Survey Questionnaire Compilation & Analysis of Feedback

Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Railways

Survey Questionnaire Compilation & Analysis of Feedback

Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Railways

Transport Division in Collaboration with ICT and Disaster Risk

Reduction Division

Study on “Co-deployment of Fibre-Optic Cables along Highway

and Railway Routes”

Under the Study, a Survey Questionnaire was Formulated &

Information Gathered about Status and Practices of Co-

deployment in the Member Countries of the Asian Highway and

Trans-Asian Railway Networks

Railway Feedback

Countries Participated

Railway Feedback

Q 1Does your Country have any Experience related to Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs along Highway/Railway Routes?□ Highway      □ Railway    □ Not Sure   ‐ □ Notes (Please specify)

Bangladesh Railway

India Highway ‐ Ducts Laid Recently by NHAI, which are for Multiple Use Water Pipes/Electric Cables/OFC. Some HDPEs Laid for OFC.

Korea Railway

Myanmar Railway‐ Yangon – Mandalay Railway Line

Philippines Railway ‐ Philippines National Railway MoA in April 1998 Granting ETPI Right to Install in Conduits along PNR’s is RoW 

Russia Railway

Thailand Railway

Turkey No Coherence related to Co‐deployment of OFC. Railways and Highways have Separate  Operations

Railway Feedback

Q 2FOCs were Laid□ Along Highway/Railway Routes and within RoW  □ Parallel to Highway/Railway Located Outside RoW  □ Allowed Crossing (Transverse Direction)  □ Not Sure□ Directly Buried & Taken Through Pipes  □ Taken Through Concrete Conduits □ Other (Please Specify)

Bangladesh Along Highway/Railway in RoW in Directly Buried Pipes

India Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Allowed Transverse Crossing Only Railtel Allowed on Railway Routes with Revenue Sharing

Korea Along Highway/Railway in RoWMyanmar Along Highway/Railway in RoW

Directly Buried Not Through PipesPhilippines Along Highway/Railway in RoWRussia Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Also Runs Parallel Outside RoW. Allowed 

Transverse Crossing; Directly Buried Through PipesSuspended on Supports & Power Lines.

Thailand Along Highway/Railway in RoW Turkey Directly Buried Through pipes & Concrete Conduits 

Railway Feedback

Railway Feedback

Q 3Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation Status ‐ Total Kmss in Country along Highway/Railway Routes?□ Total Route Distance ‐Kms in Country.□ Approx FOC Length‐Kms along RoW□ Not Known  □ Other (Please Specify)

Bangladesh Total Route Distance in Kms in Country is 2,421 Kms & Total Planned/Sanctioned/Approved ‐ 2,421 Kms

India With RailTel  on India Railways’s RoW ‐ 49833 KmsKorea Approx Route Distance is ‐ 3902 KmsMyanmar Approx Route Distance is ‐ 620 KmsPhilippines Approx Route Distance is ‐ 62 KmsRussia Total Route Distance in Kms in Country ‐ 78000 Kms

Approximate Route Distance in Kms along ] RoW ‐ 77000 KmsThailand Approx Route Distance in Kms along RoW ‐ 4300 KmsTurkey Total Route Distance in Kms in Country ‐ 2713 Kms

Total Route Distance Planned/Sanctioned/Approved ‐ 3941 Kms

Railway Feedback

Q 4Is there any Local or National Plan/Policy related to Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs along Highway or Railway Routes?If yes, please provide details

Bangladesh At present, Bangladesh Railway (BR) has total 2421 km Underground optical fiber cable (OFC)along rail route.

Another 1000 km Underground optical fiber cables (OFC) will be laid within 3 /4 years. BR has NTTN license issued by BTRC (Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory

Commissions) and using this license, BR is conducting Nationwide TelecommunicationTransmissions Network (NTTN) business.

India • No Policy. Committee of Secretary (CoS) is Drafting a Policy.  Under Finalization.

Korea Co‐deployment of fiber‐optic cables along Railway is provided for under the phasedcommunication circuit Establishment plan which aims to equip 4934 km of railways withDWDM by 2020.

Communication traffic required for Railway operation analyzed to form a nationwide double‐ring backbone network.

Note:1. DWDM (Dense wavelength Division Multiplexing) : Equipment capable of transmitting data up

to 400Gbps at 10Gbps per wavelength by dividing in to multiple wavelength bands.2. Communications traffic: Amount of all information such as voice, data, and video transmitting

through the communication networks.

Railway Feedback

Myanmar Yangon‐Pyay railway line/ Bago‐Mawlamyine‐ Ye‐ Dawei Railway line / Mandalay – Myitkyina Railway Line.

Philippines Data not available from PNR

Russia NoThailand The Design for fiber optics n/w of Railway with ministry of

Transportation to use fiber optic with Highway,aeronautical, nautical Transportation and ministry of digitaleconomy and social to use fiber optic with nationbroadband n/w.Today the project still under consideration of committee ofDigital infrastructure are undertaken by permanentsecretary of ministry of digital economy.

