In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus
In message
, at
07:53:32 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:
Fitting equipment in deep level tunnels however isn't
that easy a proposition - there'd need to be a near enough as can be
100% guarantee that it wouldn't catch fire, nor interfere with any
safety critical LU kit such as signalling or comms, plus there'd be
the very real issue of maintenance access.

They fitted mobile access into the Heathrow Express tunnels years ago.
Also the tunnel on the Oslo airport express. None of the issues you
mention would be special to the London tubes.

Wouldn't be any problem at all Google "leaky feeder" if your interested.

Plenty of it in tunnels already!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Sep 11, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus

In message
, at
07:53:32 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:
Fitting equipment in deep level tunnels however isn't
that easy a proposition - there'd need to be a near enough as can be
100% guarantee that it wouldn't catch fire, nor interfere with any
safety critical LU kit such as signalling or comms, plus there'd be
the very real issue of maintenance access.

They fitted mobile access into the Heathrow Express tunnels years ago.
Also the tunnel on the Oslo airport express. None of the issues you
mention would be special to the London tubes.

Wouldn't be any problem at all Google "leaky feeder" if your interested.

Plenty of it in tunnels already!...

I know about leaky feeders, but I'd posit that they don't seem to
offer the completely painless trouble free solution that you suggest,
lest it would have happened already. My guess is that the problematic
issue is in installing equipment at the stations to service any leaky
feeders.

The installation of the cross-track video projectors (to project ads
on the far side of the tunnel wall) shows that where there's a will -
i.e. lots of dosh - there's a way, but thus far there doesn't seem to
have been enough of a will/ enough wonga to have make it happen.

Mizter T wrote:
I know about leaky feeders, but I'd posit that they don't seem to
offer the completely painless trouble free solution that you suggest,

I've heard of leaky feeders, but not just how much of a solution they
represent. For instance, do they operate bi-directionally? I have difficulty
imagining that they could pick up sufficient signal directly from phones to
do all the essential handshaking without needing some special equipment on
the trains to act as intermediaries.

Mike.
--
If reply address is (invalid), remove spurious "@"
and substitute "plus" for +.

In message , at
09:39:11 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Mike Coon remarked:
I've heard of leaky feeders, but not just how much of a solution they
represent. For instance, do they operate bi-directionally? I have difficulty
imagining that they could pick up sufficient signal directly from phones to
do all the essential handshaking without needing some special equipment on
the trains to act as intermediaries.

It works fine in the HEx tunnels, and the Oslo equivalent (as commented
on previously).
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:39:11 on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Mike Coon
remarked:
I've heard of leaky feeders, but not just how much of a solution they
represent. For instance, do they operate bi-directionally? I have
difficulty imagining that they could pick up sufficient signal directly
from phones to do all the essential handshaking without needing some
special equipment on the trains to act as intermediaries.

It works fine in the HEx tunnels, and the Oslo equivalent (as
commented on previously).

Leaky feeders work fine for PMR purposes in tube stations.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , Mike
Coon scribeth thus
Mizter T wrote:
I know about leaky feeders, but I'd posit that they don't seem to
offer the completely painless trouble free solution that you suggest,

I've heard of leaky feeders, but not just how much of a solution they
represent. For instance, do they operate bi-directionally? I have difficulty
imagining that they could pick up sufficient signal directly from phones to
do all the essential handshaking without needing some special equipment on
the trains to act as intermediaries.

Mike.

Yes there're just like a large long aerial Transmit and receive...
--
Tony Sayer

In message
, at
16:08:34 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:
I know about leaky feeders, but I'd posit that they don't seem to
offer the completely painless trouble free solution that you suggest,
lest it would have happened already. My guess is that the problematic
issue is in installing equipment at the stations to service any leaky
feeders.

There isn't a technical problem with getting coverage into the tunnels,
the issue is that there are so many tunnels that the cost of providing a
public service (in addition to any existing private system) would be
prohibitive.
--
Roland Perry

On Sep 12, 9:54*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
16:08:34 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:

There isn't a technical problem with getting coverage into the tunnels,
the issue is that there are so many tunnels that the cost of providing a
public service (in addition to any existing private system) would be
prohibitive.


There are two options to this that I can think of.

(a) charge people to use it when in the underground, which is after
all what airlines do.
(b) use a combination of these charges, with funding from taxes,
sponsorship from a major company - think Barclays and the Boris Bikes,
or British Airways and the London Eye - perhaps some revenue from
paying a monthly membership fee to the scheme, and perhaps the
networks themselves would be willing to help pay something towards the
cost (after all, they will be gaining by people making calls on their
networks, ultimately).
(c) finally, you could also perhaps charge people for advertisements
callers would hear just before the call is connected. As anyone who
uses "access numbers" (eg for cheap calls abroad) will know, often
they only get these amazing rates if they are happy to listen to a
short recorded message first.

(c) is just off the top of my head. But the Boris Bikes has proven
that (b) would work, for sure.

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom Job Justification Hearings, Tristán White chose
the tried and tested strategy of:

On Sep 12, 9:54 am, Roland Perry wrote:

There isn't a technical problem with getting coverage into the tunnels,
the issue is that there are so many tunnels that the cost of providing a
public service (in addition to any existing private system) would be
prohibitive.

There are two options to this that I can think of.

Here's a (d) that's a bit similar: TFL [or whoever] commission an
underground network [let's call it 'Undernet'], probably financed with nasty
old PFI, which means no duplication of infrastructure [ie one set of kit].
To finance it, it can only be roamed to if your operator agrees, ie you will
pay to use the network via roaming charges as though you were abroad.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
19:35:55 up 4 days, 1:13, 4 users, load average: 0.09, 0.05, 0.05
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King

In article
s.com, Mizter T scribeth thus

On Sep 11, 8:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus

In message
, at
07:53:32 on Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Mizter T remarked:
Fitting equipment in deep level tunnels however isn't
that easy a proposition - there'd need to be a near enough as can be
100% guarantee that it wouldn't catch fire, nor interfere with any
safety critical LU kit such as signalling or comms, plus there'd be
the very real issue of maintenance access.

They fitted mobile access into the Heathrow Express tunnels years ago.
Also the tunnel on the Oslo airport express. None of the issues you
mention would be special to the London tubes.

Wouldn't be any problem at all Google "leaky feeder" if your interested.

Plenty of it in tunnels already!...

I know about leaky feeders, but I'd posit that they don't seem to
offer the completely painless trouble free solution that you suggest,
lest it would have happened already. My guess is that the problematic
issue is in installing equipment at the stations to service any leaky
feeders.


Shouldn't be just consider it as a very long leaking coax cable. If you
need to extend it you just repeat it as such...

The installation of the cross-track video projectors (to project ads
on the far side of the tunnel wall) shows that where there's a will -
i.e. lots of dosh - there's a way, but thus far there doesn't seem to
have been enough of a will/ enough wonga to have make it happen.

Well personally I find the tube LOUD enough without more noise "I'm in
or on the underground!!!"
--
Tony Sayer