Thoughts on WiFi for Long-Distance Trains

[rickycourtney]

So I've been thinking... there may be a way for Amtrak to offer WiFi on long-distance trains and actually make a profit on the service.

The answer: satellite powered WiFi.

Southwest Airlines currently offers the service on its planes for $8 a day per device. It has the same restrictions as the current cell-based AmtrakConnect system (no high bandwidth applications and websites, including Netflix).

Here's the other great part of the satellite powered system on Southwest... it has the ability to receive satellite television signals and a computer onboard can store content. Currently you can watch 13 live channels and up to 75 television episodes for free thanks to a marketing promotion with Dish. The system also has 25 movies stored onboard that passengers can rent for 5 dollars.

Greyhound has introduced a similar (but cell powered) system called BLUE that has an onboard computer that stores "25 movies, 15 hours of television shows, 100 music albums and five games". It's a premium service in addition to the free cell-based WiFi Greyhound already offers. The beauty of these systems is that because the content is stored on an onboard computer... it's always available, no matter the location of the vehicle.

I could easily see Amtrak offering a satellite powered AmtrakConnect system. It would generate revenue in the form WiFi day passes, TV day passes, and movie rentals. Plus they could still offer free cell powered WiFi.

Of course, the best entertainment Amtrak provides will always remain free... the view out of the window!

 

[Guest]

Ugh, satellite...

There's so many issues with using satellite internet, but refreshing myself on the state of the technology I just realized that the type of satellite antenna required wouldn't actually fit within the clearance envelope of a Superliner.

 

[lo2e]

Right, I also question whether there's any satellite product that would clear the gap inside a tunnel.

 

[Ryan]

The dome isn't all that big. You can see it in this picture:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-7H4/2354579/L/&sid=5571a07ff4c8422b8b759b82a2541617

18" maybe?

For reference, a Superliner is 16'2" and Plate H calls for 20'2".

In the east it may be a little more tight. If you put it on top of an AmTube, those are 12'8". A NJT Multilevel Car is 14'5".

 

[jis]

Heh! You should see what happens to Dish's satellite service on a flight to Anchorage from Seattle, and even across Montana/Idaho. They (United Airlines in this case) actually make a special announcement warning people that the Dish paid service will not work for part of the distance, but the locally provided service with a collection of movies etc. will continue to work through the flight. For me of course, as long as the moving map and/or Channel 9 works I am all set

 

[Guest]

Just how many satellite antennas does Southwest have per plane?

Just how many satellite antennas does Greyhound have per bus?

I ask, because I would assume that Amtrak would need several; one per car. That's a LOT of equipment to support.

Let me add, cruise ships offer satellite based internet, but for them, it is mainly for their own use, and they are really just selling, to passengers, their excess bandwidth. And cruise ships rarely have to deal with tunnels.

 

[Ryan]

One per plane.

One per train would be fine with wifi repeaters in each car.

 

[Guest]

One per train would be fine with wifi repeaters in each car.

Which car would get the one satellite antenna/receiver? It would need to be a car that's always in the consist.

 

[the_traveler]

Yeah, I agree. Most Southwest jets (or any other airline for that matter) do not fly thru tunnels! Or thru mountain terrains..

What's that you say - how about on flat open land? :huh: I can give you one example when I had XM radio (aka satellite). On my regular drive, there were many areas where the reception would cut off. Was I in mountains? No, on flat open land! (This was in Rhode Island where the highest point in the state is about 600 feet, and I'd guess most of the state is 100-150 feet above sea level!)

So if planes flying at 30,000 feet and cars driving at 100 feet have trouble with continuous satellite coverage, do you think trains would fare better?

 

[rickycourtney]

Just how many satellite antennas does Greyhound have per bus?

None. They still used a cellular based system that has an onboard computer to provide video, movies, music and games.

Which car would get the one satellite antenna/receiver? It would need to be a car that's always in the consist.

Right now on the short-distance trains the one cellular antenna/receiver is located in the café car with repeaters in each coach car.On a long distance train you could put the equipment on either the dining car (which each train has) or the baggage car (which most trains have, plus the new Viewliner II baggage cars will have plenty of extra space.)

 

[afigg]

Yeah, I agree. Most Southwest jets (or any other airline for that matter) do not fly thru tunnels! Or thru mountain terrains..

