Wi-Fi on Long Distance Trains?

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Is there any progress on expanding Wi-Fi to long distance trains?

Maybe they can have Wi-Fi on parts of long distance trains that mirror local routes that have Wi-Fi (ex. a route that goes between WAS and NYP)?

 

[Amfleeter]

Is there any progress on expanding Wi-Fi to long distance trains?

Maybe they can have Wi-Fi on parts of long distance trains that mirror local routes that have Wi-Fi (ex. a route that goes between WAS and NYP)?

Amfleet IIs are slowly recieving wifi equipment throughout this year and next as I recall.

 

[afigg]

WiFi is reportedly coming to the eastern single level LD trains by the end of this year or early 2016. That is mentioned and budgeted for in the Amtrak FY2015 budget document.

A number of Amfleet II coach cars have been upgraded with WiFi hubs, so when they are connected to an Amfleet I cafe car, WiFi is sometimes available. Amtrak's WiFi works by communicating with cell phone towers via 3G/4G with the base stations with antennas on the roof located in the cafe cars. So it not a matter of the route, but whether the Amfleet II coach cars, Amfleet II cafe/diner cars and the Viewliners have been upgraded with WiFi equipment. But full deployment of WiFi on all the cars on the eastern LD trains, including the sleeper and diner cars, will be waiting on the deployment into revenue service of the long delayed new Viewliner II diner and sleeper cars. Then, there will be the reality, that will be notable dead zones for cell phone data links and adequate data rate capacity on portions of the eastern LD routes.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The long distance "day trippers" will be equipped first and they are almost fully equipped for reliable and consistent operation.

 

[Acela150]

The wifi is subpar at best anyway.

 

[neroden]

The wifi does what it needs to.

 

[neroden]

The long distance "day trippers" will be equipped first and they are almost fully equipped for reliable and consistent operation.

Cool. Hoping for the Lake Shore Limited next, to fill out the Empire Service schedule.

 

[Anderson]

I was talking with a diner crew on the Star last month (well, obviously not since then...ugh...) and they joked that they had been told that wifi was coming in September, but that management had neglected to mention which year.

That being said, I expect there will be a rollout onto the LSL, Silvers, etc. over the next year or two. The main issue is the western LDs (where you can't get a cell signal for much of the route)...so my best guess is that Amtrak generally considers the Viewliner LDs to be a priority but not the Superliner LDs.

 

[StriderGDM]

The wifi does what it needs to.

It does? So it needs to be slow, spotty and inconsistent?

Wifi on Amtrak still has a ways to go. When it's usable, it's nice, but I'd say on the NEC I can use it less than 50% of the time effectively. The Empire Service is a bit better (basically the points there where it's weak so is tethering from my cell phone).

 

[BCL]

The long distance "day trippers" will be equipped first and they are almost fully equipped for reliable and consistent operation.

I thought there was WiFi on the PPC. I got an intermittent signal. Of course it's of no use when going through certain remote areas with uneven terrain.

 

[BCL]

The wifi does what it needs to.

It does? So it needs to be slow, spotty and inconsistent?
Wifi on Amtrak still has a ways to go. When it's usable, it's nice, but I'd say on the NEC I can use it less than 50% of the time effectively. The Empire Service is a bit better (basically the points there where it's weak so is tethering from my cell phone).

Using your own cellular data is going to be faster, since the Amtrak WiFi is just going to be tapping into the same cellular network, which then gets further shared.

Granted, the Amtrak WiFi at NYP was really fast and allowed video streaming. I'm thinking it might have even been a fiber source.

Maybe satellite internet would be better, but that's kind of expensive. I have used a satellite based service on a plane and I'm thinking on a ferry.

 

[Anderson]

The long distance "day trippers" will be equipped first and they are almost fully equipped for reliable and consistent operation.

I thought there was WiFi on the PPC. I got an intermittent signal. Of course it's of no use when going through certain remote areas with uneven terrain.

The PPC is supposed to have wifi, but the last time I was on the Starlight the OBS advised me that they had six routers they'd purchased and at least two of the six were dead.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

... Amtrak's WiFi works by communicating with cell phone towers via 3G/4G with the base stations with antennas on the roof located in the cafe cars.

... Then, there will be the reality, that will be notable dead zones for cell phone data links ...

I would be directly using my own cellular data (3G/4G) anyway. The only times I would have any interest at all in local WiFi, would be when the train is in one of those dead zones where cellular data is unavailable, but it seems Amtrak's WiFi would be dead too.

Sorry, but IMHO, rather worthless feature and a complete waste of Amtrak's money.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I looked into this a bit and from a technical view it seems like Amtrak should be able to offer substantially better service than personal cellular by way of external antennas, signal amplifiers, channel bonding, and provider hopping.

 

[neroden]

Honestly, I use WiFi for low-bandwidth, mostly text, stuff. It makes it possible to look up basic trip information on the Internet while I'm on the train, which is invaluable if I need to reschedule something. It makes it possible for me to check things which I need to check for work purposes. I could attempt to do this with the miniscule screen on a cellphone, but it's obnoxious. I could set up the complicated tethering where I use a cellphone as a WiFi hotspot for a laptop or tablet, but eeech...

