Edinburgh to Glasgow - lack of WiFi, help needed

[Clip]

Why has this topic attracted the anti-WiFi brigade in numbers?

Snail,
They're the same people who would argue over the colour of grass.
Many members of this forum whine and moan about the journalistic language used in certain newspapers, yet a good number of those very same members use the same such language in this forum - a prime example being the various trespass threads.

Im very far from being anti wifi - If it is rolled out accross the network and is cost effective and is for everyones benefit.

Im questioning the whole reason for it on such a short journey with such high costs involved as people above with more knowledge of how units and the landscape work then me.And it appears that rail-britain has more knowledge of what the report contained then the journalist who hasn't even got the report from TS to include in his news story.

If we are not allowed to question peoples proposals for high cost/low return investment then why are we here?

It also does not mean that those of us who question something are in anyway 'anti' whatever the the discussion is about.

 

[Minilad]

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

 

[michael769]

I am not anti-wifi either - and I recognise that it would improve the attractiveness of this link - but this is a link that is already very busy and often overcrowded at peak times.

As it will almost certainly require financial support from TS (and thus taxpayers) I am of the opinion that they money could be better spent elsewhere - such as in improving the reliability and punctually even more that it is already at.

Ask a business commuter if they want wi-fi - they will say yes, ask them if they want wi-fi at the expense of improving punctuality and reliability they will say no

 

[90019]

Which Edinburgh-Glasgow line is it you consider th 'flagship route'? There are quite a few to choose from (is it 4 or 5 now? I forget).
I assume you mean Waverley-Queen Street though.

Oh, and there's a maximum of six sets (three in each direction) on the line at any one time, a line length of 40 miles, etc. - this wouldn't be expensive.

It's not as simple as saying six sets on the line at any time, because you're not taking into account doubled up trains, ones waiting at the terminus to form the next service or for maintainance either.
Then there's the fact that all 59 of the 170s are in a common pool, so in theory any 170 can turn up on the route, meaning you'd actually have to install it in all 59 trains.

 

[rail-britain]

Im questioning the whole reason for it on such a short journey with such high costs involved as people above with more knowledge of how units and the landscape work then me

To fill you in
The consultation (Priced Option 27) was not solely on Glasgow - Edinburgh via Falkirk High, but also included all the main routes (as currently operated by Class 170 units), in order of priority :
Glasgow - Edinburgh via Falkirk High
Glasgow / Edinburgh - Aberdeen
Glasgow / Edinburgh - Inverness
Aberdeen - Inverness (when operated by fitted units only)
Glasgow - Alloa (when operated by fitted units only)
Glasgow - Falkirk Grahamston (when operated by fitted units only)
Dunblane - Edinburgh (when operated by fitted units only)

As previous, ScotRail met its obligation :
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...riced_Option_27_wireless_technology__2009.pdf
The outcome of this report is available from Transport Scotland, although costs and some sections are edited

Strangely there are discrepancies as Transport Scotland claim the costs of implementing the scheme are £0 within the next franchise
I have therefore assumed this is due to the inclusion of this (WiFi equipment) within the rolling stock order for EGIP, and ScotRail would then pickup the remainder of the cost for the remaining Class 170 units (Aberdeen and Inverness routes)
Equally, there is a suggestion some of the Transport Partnerships may pick up part of the cost, and this would include the areas with poor network reception as ScotRail would remain liable for these costs

 

[Greenback]

I'm not against wi-fi, but I am also in favour of prioritising schemes that will provide the best benefits for the most rail travellers.

In the case of installing wi-fi between Glasgow and Edinburgh, there are very relevant questions that need to be asked in order to ascertain whether such a proposal represents proper value for money in relation to other things that TS could use the money for.

On a business case level, how many extra passengers and how much extra revenue will wi-fi bring? How much will the facility benefit the Scottish and UK economy as a whole?

On a technical level, how good or bad will the reception be? How much would need to be spent to improve it if it limited?

Those are just a sample of the questions that I would like to see asked. Presumably, all will be considered by Transport Scotland in due course. Naturally, if you ask someone already travelling by train if they would like free wi-fi on board, and if they will use it, the vast majority will say yes.

I would prefer to see non rail travellers asked if free wi-fi would make them use the train instead, just to find out if the price, reliability or punctuality is considered more of a deterrent to train travel then the lack of wi-fi.

 

[rail-britain]

It's not as simple as saying six sets on the line at any time, because you're not taking into account doubled up trains, ones waiting at the terminus to form the next service or for maintainance either.
Then there's the fact that all 59 of the 170s are in a common pool, so in theory any 170 can turn up on the route, meaning you'd actually have to install it in all 59 trains.

