the use of street furniture to support the roll out of small cell cellular services and the use of various tunnels and ducts to roll out a new fibre network across London. This network will be able to support any combination of existing and new assets as determined as the best economic approach by the bidders.’

Mersey Travel: Considering options for the procurement of train connectivity and information system. This includes train to shore and shore to train communications via wireless infrastructure. ‘This will include but not be limited to video streaming, data communications, real time control room access to on-train CCTV systems and passenger connectivity for mobile devices. The system will achieve real-time wireless transmission of media including video images, and multimedia means.’

The following section addresses the current and immediately emerging technologies that can be used to serve the wide mix of capacity demands. In the technology overview we determine the differences, how each technology option can be delivered and how each one can be assessed so that it informs the franchise bidding process.

GB rail connectivity benefitsImproved connectivity that serves all routes, tunnels, stations and depots will bring a range of benefits to the train and freight operating companies and also to Network Rail, outside of the passenger connectivity. The benefits that were identified by stakeholders included:

Assisted journeys

Enhanced passenger and operational productivity

Just in time engineering

Preventive maintenance

Remote condition monitoring

Passenger information

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Driver advisory

Track monitoring

CCTV provision (forward facing and potentially real-time)

Support staff operations

Retail/ticketing support

Freight tracking

Advertising

Minimise signalling disruption

Minimise train failures

Facilitate multi-modal journeys

Many of these benefits cannot be fully realised without the complete connectivity being available within demise of the railway undertaking. Connectivity that is available today is not reliable or robust enough to allow train operating companies to be dependent on the applications they would ultimately like to use.

Wireless technology overview The telecoms sector evolves at a rapid pace. A new smartphone handset, for example is launched every 12-18 months and each version is updated with new features and increased connectivity capabilities and speeds. These latest innovations and technical solutions are used on the railways by passengers bringing their devices onboard. Rail passengers want to use their devices as they do when at home, or work or travelling around and expect the connectivity to simply ‘be there’, however, it is not currently possible to do this when travelling by rail.

In the previous section we examined the demand and usage of connectivity along the rail corridors and which applications drive the requirements for coverage and capacity.

In this section we provide a wireless technology overview of the current and emerging technologies that can meet the mobile broadband needs of the rail sector and the travelling public.

We have divided the technologies by wide area and local area capabilities. In each case there are both licensed and licence-exempt technologies that can

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 11

12

deliver the trackside to train connectivity. We describe the onboard connectivity technologies for passengers and crew in the appendix.

Wide area technology landscape reviewThe diagram in Figure 3 breaks down the available wireless technologies into the speed of connection, and short- and long-range connectivity.

Figure 3 - Wireless technologies range and bandwidth

* Note: ‘IoT’ includes a range of technologies such as LoRa, Sigfox, LTE-M, NB-IoT

It is worth noting that almost all (with the exception of FWA) of the technologies in the lower two quadrants of the chart (those with shorter ranges) operate in unlicensed spectrum, whereas almost all (with the exception of some IoT technologies) in the upper two quadrants (with longer ranges) operate in licensed spectrum. GSM-R for example is in the top left quadrant as it delivers low bandwidth but over a relatively long range of several kilometres. The technology, as was originally developed, was capable of delivering the wide area coverage to support the multiple features for rail operations. It has now been widely accepted by the global rail industry that GSM-R will soon be no longer fit for purpose and a replacement (the Future

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Rail Mobile Communication Service, FRMCS) is being considered that should be available in the near future.

Licensed technologiesIn the remainder of this section we describe each of the technologies identified in terms of their ability and suitability to provide passenger and operational communications on the railways.

GSM

GSM, often referred to as second generation (2G) mobile, was standardised in the 1990s and is already used by the railways to provide operational communications through the GSM-R network. GSM provides very basic data connectivity (up to 19.2 kbps using GPRS), however through an enhancement known as EDGE, it can deliver up to 384 kbps of data. It can serve mobile users moving at speeds of up to 250 km/h and with some reduction in quality up to 500 km/h due to the integrated mobility features built into the standard.

GSM base stations can cover distances of up to 35 km (this is limited by timing issues), but is typically 10km or less, and depends upon the terrain, clutter and the class of the user device (different classes permit different transmitter powers). An extended range version of GSM can operate at distances of up to 120 km, however this reduces the potential throughput by a factor of two.

GSM is in the process of being phased out in many countries (such as in Finland where it has been replaced by the use of the Government TETRA network) and is thus not a future-proof solution for any new deployments in rail.

UMTS

UMTS, often referred to as third generation (3G) mobile technology, was standardised around the turn of the millennium. In its basic form it offers connectivity at speeds of 384 kbps in a 5 MHz radio channel, however with high speed enhancements, it is feasible to offer speeds of up to 42 Mbps using wider 10 MHz channels (dual carrier). UMTS is less good at high speeds than GSM being limited to around 250 km/h but with reducing performance the faster the user is travelling.

The peak range of basic UMTS is limited to 60 km, however there is an extended range variant which has been tested at up to 200 km in ideal

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 13

14

conditions. Coverage is usually, however, limited by topography and cell sizes of up to 10 km are more common particularly as 3G was intended to target capacity and deployed urban and suburban areas.

As with GSM, UMTS is slowly in decline as users are either being pushed to 4G networks by the operators as growth in 4G coverage continues. This also means once the spectrum is clear of almost all users it can gradually be re-farmed for 4G but this is not expected within the next 3 years at least.

LTE

LTE often referred to as fourth generation (4G) mobile technology and was standardised in the mid to late 2000s. It offers a range of connectivity speeds that are constantly increasing through the use of developments such as:

Carrier aggregation – the use of multiple channels in the same, or different spectrum bands. For example, up to 5 x 20 MHz carriers can be aggregated for a total of 100 MHz bandwidth

Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) – a means to utilise the reflections common in the mobile environment to increase data throughput

The LTE specification includes almost 50 different spectrum bands below 4 GHz, this is due to the global nature of its implementation and the different frequencies used in varying regions of the world. It is the only mobile technology to have such a diverse portfolio of spectrum bands and it could be considered that this level of fragmentation can be harmful to the ecosystem.

LTE is specified to perform up to 250 km/h with reduced performance up to 500 km/h meaning it is suited to communication with trains. Cell coverage is normally limited to 35 km, but an extended range version of LTE can handle connectivity at ranges of up to 100 km. The actual range provided depends heavily on the location of network deployment, topography and the frequency band used.

The performance (throughput speed) of LTE is undisputed. In a recent trial in Australia, connection speeds of 979 Mbps were achieved4 showing LTE’s capability to deliver gigabit wireless connectivity. More typically, connection speeds of around 60 Mbps are already common on most networks.

LTE is in the mass market take up phase and it can be seen in Figure 4 that 4G is more than 30% of global connections in 2017.

4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2017/02/08/a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-4g-lte-gigabit-lte/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Figure 4 - Global mobile connections forecast by technology. Source: GSMA5

A number of non-commercial LTE networks have been built. In Qatar, for example, PPDR users are using off-the-shelf LTE equipment6 to serve its operational communication needs. This has proven a cost effective solution for them, however it has been predicated on the fact that the spectrum regulator was willing to offer the Government dedicated 800 MHz commercial spectrum rather than auction this to the mobile operators. This will be the case with any off-the-shelf technology operated in harmonised bands and thus it is unlikely that a dedicated, rail specific network could be developed using o-t-s technology without the co-operation of the mobile operators.

LTE coverage is closing in on the 98% indoor coverage7 target, but continues to be rolled-out in the UK (now largely to geographic rather than populated areas) and with the developments planned in future releases of the standard, is likely to remain one of the primary methods for delivering mobile broadband connectivity for the next 10 at least. These future releases (known as LTE-Advanced Pro or LTE-A) will offer a wide range of new features, functions and performance improvements including some which are important in for

5 The mobile Economy 2017, GSMA, https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/2017/02/the-mobile-economy-2017/612/

6 http://bit.ly/2zRF2yh 7 Network coverage survey for UK mobile operators https://www.4g.co.uk/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 15

16

operational rail communication such as push-to-talk functionality (3GPP release 13), priority and pre-emption and device-to-device communication (without an intervening base station) (3GPP release 12). This does not mean, however, that operators will immediately implement these functions. It may require them to upgrade software or in some cases hardware which they may not necessarily do unless they see a business imperative to do so.

5G New Radio

While the more advanced versions of LTE (in Releases 14 and 15) will provide the kind of connection speed that are expected of 5G (1 Gbps or more), there is a New Radio (NR) physical layer that is in the process of being standardised and which is generally regarded as ‘true 5G’. 5G is touted as being different to 4G in three specific ways, namely that it aims to deliver:

enhanced mobile broadband (>1Gbps)

ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC)

massive machine-to-machine communication (connectivity for millions of IoT type devices).

All three aspects are of interest to the rail sector, the enhanced mobile broadband for passenger and TOC/FOC connectivity, massive machine-type communications for the thousands and potentially millions of track and train remote sensors and URLLC for train control and signalling applications.

The time line for the development of the 5G standard is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - 5G roadmap with mix of technologies. Source: InterDigital8

8 Path to 5G Overview MWC 2015, InterDigital, https://www.slideshare.net/JuanRebes/path-to-5g-overview-mwc-2015-interdigital

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

It is questionable as to whether there will be any significant roll-out of 5G services in the next 3 to 5 years. The full and final standardisation process will not be completed until 2020 and whilst the European Commission is encouraging every Member State to have 5G available in at least one city by 2020, a number of the enhanced mobile broadband speeds could potentially more easily be achieved using LTE advanced. It is therefore unlikely and unreaslitic that 5G should be considered today for enhancing broadband connectivity over the proposed 3 to 5 year timetable. Having said that, industry should determine whether the hardware that will be installed on the track side should be able to support 5G NR so that upgrades can be made with minimal intervention (software upgrades or modem upgrades).