What's that you say - how about on flat open land? :huh: I can give you one example when I had XM radio (aka satellite). On my regular drive, there were many areas where the reception would cut off. Was I in mountains? No, on flat open land! (This was in Rhode Island where the highest point in the state is about 600 feet, and I'd guess most of the state is 100-150 feet above sea level!)

So if planes flying at 30,000 feet and cars driving at 100 feet have trouble with continuous satellite coverage, do you think trains would fare better?

The problem is not just tunnels and mountains, but trees and terrain. A train running through a valley or along a hillside with trees on either side will have a limited clear line of sight to satellites. Or get poorer or intermittent reception in rainy weather under a thick cloud cover. Ok, they could install a joint satellite and 3G/4G cell phone system to use the best signal and data rate available. But, if people are paying money for the service, they won't be happy when the internet access drops out constantly or slows to a crawl for a 100 miles as the train goes through wooded hilly terrain with poor cell coverage. If it is a free WiFi service, then passengers can't demand a refund.

The airlines can charge and possibly make some money on providing internet access because they have a captive audience. Passengers on a plane can't use their cell phone or tablet computer with its own 3G/4G connection and not pay extra for the airline service. That is not the case on a train. If the service is $8 a day, many people may decide to not use it and live with intermittent 3G/4G access on their cell phone/computer on the trip.

Adding satellite dishes for internet access as an extra cost service to LD trains is, IMO, a good way for Amtrak to lose a LOT of money. The better alternative is to add 3G/4G systems to the LD trains and provide it as a free service. Provide fair warning to passengers that WiFi service will drop out on various segments of the trip. Perhaps have a signal and internet speed status page on a server hub on the train that people can check to confirm why they can't access the net or get email.

 

[WinNix]

I think another aspect is performance expectation. Lets say amtrak announces tomorrow all trains will have internet access. Like it or not, a larger % than you suspect will expect "internet connectivity" to be steady, fast, and responsive. As most of you alluded to, the challenge is not getting it on the train but making it steady and reliable. Making the internet connectivity on the train steady and reliable will ultimately depend on the route the train takes through population centers. For a plane, a satellite connection is a no brainer. For busses, 3g/4g is a no brainer because its population center-to-population center. Amtrak sends trains through areas that cause problems with BOTH connectivity types. Thus, there would be no universal answer. On a NEC train that runs through a lot of population centers but also tunnels, you're going to have solid 3g/4g performance. Many non NEC trains run through large unpopulated areas where there wouldn't be very good cell signal with no tunnels. From a network admin POV, you'd have to tailor the connectivity to the type of route the train runs.

 

[Guest]

Adding satellite dishes for internet access as an extra cost service to LD trains is, IMO, a good way for Amtrak to lose a LOT of money.

In a previous statement, Amtrak said that adding WiFi would only happen if there is sound proof that offering such would being in more additional revenue than it costs Amtrak to supply.

 

[the_traveler]

Yeah, I agree. Most Southwest jets (or any other airline for that matter) do not fly thru tunnels! Or thru mountain terrains.

The problem is not just tunnels and mountains, but trees and terrain. A train running through a valley or along a hillside with trees on either side will have a limited clear line of sight to satellites. Or get poorer or intermittent reception in rainy weather under a thick cloud cover.

Your "explanation" does not explain in Jis's example above why there is no coverage from the SATELLITE on planes over Montana/Idaho. I doubt there are any mountains over 30,000 feet between the jet and the satellite!

 

[VentureForth]

Yeah, I agree. Most Southwest jets (or any other airline for that matter) do not fly thru tunnels! Or thru mountain terrains.

The problem is not just tunnels and mountains, but trees and terrain. A train running through a valley or along a hillside with trees on either side will have a limited clear line of sight to satellites. Or get poorer or intermittent reception in rainy weather under a thick cloud cover.

Your "explanation" does not explain in Jis's example above why there is no coverage from the SATELLITE on planes over Montana/Idaho. I doubt there are any mountains over 30,000 feet between the jet and the satellite!

It has to do with geosynchronous orbit of the satellites.

 

[buddy559]

One per train would be fine with wifi repeaters in each car.

Which car would get the one satellite antenna/receiver? It would need to be a car that's always in the consist.

How about the Diner? Isn't it usually located between coach and the sleepers anyway.

ADD - Using Southwest as an example, their planes average 6.25 flights/day. That is 6 sets of customers to spend $8 on the service every day. On western long distance runs, Amtrak would have the same customer base for 2 days in a row.

 

[Guest]

How about the Diner? Isn't it usually located between coach and the sleepers anyway.

