Brighton Mainline 4G/5G upgrades

[mrmartin]

Haven't seen this posted anywhere else but looks really interesting.

Cellnex UK and Three UK to provide end-to-end connectivity along the Brighton Mainline route

Information for journalists, press, bloggers and the media about Network Rail. Contact the press office to receive news, updates, press releases, videos, pictures, and factsheets, and to arrange interviews, filming and photography

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

London, 10 January 2023 – Cellnex UK and Three UK have signed an agreement to significantly enhance connectivity on the London to Brighton railway route.

The partnership will see Three host its mobile voice and data equipment on newly deployed Cellnex UK infrastructure along the entire London to Brighton railway route. Three UK is the first of the UK’s four MNOs to sign an agreement to join the service, which is part of Cellnex UK’s delivery on a 25-year contract with Network Rail to provide enhanced connectivity for passengers and communities along the Brighton Mainline route.

Basically similar model to TfL 4G/5G - a company bids for the rights to be able to install masts along each route, including tunnels.

Would be great if this could be rolled out to all mainlines - I think many people on them would prefer 100% solid internet on the route vs many other more expensive improvements to the network if asked. I'd prefer to be on a train for 2 hours for example with solid internet that I could work on, vs a 1h30 train with spotty internet.

 

[Pete_uk]

I think this will be using either the 26 GHz, 40 GHz or 66 GHz 5g allocation as the back haul to the internet.

This will be interesting as it's not going to be using the 'end user'* phone networks.

* What you use on your telephone

 

[stuving]

I think this will be using either the 26 GHz, 40 GHz or 66 GHz 5g allocation as the back haul to the internet.

This will be interesting as it's not going to be using the 'end user'* phone networks.

* What you use on your telephone

That's not what Cellnex said when they got the contract a year ago:

To ensure connectivity across the entirety of the route, Cellnex UK will provide:

• Towers that will allow broadcasting of mobile signal along the railway corridor,
• A small number of base station hotels (equipment rooms) within close proximity to the railway to house telecoms equipment,
• High capacity fibre running from Victoria and London Bridge via East Croydon to Brighton, and
• Bespoke radio equipment to provide uninterrupted coverage in the main London stations as well as the tunnels and cuttings along the route.

So the backhaul from the new base station "host" locations along the line is fibre, which presumably serves NR for their own networks too. These base stations are put in by the MNOs (with '3' doing it first), and use their own spectrum. In tunnels, as well as Victoria and Clapham Junction stations, Cellnex put in base stations, antennas, and (presumably) leaky feeders, where needed. What spectrum they use to do that I don't know.

 

[paul1609]

The North Down Tunnels north of Gatwick Airport have had 3G leaky feeder cable for some years.

 

[mrmartin]

That's not what Cellnex said when they got the contract a year ago:

So the backhaul from the new base station "host" locations along the line is fibre, which presumably serves NR for their own networks too. These base stations are put in by the MNOs (with '3' doing it first), and use their own spectrum. In tunnels, as well as Victoria and Clapham Junction stations, Cellnex put in base stations, antennas, and (presumably) leaky feeders, where needed. What spectrum they use to do that I don't know.

I don't think it's like that. Cellnex put all the hardware in, then 3 etc get to pay them, which will allow their end customers to 'roam' onto their network (using the roam term quite broadly here; it will be transparent to end users). This is how it works on TfL 4G. It's all basically software from the MNO point of view. The whole point is that MNOs don't have to put 4 sets of expensive equipment in very constrained areas.

 

[stuving]

I don't think it's like that. Cellnex put all the hardware in, then 3 etc get to pay them, which will allow their end customers to 'roam' onto their network (using the roam term quite broadly here; it will be transparent to end users). This is how it works on TfL 4G. It's all basically software from the MNO point of view. The whole point is that MNOs don't have to put 4 sets of expensive equipment in very constrained areas.

That's what I was expecting, until I read the announcements. But if they are providing their own network throughout, why make such a big distinction about the tunnels/stations bit? If you stretch the meaning of their words just a little, it could cover one proxy network throughout, the mixed one, or the MNOs providing all the base stations with Cellnex putting in shared antenna systems for them in the difficult bits.