Turkey National Broadband Strategy and Action Plan (2017‐2020) (UGSEP) 

Q 4Is there any Local or National Plan/Policy related to Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs along Highway or Railway Routes?If yes, please provide details

Railway Feedback

Q 5

For Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs with Highway/Railway Agency which type of other entity/ entities were involved. Adequate Capacity & Capability for Works/Projects?  Highway/ Railway Agency + Capacity□ one □ two □more    Private OR Public Sector□ two □more  Public AND Private Sector (Mixed)□ Not sure.   If Other(s), Details

Bangladesh Bangladesh Railway with Government Permissions.India Three Public and Many Private‐Sector Entities.

Korea More than Two Mixed Entities

Myanmar Not Sure

Philippines One Private Sector entity, More than Two Mixed Entities. In the case of PNR, Only ETPI

Russia More than Two Private Sector Entities

Thailand More than Two Public Sector Entities

Turkey One Private Sector Entity

Railway Feedback

Q 6Any Local/National Law/Ordinance/Act/Gazette/Legal coverage on FOC Co‐deployment.  If yes, please provide details

Bangladesh Yes based on BR’s Rules & Regulation of NTTN licensedissued by BTRC.

India No. MoU of Ministry of Railways with RailTel Korea No. Agreement between KRNA (Korea Rail Network 

Authority) & TSPs (Public & Private

Myanmar Myanmar Telecommunication LawPhilippines Details Not AvailableRussia YesThailand NBTC and Ministry of Digital Economy and Social.Turkey No

Railway Feedback

Q 7

Initial Installation Cost Shared among Entities? If Yes, How Shared? Lease of RoW & Re‐pairs to Highway/Railway Included.□ On Kms of Length basis for Highway/Railway Routes□ On Kms of Length basis for FOCs □ Lumpsum Amount per Contract□ Lumpsum amount per Area/Subregion/Region of Entity□ Depending on Scope of Work. □ Not Shared. □ Not Sure

Bangladesh Not Shared FOC by Bangladesh Railway at its Own Cost.

India Not Sure. To be Decided.

Korea On Kms of Length basis for FOCs, Not Sure.  Korea Rail Network Authority charges TSPs Usage Fee.

Myanmar Not Sure

Philippines On a Kms of Length basis for Railway Routes, Lumpsum Amount per Contract. PNR ‐ On a Km of Length basis for Railway Route or RoW Fee.MRT3 ‐ bears Cost for FOC Installation as part of CCTV Project.  Dept  of ICT installed FOC along the EDSA line for Free as they utilize MRT3 RoW

Russia Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Thailand Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Turkey Varies Depending on Scope of Work. Not Shared. Turkish State Railways bears Cost

Railway Feedback

Railway FeedbackInitial Installation Cost Sharing FeedbackInitial Installation Cost Sharing Feedback

Q 8

How is the maintenance cost for co‐deployment/ co‐habitation of fiber‐optic cables ‐shared among agencies/entities? 

□ on a Kms of length basis for the highway/ railway routes □ on a Kms of length basis for the fibre‐optic cables □ lumpsum amount per contract □ lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency □ varies depending on the scope of work □ not shared among agencies/entities □ not sure

Bangladesh Not shared among agencies/entities.

India Varies depending on the scope of work.

Korea On a Kms of length basis for the fibre‐optic cables.

Myanmar Not Sure

Philippines Varies depending on the scope of work, not shared among agencies/entities.

Not shared among agencies/ entities since ETPI shall provide free maintenance for the fiberoptics for the duration of the agreement with PNR

Russia Varies depending on the scope of work

Thailand Varies depending on the scope of work

Turkey Not shared among agencies

Railway Feedback

Railway Feedback

Q 9

Benefits of Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs along Highway Routes□ Improved Efficiency ‐ Reduced Project Cost, Faster Deployment ‐ Dig Once Use Many Times □Economically Beneficial ‐ Reduced Cost of Transport & ICT Deployment □ Additional Revenue Earnings for Transport □ Financially Beneficial for Some Entities □ Financially Beneficial for All □Enhanced Sustainable Development &  Employment Generation □ Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity □ Improved Traffic Management & Intelligent Transport Systems □Improved Road Safety □Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. □ Other(s), Details

Bangladesh All Options Ticked

India Additional Revenue Earnings for Transport, Financially Beneficial for Some EntitiesMinimum Disruption of Transport Services

Korea All Options Ticked

Myanmar Improve Train Operating and Communication System for Safety.

Philippines Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial for Country, Additional Revenue Earnings,  Improved Traffic Management

Russia Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial for Country, Additional Revenue Earnings

Railway Feedback

Thailand Economically Beneficial for Country,  Additional Revenue Earnings, Financially Beneficial for Some Entities,  Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation, Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity,  Improved Traffic Management & ITS, Improved Road Saftey, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. Protection Network by Highway & Railway Cable Routes.