ScotRail had already reported they would need to fit 60% of the fleet with equipment, but in order to guarantee that all services (Glasgow - Edinburgh via Falkirk High) offered WiFi they would need to fit 70% of the fleet
For complete Scotland (as per Priced Option 27) all but 6 units would be fitted
I have no idea why 6 units could or would not be so fitted (as there 8 such units without First Class) and I suspect it is actually a typing error in the report
Equally, this would mean there would never be 100% of the fleet so fitted

 

[Clip]

Thanks very much for providing me with the fuller picture rail-britain - something im sure i asked for earlier on this morning when first posting on this thread.

So the actual scheme is further reaching then just the 2 main cities and costs would come from a variety of partners including in the building of the new units(though are these transport partners not given money from the same pot?) so this then appears to spread the cost - but will it bring the cost down and will it increase usage(as has been claimed in this thread) of rail services just because they have wifi?

Im still sceptical at that claim.

But just one more thing - though they dont have the real costs of implementation - because its not really been tendered - they must have an idea and then they must have an idea of how much they will charge? Im assuming as usual free in 1st and then £4 per hour in standard? just a guess to keep inline with others but they cant price it too high or else no one will use it.

 

[rail-britain]

On a technical level, how good or bad will the reception be? How much would need to be spent to improve it if it limited?

At present (between Glasgow and Edinburgh) it is pretty horrendous, primarily due to the topography
As you depart Glasgow QS there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel and cuttings
Near Croy there is very poor reception, due to cuttings
As you depart Falkirk High there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel and cuttings
As you depart Linlithgow there is very poor reception, due to cuttings
As you depart Haymarket there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel

At present the total loss is about 18% of the journey time (includes connection drop and reconnection time)
T-mobile advised they could improve this to 15%, unless equipment was installed near to the tunnels (the proposal did not include this option as Network Rail were not included)
ScotRail would then have to cover the costs for these addtional transmitters, not only to remove the locations where there is no reception, but also this that would required to be improved

The report then goes on to discuss the other routes, the next worst affected is Inverkeithing to Cupar (Edinburgh - Aberdeen)

 

[ObservationCar]

The common sense approach would be to suffer 5-6 years with no wi-fi, until a new be-spoke (javelin style) train is commisioned rather than retro fitting a unit which was built in 1999. Included on the spec of the new Rolling Stock would be wi-fi throughout, power points, tv screens along the coach (such as Heathrow Express where there is a commercial insentive to do so through advertising etc), and many other hi tech gadgetery which would be required come 2016-2017 and beyond. This is a prime Intercity Route, but not since 1990 has there been proper "intercity trains" on it.

But then again why not build a high speed link, the 47 miles could be completed in 15-20 minutes, but thats a whole new can of worms.

(oh and proper coffee sold on board, to save us missing the train before getting a costa at queen st)

 

[rail-britain]

So the actual scheme is further reaching then just the 2 main cities
but will it bring the cost down and will it increase usage(as has been claimed in this thread) of rail services just because they have wifi?

though they dont have the real costs of implementation - because its not really been tendered - they must have an idea and then they must have an idea of how much they will charge? Im assuming as usual free in 1st and then £4 per hour in standard?

That is correct, the consulation was solely based on the "ScotRail Express" routes

The idea of spreading the cost is completely political (quite relevant in Scotland at the moment)
If Transport Scotland report the scheme cost £50 (plus other agencies costs excluded) then that looks better than reporting it cost £450 and then detailing that many other agencies costs
A recent example was the new footbridge over the M8, at a cost £1.1m, however the maintenance is provided by North Lanarkshire Council and was not included on that cost (total cost £5m), if it had been reported the footbridge actually cost £5m there would be outrage!

The whole point of providing WiFi is to complement / improve the service
The consultation did not cover the retail prices, but it did report that it would be free to First Class ticket holders and chargeable to other customers, but it would be for the franchise holder to determine the charges and would be encouraged to offer it at a heavily discounted rate to other ticket holders (ie free to all customers)

Strangely smart ticketing is also seen as one such scheme and with a higher priority
However it has been pretty much a disaster since its launch with customer participation vastly lower than anticipated (in some locations the counts have been nil)
I tend to agree that for the customer participation WiFi installation offers a better return for the investment, as a small charge could be made in the initial years to cover the installation costs and I am quite sure many people would happily agree with that

There has also been similar responses to the EGIP consulation, with many people not seeing the point of investing for electrification simply for a 12 minute reduction in journey time, when this could be achieved with a revised timetable with the existing rolling stock

 

[Marklund]

Deleted

 

[SteveP29]

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

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

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

 

[Clip]

Cheers for all that rail-britain I can only hope that the report on Sunday is as informative and full of the bigger picture rather then just being Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk High.