Here's another paragraph from last week's announcement:

Three UK’s equipment will be hosted on newly deployed open route ‘Macro Sites’, station Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and special coverage DAS, which will provide their customers with uninterrupted coverage in previous ‘not-spots’ such as tunnels and cuttings and in congested locations including busy stations and peak-time trains.

So it's actually the third possibility. Cellnex don't run a network at all, and each MNO will need to put in enough base stations (using Cellnex's "hotel" sites and antenna systems) to cover the whole line.

 

[mrmartin]

Hmm fair point. Maybe it is just tunnels and cuttings that is done on a proxy basis and then the bits in the open are just for networks to add equipment as you say - perhaps cos it will interfere with their existing network configuration, whereas the tunnels and cuttings are likely to be "self contained?"

 

[Gigabit]

Curious that no other networks have signed up.

 

[driverd]

Would be great if this could be rolled out to all mainlines - I think many people on them would prefer 100% solid internet on the route vs many other more expensive improvements to the network if asked. I'd prefer to be on a train for 2 hours for example with solid internet that I could work on, vs a 1h30 train with spotty internet.

I think this is an excellent point that is often lost. Back when I was a guard, it was an occasional topic that came up (one day I even had a whole section of first class having a little debate about HS2 and the journey time savings vs experience on board), and I think its a point often lost on the powers that be. Very often, it seems, great expense is put into turning a 60 minute journey into a 55 minute journey, through huge infrastructure projects, but little focus is given to the things that people actually want. Patchy data is now just unacceptable, really.

As an aside, I don't suppose anyone knows why 185s are awful for data? I've seen the voyagers previously mentioned due to their window film coverings, but I learned that the 185s are shocking too the other day. I always just assumed the transpennine route was awful for mobile data, however, I get an almost uninterrupted connection on an 802, vs a 185 where I basically lose data the moment I step on board.

 

[Gigabit]

Supposedly if this scheme is a success it will be rolled out to other lines too.

But this is classic non joined up thinking, SWR have rolled out their own weird "5G" system outside of London instead of going in on something like this.

 

[MrJeeves]

This is how it works on TfL 4G. It's all basically software from the MNO point of view. The whole point is that MNOs don't have to put 4 sets of expensive equipment in very constrained areas.

It's not. The TfL 2G/3G/4G/5G project has BAI install the antenna hardware, but the networks still need to go and install all their own radios to generate the radio signals. BAI just rent out access to the antenna portfolio.

BAI have made "radio rooms" across the network to allow for this, which literally consist of rooms filled with radio equipment from each of the four (soon three?) mobile networks.

There are some great pics of these rooms online: https://www.telecomsinfrastructure.com/2022/05/london-underground-mobile-network.html

So it's actually the third possibility. Cellnex don't run a network at all, and each MNO will need to put in enough base stations (using Cellnex's "hotel" sites and antenna systems) to cover the whole line.

Cellnex will build the towers needed, and install the feeders in tunnels, etc, and networks will provide the radio equipment and utilise Cellnex's infrastructure for providing coverage.

Cellnex don't own any spectrum holdings in the UK (at least as far as I am aware) so can't run their own network.

Cellnex effectively owns all sites Three has built in the UK after a deal started in 2022 to acquire the infrastructure, and they lease access back to Three. This will be interesting after the VF-3 merger, which is rumoured to be confirmed today, since CK Hutchison (Three's parent company) has a large stake in Cellnex, so will be selling their network, and generating income from the physical sites from Vodafone.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think this is an excellent point that is often lost. Back when I was a guard, it was an occasional topic that came up (one day I even had a whole section of first class having a little debate about HS2 and the journey time savings vs experience on board), and I think its a point often lost on the powers that be. Very often, it seems, great expense is put into turning a 60 minute journey into a 55 minute journey, through huge infrastructure projects, but little focus is given to the things that people actually want. Patchy data is now just unacceptable, really.

As an aside, I don't suppose anyone knows why 185s are awful for data? I've seen the voyagers previously mentioned due to their window film coverings, but I learned that the 185s are shocking too the other day. I always just assumed the transpennine route was awful for mobile data, however, I get an almost uninterrupted connection on an 802, vs a 185 where I basically lose data the moment I step on board.

The 185s are so rubbish for signal because of the thickness of steel and glass in their construction I believe. Siemens Desiros in particular seem to be built with a very heavyweight design.