Satellite

Recently high throughput satellites (HTS) have been launched by a number of providers. These satellites typically provide a pipe of over 300 Gbps capacity in the sky. This is expected to rise to over 1 Tbps for satellites launched around 2020. This is achieved through frequency re-use, using spot-beams to divide up the available spectrum into different areas. Coverage of the UK by satellites is ubiquitous and there are several competing suppliers of connectivity (Avanti, Eutelsat, SES). An individual user may expect to receive a connection of up to 22 Mbps currently, though this is increasing on a regular basis. Many of the current consumer packages are capped and large amounts of data can be expensive (around £1 per GigaByte).

The diagram in Figure 6 illustrates the typical use of spot beams (in this case from the European Ka-Sat).

Figure 6 - Satellite spot beams over Europe

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 17

18

Satellites are already in use to provide broadband connectivity on some trains, notably on the Renfe AGV fleet in Spain and by NTV in Italy, who also allow customers to view television services via the satellite link. In addition, satellites have traditionally required a tracking (steerable) dish, but the industry is very close to having electronically steerable antennas (from Kymeta, as trialled in Scotland by Intelsat) down to 20cm in size. This strengthens the opportunity for satellite within rail to some degree albeit it does not resolve a number of other issues about satellite connectivity, which we highlight below.

The issues that exist with satellite connectivity to trains are identified below. These relate especially to non-long distance services, such as:

There is no coverage in tunnels, and deep cuttings can be a problem too.

The service is interrupted as the train passes under gantries and similar infrastructure (though there are technical ways to mitigate this).

They require the installation of a tracking dish on the roof of the train, which can be both difficult and expensive.

Another issue with satellite communication (in respect of the geostationary services offered today) is the long end-to-end latency. Round-trip times of approaching 0.5 seconds are not uncommon, depending on the routing efficiency and protocols used. While this may not be an issue for passenger connectivity, it may be too slow for some operational purposes (train control) where latency could be an issue.

Overall, therefore, whilst satellite may provide a unique solution to provide connectivity especially in rural areas, there are a number of issues which would need to be addressed and may prove costly.

FWA

Whilst it may seem odd to consider fixed wireless access (FWA) as a potential for connectivity to trains, given that it is designed for fixed installations, some of the available FWA technologies could, potentially, offer a mechanism of connecting from track side to train. Not least, early implementations of pre-5G technology in some millimetre wave bands whilst being fixed, are fully capable of supporting mobile connectivity. Throughputs of several hundred Mbps are achievable however the technology is relatively nascent and there is not yet a heavily developed ecosystem, nor a large degree of experience in using the technology in a mobile application. Furthermore, in the UK regulatory changes to FWA licences would be needed for example in the 28

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

GHz band to support mobile. Therefore, unless there is a strong push to make changes from fixed to mobile of FWA licences, then we do not believe that such solutions would offer a credible option over the next 3- to 5-year time frame.

Licence exempt technologies Wi-Fi

Though standard Wi-Fi is not specified to perform when users are moving at high speeds, some manufacturers have developed solutions based on Wi-Fi which overcome these problem (such as Fluidmesh and Moxa). Operating in unlicensed spectrum and using low powers, the range of Wi-Fi hotspots is much smaller than for a mobile network requiring much more infrastructure. Existing Wi-Fi technologies are able to deliver upwards of 600 Mbps (in a 40 MHz channel) though typically with outdoor ranges of only 500 metres or so. However, current trials such as Project Swift (see Appendix 1) are demonstrating ranges of up to 2.5km using a bespoke Wi-Fi based wireless solution.

To provide connectivity to trains using Wi-Fi would therefore require a large amount of infrastructure, albeit smaller, lighter and more versatile than the (current) equipment likely to be used for a multi operator cellular solution.

WiGig

WiGig is part of the 802.11 (802.11ad) family of standards which includes Wi-Fi but operates at a frequency of 60 GHz. At this frequency there is about 2 GHz of bandwidth available meaning that connection speeds of several Gbps are possible. However, the range of connections is severely limited and is unlikely to extend beyond 200 metres in most practical situations. Similarly to Wi-Fi, however there have been trials in the UK demonstrating longer ranges than typically expected from the technology.

Nevertheless, to provide connectivity to trains using WiGig is likely to require a base station or hub every 200 to 300 metres to ensure satisfactory cell edge performance, which could prove extremely expensive to roll-out. There is also a limited supply chain at present for this technology, although it is growing and therefore a watching brief of this technology is worthwhile.

We note that this technology would be suitable for deployment at locations with requirement for significant capacity density such as stations and depots.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 19

20

LTE-U and LTE-LAA

A number of variants of LTE are being developed which rely upon unlicensed spectrum (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) (LTE-U and LTE-LAA). The primary difference between the various versions is whether or not there is a need for a licensed network to provide the control layer for the unlicensed one. Most of the unlicensed variants work in the 5 GHz band and thus have very short-ranges. For some variants, the small LTE-U cell is connected to the internet via broadband and becomes part of the mobile network (this is known as Licence Assisted Access – LAA) and requires the licensed network to ‘anchor’ the LTE connection. In others, the cell is connected to the internet but becomes a stand-alone network, yet still able to hand-over calls to a licensed network (known as MuLTEFire).

Other technologies such as LTE-Wi-Fi Aggregation (LWA) or Hotspot 2.0 are aiming to allow a local Wi-Fi hotspot to act as a small cell by providing connectivity to offload data from the mobile network while in Wi-Fi coverage and seamlessly integrate Wi-Fi and LTE. The advantage of the LTE-U approach over LWA is that handover from cell to cell is generally more seamless.

According to a the Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA)9, T-Mobile and AT&T have launched commercially in the USA providing LTE-U/LTE-LAA type services, but several other operators are in the process of trialling the technology or planning deployments. Several new end user devices (including the Samsung S8) have an LTE-U capability and many of the chip sets used in mobile devices (since late 2015) contain the necessary functionality (even if it is not implemented in the devices themselves).

From a rail perspective, the use of the 5 GHz band and low power for this technology would significantly limit the range, requiring relatively large amounts of track-side infrastructure. This, however, may be less than needed for 5 GHz Wi-Fi (see below) and may be able to be provided independently from commercial networks yet integrate with them. For example LTE-U could be used to infill in tunnels, cuttings and other badly covered areas using the commercial operators to provide a service where it is already available. It may also be that an LTE-U network could be established inside a train to provide the customer connectivity in a seamless manner but the market for handsets and other devices would need to increase significantly within the next 3 to 5 years to be a viable alternative to Wi-Fi.

9 “LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum”, GSA, October 2017

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

SummaryTable 1 summarises the capabilities of each of the various technologies discussed in the context of broadband wireless connectivity on the railways.

Table 1 - Summary of possible wireless connectivity technology options

Tech

nolo

gy

Typi

cal

Rang

e*

Typi

cal

Thro

ughp

ut

Ava

ilabi

lity

Pene

trat

ion

stat

us

(indi

cati

ve)

Notes

GSM 7-10 kmMax 384 kbps

99% pop 100%+Requires licensed spectrum

UMTS/HSPA

5-7 kmMax 42 Mbps

99% pop 100%+Requires licensed spectrum

LTE 5-7 kmMax ~300 Mbps

95 - 98% pop

60%Requires licensed spectrum

LTE-A 5-7 km

Max ~1 Gbps(5 CA and MIMO)

5-10% pop

<10%Requires licensed spectrum

5G NRApplication dependent

> 1 Gbps3 to 5 years

N/ALicensing situationunclear

LTE-U/LAA

Terrain limited

Max ~300 Mbps

<1%Early deployment

Licence exempt

Satellite incl high t’put

National/ regional

Max 100 Mbps

Within 12 months

In development

Poor in deep cuttings.

Wi-Fi~ 500

metresMax ~600 Mbps

88% homes

Mass consumer

Licence exempt

WiGig~ 200

metresMax ~3 Gaps

Within 3 years

Early deployment

Licence exempt 

FWA (28 GHz)

~ 500 metres

~1 GapsWithin 3 years

In development

Requires  licensed spectrum

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 21

22

Technology readiness and emerging solutionsWe have included the emerging technology solutions for wireless (wide area) connectivity in the table above as it will be these technologies that will become increasingly more wide spread commercially in next 3-5 years. Emerging technologies include:

Cellular LTE-A Pro, New Radio (5G)

IEEE 802.11ax and IEEE 802.11ad 60 GHz (unlicensed)

High throughput satellites

Technology solutions for wireless onboard connectivity:

LTE-A, New Radio (small cells)

LTE-U, LTE-LAA, MulteFire

IEEE 802.11ad 60 GHz, Next Gen Hotspot (Hotspot 2.0)

These technologies could bring significant performance improvements for connectivity and therefore it is imperative to ensure it is possible to deploy one or more trackside to ensure upgrades to future technology will be possible providing the rail sector with a choice and competition in the market. It will also help deliver the foundations upon which future rail technical strategies can be built.

We also note the differences and evolution in architecture requirements in the future as there will be a greater need for small cells given the need to serve increased capacity at sites which support smaller form factor equipment but also to support the increase in spectrum bands and bandwidths. See section on spectrum availability below.

Furthermore, antenna beamforming is a technique that will be useful within a rail environment. This can be incorporated into the architecture and used by the emerging wireless technologies to direct the signal towards the high speed train increasing the signal level and thus improving overall performance.

Technology trialsThe technology trials for train connectivity that are currently taking place in the UK include:

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Project SWIFT – Innovate UK and RSSB funded project led by Cisco

Project MANTRA – Funded by RSSB, led by First Group with partners from University of Bristol research and Network Rail including support from Blu Wireless

Digital Railway – Led by Network Rail and support from the rail sector

We describe the details of these projects in the appendix which all relate to different technical approaches to providing trackside connectivity to trains. The focus in particular is how to deliver higher connectivity speeds to the train to improve on board passenger connectivity. In turn the improved connectivity can be used for other operational applications.

We consider below how the objectives of the trials fit the remit of this study and what they will deliver in terms of end user connectivity performance.