What happens when that diner is "bad ordered"? Does that mean that Satellite/WiFi hardware would need to be installed/maintained in every single diner in the system, even the old heritage diners?

 

[X]

The dome isn't all that big. You can see it in this picture:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-7H4/2354579/L/&sid=5571a07ff4c8422b8b759b82a2541617

18" maybe?

For reference, a Superliner is 16'2" and Plate H calls for 20'2".

In the east it may be a little more tight. If you put it on top of an AmTube, those are 12'8". A NJT Multilevel Car is 14'5".

Superliners have to meet Amtrak Clearance "D", which has a max height of 16'2".

http://www.rpca.com/resourcelibrary.htm

 

[Ryan]

Obviously that can be changed if Amtrak wants to. What routes do they travel that would have insufficient clearance?

How about the Diner? Isn't it usually located between coach and the sleepers anyway.

What happens when that diner is "bad ordered"? Does that mean that Satellite/WiFi hardware would need to be installed/maintained in every single diner in the system, even the old heritage diners?

Yes, it would have to go on every dining car. It isn't portable.

Given that the Heritage diners are going away, there's no point in it going on them.

 

[afigg]

How about the Diner? Isn't it usually located between coach and the sleepers anyway.

ADD - Using Southwest as an example, their planes average 6.25 flights/day. That is 6 sets of customers to spend $8 on the service every day. On western long distance runs, Amtrak would have the same customer base for 2 days in a row.

The Diner car would be the logical car to place the antennas and hub for the Superliner LD trains. The Amfleet II diner/lounge car would be the logical car for the eastern LD trains. However, maybe the new Viewliner II diner cars will have 3G/4G installed at the factory.
While Amtrak LD trains don't have the turnover with multiple flights a day that Southwest has, the LD trains hardly have the same customer base from end to end. Only a small percentage of the passengers travel the full trip. According to the 2010 California Zephyr PIP report, 9.1% travel between CHI-DEN and only 4.3% travel between CHI and EMY. For the Empire Builder, the top city pair is CHI-MSP at 8% with 4% traveling CHI-SEA and 2% CHI-PDX. Even for the CONO, only 10% of the passengers travel CHI-NOL with 12% between MEM-NOL & 9% CHI-MEM. So Amtrak does get a lot of turnover in seats and rooms on the 1 and 2 LD trains.

However, that does not mean that a satellite connection is even remotely worth the cost to Amtrak. 3G/4G cell hardware and access fees should be far less expensive and Amtrak has held off on installing them for the LD trains. The cuts in the capital grant budget over the past several fiscal years while Amtrak is dealing with a long project to-do list have likely been a major factor in postponing upgrading the LD fleet for WiFi. Along the problem of reliable enough connections on the long routes through rural areas.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I'm not a electronics geek but I am a transport geek and I'll offer what I've experienced. I have ridden Greyhound buses over long distances that have Wi-Fi. Recently those have been on the Denver-Reno and Salt Lake City-Reno segments. I do not believe these buses offered BLUE but it did offer the standard package of Wi-Fi, power outlets, and leather seats, even though they were not officialy Expresses.

The Wi-Fi was able to connect at many parts throughout the trip, but was very slow in the plain middle of nowhere. However, the connection never broke, and I kept receiving packets. I was only able to view simple websites without many graphics. Of course, it works a lot better around urban areas.

I'm not sure how all this Wi-Fi works. And I usually don't use the computer much when I'm travelling. But I'm glad that it's possible, and it shouldn't be very expensive since Greyhound is installing it across their whole owned fleet. Maybe Amtrak can give it a try?

 

[CHamilton]

If they can do this, they can add wifi to the Builder.

Frozen Phones: Antarctica gets its own cellular network

The government of Australia has built a cellular network in the most inhospitable clime in its jurisdiction. I’m not talking about the Australian Outback, but rather in its Antarctic territorial claims far to the south.
The Australian Department of the Environment’s Antarctic Division has fielded a GSM network supplied by Range Networks at its research station on Macquarie Island, about halfway between the Australia and the frozen continent. It has plans to expand that network to three more research stations on the Antarctic mainland.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm not a electronics geek but I am a transport geek and I'll offer what I've experienced. I have ridden Greyhound buses over long distances that have Wi-Fi. Recently those have been on the Denver-Reno and Salt Lake City-Reno segments. I do not believe these buses offered BLUE but it did offer the standard package of Wi-Fi, power outlets, and leather seats, even though they were not officialy Expresses.