 

[mrmartin]

It's not. The TfL 2G/3G/4G/5G project has BAI install the antenna hardware, but the networks still need to go and install all their own radios to generate the radio signals. BAI just rent out access to the antenna portfolio.

BAI have made "radio rooms" across the network to allow for this, which literally consist of rooms filled with radio equipment from each of the four (soon three?) mobile networks.

There are some great pics of these rooms online: https://www.telecomsinfrastructure.com/2022/05/london-underground-mobile-network.html


Cellnex will build the towers needed, and install the feeders in tunnels, etc, and networks will provide the radio equipment and utilise Cellnex's infrastructure for providing coverage.

Cellnex don't own any spectrum holdings in the UK (at least as far as I am aware) so can't run their own network.

Cellnex effectively owns all sites Three has built in the UK after a deal started in 2022 to acquire the infrastructure, and they lease access back to Three. This will be interesting after the VF-3 merger, which is rumoured to be confirmed today, since CK Hutchison (Three's parent company) has a large stake in Cellnex, so will be selling their network, and generating income from the physical sites from Vodafone.

Are you sure? It says on one of the quoted tweet slides that "MNO equipment housed in edge data centres/base station hotels off TfL premises". That was my understanding of how it worked.[/B]

 

[Gigabit]

The equipment at stations is owned and managed by BAI, the networks are given to access to it and linked into their network cores at various points. But the equipment itself is not owned by the MNOs.

When you next go to Notting Hill etc look at the wall, that equipment is used by all operators.

It is a very similar system to DAS at say Heathrow or Gatwick. The MNOs are given access to it but they do not own it.

 

[MrJeeves]

It is a very similar system to DAS at say Heathrow or Gatwick. The MNOs are given access to it but they do not own it.

Bad example when Vodafone have deployed their own special DAS (which they do own and operate alone) in the big UK airports

 

[Gigabit]

Bad example when Vodafone have deployed their own special DAS (which they do own and operate alone) in the big UK airports

They have in some.

But for example in shopping centres it is a shared DAS in some.

Underground is a shared DAS-type arrangement, leaky feeder + equipment at station is provided by BAI and MNOs essentially are given access to it to broadcast on their frequencies. It is software driven until it attaches to network core. I believe - might be wrong - that all backhaul was provided by BT and connected into the individual network even further away.

Do we have any timelines on when this project actually goes live?

 

[MrJeeves]

Do we have any timelines on when this project actually goes live?

I mean it's partially live already?

Currently paused due to issues with how the locations of the "sites" are defined in the 999 database for emergency call locations.

 

[Gigabit]

I mean it's partially live already?

Currently paused due to issues with how the locations of the "sites" are defined in the 999 database for emergency call locations.

May I know where it's currently live?

When you say paused, are the sites all built and waiting to be activated?

 

[MrJeeves]

May I know where it's currently live?

When you say paused, are the sites all built and waiting to be activated?

Sorry, got muddled up because we started mentioning DASes and London Underground...

I know EE had a similar internal project to this, but it's not helped too much (mainly because I don't think they bothered to build most of the sites after getting planning permission!).

Some of the first planning apps have gone in last month for this project, with one I've seen between Balcombe and Haywards Heath: https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-...ils.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=RSYFEFKT04L00

 

[Gigabit]

Sorry, got muddled up because we started mentioning DASes and London Underground...

I know EE had a similar internal project to this, but it's not helped too much (mainly because I don't think they bothered to build most of the sites after getting planning permission!).

Some of the first planning apps have gone in last month for this project, with one I've seen between Balcombe and Haywards Heath: https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-...ils.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=RSYFEFKT04L00

I thought the uniqueness of this project was Network Rail giving access to trackside infrastructure + tunnels on a whole-line basis which they've not previously done. In an effort to ensure contiguous coverage from one end to the other?

The issue with the trains seems to be that whilst yes, EE have done good work as have Vodafone - particularly on GWR between Newbury and Paddington for obvious reasons - the projects are still not able to get as close to 'on-track' as they would like to.

I had understood NR had the ability to bypass the planning system but it seems like I was mistaken? My concern with this project would be rejections of the masts by idiot locals.