Project SWIFT

In this project the technology used to connect to the train is 5 GHz licence-exempt wireless (based on IEEE 802.11 technology) that has been optimised to enable fast handover between cells. The aim is to deliver speeds in excess of 500 Mbps using exiting GSM-R (and other) infrastructure along a stretch of route running between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The architecture design enables relatively lightweight radios with integrated antennas to be mounted on the trackside and plug in via Ethernet to the existing FTN-X infrastructure thus providing the required backhaul. The lessons learnt from this study will be useful to the understanding of practical and physical deployment of non-critical telecommunications equipment trackside. This includes access to fibre and the constraints on the fibre and raises any issues regarding commercial arrangements. In addition, the outcome will determine the practical limits of delivering capacity to a train and impact of real world propagation.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 23

24

Project Mantra

In this project the technology used to connect to the train is 60 GHz licence-exempt WiGig technology based on IEEE 802.11ad standards. The technology which is available today (chipsets and embedded devices) can deliver extremely high peak data rates in the order of 8 Gbps. The test trial was conducted at the RIDC Melton test track and mounted the 60 GHz modems on Hitachi 800 series electric trains to send real time data from the trackside to a train at rates of 1 Gbps at speeds of 90 mph.

This approach to train connectivity offers significant data rates that can deliver improved passenger Wi-Fi user experience. The network architecture requirements will include high speed fibre backhaul and for a consistent service closely spaced access points along a route.

Digital Railway

The Digital Railway project being led by Network Rail covers more than just connectivity from trackside to the train. It includes the customer experience, increased capacity, competition on the railways and links with Europe. However, connectivity is one of the key ingredients for enabling the Digital Railway and therefore the requirements focus on reliability, safety, and efficiency.

The focus is on operational and safety aspects and connectivity must deliver a highly available, reliable and stable connectivity and meet the technical, operational and functional requirements of the railways. It recognises the collaboration needed between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers with train operators and telecommunications players in order to make this a reality. Furthermore, it recognises the development of 5G networks and how this will offer a great opportunity for railways enabling applications such as IoT and real time information.

We would expect the connectivity part of this project will be delivered during the next 3-5 years. This would be dependent on commitments from government (DfT) and Network Rail to enhance and upgrade trackside infrastructure.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Telecoms cost trends Annual investment in mobile technology (LTE) networks remains relatively flat10 as operators move on to densification of networks using small cells and also a focus on in-building and other special projects. However, there is still some growth to come in 4G networks but as MNOs reach their coverage targets toward the end of 2017 the focus will be on areas that provide a return on investment. More specifically, we note the following across some of the UK’s MNOs

EE11 capex has increased from £465m in 2014/15 to £616m in 2016/17

Vodafone UK12 invested nearly £1 billion in UK network and services in FY2013/14 (£1.25 billion including Vodafone Group) – up from £601m the previous year. As part of Project Spring, Vodafone is committed to maintaining this investment level for two further years.

O2: Capital expenditure for the quarter increased 31 per cent to €225m (£190m)13

We also observed third party infrastructure providers also making investments in deployment of networks, such as WIG’s deployment of fibre and small cells in Aberdeen and O2 and Cisco’s investment of £80m for small cells in the City of London.

Feedback from the interviews with stakeholders also indicated that given the requirements for trackside connectivity all wireless providers would be interested in investing in deployment of trackside infrastructure.

10 Wireless Capex to touch $210 bn: Where telecoms are investing?, May 2016 http://www.telecomlead.com/telecom-services/wireless-capex-touch-210-bn-telecoms-investing-69011

11 BT Group Plc fact sheet http://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Overview/BTFactSheet.pdf

12 Vodafone and Europe: Investing for the future report 2015 https://www.vodafone.com/content/dam/group/policy/downloads/vodafone_europe_investing_for_future_feb_2015.pdf

13 O2 continues to splash out on 4G ahead of rumoured IPO, the Register, May 2017, https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/12/o2_continues_to_splash_out_of_4g_ahead_of_ipo_rumours/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 25

26

Review of availability of radio spectrum for rail connectivityRSSB project T964 Spectrum Position Paper provides significant detail of the regulatory and technical perspectives of spectrum use for rail purposes including both for operational and passenger connectivity. It is not the intention to repeat this for the present report but provide an update on spectrum availability and utility within the rail sector in the 3- to 5-year timeframe. It is worth noting however, that T964 spectrum paper provided guidance on choices and decisions on spectrum ownership and access for providing connectivity and differences in terms of technical, commercial and regulatory impacts.

Cellular technology using licensed spectrum depends on the availability of particular standardised and harmonised spectrum bands. Table 2 shows a list of assigned and allocated frequency bands could be used for rail connectivity in a 3 to 5 year timeframe.

Table 2 - Spectrum bands that could be used for rail connectivity

Frequency Band TechnologyLicensed/

UnlicensedTotal available

bandwidth

700 MHz 4G/5G Yet to be licensed 2 x 30 MHz

800 MHz 4G (LTE) Licensed 2 x 30 MHz

900 MHz 2G (GSM)/3G (UMTS)

Licensed 2 x 35 MHz

1400 MHz 4G/5G Partially licensed (40 MHz)

1 x 90 MHz

1800 MHz 2G (GSM)/4G (LTE)

Licensed 2 x 75 MHz

2100 MHz 3G (UMTS) Licensed 2 x 60 MHz

2300 MHz 4G (LTE) Yet to be licensed 1 x 40 MHz

2400 MHz Wi-Fi Unlicensed 83.5 MHz

2600 MHz 4G (LTE) Licensed 2 x 70 MHz plus 50 MHz (TDD)

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

The table above shows the frequency bands assigned and allocated in the UK that could be used for rail connectivity. Total licensed spectrum assigned to the mobile network operators today is over 750 MHz. The plot in Figure 7 shows the latest spectrum holdings across each MNO.

Figure 7 - Total mobile spectrum holdings in the UK. Source: Ofcom LS telcom

There is 40 MHz of spectrum in L-band at 1.4 GHz, which is split by Vodafone and Three with 20 MHz each included in the above total. Three also now holds 124 MHz of spectrum in the 3.4 – 3.6 GHz band from the acquisition of UK Broadband (Relish).

3400 – 3600 MHz 4G (LTE) Yet to be licensed 2 x 70 MHz

3500 – 3600 MHz 4G (LTE) Licensed 124 MHz

3600 – 3800 MHz 4G (LTE) Yet to be licensed 200 MHz

5000 MHz Wi-Fi Unlicensed 455 MHz

Table 2 - Spectrum bands that could be used for rail connectivity

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 27

28

Future spectrum access within the next 3-5 yearsOfcom announced14 there will be a spectrum auction for an additional 190 MHz in the coming months (now likely to be in 201815). The spectrum bands to be auctioned are 2.3 GHz (40 MHz bandwidth) and 3.4 GHz band (150 MHz bandwidth).

There will be another auction of the 700 MHz spectrum band which is planned to take place around 2020 and provide another 2 x 30 MHz bandwidth to the market plus a 25 MHz duplex gap. There is also LTE use in the 450 MHz band which is being deployed in the Netherlands. However, assignments in this band in the UK are highly fragmented and it may be too challenging to find enough spectrum to support mobile broadband in rail.

Furthermore, additional spectrum could become available for use by Wi-Fi in 5 GHz band thus increasing the total available bandwidth. This is dependent on successful negotiations for allocating more spectrum to Wi-Fi at the next World Radio Conference in 2019.

In addition, there are innovations in spectrum access (methods of authorisation such as licensing) and increased efficiency of spectrum that could benefit connectivity of rail. Below are some examples of where additional bandwidth for rail connectivity could become available:

Spectrum sharing in the 2.7 – 2.9 GHz: Telerail has commenced a process to share spectrum with the CAA in primary S-band radar spectrum. This globally harmonised band could support the operation of standard LTE mobile devices. However, it does not have a mobile allocation at present but the GSMA has supported the allocation of this band to mobile at the World Radio Conference in 2015.

Licence Shared Access – Future sharing of satellite spectrum in the 3.8 – 4.2 GHz presents an opportunity for rail connectivity given the static and predictable nature of incumbent usage. In addition, access to more 2.3 GHz

14 Ofcom sets rules for spectrum auction, July 2017 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/ofcom-sets-rules-for-mobile-spectrum-auction

15 Three UK formally starts legal challenge against Ofcom for spectrum auction process https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/ee-uk-starts-legal-challenge-stop-cap-3-4ghz-5g-mobile-spectrum.html

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

spectrum on a shared basis might be possible with the MOD once more definitive sharing rules are established

A report16 by Plum Consulting indicated a scenario in which mmWave bands are used on a geographical shared basis. This could be done via agreement with operators and licence holders.

Future availability of licence-exempt spectrum within the next 3 to 5 yearsThe ITU-R as part of the next World Radio Conference in 2019 will consider the inclusion of an additional 350 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band that will significantly increase the available bandwidth to users of this spectrum and deliver capacity speeds in Gbps range. Given the growing congestion in the 2.4 GHz band, the 5 GHz band becomes a viable option for a reliable and available trackside link in certain areas along the route.

Licensed or licence-exempt spectrumWe identify the technical differences between using licensed versus licence-exempt spectrum for rail connectivity use. The comparisons show how each method could support the use of connectivity in a rail environment.

16 Flexible spectrum Access Methods, Plum Consulting, October 2017

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 29

30

Figure 8 - Licensed versus licence-exempt spectrum

On balance, licensed spectrum supports the critical requirements of a robust, reliable and available link to the train regardless of location compared to unlicensed spectrum which cannot. However, there are positive attributes of licence-exempt spectrum that could play a role in delivering very high bandwidths along the rail corridor in areas where there is unlikely to be congestion or interference.

International developments of track-side solutionsWe explored some examples of internet connectivity to trains in other countries that could potentially demonstrate different approaches to deployment.

We identified three countries that exhibited some extensive experience in providing connectivity, these countries included:

Germany

Italy

USA

We provide an overview of the situation in each country below.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Germany

In Germany there was an initiative called Project Railnet17 in 2007 that was set up to provide Deutsche Bahn’s fleet of intercity express (ICE) high speed trains with wireless internet. Deutsche Bahn collaborated with T-Mobile Deutschland to deliver connectivity for next generation transportation services.