And because of this you can understand why i was sceptical about installing it for a 50 minute train journey.

I can see why people use wifi on any rail service that provides it but think of all the commuter rail services that dont and wont that are far longer and then you start to wonder if it really is necessary or just a luxury at this present moment in time when it may be more cost effective - live ObservationCar mentions - to install it in their new rolling stock rather then a retro fit.

But ill wait till sunday to see the story as I dont think Ive more to add but its been interesting finding out information that was lacking, so thanks.

 

[jopsuk]

Which Edinburgh-Glasgow line is it you consider th 'flagship route'? There are quite a few to choose from (is it 4 or 5 now? I forget).
I assume you mean Waverley-Queen Street though.

The E-G via Falkirk High has always been the "flagship" route. No contest.

 

[Greenback]

Clip, I think your initial scepticism was correct, and so was your desire to seek more information.

Rail-britain, thanks for confirming the topographical difficulties - it's been five eyars sine I traveleld to Edinburgh out of Queen Street!

 

[DarloRich]

surely you would need to do ALL the fleet. As I understand it the stock isnt deidicated to one route. What would happen when the, say, 6 units fitted with WIFI are working off Aberdeen.

Perhaps the inital idea is to narrow. Perhaps the OP should be suggesting a roll out accross the entire Scotrail fleet (At least the 170's/158's used on the G-E runs) Where do you draw the line? ONLY the 170 fleet, or the 170's and/or the 156's and/or the 158's and/or the 334's and/or the 380's and/or the XC stock

However, we manage down here to get form London to, say, MKC or Rugby or Coventry on LM without WIFI, and i think London might be an importnant business centre. Could this be another Scottish vanity project?

 

[tbtc]

all 59 of the 170s are in a common pool, so in theory any 170 can turn up on the route, meaning you'd actually have to install it in all 59 trains

Agreed.

My understanding is that there are eight 170s needed to run the "Shuttle" off-peak, doubled up to sixteen at peak times (six coaches).

So, you'd need to have eighteen/twenty dedicated units with WiFi that wouldn't stray off the Waverley - Queen Street (High Level) service. But, that obviously messes up flexibility (and the "a 170 is a 170 is a 170" attitide that FSR take).

A better thing for me is is the availability of charging points

Much more realistic and much more relevant.

It should also be said that the line through Falkirk High is meant to be getting electrified (does anyone have a timetable for Scottish electrification?). It'd make more sense to fit the EMUs with WiFi.

Also, if FSR did introduce WiFi, who says it'd be free? What fee would be appropriate for such a short journey? Should First Class passengers be provided with free WiFi (and a charge for everyone else)?

Its not as simple as just fitting it to "a maximum of six sets"...

 

[jopsuk]

At present (between Glasgow and Edinburgh) it is pretty horrendous, primarily due to the topography
As you depart Glasgow QS there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel and cuttings
Near Croy there is very poor reception, due to cuttings
As you depart Falkirk High there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel and cuttings
As you depart Linlithgow there is very poor reception, due to cuttings
As you depart Haymarket there is a complete loss of reception, due to the tunnel

Not to forget the tunnel between Linlithgow and Haymarket

 

[Bon Accord]

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

Could this be another Scottish vanity project?

Southern sour grapes?

 

[Clip]

Clip, I think your initial scepticism was correct, and so was your desire to seek more information.

Rail-britain, thanks for confirming the topographical difficulties - it's been five eyars sine I traveleld to Edinburgh out of Queen Street!

Indeed Greenback.

Must say its been a l0ong old time since ive done the Edingburgh -Glasgow run.. Not since i live in Helensburgh many moons ago!!

 

[Greenback]

It should also be said that the line through Falkirk High is meant to be getting electrified (does anyone have a timetable for Scottish electrification?). It'd make more sense to fit the EMUs with WiFi.

Also, if FSR did introduce WiFi, who says it'd be free? What fee would be appropriate for such a short journey? Should First Class passengers be provided with free WiFi (and a charge for everyone else)?

Its not as simple as just fitting it to "a maximum of six sets"...

It certainly isn't, and I would like to see that reflected in any article that gets published, along with the issue of whether people would be willing to pay for it.

 

[Clip]

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

Buses are a much better advantage as they can already work off the infrastructure that is already in places around towns and cities - they only have to fit it to their buses - again i see no real need for that myself and again im not sure it would have increased patronage.

