On train wifi with different Train Operating Companies (TOCs)

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Routers do tend to need resets every so often - I wonder whether on-train crew are trained, or whether it has to be done remotely?

IMO^▸ (in my opinion), FGW^▸ (First Great Western) need to advertise the (external) helpdesk details better.

IMO it's disappointing that customers are being expected to phone a 3rd party at their own expense to resolve issues around a service which FGW are providing - WiFi was, and continues to be heralded with great fanfares from FGW as an example of how it's improving its service, I think expectations should have been managed better around capacity/connectivity and so on - I get that it's "free", however I don't see this as an excuse - if a vendor advertises something "free" as part of its offering, that doesn't mean it can be substandard.

[ChrisB]

It isn't substandard - it works very well if the router is up & booted, and there aren't masses all trying to use it (probably on multiple devices too, if the experience on Chiltern is anything to go by)

It costs basically nowt to contact the helpdesk - the call comes off your mobile minutes &everyone has minutes to spare these days)

[TaplowGreen]

It isn't substandard - it works very well if the router is up & booted, and there aren't masses all trying to use it (probably on multiple devices too, if the experience on Chiltern is anything to go by)

Two big "ifs" but fair comment ChrisB, "substandard" probably too strong a word.

[IndustryInsider]

I've rarely had connection issues so far, certainly not any worse than other public networks I've used and tried to use over the years.  Worth pointing out that not all the Turbo fleet has been fitted yet.

[TonyK]

I tried and almost failed to connect en route to Gatwick from BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains). Connecting took so long that I gave up until Swindon. It worked intermittently to Reading. I didn't even try between Reading and Gatwick.

[LiskeardRich]

I had conversation with a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) TM^‡(resolve) today. His view is its a gimmick that hardly works. He said it hardly works anywhere except between Reading to Paddington on the routes he covers (Exeter based I think).

[Chris from Nailsea]

I'd like to thank him for his perhaps brutal honesty. 

[ellendune]

I have had good service on (nearly empty) trains between Cheltenham and Swindon (both ways).

[Richard Fairhurst]

I find it works well most of the way from London to Oxford, and then intermittently along the Cotswold Line - but then every network I've ever tried is intermittent along the Cotswold Line, 3 probably being the best.

[thetrout]

This is the problem that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are going to have. When it was little advertised the service was faultless and speed for ontrain WiFi was incredible.

These days there are places where it is worse than useless. Particularly on busy trains.

It's the same issue with sharing a 2MB/s connection in the workplace. Might be fine for 2 or 3 people for casual browsing. But try running that in an office with a couple of servers and 40 workstations... (Which I came across a couple weeks ago)

It's like the motorway congestion effect. If you have a 4 lane motorway with just a small handful of cars. You can do speeds in the hundreds as the capacity is there to do so.

But if you have a 2 lane motorway which now has several hundred cars and a few lorries... Speeds are going to be much slower as there is too much traffic for the motorway to handle...

That is what happens when you try to share a 3G Modem between a couple hundred passengers... But things like iCloud or Google+ Photo Backup (Which is programmed to run over WiFi rather than 3G/4G) are what kills connections. Uploading data on a connection where upload is limited WILL have serious impact on it.

[grahame]

I'm "suffering" at the moment with an internet connection that's said to be 'state of the art' and 'like having a fibre optic cable attached to the back of the ship' - but the problem's that the ship has around 5,000 people on board, and lots of them are sharing that cable.    Coffee Shop, my blog and company work site fine as they're optimised to keep them small. Facebook doesn't run but crawls.  Network speed test (yeah, I know - how to kill it) gave me 0.1 Mbits per second where I would get 500 times that at home and, no, I have not tried to download a complete backup of all the Coffee Shop posts  - rather I have in to one of our servers and copied it directly to another server where we have space without bringing it on board here! 

[JayMac]

Perhaps they should actually attach a fibre optic cable to the back of the boat!

[bobm]

Or tap into the one of those on the sea bed. 

[TonyK]

Perhaps they should actually attach a fibre optic cable to the back of the boat!

More "State of the Ark". Send out a pair of doves now and again, then see if they come come back with an olive branch. It's better than XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), where they demand cash on the rail, currently ^5 for each hour or so, the data being collected then returned by specially trained rabbits. Not so much "fibre optic" as "Fiver hop-trick".

[grahame]

Perhaps they should actually attach a fibre optic cable to the back of the boat!

More "State of the Ark". Send out a pair of doves now and again, then see if they come come back with an olive branch. It's better than XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), where they demand cash on the rail, currently ^5 for each hour or so, the data being collected then returned by specially trained rabbits. Not so much "fibre optic" as "Fiver hop-trick".

Wincingly high access price here ... but then you divide the package total by the number of us sharing it (2) and the number of days, and it looks sensibler.