The approach was to deliver an innovative business model that would lead to the competitive advantage of the major players providing the services. Overall the solution delivered high quality internet to passengers, Wi-Fi in the stations connecting to the trains and wide area infrastructure to provide the wireless backhaul from the train.

Italy

Similar to Germany, in Italy the approach to deploying Wi-Fi on trains has been delivered by a collaboration between Trenitalia Frecce and Telecom Italia WiFi Frecciarossa. The project aimed to deploy a mobile internet, Wi-Fi and high quality telephony on Frecciarossa trains along 1000km of high speed line with 82 tunnels. 74 new UMTS signal repeaters were installed and 60 trains fitted with wireless equipment. Free Wi-Fi internet connections were offered for the first month. All onboard installations and all tunnel coverage infrastructure were designed to repeat all the Italian MNOs services. Although Telecom Italia was lead telco, the other operators also worked to enhance their external coverage along the high speed line.

USA

In the USA there is a number of Wi-Fi on train deployments. However, the most recent is in Utah which uses a Wi-Fi train to ground solution from Radwin18. The commuter route serves 48 km of track with Wi-Fi trackside deployments roughly every 3.2 km. The deployment illustrates that it enhances the existing cellular provision with a robust dedicated trackside solution. The case study did not provide specific performance details of the solution or what type of Wi-

17 Deutsche Bahn and T-Mobile Deutschland Transform German Rail Travel https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/ac79/docs/wp/TMobile_DBahn_CS_0728.pdf

18 Utah’s FrontRunner Train Passengers Enjoy Ultra-Fast Wi-Fi with RADWIN’s FiberinMotion, Sept ‘17 http://www.radwin.com/press-room/utah-frontrunner-trains

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 31

32

Wi- to

-t

ce

Fi was used including spectrum band but according to Radwin’s fibre in motion product specification the frequency band used is 4.9- 6 GHz with maximum data rate of 500 Mbps and range of 5km.

We observe the different solutions between the European countries and the USA. The European solutions relied on cellular technology for the backhaul and the US solution relied on 5 GHz Wi-Fi which indicates there are viable commercial solutions for Wi-Fi trackside deployments. However, in each case there was a need to deploy trackside infrastructure.

Table 3 summarises the key characteristics of trackside to train connectivity provided in each country.

During the latter stages of the project another example international project came to light in China. There is a trial project underway which is using pre-

Table 3 - Key characteristics of trackside to train connectivity projects

Characteristic UK Italy Germany USA

Connectivity provision to train

Aggregated cellular bandwidth with onboard gateway

Aggregated cellular bandwidth with onboard gateway

Aggregated cellular bandwidth with onboard gateway

DedicatedFi solutiononboard gateway

Trackside infrastructure deployed?

No Yes Yes Yes

Spectrum bands used

800/900/1800/2100/2600 MHz

800/900/1800/2100/2600 MHz

800/900/1800/2100/2600 MHz

5 GHz

Licensed/licence-exempt

licensed licensed licensedLicenceexemp

Overall performance

Multiple routes; urban areas good coverage, patchy or no coverage in rural areas

Entire route fully covered including tunnels

Entire route fully covered including tunnels

Good broadbandperforman

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

standard 5G New Radio deployed along a 400 km portion of route. Sites are spaced 800m apart and will provide a mix of operational connectivity such as CCTV real time video feed, passenger information and passenger connectivity. The solution is being funded by the Chinese government.

Technology roadmapThe telecoms sector evolves at a rapid pace. A new smartphone handset, for example is launched every 12-18 months and each version is updated with new features and increased connectivity capabilities and speeds. The latest innovations and technical solutions are used on the railways mainly by passengers bringing their devices on-board. Ideally, rail passengers would wish to use their devices as they do when at home, or work, however, it is not possible to do this adequately when travelling on the railways at present due to the limitations in coverage and difficulties penetrating train superstructures.

In the previous section we examined the different technologies that currently or potentially could be used for connectivity along the rail corridors. In particular, those technologies that could provide the backhaul connections from the trackside to the train to ensure each of the applications can be accessed and onboard connectivity provisions delivered to a much improved quality of service level.

In this section we have produced a technology roadmap which shows whether each of the current and emerging wireless technologies are available today or will become available within a 3 - 5 year timeframe. We define ‘being available’ as commercially available from vendors, operators or service providers with compliant equipment that can be installed on the trackside.

It is clear that there are a wide range of technology options, each of which delivers different levels of performance for example with respect to the coverage that each site can achieve (and thus the amount of infrastructure required), and the peak throughput. Some also require licensed spectrum whilst others can operate in unlicensed spectrum.

Figure 9 shows the potential maximum throughput of each of the technologies together with an expectation of their availability, ranging from:

Trials – meaning that the technology or service is being tested on a limited number of areas or with a limited number of subscribers.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 33

34

Launch – meaning that the technology or service is commercially available but that coverage and equipment availability is not widespread.

Commercially available today – meaning that the technology is commercially available and that coverage is relatively widespread (the extent to which ‘widespread’ represents national coverage depends on the technology as it is clear that many will not be rolled-out to 95%+ of the population even in the long term as they are not designed for long range connectivity).

Figure 9 - Wireless technology roadmap

The roadmap illustrates the potential technologies that are available and when they could provide the necessary connectivity for the GB rail industry depending on the exact throughput requirements, the willingness to invest in infrastructure, and the necessary timing of the launch of the service. On long distance routes that largely run through rural areas, it may be required for the technologies to provide the longest range communication (e.g. LTE-A). This is because limited infill would be necessary in keeping deployment costs low and line disruption to a minimum.

Alternatively, on routes that pass through suburban and urban areas and may pass through many tunnels or deep cuttings, it may be that a short-range rail specific solution would be the only realistic way to achieve the desired connectivity, potentially in conjunction with commercially available coverage.

The right choice will inevitably be dependent on the commercial options and business case and may vary from route-to-route. Similarly, whether a service offered by existing operators, whether a rail specific solution, or whether a

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

heterogeneous mix of these is the most appropriate will also depend on the commercial aspects.

Another important consideration is the availability and capability of the onboard technology, particularly the mobile gateway solution. Devices today support 3G/4G and Wi-Fi for the backhaul connection but in future will need to support new technology upgrades including 5G and new frequency bands and bandwidths. More details on the developments in onboard technology are described in the appendix.

The technology roadmap that has been developed for this study takes into account the information gathered from stakeholders, requirements and implementation workshops and desktop research.

The technology roadmap indicates that the different technologies will be available with a strong possibility some of them will be deployed over the next 3-5 years and thus help enable TOCs to meet the DfT requirements for passenger connectivity, which in turn should deliver against the operational requirements for TOCs and FOCs.

We note that today the technology in use is 3G/4G aggregated cellular from sites not on Network Rail land providing backhaul to/from the onboard gateway. However, more recently MNOs have optimised their cellular networks to serve specific rail routes. Some examples are given below:

High Speed 1 – EE are building trackside infrastructure capable of supporting multiple operators.

Chiltern route/Arriva – EE optimised its network to provide full coverage along the Chiltern route to ensure enhanced Wi-Fi performance on board.

Heathrow Express – Vodafone optimised its network to provide enhance coverage along the route including tunnel to ensure better Wi-Fi performance on board.

This move by MNOs and TOCs demonstrate a willingness to enhance the connectivity provision along rail routes to serve on-train Wi-Fi provision for passengers and also enable them to make calls and use data on their handsets.

In turn to improve connectivity and deliver cross industry benefits, trackside infrastructure will be needed. Therefore, the size and shape of the network becomes a dependency and the level of connectivity that is required which must also include scope for expansion. For example, a study conducted by LS telcom19 found that site spacing along the rail corridor can range from 500m

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 35

36

up to 2km depending on what level of connectivity is required. This in turn impacts the costs and contingent on site location and type of access layer deployed.

In the following sections, we discuss the commercial opportunities and models that could be used to implement the trackside infrastructure to deliver improved connectivity. The network architecture options are discussed in more detail in these sections however we summarise them below:

Cellular provision from non-trackside network – Incremental option (or do nothing)

Single end-to-end supplier dedicated provision from the trackside

Network Rail telecom provision supporting commercialising its existing assets and capacity

Neutral host model in which a third party builds (financed capex investment) and owns the trackside infrastructure

Hybrid model that is a mix of the NRT and neutral host model

19 5G Infrastructure requirements for the UK, LS telcom on behalf of the NIC,

Dec 2016, https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/5g-infrastructure-require-ments-uk-ls-telcom-report-nic/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Commercial opportunities

BackgroundThe Internet has become the single largest consumer of attention in history, with average UK adults admitting to spending nearly 9 hours a day online. Ofcom’s Digital Day study – published as part of the Communications Market Report 2016 - shows that UK adults are spending 8 hours 45 minutes on media and communications each day on average – more time than we do sleeping.20

The reason that ‘online’ consumes such immense amounts of our waking time is that almost every aspect of our lives has now become digital. From reading books and magazines, watching TV and movies to corresponding with colleagues and working. The on-demand economy requires online consumers and also connected suppliers. Connectivity to the Internet is the new prerequisite for happiness and productivity and places without connectivity are avoided in favour of those with high speed connections.

Connecting people and homes to the Internet has typically been seen as the role of telecoms providers, who have over the past 15 years been fighting against the annual erosion of their core voice businesses while struggling to differentiate their increasingly dumb data pipes. While over the top services have (so far relatively) successfully lobbied for net neutrality and built iconic brands on top of these data pipes, some service providers have aggregated massive amounts of personal data to build products that are free to consume (Facebook), while others charge directly for their services (Netflix). With the likes of Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon building a myriad of complex ecosystems that both create demand while authoring the tools to meet the demand, the devices used to connect to the Internet are becoming smaller and (usually) cheaper. As smart watches, connected fridges and virtual reality continue to advance the fabric of connectivity that supplies the, usually wireless, data needed also evolves.

Against this relentless backdrop of evolution, the rail corridor remains disconnected. Quality wireless access to data is rare even at stations and almost unknown on trains.

