Study on feasibility of SATCOM for railway communication

Recommendations

Info

Final Report In comparison, for such a case, and assuming a Brownfield scenario (i.e. where a current GSM-R infrastructure is deployed) a modest implementation of LTE would prove competitive against SATCOM narrowband solutions with a slightly higher cost, provided a generous re-utilisation and upgradability for current GSM-R infrastructure was carried out. For a Greenfield scenario (i.e. on a deployment from scratch where there is no infrastructure to re-use), LTE losses its competitiveness regarding SATCOM solutions, since it is required a whole infrastructure deployment along the line(s) where to provide the service. Meanwhile, broadband solutions offer the possibility of incorporating a source of revenue that, if leveraged wisely from a commercial point of view, could lead to profitability—resulting in a very high NPV in the long term. GEO/Ka-band offers a good competitive edge in economic terms in the same class as a moderately conservative LTE estimate. In addition, the modularity and the OPEX-intensive economic model proposed by SATCOM solutions offer the possibility of a gradual implementation. In stark contrast, LTE implies that in general a small number of infrastructure managers should have to make strong initial investments to deploy terrestrial infrastructure, and with little room for a scaled deployment, requiring instead a comprehensive landbased infrastructure to provide initial operating capability. All this makes LTE a more financiallydemanding solution compared with that of SATCOM broadband candidates. As a result, SATCOM solutions can be implemented at a rather low and progressive initial investment in select rail services to fulfil the current demand, hence providing a solid platform to stand as either a stop-gap measure for more investment-demanding solutions, or as initial proof-of-concept and progressively ramped-up services for full-scale deployment in their own right. 11.2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 91 shows the complete compliance matrix of technical, multi-technology and non-technical criteria for the eleven SATCOM systems evaluated. This matrix shows that all the SATCOM solutions assessed have more than one criterion not compliant plus some partial compliant, as well. It means that, if SATCOM is considered the only mean of communications, there is not any SATCOM system fully compliant with current criteria identified. This is mainly because GSM-R voice requirements become the main barrier for SATCOM, due principally to the fact that their values are out of the scope of any current SATCOM solution (in terms of availability, latency and even capacity for the whole European demand). Therefore, it is strongly recommended to reconsider such requirement‘s values (i.e. latency and availability) taking into account the safety cases for these scenarios where SATCOM could be working standalone (e.g. remote/rural areas). It is worth mentioning that a similar situation have been considered in the aeronautical environment, where ATM (Air Traffic Management) applications requirements are classified according the airspace domain, such as the APT/TMA (Airport/Terminal Manoeuvring Area), ENR (En Route) and the ORP (Oceanic, Remote and Polar). For example, in the areas where SATCOM is the only mean of communications (i.e. ORP), QoS requirements (e.g. latency) are relaxed, and not only to make possible the use of SATCOM where no other terrestrial system is available, but also because the specific features of these domains (in terms of number of users, operations required, etc) make possible this relaxation keeping the safety case. For the contrary, in APT/TMA, it is mandatory the presence of, at least, two different links, i.e. multilink (LDACS/VDL2, AeroMACs). Having a look of the complete compliance matrix in more detail, it can be observed that: Doc.Nº: SRAIL-FNR-010-IND Edit./Rev.: 1/1 Date: 16/02/2017 Page 172 of 285