But as i said earlier if you can show me the information that shows bus passenger levels rose because of this and not,say, fuel price rises then id be ok with that.

 

[jopsuk]

Also, if FSR did introduce WiFi, who says it'd be free? What fee would be appropriate for such a short journey? Should First Class passengers be provided with free WiFi (and a charge for everyone else)?

NXEA charge £2.95 per journey or £19 a month, free to 1st class. Not sure how it works on the 379s where the 1st class is half a carriage.

 

[Bon Accord]

Buses are a much better advantage as they can already work off the infrastructure that is already in places around towns and cities - they only have to fit it to their buses - again i see no real need for that myself and again im not sure it would have increased patronage.

But as i said earlier if you can show me the information that shows bus passenger levels rose because of this and not,say, fuel price rises then id be ok with that.

Why must it require an increase in passenger patronage to be justifiable?
I'd suggest that with our ever busier and more expensive railway which is operating in a world which is ever more electronically connected, wifi would be a valuable asset in improving the travel 'experience', not to mention passenger retention. If it can financially 'wash its face' either directly or indirectly then all the better.
From what I read, more than a few airlines are considering an airborne Wifi package for the same reasons.
Did GNER/Vermin report a sizeable increase in Pax numbers after the introduction of wifi? I'd be surprised if they did.

 

[tbtc]

The point still stands that if it's economically viable for a bus operator to fit wifi then there must surely be a case for a rolling stock installation

For the buses that have it, like the 100 in Edinburgh, they can be 99% guaranteed to stick to one route (the Airport service - unlike trains which interwork more), they don't go through tunnels, they should give a good uniterrupted signal.

It certainly isn't, and I would like to see that reflected in any article that gets published, along with the issue of whether people would be willing to pay for it.

True. It's going to cost a lot of money to fit this to (at least) twenty 170s - will that mean more ticket sales? Will the revenue from WiFi charges be enough to cover the costs of setting it up/ maintaining it? Or will this be a net cost to the railway?

Personally, I've got a pretty decent data package with my phone (and I don't use it for "heavy" downloading), so I would just stick with that and not pay a few quid to a train company.

I think that the OP's question (of asking business people what they would want/ be prepared to pay for etc) has got lost in the argument about dodgy figures and technology (some people seem to think that free WiFi is a "human right"...). Sadly, as I'm not living in Scotland any more, I can't comment on the issues he was raising.

 

[Clip]

Why must it require an increase in passenger patronage to be justifiable?
I'd suggest that with our ever busier and more expensive railway which is operating in a world which is ever more electronically connected, wifi would be a valuable asset in improving the travel 'experience', not to mention passenger retention. If it can financially 'wash its face' either directly or indirectly then all the better.
From what I read, more than a few airlines are considering an airborne Wifi package for the same reasons.
Did GNER/Vermin report a sizeable increase in Pax numbers after the introduction of wifi? I'd be surprised if they did.

Because of this statement that was made by another poster earlier on in the thread

No, precisely why trains offering Wifi would offer an even more productive use of people's time than driving a car.

I doubt many bus operators would be installing it across their bus fleets if it didn't attract customers or no one cared, perhaps it's just not useful to yourself.

Now i use a laptop on trains because i like to do my work inbetween my stations but my company dont have wifi and it doesn't bother me - even if i am on the train for up to an hour - do you know why? Because there is nothing apart from voice calls that cannot be done 'Working offline' and then all saved until i know im in a good area where i can switch back on my dongle and upload my work that ive done to my server.And my emails all get pinged to my blackberry anyway so i can answer them as needed. All without the need for wifi I can still 'work'.

I The tech is there so you dont have to have it as a business 'need' and spend vast amounts of money on something that may not necessarily be needed. But,as ive said, if enough people are demanding it up there aand they think that they can make a business case out of it then fair play to them - I'd say take a note from other more intensively used operators who are steering clear of it and invest in something maybe more worthwhile.

Again,that's my opinion.

 

[rail-britain]

surely you would need to do ALL the fleet. As I understand it the stock isnt deidicated to one route. What would happen when the, say, 6 units fitted with WIFI are working off Aberdeen

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

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

 

[tbtc]

This would mean no WiFi until at least 2016, which is quite shocking really

Hardly the end of the world, especially when things like plugs are luxuries on many trains.

 

[radamfi]

There is no way I'm going to pay for train Wi-Fi when I can already use my own mobile broadband. I only use free Wi-Fi hotspots and free Wi-Fi on the train tends to be very slow in my experience, so I end using my own mobile broadband anyway. By contrast, bus/coach Wi-FI tends to be very usable.