Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap - RSSB
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 enquirydesk@rssb.co.uk. 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 issue Mobile 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
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
ii RSSB | Connected 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 funding The 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
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 solution
We 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.
iv 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) ..................................................................................................... 9 Scenario 2 (rural broadband provision) ................................................................................................. 9 Scenario 3 (multiple connectivity provisions) ...................................................................................... 9 GB rail connectivity benefits .......................................................................................... 10 Wireless technology overview ......................................................11 Wide area technology landscape review ...................................................................12 Licensed technologies.......................................................................................................13 GSM ...................................................................................................................................................................13 UMTS ................................................................................................................................................................13 LTE .....................................................................................................................................................................14 5G New Radio................................................................................................................................................16 Satellite ............................................................................................................................................................17 FWA ...................................................................................................................................................................18 Licence exempt technologies......................................................................................... 19 Wi-Fi ..................................................................................................................................................................19
WiGig ................................................................................................................................................................19 LTE-U and LTE-LAA ......................................................................................................................................20 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 21 Technology readiness and emerging solutions .....................22 Technology trials ................................................................................................................ 22 Project SWIFT................................................................................................................................................23 Project Mantra ..............................................................................................................................................24 Digital 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..........................................................................................................................................................31 Italy ...................................................................................................................................................................31 USA....................................................................................................................................................................31 Technology roadmap ......................................................................33 Commercial opportunities.............................................................37 Background........................................................................................................................... 37 Stakeholders...................................................................................................................................................39 Requirements summary ................................................................................................... 39 Market ..............................................................................................................................................................40 TCO and finance ..........................................................................................................................................40 Network Rail ...................................................................................................................................................40
Operators.........................................................................................................................................................40 Passengers ......................................................................................................................................................40 Government ...................................................................................................................................................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 Introduction This 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
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.
2 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapThe 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 study The 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
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/
4 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapApproach to the study We 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
Figure 1 - Overview of approach to the study 6 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry Roadmap
GB rail connectivity requirements One 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
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.
8 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapBelow 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
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 benefits
Improved 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
10 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
deliver the trackside to train connectivity. We describe the onboard
connectivity technologies for passengers and crew in the appendix.
Wide area technology landscape review
The 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
12 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapRail Mobile Communication Service, FRMCS) is being considered that should be available in the near future. Licensed technologies In 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
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/
14 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapFigure 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
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
16 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapIt 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 17Satellites 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
18 RSSB | Connected Train and Customer Communications: Rail and Digital Industry RoadmapGHz 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
You can also read