Final Report - All the solutions are compliant with the multi-technology criterion, meaning that all of them can be integrated within a FRMCS consisting of several communications systems (i.e. heterogeneous technologies) and allowing the convergence of networks that would enable a multi-link scenario. - The system technically best evaluated (the MEO/C-band solution) is also the worst evaluated non-technically. It is because of the MEO/C-band is nowadays only a theoretical solution 19 . - The IRIS FOC solution has a similar behaviour than the MEO/C-band, since its technical evaluation is highly positive (only with a bad grade on the double-hop delay required in voice applications). In addition, this solution is currently planned, although from 2025. - Some of the other systems best positioned, the GEO/C-band solution, has main problems on the double-hop delay, handhelds and security but, on the other hand, its non-technical evaluation is largely positive. Criterion ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Iridium NEXT MEO / C-band Inmarsat 4 (BGAN) - Inmarsat 6 (ICE) Satcom technology IRIS FOC Thuraya GEO / S-band GEO / C-band GEO / X-band SmartLNB GEO / Ku-band Inmarsat 5 (Global Xpress) CRT-TECH-1 NC C NC C (Low) NC C (Low) C (Low) NC NC NC NC CRT-TECH-2 C (Low) C (High) C (Low) C (High) C (Low) C (Low) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (High) CRT-TECH-3 C C C C C C C C C C C CRT-TECH-4a C (High) C (High) NC C (Low) C (Low) NC C (Low) C (Low) NC C (Low) C (Low) CRT-TECH-4b C (High) C (High) NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC CRT-TECH-5 C (High) C (High) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) CRT-TECH-6 C C NC C C C C C C C NC CRT-TECH-7 NC C NC C (High) NC C (High) C C C (High) C C CRT-TECH-8 NC C PC C NC C C C C C C CRT-TECH-9 C C C C C C C C C C C CRT-TECH-10 C C C C (Low) C PC C C PC C C CRT-TECH-11 C C C C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C C C C (High) C (High) CRT-TECH-12 NC C NC C NC C C C C C NC CRT-TECH-13 C C C C C C C C C C C CRT-TECH-14 C C C C NC C C C PC C C CRT-TECH-15 C (Low) C (High) C C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (High) C (High) C (Low) C (High) C (High) CRT-TECH-16 C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) C (Low) NC C (Low) C (High) C C (High) C (High) C (Low) CRT-TECH-17 C (Low) C C (Low) PC C (Low) C PC PC PC PC PC CRT-TECH-18 C (Low) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (Low) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (High) C (High) CRT-TECH-19 NC NC C NC NC PC NC NC PC NC NC CRT-MULT-1 C (Low) C (High) C (Low) C C (Low) C C (High) C (High) C C (High) C (High) CRT-NONT-1 PC NC C NC PC PC C C C C PC CRT-NONT-2 C C C C C C C PC PC PC PC CRT-NONT-3 C NC C PC C C C C C C C CRT-NONT-4 C C C N/A N/A N/A C N/A C C N/A CRT-NONT-5 C C C N/A N/A N/A C N/A C C N/A CRT-NONT-6 PC C PC C PC PC PC PC PC PC PC CRT-NONT-7 C NC PC NC C C C C C C C Figure 91: Complete compliance matrix Figure 92 shows a comparison among the different SATCOM solutions analysed. The graph shows a ―total score‖ computed taking into account the complete compliance matrix of Figure 91 20 . 19 Despite the MEO/C-band is only a theoretical solution, a similar solution exists nowadays. It is a MEO/S-band (ICO), which is currently reaching its end of life. 20 Results have been calculated assigning a score of 1 point to PC and 2 points to compliant evaluations. Doc.Nº: SRAIL-FNR-010-IND Edit./Rev.: 1/1 Date: 16/02/2017 Page 173 of 285
Page 1 and 2:
Study on feasibili
Page 3 and 4:
Final Report RECORD OF EDITIONS AND
Page 5 and 6:
Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chap
Page 7 and 8:
Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chap
Page 9 and 10:
Final Report FIGURES INDEX Descript
Page 11 and 12:
Final Report Figure 64: Certificati
Page 13 and 14:
Final Report TABLES INDEX Descripti
Page 15 and 16:
Final Report ACRONYMS ACM ATM BGAN
Page 17 and 18:
Final Report VLR Visitor Location R
Page 19 and 20:
Final Report In order to successful
Page 21 and 22:
Final Report Business Communication
Page 23 and 24:
Final Report Figure 2: Railway comm
Page 25 and 26:
Final Report CRT-NONT-2 CRT-NONT-3
Page 27 and 28:
Final Report 7 8 9 10 GEO / C-band
Page 29 and 30:
Final Report 1.5.1 Cost Benefit Ana
Page 31 and 32:
Final Report or GEO/C-band, as well
Page 33 and 34:
Final Report - Some of the other sy
Page 35 and 36:
Final Report 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 DO
Page 37 and 38:
Final Report 2.4 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Page 39 and 40:
Final Report 2.5 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
Page 41 and 42:
Final Report RD-23 D020 ANTARES Com
Page 43 and 44:
Final Report Latency Bandwidth 25 2
Page 45 and 46:
Final Report Two-way communication
Page 47 and 48:
Final Report Table 8: Satellite con
Page 49 and 50:
Final Report Star topology is the m
Page 51 and 52:
Final Report Satcom System (Railway
Page 53 and 54:
Final Report Parameter Definition Q
Page 55 and 56:
Final Report Parameter Types of ter
Page 57 and 58:
Final Report Services & Application
Page 59 and 60:
Final Report Parameter Description
Page 61 and 62:
Final Report 5. IDENTIFICATION OF C
Page 63 and 64:
Final Report Non-technical and non-
Page 65 and 66:
Final Report 6.2 SURVEY OF SATCOM S
Page 67 and 68:
Final Report Maritime Transp
Page 69 and 70:
Final Report 6.2.1.2.2 Ground segme
Page 71 and 72:
Final Report Figure 20: Globalstar
Page 73 and 74:
Final Report packet and circuit swi
Page 75 and 76:
Final Report Handovers Given that t
Page 77 and 78:
Final Report Routing O3b does not u
Page 79 and 80:
Final Report Thuraya‘s satellites
Page 81 and 82:
Final Report generation of more adv
Page 83 and 84:
Final Report Figure 29: IS-33e Epic
Page 85 and 86:
Final Report Figure 30: LuxGovSat s
Page 87 and 88:
Final Report o Enviromental monitor
Page 89 and 90:
Final Report since it is able to op
Page 91 and 92:
Final Report Figure 34:Inmarsat 5 s
Page 93 and 94:
Final Report 6.2.13.2.4 Services GX
Page 95 and 96:
Final Report G/T), which allow the
Page 97 and 98:
Final Report DAMA Random Access (RA
Page 99 and 100:
Final Report In fact, some of these
Page 101 and 102:
Final Report Main advantages of OFD
Page 103 and 104:
Final Report (E-SSA) scheme. On the
Page 105 and 106:
Final Report For each group of stak
Page 107 and 108:
Final Report Figure 43: SOTM & Trai
Page 109 and 110:
Final Report Other responses (not s
Page 111 and 112:
Final Report SATCOM provides rai
Page 113 and 114:
Final Report SOTM suitability for t
Page 115 and 116:
Final Report Features and functiona
Page 117 and 118:
Final Report Support for handheld t
Page 119 and 120:
Final Report Function/service Main
Page 121 and 122: Final Report Concerns regarding SAT
Page 123 and 124: Final Report Economic feasibility o
Page 125 and 126: Final Report 8. PRE-SELECTION OF SA
Page 127 and 128: Final Report 8 9 10 GEO / X-band (D
Page 129 and 130: Final Report Criterion ID CRT-TECH-
Page 131 and 132: Final Report Criterion ID CRT-TECH-
Page 133 and 134: Final Report 7 - GEO / C-band 8 - G
Page 135 and 136: Final Report a justification regard
Page 137 and 138: Final Report Criterion ID Criterion
Page 139 and 140: Final Report Stakeholders Finance
Page 141 and 142: Final Report other one-time invest