20 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2016/cmr-uk–2016

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 37

38

Train passengers have always seemed an attractive audience; sitting (or standing) on a train with nothing in particular to do. The free newspaper model was built upon the idea of commuting and the surplus attention of people travelling to work. Indeed, with 1.7bn rail journeys per year21 lasting an average of 76 minutes22 over 2.2bn hours are spent on trains a year. The productive value of this time is estimated to be around £69bn a year23.

Different types of journeys result in different passenger needs:

Children and youth, travelling short distances to school.

Commuters, travelling (relatively) short distances to work and back.

Longer distance business travellers travelling between cities.

Leisure users, variable journeys throughout the day, including (overseas) tourists.

Event travellers who may have very specific informational needs.

Anyone taking a train today will recognise the overwhelming number of fellow passengers using digital devices. Since 98% of the population has access to a smartphone it is unsurprising that most travellers can be found staring at a screen. Unsurprisingly, the majority of content being consumed has usually been downloaded prior to travelling.

Delivering high speed robust data services to trains will unlock a wide range of technical and commercial opportunities that require ubiquitous data connections. The purpose of this report is to discuss the ways in which this connectivity could be delivered and financed, identify new opportunities that could emerge from the connectivity and suggest a suitable timeframe for delivery.

21 http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/23323/rail-statistics-compendium-2015-16.pdf

22 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633077/national-travel-survey-2016.pdf

23 https://medium.com/@tobytreacher/productive-passengers-ve-gdp-for-sale-df3747ab98bd

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Stakeholders

GB rail has for more than 10 years struggled to successfully align stakeholders across the private and public sectors to mutually benefit from the delivery of much needed mobile data connectivity. These stakeholders include:

Network Rail

Train operating companies

Freight operating companies

Equipment vendors

Telecoms operators – mobile, fixed and wireless

Passengers

ORR

Ofcom

DCMS

DfT

As part of our work we have spoken at length with representatives from each of these stakeholder groups and it is clear that diversity alone has made reaching any form of consensus extremely difficult. The overall lack of ownership and co-ordination has contributed to a waste of time and resources, which today offers neither a more cohesive technology platform for rail connectivity nor any significant change in speeds or experience.

The failings of the past and successes both abroad and in other industries, suggest that the key to addressing today’s infrastructure bottleneck on the rail corridor lies in simultaneously aligning incentives and providing co-ordination of future investment. For this reason we believe that modelling other sectors (in particular telecoms) and trying to replicate as closely as possible the well understood components of their supply chain, will provide the best possible chance of ensuring an active and innovative community emerges around railway connectivity in the UK.

Requirements summaryIt is important that any possible outcome properly aligns the incentives of all the major stakeholders to fully cooperate, delivering both a technical platform and a commercial model that ensures the affordable long-term supply of solutions that meet the needs of all customers.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 39

40

Market

A forward looking solution should seek to create an open and competitive marketplace offering supplier’s sensible financial incentive to deliver innovative technology solutions optimised for use on the railway. It is important the operation of the market is fair and transparent and as little railway specific distortion as possible occurs.

TCO and finance

Any model should consider the total cost of ownership, including the relative economic advantages of various approaches over the lifetime of the initiative.

Network Rail

Tasked with maintaining and operating the railway, Network Rail’s primary focus must remain on safety and security. Any potential model must be able to meet the necessary standards and introduce any operational risk to the railway.

Operators

The requirements of train and freight operators differ and any solution will be able to accommodate both current and future anticipated needs. Respecting the geography and duration of franchises, while offering technical choice and commercial affordability will be key.

Passengers

As passengers continue to prioritise connectivity above all other amenities, exceeding their expectations of data speed and availability will be crucial to maintaining the competitive modal advantage of rail transportation. If more data is consistently available to a passenger in an autonomous vehicle then rail journeys could be adversely affected.

Government

Beyond building a model solely to serve the rail community, there are many neighbours that could benefit from modern connectivity delivered from the rail corridor. A separate national IP network may also be of interest for deploying critical national infrastructure. To what extent could a potential solution meet wider policy objectives? (such as rural broadband).

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Vertical integrationDue to historical reasons predicated mainly on safety and security, communications on the railway has remained both proprietary and tightly vertically integrated.

Communications with drivers via GSM-R requires (2,500) telecoms masts to be situated on land owned by the railway, with a proprietary radio access network all the way to customised handsets that only operate on the railway.

While undoubtedly this approach has provided a level of surety around both the design and supply of the required solution, it was developed over 20 years ago.

In other industries, such as retail, vertical integration has helped business like Zara build significant economies of scale while exercising greater cost control at each stage. However, vertical integration is also extremely capital intensive (NR has spent £1.8 billion so far)24, reduces flexibility and often diverts management focus from the core business. However, improved vertical integration would make it easier to coordinate the very different supply chains for connectivity and rail.

Vertical disintegrationFor some industries the risks associated with operating an integrated business outweigh the potential benefits. The rise of the gig-economy is making it easier for businesses of all sizes to specialise in very specific aspects of a particular supply chain, bringing knowledge and expertise to reduce risk and create opportunities.

Some industries may become completely disintegrated for example the film industry, which was once tightly integrated with only a handful of studios owning everything from production to cinemas, which is now highly fragmented with specialised firms performing tasks such as editing, colouring, special effects, distribution and so forth.

While full disintegration is extreme, the advent of property sale and leaseback deals (occupier disposals) allowed banks, retailers, and hotels to immediately free up capital which could be used to compete and invest in other, core, areas of their businesses.

24 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/gsm-r/

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 41

42

Around the world mobile network operators have been rationalising their operations to compete more effectively. In some circumstances this has resulted in full mergers, which reduce consumer choice. Some operators have chosen to collaborate with competitors in joint infrastructure sharing ventures (such as Vodafone and O2 via CTIL) while active radio access network (RAN) sharing is considered by some as the next logical step.

Figure 10 - RAN sharing options

Large well-funded 3rd party operators of (passive) transmission assets have emerged, bringing much needed capital to operators (similar to sale and leaseback arrangements) while also widening access, allowing faster cheaper network roll out as well as improved coverage.

While some industries and businesses have been able to commercially realise the benefits of selective disintegration (or disaggregation) voluntarily, there are instances when regulatory intervention has been required. Ofcom has been instrumental in ensuring that BT has been able to provide (previously public) infrastructure that can be commercially accessed on a fair and transparent basis.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Models

Incremental optionWith 58% of passengers dissatisfied with current on train solutions25, best efforts mobile backhaul has proven itself to be insufficient for the current requirements of operators and passengers. A do nothing option recognises that rolling stock operating in Great Britain today, currently can and does receive some form of mobile data connectivity. Without any change, train and freight operators are currently able to procure bandwidth to trains for operational purposes and in some instances using managed service gateways to deliver Wi-Fi solutions to passengers.

At present there is often a chasm between the availability of services (from licensed operators) and the quality of the services: the difference between having a signal and getting online. It is likely that any venue or location that has significant peak periods (shopping centres and stadia) will have plenty of coverage, but may have constrained capacity.

Nowhere is this more acute than on the rail corridor. Network operators do not currently site their masts on the rail corridor. Service that can be received by rail passengers tend to be a coincidence of existing cell sites that have been deployed to serve a different user base.

If a 4G cell site can handle around 400 connected users it will have been built and sized to serve the local population. With trains passing every 15 minutes, and more than 400 passengers looking to get online, it is unsurprising that the experience is poor. Add to this the whole train's onboard Wi-Fi experience looks like just another (one or two) connection(s) to the cell site and it is easier to understand why the current solution is unlikely to improve without some co-ordinated efforts.

Funding: The current solution sees MNO shareholders investing in infrastructure on or near the rail corridor only when there are significant commercial benefits of doing so. While some wider trials have taken place, historically, cell sites in dense urban locations that can serve the railway as well have been delivered, while rail only sites have not.

25 National Rail Passenger Survey, Spring 2017 https://www.screencast.com/t/COUykkQEV1KU

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 43

44

Pro: The current situation benefits MSG providers and MNOs who charge operators fully for best efforts delivery of mobile data to trains (and passengers).

Con: For MNOs there is no incentive to increase either coverage or availability. Areas considered covered may not be able to support hundreds of passengers for short periods of time. Train operators have largely been unwilling or unable to charge passengers for onboard data leading to large and growing costs with little obvious benefit. TOCs are being charged large amounts for data consumption with no way of recuperating these costs.

The opportunities (of better data connectivity) do not currently equally incentivise stakeholders to deliver improvements.

Single supplierA potential model that has been explored previously, following the publication of T964, sought to create a single connectivity solution for GB rail. In 2014, Network Rail Telecom managed an RFP process predicated on licensed spectrum which invited MNO led consortia to bid to improve the voice and data connectivity on trains and in stations. The effort to coordinate the needs of various rail stakeholders, the government and Network Rail at a time when Network Rail was transitioning to full public ownership proved too much and the project failed to deliver a commercial solution.

Funding: It was hoped that licensed spectrum operators would choose to build assets on the rail corridor in exchange for (potentially) exclusive or preferential access to passengers in an attempt to alter the commercial landscape of the do nothing case.

Pro: Network Rail and the wider rail community hoped to upgrade voice and data connectivity (for operations and passengers) on trains for little or no incremental investment, in exchange for potential future revenue streams.

Con: Technology requirements that focused on licensed spectrum and voice services significantly reduced the ability of many interested parties to respond. The winner takes all approach reduced choice and flexibility to an unacceptable extent and required a high degree of consensus from stakeholders that could not be achieved.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

NRTIn 2010, Network Rail formed Network Rail Telecoms and the group asset management director, Peter Henderson stated26:

‘Network Rail Telecoms has been created to design and deliver a new, single, unified telecoms organisation focussing, among other things, on improving the effectiveness of our deployment and use of telecoms assets and managing whole life telecoms in the most efficient manner. The team will be responsible for all of our telecoms assets, strategy and policy decisions, including operating, maintaining and enhancing our assets. They will also be responsible for the design and delivery of the service to the customer.’

Since then, the nature of the assets has changed, as has the definition of the customers. In 2016, the 18,500 km fibre network that runs trackside was not included in list of potential assets to be privatised27.