I recall EE did some work on the South Western Mainline @MrJeeves although SWR seem to have gone off on their own with some '5G' solution now. The South Western Mainline is and was horrendous.

 

[MrJeeves]

I recall EE did some work on the South Western Mainline @MrJeeves although SWR seem to have gone off on their own with some '5G' solution now.

Their "own" solution was the EE project, as part of their WiFi contract with SWR.

I had understood NR had the ability to bypass the planning system but it seems like I was mistaken?

They don't, sadly. They do gain a lot of additional rights, but not infinite ones.

I don't think Cellnex were getting track-side infra access for the macro sites, which this application is for. That would come at significant extra cost to contract rail-accredited workers in mobile telecoms, which are probably few and far between, and would make future works on the sites a huge pain.

My assumption is the only track-side work done will be in tunnels, and potentially some cuttings, to install various leaky feeders and antennas, but these will all be fed from somewhere outside of (or close to the outside of) the railway boundary.

 

[Gigabit]

Thank you for your insight, Sir.

I hope this scheme is a success and will be expanded to other lines, as coverage has been bad for too long. The South Western Mainline as mentioned is horrific on the various branches, most specifically I have found the Alton branch to be utterly horrific for years and years.

 

[Gigabit]

@MrJeeves looks like the application you posted above has now been approved which is good news.

 

[MrJeeves]

Just FYI, new planning app near Haywards Heath station has been approved.

This is for a new compound on Network Rail property to contain radio equipment and fibre backhaul lines, seemingly for either a mobile coverage DAS (distributed antenna system) for the station, and/or leaky feeder coverage in the tunnel just south of the station between Wivelsfield and Haywards Heath.

https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=RWNPBSKT0GL00

 

[Gigabit]

Just FYI, new planning app near Haywards Heath station has been approved.

This is for a new compound on Network Rail property to contain radio equipment and fibre backhaul lines, seemingly for either a mobile coverage DAS (distributed antenna system) for the station, and/or leaky feeder coverage in the tunnel just south of the station between Wivelsfield and Haywards Heath.

https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=RWNPBSKT0GL00

They’re moving along at a decent pace it seems.

 

[trei2k]

In France, on the TGV routes, there are mobile masts every 3km. A recent trip there meant that I had continuous 5G coverage (4G in some parts) across all of the high speed routes and also in tunnels as well.

The UK has a lot of work to do on this front. However, it is nice to see some movements in the right direction.

 

[Gigabit]

In France, on the TGV routes, there are mobile masts every 3km. A recent trip there meant that I had continuous 5G coverage (4G in some parts) across all of the high speed routes and also in tunnels as well.

The UK has a lot of work to do on this front. However, it is nice to see some movements in the right direction.

In France they made it a condition of licensing that they install masts beside the railway at operator cost. In return the government discounted renewal of license.

It also helps that they have one railway company for infrastructure which is publicly owned and so is a big portion of Orange so they collaborate.

No such work here, it’s incredibly fragmented and disjointed.

The other problem in this country is that Network Rail have historically made it very difficult/impossible to install masts on their assets/land. So instead operators get as close as possible as it is easier but every metre makes a difference to coverage.

The Brighton Mainline project seems to be the first evidence of this changing, with the masts being installed right next to the track.

 

[Carlisle]

It also helps that they have one railway company for infrastructure

So does the UK, unless your referring to HS1 or metro systems.

 

[Gigabit]

So does the UK, unless your referring to HS1 or metro systems.

In France the operator SNCF also operates mostly every train. Therefore they can work on a large scale for these kind of works.

But yes I concede that we also have one company for infrastructure too. My sense from my time at Vodafone was that Network Rail were completely uninterested in mobile coverage but that seems to have changed now which can only be a good thing.

But really there’s no excuse in 2023 that all lines do not have coverage. It should not have taken this long or be this difficult.

 

[mrmartin]

Well its even more ridiculous in that there is complete coverage of phone masts/leaky feeders along (all?) lines, with GSM-R for the trains. Anyone with half a brain would have also put infrastructure for commercial providers while the was done. As I've said before, this could have been a real money maker for Network Rail, the operators do and will pay significant rent for these kind of services.

Better cellular coverage on the network would be probably the #1 "passenger experience" improvement that could be done IMO.