Page 143 and 144: Final Report 9.3.2.4 Cost Model The
Page 145 and 146: Final Report SATCOM CAPEX Model Cos
Page 147 and 148: Cell Range (km) #Base Stations Fina
Page 149 and 150: Trips in Millions 2020 2021 2022 20
Page 151 and 152: M€ M€ Final Report 5.000 4.000
Page 153 and 154: Final Report Inmarsat 4/6 1.997 2.8
Page 155 and 156: M€ Final Report Regarding break-e
Page 157 and 158: Final Report Broadband is used as
Page 159 and 160: Final Report Sensitivity Ranking LT
Page 161 and 162: Final Report Main Cost Sensitivitie
Page 163 and 164: Final Report CRT-NONT-3 CRT-NONT-4
Page 165 and 166: Final Report 9.3.5.2 Vertical asses
Page 167 and 168: Final Report Criterion ID 1 2 3 4 5
Page 169 and 170: Final Report northern part of Europ
Page 171: Final Report 11.1.2 Findings regard
Page 175 and 176: Final Report TECHNICAL SCORE (ETCS
Page 177 and 178: Final Report system, since they wil
Page 179 and 180: Final Report the deployment of terr
Page 181 and 182: Final Report products and services
Page 183 and 184: Final Report to this weakness thank
Page 185 and 186: Final Report A. CRITERIA DEFINITION
Page 187 and 188: Final Report EEIG 96S126 / 02S1266
Page 189 and 190: Final Report To get high quality vo
Page 191 and 192: Final Report For the future railway
Page 193 and 194: Final Report Therefore, and as a re
Page 195 and 196: Final Report CRT-TECH-18 The propos
Page 197 and 198: Final Report The NGN architecture c
Page 199 and 200: Final Report IP Network Access Netw
Page 201 and 202: Final Report Survey on operationa
Page 203 and 204: Final Report RATIONALE Costs are a
Page 205 and 206: Final Report B. SURVEY QUESTIONS Th
Page 207 and 208: Final Report 4. (SATCOM) What do yo
Page 209 and 210: Final Report The following question
Page 211 and 212: Final Report a. Yes b. No 14. (cont
Page 213 and 214: Final Report 19. (SATCOM) Can your
Page 215 and 216: Final Report f. Others/ additional
Page 217 and 218: Final Report b. High OPEX c. Scarce
Page 219 and 220: Final Report C. TECHNICAL ASSESSMEN
Page 221 and 222: Final Report Iridium NEXT Criterion
Page 223 and 224:
Final Report C.1.1 C.1.1.1 Addition
Page 225 and 226:
Final Report C.2 SATCOM SOLUTION 2:
Page 227 and 228:
Final Report MEO / C-band Criterion
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Final Report T down is the propagat
Page 233 and 234:
Final Report Inmarsat 4 (BGAN) - In
Page 235 and 236:
Final Report Inmarsat 4 (BGAN) - In
Page 237 and 238:
Final Report Table 55: Inmarsat 4 /
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Final Report GEO / L-band + ANTARES
Page 243 and 244:
Final Report T up is the propagatio
Page 245 and 246:
Final Report Thuraya Criterion ID C
Page 247 and 248:
Final Report Thuraya Criterion ID C
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Final Report GEO / S-band Criterion
Page 253 and 254:
Final Report GEO / S-band Criterion
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Final Report GEO / C-band Criterion
Page 259 and 260:
Final Report GEO / C-band Criterion
Page 261 and 262:
Final Report GEO / X-band Criterion
Page 263 and 264:
Final Report GEO / X-band Criterion
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Final Report SmartLNB Criterion ID
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Final Report C.10 SATCOM SOLUTION 1
Page 273 and 274:
Final Report GEO / Ku-band Criterio
Page 275 and 276:
Final Report GEO / Ku-band Criterio
Page 277 and 278:
Final Report C.11 SATCOM SOLUTION 1
Page 279 and 280:
Final Report Inmarsat 5 (Global Xpr
Page 281 and 282:
Final Report Inmarsat 5 (Global Xpr
Page 283 and 284:
Final Report C.11.1.2 Inmarsat 5 -
Page 285:
INDRA SISTEMAS Project Manager Xavi
show all

Study on feasibility of SATCOM for railway communication

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?