However, with the decision to retain the telecoms assets, it must be assumed that Network Rail Telecoms will be expected to contribute to the cost of running the railway.

Currently owning and operating the GSM-R network, as well as a national fibre network (FTN-X), Network Rail recognises the need to upgrade infrastructure and move to a digital future. With much of the capacity, performance and safety benefits falling to the Digital Railway initiative, NRT will be expected to provide the communications infrastructure that will underpin ERTMS/ETCS (European Train Control System), ATO (Automatic Train Operation), TMS (Traffic Management Systems), and C-DAS (Connected Driver Advisory Systems).

Additional infrastructure will be needed to deliver these safety critical services and it is conceivable that Network Rail Telecom could invest in and commercialise the excess capacity, making it available to 3rd parties on a fair and transparent basis.

The services might fall into 3 separate categories:

Rail specific services

Wholesale optical services (dark fibre)

Wholesale telecoms services - IP connectivity

26 https://www.railengineer.uk/2011/09/06/network-rail-telecoms-is-go/27 https://www.ft.com/content/fc0efc68–7c21–11e6-ae24-f193b105145e

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 45

46

Funding: Ignoring issues of state aid, this model would require the tax payer to directly fund the infrastructure needed to connect the railway in the future. Future revenues could be generated to offset the running costs and potentially payback the investment.

Pro: Network Rail would retain ownership and control of all assets. Safety and performance would be assured using the same mechanisms as today (no further risk introduced).

Con: Requires technology, systems, processes and people to effectively wholesale additional capacity. Little of these exist today and there is a high level of commercial risk associated with developing these from within a public sector organisation. This does not align with the overarching recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission report on Connected Future.

Neutral hostBased on existing practises in the telecoms sector, a neutral host model would see the existing infrastructure being managed and maintained by specialist organisations (referred to as TowerCos), whose primary purpose is to maximise the value of (mainly passive) telecoms assets.

With sales and business development activities designed to grow the number of tenants at each site, providers of independent infrastructure currently encourage the widest possible use of their sites. Beyond MNO RAN equipment, fixed operators can use assets to create radio links, delivering bandwidth to remote locations; any business looking to locate radio equipment at height can also take advantage (broadcasters, taxi firms).

Operational expertise also delivers efficiencies allowing sites to be built and managed professionally with the necessary systems needed to accelerate planning, facilitate network deployment and deliver necessary SLAs.

Sharing infrastructure is seen as an obvious way that operators can reduce costs while differentiating based on service. Independent providers of infrastructure have a key role to play in making this possible. Network Rail’s existing mast infrastructure could be added to the pool of available sites, with tenants generating (shared) revenues in exchange for investment in more sites.

Funding: Neutral host operators are usually well funded with longer term investment horizons, looking for stable assets that will return incomes over the

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

medium to long term. Internationally the independent model is prevalent in China, USA, Brazil, Africa and increasingly in Europe, with many mobile operators releasing capital selling assets to 3rd parties to lease back on long-term arrangements.

Pro: An existing, well recognised and well-funded model for building and managing telecoms infrastructure. Existing systems, processes and people to accelerate deployments and manage sites. Already used in other sectors.

Con: Many details would need to be addressed including: access to the rail corridor, health and safety, commercial terms, geographic suitability, and understanding condition of the assets.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 47

48

New business opportunities across the rail sector We have considered the various potential configurations, which are summarized in Figure 11.

Figure 11 - Summary of potential configurations

The existing status quo provides poor cost outcomes as train operators pay retail rates for data usage and have no incentive to encourage passengers to consume data, also making this outcome poor for passengers (58% of passengers currently think train Wi-Fi is dissatisfactory or poor). Network Rail is unable to benefit from any MNO provided coverage and the wider connectivity agenda is not served.

The single supplier solution potentially improves the current economics, with the possibility of all railway data being aggregated. The solution is likely to meet Network Rail’s needs ahead of the train operators with an improvement to passenger connectivity and an improvement in access to rail assets for wider connectivity.

Infrastructure provided by NRT should improve the way that suppliers can access infrastructure, which could improve the economics, data connectivity for operators and passengers and if executed correctly have a wider benefit for public sector networks, wider enterprises and rural broadband.

The neutral host approach would provide commercial access to infrastructure (to all telecom service providers and operators) while potentially sharing the financial benefits with the rail industry. NR and train operators should be able

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

to extract the deals and services that they require and can afford, providing improved passenger connectivity where it makes sense or is required.

It is clear that establishing a mechanism to unlock access to the physical trackside infrastructure provides the best way to create a connectivity platform that will foster technological innovation on the railway. We believe that a hybrid approach may offer the fastest and most resilient way to deliver access to infrastructure.

The role of a neutral host usually involves the management of passive assets (gantries, poles, masts). The ownership of the assets, their condition, access, maintenance, the construction of new assets and the terms of transfer at the end of the agreement are all the details that will determine the attractiveness of the proposition. There is much to be gained from working with specialist partners who have experience extracting value from infrastructure.

While Network Rail own the current trackside infrastructure it is possible that management could be outsourced; simultaneously delivering much wider access to existing assets and speeding up deployments, delivering more capacity.

Network Rail may wish to retain as much of the asset management as possible, however the track record of Network Rail Telecom would suggest that private sector specialists with correct commercial incentives would be able to leverage the existing asset base both more quickly and also more fully. Concerns over state aid have also added to confusion around the commercial use of an existing national telecoms network based on public assets. With around 16,000 km of route and 2,500 stations the rail corridor offers a unique opportunity for commercialisation and the EU has recognised the role of the public sector in facilitating the delivery of broadband.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 49

50

A digital broadcaster has decito offer commuters on a partifree trial of its mobile sports sthe train operator and togetheach train requires a 1 Gbps cInternet, to allow customers tThe train operator speaks to itpartner who consults the railwregister to see which operatorequipment on the route. Chodeployed network operator, awill be needed to deliver the cThe TOC discusses the cost witit is agreed that the free trial omonth period, making the serthe broadcaster and the TOC the initial costs to improve ser

Industry collaboration

During the course of our research 3 logical ‘layers’ have emerged for normal market conditions to deliver the most efficient allocation of resources. By recognising the 3 crucial components to enable not just base level connectivity but also the innovation, there will be less commercial friction as interests are naturally aligned.

From a connectivity stand point, our key finding is that minimal intervention is required to establish a natural flow of investment and revenues which will see new and existing suppliers compete to meet the current (and emerging) needs of customers.

The focus should be unlocking the passive assets at an infrastructure level to allow network operators to locate equipment on the rail corridor.

There is an extensive ecosystem of companies that exist to serve the GB rail community. The bottleneck to date has been their collective inability to access the infrastructure owned by Network Rail. The upstream collaboration is alive and well, however all stakeholders have become frustrated with their collective impotence to change the approach to (telecom) asset ownership and stewardship.

We believe that the increasingly competitive network space presents great opportunities for rail connectivity, as well as licensed mobile network operators the UK fibre market has recently announced significant investments28 and government announced £190m for broadband in the 2017 autumn budget29. The key opportunity is allowing this funding to be spent on the railways.

28 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-hyperoptic/hyperoptic-hopes-to-challenge-giants-with-130-million-funding-idUKKBN1AC3EH

29 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42096047

ded that it would like cular route a 6-month ervice. It approaches er they decide that onnection to the o stream the service. s preferred technology ay telecom asset s currently have osing the most widely dditional equipment onstant throughput. h the broadcaster and ffer will run for a 24

vice 'sponsored by' will also contribute to vice for all passengers.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Figure 12 - All parties involved in rail connectivity

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 51

52

Government and regulation

RegulationDeployment of trackside infrastructure along GB rail routes needs to deal with all the possible regulatory barriers that might inhibit or minimise the opportunity for improving rail connectivity. This includes spectrum regulations, standards development, competition and permissions (such as permitted development rights and code powers of operators).

The regulations that are relevant to the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure on the trackside fall into the remit of Office of Rail and Road, Ofcom and Competition and Markets Authority. There are few regulations linked to telecommunications within ORR and therefore Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority would be the regulators to address any fresh challenges from deployment of equipment on the trackside.

Our study has determined that both upgrade to existing infrastructure and new trackside infrastructure is needed for the purposes of a commercial network which potentially creates State Aid concerns. There are a number of regulatory and legal tools that can be used to address any potential barriers. These include:

Access Single Market Power regime for communications

Broadband Cost reduction Directive

Competition Law

GSM-R masts were deployed within a tighter planning regime than today. Thus, there should be more flexibility for deployment of masts on the trackside. However, it is unknown how the new Electronic Communications Code revisions will help with deployment of new infrastructure on the trackside.

In addition to the infrastructure deployment regulations, there are also spectrum regulations to consider. For example:

Future changes to spectrum access in terms of authorisation, assignment and sharing which may impact availability of future bands.

Technical limitations of frequency bands deployed on sites might raise.

ICNIRP limits for trackside workers if some sites are placed too close to where they are working.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Future spectrum availability and auctions.

Support for new regimes such as spectrum sharing in public sector spectrum (such as the approach by Telerail in particular using shared spectrum in the 2.7-2.9 GHz band used in the aeronautical community for primary surveillance radar (PSR)).

We were informed as part of industry discussions that a mobile coverage obligation is one policy lever that could be used to deliver the required levels of connectivity along the rail corridors nationwide. The nature of a rail corridor coverage obligation is that it places a requirement on one or more MNOs to deliver the required level of connectivity ultimately addressing the remaining gaps in coverage that exist today. The coverage obligation must also be clear on the level of service that is required. can be done by specifying the expected signal strength in the area or the capacity in Mbit/s offered to rail passengers. There are however, a number of practical, commercial and regulatory issues to consider if this were to become a viable option.

A coverage obligation may represent a cost burden and can in consequence drive a lower intrinsic value for the spectrum to which the obligation is attached. Meeting a coverage obligation requires specific investments in delivering that coverage to an area, over a particular timeframe.