Turkey Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators,  financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities, financially beneficial for all indicating a win‐win situation, Improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of intelligent Transport Systems related benefits, Improved road safety,  Minimum disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom, Power etc.

Railway Feedback

Q 9

Benefits of Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation of FOCs along Highway Routes□ Improved Efficiency ‐ Reduced Project Cost, Faster Deployment ‐ Dig Once Use Many Times □Economically Beneficial ‐ Reduced Cost of Transport & ICT Deployment □ Additional Revenue Earnings for Transport □ Financially Beneficial for Some Entities □ Financially Beneficial for All □Enhanced Sustainable Development &  Employment Generation □ Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity □ Improved Traffic Management & Intelligent Transport Systems □Improved Road Safety □Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. □ Other(s), Details

Railway Feedback

Q 10Challenges/Constraints of Co‐deployment/Co‐habitation ‐□ Coordination among Entities □ Lack of Legal Coverage□ Planning Not Easy □ Benefits Not Clear/Lack of Awareness □ Financial Costs More than Benefits □ Entities Not interested/Convinced□ Damage to FOCs during Construction □ Safety Hazard □ Security Hazard□ Other(s), □ Provide Suggestions

Bangladesh Damage to FOCs during Construction.  

India Benefits are not clear, Safety and Security Hazard In India, draft for a common duct policy for inter‐city and intra‐city for various utilities

is yet to be made. As such so far India does not has much experience. It is just the start. Safety of long and wider duct is a big problem. Sharing of cost by the infrastructure providers and CDA is a yet to be discussed by CoS.

Railway Feedback

Korea Coordination among agencies/ entities,  lack of legal coverage,  planning is not easy,  main Infrastructure Entities not interested/convinced, 

Suggestions:‐Government taking the initiative is important. That is, the government should take the initiative to provide legal grounds, formulate mid/long‐term plans, and support step by step implementation.

Myanmar Damage to fiber‐ optic cables during construction

Proper installation methodology should be used during the construction

Philippines Coordination among agencies/ entities,  lack of legal coverage,  planning is not easy, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness, damage to fibre‐optic cables during construction

Damage to fiber‐optic cables during construction. In PNR’s experience the fiber optic cablesthat is laid within the RoW were sometimes being damage by DPWH constructions.

Russia Lack of legal coverage,  damage to fiber‐optic cables during construction, safety hazard,  security hazard, safety hazard

Thailand Coordination among agencies/ entities,  planning is not easy,  benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness

Turkey Coordination among agencies/ entities,  lack of legal coverage,  planning is not easy

Railway Feedback

Railway Feedback

Q 11

In terms of co‐deployment/ co‐habitation of fibre‐optic cables along highway/ railway routes‐ what is your overall experience□ extremely favourable □ very much favourable□ favourable □ neutral□ not favourableIf others, please provide detail

Bangladesh Extremely favourableIndia This is a new concept in India and don’t have any/much experience

Korea Extremely favourableMyanmar NeutralPhilippines Favourable, extremely favourable

Fiber‐optics laid within the RoW of PNR is not being utilized however it is written in the contract that PNR will have access to the 8‐core fiber‐optics of ETPI

Russia Favourable,Thailand NeutralTurkey Very much favourable

Railway Feedback

Railway Feedback

Q 12

Does your country have any experience related to fibre‐optic cables installed/ deployed along highway or railway route(s) that cross(es) the national border and connects to the neighbouring country/ countries?The fibre‐optic cables were laid

□ across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries at border crossing points:□ one     □ two    □more    

□ within the country but at least in one case extends up to the border □ only within the country and does not reach the border□ not sure□ any note including the systems required/provided at the border interchange point (please specify)

Bangladesh Only within the country and does not reach the border

India Only within the country and does not reach the border

Railway Feedback

Myanmar Only within the country and does not reach the border

Philippines Only within the country and does not reach the border, Not  Sure

Russia Across the border of the neighboring country/ countries at border crossing points, within the country but at least in one case extends up to the border 

Thailand Across the border of the neighboring country/ countries at border crossing points

SRT and KTMB have been linkage both: telephone network. But expired with com‐link period.

Turkey Across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries at border crossing points

Greece and Bulgaria

Railway Feedback

Korea Only within the country does not reach the border.

In 1996, the 52th ESCAP “Infrastructure Ministerial Meeting” adopted a resolution stating,“We will make top priority for the restoration of the Railway on the peninsula (TKR; Trans‐Korean Railway)”

TKR route 1: total length of 945 km through Busan‐Seoul‐Kaesong‐Pyongyang‐Shinujiu has aproblems of crossing the border.

With the inter‐Korean summit in June 2000, the reconstruction work for the Gyeongui Linewas initiated and a railway on the Korean peninsula was connected. During thisreconnections, fiber‐optic cables were jointly deployed along the reconstructed GyeonguiLine linking Dorasan and Gaeseong

Railway Feedback