The Wi-Fi was able to connect at many parts throughout the trip, but was very slow in the plain middle of nowhere. However, the connection never broke, and I kept receiving packets. I was only able to view simple websites without many graphics. Of course, it works a lot better around urban areas.

One advantage a bus has in this respect is that you only need one reciever and one repeater. Your LD train will need at least one reciever and at least one repeater per car in order to get 3G (4G is mainly a marketing gimic, in some areas it is just full or "expanded" 3G). The is that a bus will have X number of devices attached to the signal from the repeater, each with their straws in the cup. On a train it would be that number of devices per repeater (in each car) and all of those repeaters going to the same signal, in other words more straws sipping into the cup, worse experience for the passanger (especially in places with bad or inconsistent signal from towers). They can help this problem by purchasing more recievers, or redundant systems that use multiple bands or use a combination 3G/sattelite system but at the end of the day that only makes it more expensive and thus less feasible or likely.Y our typical train has more than three times as many people than on a bus, so that many more devices each competeing for that bitty wifi signal which (hopefully) has found a nearby tower.

Bottom line to equip wifi on a bus is cheaper in part because it requires a much simpler system. The train's will not only be more expensive relative to a single bus but also less reliable.

I think Amtrak's current course on wifi is fine, if only because the technology is likely to become cheaper and more relaible in a few years and it wouldn't be that hard to install when they get around to it. Most people who "need" the Internet on trips have 3G capable devices already. Those devices typically use both wifi and 3G signals when doing Internet tasks anyway, which means if they connect to Amtrak WiFi they will be using their data plans out the back end anyway.

I wish I knew the actual costs, if I am correct the hardware wouldn't be the major expense relative to the cost of the data plans themselves.

If I got a job as an SCA I would go out and buy a 3G hotspot and charge a few bucks per head for the password. There's probably a rule against that but I bet it would be a profitable venture.

EDIT: Commuter railroads also have a distinct advantage in getting wifi on their trains than Amtrak for two reasons-- 1) they are typically in high-density areas with lots of towers and signals to tap into and 2) the wireless providers like to subsidize the installation of wifi on public transit in exchange for advertising space (both signage and car wraps), especially after a major provider strikes a deal with an area and "moves in".

 

[rickycourtney]

I got a chance to try out the BoltBus/Greyhound BLUE system this week... and I have to say I think it's a good system and a great solution to the problem of providing content to passengers in areas where cell service is spotty.

When you connect to the system a portal pops up on your screen... from there you can choose to go online to surf the web or use the systems offline content.



(I forgot to take a screenshot on my iPad so this is the screenshot from the App Store.)

The system has buttons for watch, listen, read, play, surf and my trip:

Watch loads up the systems impressive catalog of movies. On my trip there was Iron Man 2, Thor, Prometheus, Life of Pi, The Great Gatsby and Star Trek (just to name a few). They also had a couple of animated films for kids. The movies work great... they load up in seconds and play out with no stuttering.

Listen presents a catalog of music (plenty of big artists old and new represented across several genres.

Read lets you see a listing of the days news headlines, lets you view digital copies of a few newspapers (but no major ones like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal) or read an ebook (there appeared to be just one choice, Inferno by Dan Brown.)

Play brings you a choice of 5 games: card games, chess and a kids game. They were like playing a basic online game, they worked but I wasn't that impressed.

Surf connects you to the internet.

My trip shows the bus on a map and you can input your origin and destination to display flags at either end.

To watch the DRM-protected movies on an iPad/iPhone, you have to download an app. That wouldn't be a problem for me... except that the app only plays out the movies. If you want to pick another movie you need to go back to your internet browser. It would be better to allow users to access the content from the app as well. The other limitation to using a internet browser based system is that when you listen to music... you can't do anything else on your iPad/iPhone. As soon as you switch windows the music stops playing.

Also the internet speeds leave much to be desired compared to AmtrakConnect. I think the major reason behind that is that the system doesn't restrict access to high-bandwith websites like Pandora. It's a rule that many AmtrakConnect passengers aren't happy with but it really does help keep the speed up for everyone.

Currently this BLUE system is in a beta testing phase and is only available on the BoltBus Vancouver BC-Seattle-Portland route and the Greyhound Express Dallas-Houston route.

 

[SarahZ]

Wow. It reminds me of the "Red" system on Virgin America. I had so much fun with that during our trip, I was amazed when our 4.5-hour flight was almost over. The time passed by so quickly.