In addition, once the obligation becomes part of a licence, it must be enforceable on the MNO that obtains it, with a clearly defined compliance methodology. In discussions Ofcom highlighted the overarching importance of setting clearly defined obligations and considering specific criteria for measuring implementation and accountability when the obligation falls due. The wide range of players could introduce a tension between the relevant parties resulting in actions beyond the control of the licensee which could lead to additional complexities, cost and delays. For example, a coverage obligation could be conceived as entailing some contingent requirements on other parties. For example, on Network Rail such that it would have to allow access to its infrastructure for the MNO to deploy the relevant infrastructure to meet its coverage obligations. However, this is likely to present enforcement challenges.

This project has focused on addressing the access to Network Rail infrastructure for the deployment of third party network equipment to deliver connectivity, with the aim to minimize the risks for MNOs and other third party providers. We recognize that although coverage obligations are one policy tool for delivering connectivity on the rail corridors, further examination of the implications, costs and risks this would place on any particular MNO is needed.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 53

54

GovernmentOn the government policy side, DfT has been leading the incorporation of connectivity requirements for train operating companies through the franchise obligations. The requirement on TOCs is to offer passengers free Wi-Fi that is implemented in a way that meets particular criteria.

More recently DfT has adapted its connectivity requirements for new franchises to provide a base level of connectivity per train (100 Mbps) which is differentiated according to the type of route (long distance or commuter). The DfT conducted extensive research on passenger use of devices, length of journey, type of applications used and derived a set of KPIs which are described in the section on GB rail connectivity requirements. It is these requirements that will drive both the type of connectivity to be delivered trackside, and the business case to be developed by the TOCs. Therefore, it is imperative that the type of framework for deploying trackside infrastructure is consistent. Otherwise, the industry will end up with a range of fragmented models with a widely varying investment horizon.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Conclusions and recommendationsHaving failed so far as an industry to provide any meaningful connectivity to trains, we have frequently been asked, “what’s different this time?” Many of the people that took part in this research have been involved in these ultimately fruitless past efforts. There is a wealth of experience about “what not to do” and we need to collaborate and build a positive shared vision for what can be achieved on our railway. Making passengers productive during their time on trains offers a significant national opportunity and now is the time for genuine action. To make a difference, these factors should be considered:

Co-ordinationFor a long time ministers have dreamt of working on trains as they return to their constituencies. So long in fact that nature of work has changed and today instead of telephone calls, productivity is driven by access to the internet. Successful initiatives are characterised by strong leadership and a single point of ownership and responsibility. The solution cannot lie somewhere between Network Rail, the DCMS, the DfT and the private sector.

InfrastructureEstablishing a way in which the current telecoms infrastructure on the rail corridor can be commercially shared is vital. Mutterings of state aid and confusion around Network Rail’s transition to full public ownership have made it too easy to hide behind pseudo legal objections. The infrastructure is the key and finding a way that it can be safely made available to 3rd party organisations should be the priority.

Neutral hostThe commercial model of independently operated infrastructure is well established in many industries including the global telecoms arena and offers a pro-competitive mechanism to extend both network coverage and also capacity. Given Network Rail’s responsibility to manage risk and safety, finding an optimal balance between their obligations to asset stewardship and the private sectors ability to provide finance and deliver operational efficiencies ought to give rise to a long-term mutually beneficial partnership.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 55

56

InvestmentUnlocking access to trackside infrastructure could allow Network Rail in the short term to raise funds or in the medium term provide funding for additional capacity and maintenance. Independent infrastructure operators are well funded and hungry to invest in assets that will yield returns over the medium to longer term. This could be achieved in conjunction with a myriad of public initiatives to increase investment in rural broadband and research and development. Perhaps, reducing Network Rail’s reliance on public funding.

InterventionWhile solving the current bottleneck of access to infrastructure remains the priority, there are a number of interventions that could help commercially establish the need for access. Network Rail itself will undoubtedly need telecoms services across the country, ensuring that TOCs continue to be incentivised to provide high quality passenger connectivity and MNOs could also be encouraged to provide coverage specifically on the rail corridor.

MeasurementCollaborating with industry, connectivity on the rail corridor should be measured and reported in a similar fashion to the availability of fibre broadband services or 4G roll-out. Current speed and availability metrics are opaque and open to interpretation. They provide little incentive (combined with a total inability) to improve. Once TOCs and FOCs are able to procure services on a fair and open basis, regular reporting on progress should help encourage continued improvement. If the industry is able to make progress and a solution found to deliver ubiquitous and continuous high capacity connectivity along all GB rail routes to support stakeholder requirements including the TOC and FOC, passengers, and Network Rail. We believe that this will accelerate:

TOCs and FOCs having the flexibility to choose which solution best meets their connectivity needs. This could be a mix of solutions (hybrid) on the same route and which is the most cost effective for the franchise.

The digital industries, rail sector and government recognise the wider economic benefits to the UK of enabling the deployment of different types of electronic communications equipment on the trackside infrastructure.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

The wireless connectivity sector can deliver future proof connectivity solutions, rolled out in a way that will meet the minimum set of connectivity related franchise requirements.

Passengers can expect a Wi-Fi quality of service on board which are orders of magnitude better than today and continuously proven based on standard metrics to meet mobile data demand growth requirements.

Ability to deploy future proof technology and infrastructure that can support future proofing such as access to sufficient fibre, sufficient space.

Mobile subscribers should also be able to connect directly to their networks while on a train.

There are a range of technology options available all of which will meet the connectivity needs, some will be quicker to deploy than others and not so complex, others may take longer given the larger infrastructure but will be more future proof, technology agnostic and offer wider economic benefits and support a multi-functional use to deliver better all-round connectivity for other uses. By providing access to the underlying infrastructure the industry will be able to decide how best to proceed.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 57

58

Appendix 1: Technology Trials

Project SWIFT - Innovate UK funded project

Project Members: Cisco, Wittos Ltd, Level3 Communications, CGI UK, Passcom

Total project fund: £1m

Funded period: Feb '16 - Mar '18

Abstract: SWIFT will use high-speed in-carriage Wi-Fi to improve the passenger experience, enhance commercial opportunities and improve train management capabilities. Wi-Fi on trains is currently delivered using bonded mobile solutions. This is essentially providing Internet access to whole trains via a handful of tethered smartphones. Improving capacity in-carriage requires trackside Wi-Fi backhaul, which relies on advanced service management, with session handover at 2ms. This has been demonstrated in a lab but not in a real-life environment. SWIFT will demonstrate this technology on UK rail, advancing the state-of-the-art. Furthermore, Wi-Fi is moving beyond a pure Internet access model to value-added services based on location and presence-awareness with Big Data analytics. These types of services are seen increasingly in the retail sector, but have not as yet reached on-train Wi-Fi. SWIFT will bring this innovation to the UK rail sector through its application development and SME Open Innovation competition. It will expose new businesses with creative, technical, and user experience capabilities to the UK rail sector, enhancing the customer experience in rail travel.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Project MANTRA - mmWave Access Networks for TRAins

Project Members: University of Bristol and Blu Wireless Technology

Total project fund: £

Funded period: F

Abstract: A team of researchers from the University of Bristol is working on a system to provide 5G broadband wireless links to trains for faster surfing.

The MANTRA (Millimetre-wave Access Networks for TRAins) project is using 60GHz wireless kit from Blu Wireless Technology in Bristol to provide the gigabit links that will provide each passenger with at least 2Mbit/s bandwidth using standard Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi routers in each carriage are connected to a 60GHz radio transmitter on the train which links to track-side receivers that are placed every 500m. The system was recently demonstrated at the Rail Innovation and Development Centre at Melton in collaboration with rail operator First Group and National Rail, with data rates of 1 Gbps achieved on the test track at speeds up to 90 mph (145 kmh).

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 59

60

Appendix 2: Existing connectivityWe have identified the TOCs that already have Wi-Fi onboard their trains. The table below has been extracted from the National Rail web site which provides a brief overview of the Wi-Fi provision from each of the TOCs. It can be seen that the details of what is offered varies quite widely. One future consideration could be the performance rating against the DfT KPIs. This might not be something to share in public but a consideration when marketing and rating performance of onboard Wi-Fi in the future.

Table 4 - Current status of onboard Wi-Fi provision

Train operating company

Onboard Wi-Fi provision

Arriva Trains Wales

There is free Wi-Fi connection across 70% of Arriva Trains Wales rail services (Class 150, 158 and 175 trains). The Wi-Fi service, dependent on mobile network service availability, allows passengers to carry out tasks like browsing webpages, access apps and check emails.

c2cFree Wi-Fi service is available on board c2c trains and at all c2c Railway stations.

Caledonian Sleeper

From 2018, free Wi-Fi will be available on board and at the station.

Chiltern RailwaysWi-Fi is available free of charge on all Chiltern Railways mainline trains.

CrossCountry

Wi-Fi is available on all CrossCountry services. A guide to the charges for Standard Class passengers is available online. First Class passengers can enjoy free of charge Wi-Fi.

East Midlands Trains

Wi-Fi internet access is available on East Midlands Trains to and from London St Pancras International. It is free to First Class customers and available in Standard Class. 15 minutes of free Wi-Fi is available and then it is £4.00 per journey (up to 3 hours), £6 per day, £30.00 per month (valid for 28 days) or £300 per year. 'Anytime Bundles' are also available for £15 valid for 10 hours over 30 days.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Gatwick ExpressFree Wi-Fi is available on Gatwick Express service and at the station.

Grand CentralFree Wi-Fi internet is available on all Grand Central trains.

Great NorthernWi-Fi is not currently available on Great Northern services. Wi-Fi is available at selected stations provided by O2.

Great Western Railway

Wi-Fi is available on the Sleeper services and many of Great Western Railway daytime services - Look out for the ‘Free Wi-Fi’ stickers. Wi-Fi is available at some Great Western Railway stations through the public provider 'The Cloud'.

Greater Anglia

Wi-Fi internet is now available for all customers travelling on Inter-City services between Norwich, Ipswich and London. This is provided free to First Class and Standard Class ticket holders.

Heathrow Connect

Wi-Fi is not currently available on Heathrow Connect services.

Heathrow ExpressComplimentary 4G-enabled Wi-Fi is available on all Heathrow Express services.