So I think the Wifi does what it absolutely needs to do. Additional bandwidth would be for "play" purposes, which is nice. But being able to check transit, hotel and restaurant websites easily is highly valuable and there's plenty of bandwidth for that.

The PPC Wifi was a really cobbled-together operation; the WiFi deployment elsewhere is using more serious equipment. It seems to be used over-bandwidth on the NEC (do people on the NEC hog WiFi more?), but it's doing very nicely on the Empire Service, Surfliner, etc.

 

[jis]

Frankly I have of late tended to use WiFi only when it is available while my own data service is not. If my own data service is available I tend to use it. I don't even use half of what is paid for each month, so might as well use it some more. Where it is available it is usually much better than the WiFi service usually found in public places. I also realize that there are many others who do not carry adequate personal data service in their pockets and do need the WiFi way more than I do, and am happy to give them a better shot.

I don't find setting up tethering to be a chore if I need it. It is just one button push essentially tog et it going, and my laptop is already configured to automatically connect to it whenever it is available.

On the NEC the problem is that the WiFi is not engineered to really be able to satisfactorily serve the huge number of potential users on each train, which causes it to bog down when everyone tries to jump on.

 

[PVD]

For the most part, it delivers what it promises. A way in which people can perform low bandwidth intensive tasks, at no charge. Amtrak specifically says it is not for things like streaming video. The NEC has a very high percentage of business travelers that like to stay connected, that does ratchet down speed sometimes. Ask the most important question: Would a higher bandwidth system enable them to charge for the service, or attract enough additional paying customers to recover the investment above what is presently planned? If the answer is no, than even though I would like to watch a movie on demand instead of carrying it with me or downloading it in advance you can't make a business case for it. I'm riding the train regardless, why should they give me something that will have minimal effect on whether or not I do.

 

[rickycourtney]

Amtrak should honestly go beyond just providing Internet service over WiFi on the long-distance trains.

If you've been on any of the major air carriers within the last couple of years you know the big trend now is to providing BYOD (bring your own device) entertainment services. Basically involves installing a small media server onboard where you can store things like movies, TV shows, music and games and provide to them to customers over the local WiFi network.

That would allow Amtrak to provide some entertainment for passengers when they are passing through areas that have lousy cell service. It also opens up an additional revenue stream if Amtrak charged a price for the content (either on an à la carte or day pass basis). I know there are a lot of people on this forum that would say if you need entertainment just look out the window… but there isn't a whole lot to see after dark and some routes just really aren't that scenic.

The other option is for Amtrak to invest in a satellite-based Wi-Fi system (similar to what Southwest Airlines uses) and charge customers for access. Of course if you're going to make customers pay… you need to provide a reliable service.

 

[jis]

Tunnels would be a bit of a challenge with satellite based systems though.

 

[Anderson]

Tunnels would be a bit of a challenge with satellite based systems though.

True, but with a few exceptions (which Amtrak could declare in advance) most trains don't spend much time in tunnels.

 

[jis]

Tunnels would be a bit of a challenge with satellite based systems though.

True, but with a few exceptions (which Amtrak could declare in advance) most trains don't spend much time in tunnels.

True, but even things like long rows of tall trees could potentially be a problem with the very short wavelength bands that are used for sat links. It is not as much of a slam dunk as some are making it out to be here. Airliner in flight has the advantage that there never is a physical barrier between it and the satellites.

 

[PVD]

I love the new high end systems that many airlines are installing, I'm just not sure it makes economic sense for the train. How many passengers avoid a long train trip because of entertainment vs the additional revenue it might bring in coupled with the added costs. I'd enjoy it for sure, I just can't make the numbers work. Airlines want you to fly on their planes not the other guy, there are competitive forces at work that do not apply to Amtrak.

 

[Anderson]

PVD: One thing to remember is that even on a number of LD trains, you have a lot of short-distance passengers (e.g. RVR-NYP on the Star). This creates a bit of a headache when a bunch of trains going along a route have wifi...but one or two somewhat randomly (to the casual viewer) don't.

 

[PVD]

For sure, same thing on LSL, and the long day trippers might as well be considered that way also. Much of the traffic is not end to end. I totally see the advantages of wireless, I just can't figure a way to make true high speed wireless financially acceptable using today's equipment and pricing models. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want it or wouldn't use it if it was there.

 

[BCL]

I love the new high end systems that many airlines are installing, I'm just not sure it makes economic sense for the train. How many passengers avoid a long train trip because of entertainment vs the additional revenue it might bring in coupled with the added costs. I'd enjoy it for sure, I just can't make the numbers work. Airlines want you to fly on their planes not the other guy, there are competitive forces at work that do not apply to Amtrak.

Gogo is probably the biggest provider, and they use a combination of technologies, including cellular and satellite. I suppose cellular might have an issue with lots of LD trains going through some remote areas without good line of sight coverage. I doubt there are many places that aren't 15 miles away from a cell tower, but those signals don't go around terrain like AM radio. I know there's tons of flat land in the Midwest. I'm thinking that coverage can be pretty good because of decent line of sight to a cell tower. I live in a populous metro area, and I decided to take some backroad about 12 miles in a straight line from home, and completely lost cell coverage.