Hull Trains

Free 4G Wi-Fi internet is available on all Hull Trains services. When on a Hull Trains service, simply log-on to hulltrains.on.icomera.com (a short registration form needs completing for first-time users).

Island Line Wi-Fi is not currently available on Island Line services.

London Midland

London Midland is rolling out free Wi-Fi along with their entertainment package across the network. More information can be found here. By October 2017 70% of journeys will have this service installed.

Table 4 - Current status of onboard Wi-Fi provision

Train operating company

Onboard Wi-Fi provision

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 61

62

London Overground

Wi-Fi is not currently available on London Overground services. However, Wi-Fi is available in the ticket halls and corridors of 79 London Overground stations. The first 60 minutes will be free of charge and will be operated by The Cloud.

London Underground

Wi-Fi is not currently available on London Underground services. However, Wi-Fi is available in the ticket halls, platforms and corridors of 250 London Underground stations.

Merseyrail

Wi-Fi is not currently available on Merseyrail services. However Wi-Fi is available at the following Merseyrail stations, Liverpool Central, Moorfields, James Street, Hamilton Square and Conway Park. It will be introduced at Liverpool Lime Street Low Level station and the Old Hall Street entrance to Moorfields later this year.

Northern

Wi-Fi is available on services between Leeds and Doncaster, Skipton, Ilkley and Bradford Forster Square. All trains will have free Wi-Fi by 2019. Wi-Fi hotspots are available for use at a number of stations. Customers are requested to access Privacy policy and Terms of Use documents before logging in.

ScotRail

Free Wi-Fi is now available on most ScotRail routes. You can find it in 52 stations and 18 different train routes across the ScotRail network. Carriages fitted with the new equipment have appropriate signs on their windows and doors. A full list of routes and stations which have free Wi-Fi can be found online.

Table 4 - Current status of onboard Wi-Fi provision

Train operating company

Onboard Wi-Fi provision

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

South Western Railway

Wi-Fi is available to passengers on the Class 444, and now also 450, ‘Desiro’ electric trains running on the South West network, from London Waterloo to Weymouth and Poole, to Portsmouth and also on outer-Suburban routes. The Class 444 coaches are predominantly white in colour, while Class 450s are blue, and all trains with Wi-Fi available will be clearly labelled on board. Services to Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire all have free Wi-Fi. Over 50% of South Western Railway services now have free Wi-Fi on-board. Free Wi-Fi is also available at: Aldershot; Basingstoke; Farnborough; Guildford and Woking.

SoutheasternWi-Fi is not currently available on Southeastern services.

Southern

Wi-Fi is available on some of the Southern rolling stock. Free Wi-Fi is available at selected stations provided by O2 and further information can be found on their web site.

TfL RailWi-Fi is not currently available on TfL Rail services. Wi-Fi is available at selected stations. Further information is available from TfL.

ThameslinkWi-Fi is not currently available on Thameslink services. Wi-Fi is available at selected stations provided by O2 and further information can be found here.

TransPennine Express

Fast, free and unlimited Wi-Fi is available at Huddersfield, Manchester Airport, Middlesbrough, Selby, Stalybridge and Warrington Central stations. Please look out for 'O2WiFi' to sign in. Free Wi-Fi is available on Class 350 trains which run between Manchester and Scotland. More information can be found here.

Table 4 - Current status of onboard Wi-Fi provision

Train operating company

Onboard Wi-Fi provision

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 63

64

Virgin Trains

Wi-Fi internet is available on all Virgin Trains services. Wi-Fi is free of charge for First Class customers and chargeable in Standard Class, via a number of payment options.

Virgin Trains East Coast

Wi-Fi internet access is available on Virgin Trains East Coast trains and in Virgin Trains East Coast First Class Lounges. Wi-Fi is free for First Class customers and for Standard Class customers who've booked direct with Virgin Trains East Coast. Standard customers who didn't book direct with Virgin Trains East Coast, Wi-Fi is free for 15 minute then it's £5.00 for your journey.

Table 4 - Current status of onboard Wi-Fi provision

Train operating company

Onboard Wi-Fi provision

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

Appendix 3: Onboard technology reviewThe technology solutions for wireless onboard connectivity are well established with a buoyant ecosystem of vendors providing a variety of products and services to the transport sector. In the early 2000’s two of the now largest vendors (by customer) emerged Icomera and Nomad Digital. Each of the companies have recently been bought by larger group companies.30

There are other players that have more recently entered this market such as Indra and McLaren Applied Technologies with their own solutions. The onboard solutions currently provide Wi-Fi access to passengers and staff devices on the basis of the ubiquitous nature of Wi-Fi. However, there remains to deliver a consistently high user experience due to the high capacity density of users onboard trains all seeking to simultaneously connect to the same network.

Table 5 presents the technologies that are available today that could support on board connectivity and the expected performance.

30 Icomera was bought by Engie in May 2017 and Nomad Digital bought by Alstom in December 2016

Table 5 - Onboard technologies available today and suppliers

Onboard technology

today

Peak download speeds (Mbps)

On board equipment suppliers

Devices used by passengers

IEEE 802.11 ab/g/n/ac Wi-Fi using 2.4 and 5 GHz

300 – 600 Mbps (802.11n) 1.3 Gbps (802.11ac)

Icomera, McLaren Applied technologies, Icomera

Smartphone, tablets, laptops, wearables, other portables

Emerging technologies for onboard

Peak download speeds (Mbps)

On board equipment suppliers

Devices used by passengers

IEEE 802.11ad (60 GHz)

7 Gbps (2 GHz bandwidth)

Not applicable Not applicableIEEE 802.11ax (2.4/5 GHz)

10 Gbps (160 MHz bandwidth)

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 65

66

The performance statistics indicate that current and emerging technologies such as 802.11ad and 802.11ax will support very high capacity density environments. The issue however is the bottleneck in the backhaul and therefore, TOCs have to find smarter ways to manager their on-board traffic to ensure that the passenger experience is high quality and seamless.

There are no examples of on-board technologies that support cellular technologies to passengers such as 3G or 4G today. A number of reasons for this include:

The existing on-board Wi-Fi provides suitable data provision to passengers.

Expense of retrofitting new equipment in addition to Wi-Fi (including different antennas).

Many passengers (and passenger journeys) can use their direct mobile connection on the train anyway particularly in urban and suburban areas on trains with low signal loss windows.

TOCs have little incentive to deploy MNO connectivity on board given as it removes the valuable access to the customers data.

There are some particular disadvantages from using Wi-Fi on board trains when having to share amongst passengers. The level of user experience is proportional to the number of users on the network and thus performance reduces as more users access the network.

The current passenger user experience on Wi-Fi networks will be a considerable factor of the deployment and must be considered as part of the whole system including the trackside backhaul solution and radio access network. We discuss the whole system further in the Models section in this report.

Responses from our stakeholder engagement suggested that upgrade provisions for on-board equipment is taken care of by several means including:

Equipment refresh typically within 5 years

New train fleet thus fitting of new on-board equipment

Existing fleet refurbishment or refresh

Change in franchisee

The above approaches to on-board equipment refresh means that equipment has to be flexible to frequent changes in technology. For example, renewing equipment today could potentially mean a TOC could miss out from the benefits of a new technology being adopted by their supplier. In turn, this means that both the on-board supplier must build in an upgrade options as part of its solution but also for the TOC to understand the implications if the situation occurs.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

The on-board gateways suppliers have established a mature ecosystem of equipment that supports the latest mobile communication technologies for the train to trackside connection. Discussions with suppliers also mentioned the flexibility of upgrading to new technologies and frequency bands such as 2.3 GHz and 3.5 GHz. Availability to support mmWave bands in future will also be possible in the near future. Samsung has developed a product Customer Premises Equipment in the 28 GHz band that will support New Radio 5G.31 In addition, Blu Wireless has produced products at 60 GHz, which have been used in train connectivity trials that could be used or potentially integrated to onboard gateways.

We expect the future availability of on-board equipment to expand and develop within the 3 to 5 year timeframe based on future demand, upgrade to both on-board technology and backhaul connectivity and also demand from rail operations, passenger internet access and safety.

Other technologiesBluetooth/ZigBee

There are a number of short-range wireless communication technologies which are continually developing to offer greater coverage and higher throughputs. These include technologies such as BlueTooth and ZigBee (IEEE 802.15.4). However, it is important to be careful when considering the capabilities of these technologies. BlueTooth 3.0 purports to offer connection speeds of up to 24 Mbps at ranges of up to 240 metres, however this is not provided by the BlueTooth connection itself. Instead BlueTooth acts as a method of negotiating a connection with a co-located Wi-Fi device. These technologies are included for completeness but are not capable of delivering the kind of connectivity required by the railways.

31 Arqiva and Samsung kick off UK’s First 5G Fixed Wireless Access Trials https://news.samsung.com/global/arqiva-and-samsung-kick-off-uks-first-5g-fixed-wireless-access-trial July 2017

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap 67

68

Appendix 4: Stakeholder interviewsIn total the project team conducted over 20 interviews with a range of stakeholders across both rail and digital industry sectors including:

Mobile network operators

Independent infrastructure companies

Train operating companies

Freight operating companies

Telecommunications vendors

Network Rail

Onboard gateway vendors

The stakeholder interviews provided the project team with some of the more detailed information relating to technology availability, capability and development within the 3 to 5 year timeframe. In addition, the interviews provided some of the trackside commercial infrastructure models that were developed for the analysis.

Furthermore, the mobile operators and other trackside vendors indicated which of the solutions they would consider as viable for trackside deployment, and how much spectrum would be needed to support the types of throughput speeds expected by passengers.

The rail sector stakeholders provided the specific information and challenges relating to the provision of on-board connectivity, freight requirements and issues they are facing in relation to gaps in trackside connectivity. They also provided the insights to the benefits and impacts that full connectivity would bring to their business. For example, in some cases full connectivity along the route, in sidings, and depots, would enable changes to their business processes, while enhancing operational efficiency and saving costs.

RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap

[email protected]

http://www.rssb.co.uk

RSSB

Floor 4, The Helicon

1 South Place

London

EC2M 2RB