To: RTVISC - Working Group 2

From: Dave Rutherford – WG2 Co-chair

 Subject: Report on WG2 Task Force Conference – 5, 6, 7 Aug 97 – St. Michaels, MD

A special WG2 Task Force conference was held in St. Michaels, MD on Tue/Wed/Thurs, 5, 6, 7 Aug 97. One representative from each of the nine (9) suppliers developing CBTC systems was invited, and eight (8) attended. Present also were Geoff Hubbs and Alan Rumsey representing NYCT; Ron Kangas, Jeff Mora and Venkat Pindriprolu representing the FTA; Lou Sanders representing APTA, and Tom McGean and Dave Rutherford representing IEEE WG2.

The goal of the conference was to create a consensus standard for CBTC wayside Ö train communication message content and format.

Attendees:

AFFILIATION	NAME	PHONE	FAX
ADtranz	Jeff Stover	412 655 5346	412 655 5108
Alcatel - SELC	Bill Gallagher	416 742 3900	416 742 9088
APTA	Lou Sanders	202 898 4086	202 898 4019
ATSG (NYCT)	Alan Rumsey	212 266 8527	212 266 8536
NYCT	Geoff Hobbs	212-492-8495	212-492-8360
FTA	Ron Kangas	202 366 0212	202 366 3765
FTA	Jeff Mora	202 366 0212	202 366 3765
FTA	Venkat Pindiprolu	202 366 8061	202 366 3765
GE Harris	Florence Heidel	407 242 5146
GRS	Bill Petit	716 783 2017	716 783 2080
Harmon	Tod Mauerman	562 427 4273	562 427 4993
MATRA	Roland Tousch	011 33 1 49 65 71 73	011 33 1 49 65 71 19
RSE (WG2)	Dave Rutherford	716 292 1440	716 292 1446
TJMPE (IEEE)	Tom McGean	703 280 2299	703 280 0748
US&S	Denny Pascoe	412 688 2710	412 688 2307
WSL	Harry Ryland	011 44 12 49 1426	011 44 12 49 44 1440

SUMMARY

A table (Table 1: see Appendix 1) was created which compared various design aspects of each supplier’s CBTC system designs. The design aspects used were selected to accentuate known differences in each design.

At this point in the conference, discussions among the suppliers and NYCT concluded with the decision that for a number of reasons (see below), it would not be possible for the suppliers to reach a unanimous consensus regarding message format.

One fact that contributed to this decision was that NYCT indicated that if the proposed consensus standard was not unanimously accepted by all suppliers, it would not be included in the RFP for Canarsie as a requirement. NYCT made it clear that it was not in their best interest to eliminate potential suppliers from submitting proposals for the Canarsie project based on their non-conformance to a consensus standard.

The group continued, however, to discuss what they would consider an ‘best fit’ message structure, at least in so far as information content was concerned. The ‘best fit’ structure represents information required by the majority of the suppliers’ systems to implement each of the design aspects summarized in Table 1. This ‘best fit’ structure is summarized in Table 2 (see Appendix 2). While the structure represented the majority of designs for each design aspect, no one supplier conformed to the ‘best fit’ in all aspects.

Thus the attempt to create a consensus standard for the wayside Ö train message was not in itself successful. However, it was agreed by those present that there would be benefit in shifting the focus of the working group to standards for CBTC performance, function and operational specifications.

Such a focus would necessarily require active participation by the transit agencies intent on procuring CBTC systems. This topic will be presented to a group of transit agencies meeting at PATH in New York on 29 September. If there is commitment among the agencies, the proposed change in focus will be presented to the members of WG2 and the full IEEE committee for a decision.

A group of transit agencies met on 24, 25 July at NYCT to discuss the implications of interoperability standards in general and the WG2 efforts to date. The minutes of this meeting (written by Alan Rumsey) are included in Appendix 3.

ABBREVIATED MINUTES

Day 1: August 5^th

! Tom McGean and Lou Sanders welcomed the group and stressed the unique window of opportunity for standardization presented by this meeting.

! Geoff Hubbs and Alan Rumsey gave a brief review of NYCT’s requirements for the Canarsie project:

NYCT requires a ‘smart’ vehicle, i.e., able to perform specified tasks without information from the wayside in the event of a communication failure. NYCT desires at least three qualified suppliers, and interoperability is a key issue.

There is at this point no preferred radio system, and the radio reliability and functionality represent the largest unknown. LIRR may participate in NYCT’s test phase.

If an IEEE interoperability standard can be adopted unanimously, NYCT will specify it as a requirement. It was intially stated that in the case of a non-unanimous consensus standard, those proposers conforming to the standard will be favorably considered, but it will not be a requirement. Later, NYCT indicated that no favorable consideration would be given if conforming would require a design change by the supplier.

Phase I of the Canarsie project will use a two mile test track on the Culver line, and a nominal $1 M will be provided to each of the three suppliers selected for Phase I. Phase I award: April - Aug, 1998. Phase I testing will begin in early 1999 for 6 months. Award for Phase II will be made in Oct. 1999, and the selected supplier will create the interoperability standard.

The specification included in the RFP is based on performance requirements; system architecture is not defined, however several requirements require considerable intelligence on the vehicle.

! Alan Rumsey summarized the 24, 25 July transit agency meeting in NYC on CBTC interoperability and functional and performance requirements. (see Appendix 3 for meeting minutes).

! Dave Rutherford defined the purpose of the meeting and outlined the first day’s agenda.

! Nine suppliers were invited to the conference. All attended with the exception of GEC Alsthom. All suppliers attending came prepared with information describing their system’s topographical representation methodology and train> wayside, wayside>train interface data.

! A preliminary version of Table 1 was proposed as a mechanism for identifying key differences in the design aspects of each supplier’s CBTC system which would affect the train Ö wayside message structure. Additional functional & design aspects were added. Each supplier indicated which of the listed aspects were applicable to his system. The completed Table 1 (see Appendix 1) shows in bold the various aspects in which a majority of the suppliers were essentially equivalent.

! The process of negotiating a consensus standard for wayside Ö train message structure and format began with a discussion of the various methods used by each supplier to represent topographical data. It was considered necessary to reach agreement on topographical representation prior to discussing actual message structure.

At this point, it became apparent that several suppliers were sufficiently divergent in their developed CBTC system designs so that a unanimous standard would not be possible. This being the case, it was agreed not to attempt negotiating a consensus standard and that some benefit could be gained by discussing a "best fit’ standard for topographic data representation and wayside Ö train message structure.

Day 2: August 6^th

! The group completed its discussion of the ‘best fit’ standard, summarized in Appendix 2.

! Ron Kangas advised that FTA was disappointed that a more serious effort had not been made on an interface standard, and indicated FTA’s concern that this could result in a situation where NYCT had a unique CTBC system.

Day 3: August 7^th

• The question was raised as to the future direction of WG2 since it would not be able to achieve the stated purpose of its PAR at this time. Tom McGean noted that this meeting was a Task Force only, and could not decide the future of WG2. However, a recommendation would be appropriate and carry weight with the WG2.
• Bill Petit suggested reconvening WG2 after the NYCT final award to the CBTC leader. Alan Rumsey suggested to instead redirect the WG2 focus to developing core functional and performance stds. for CBTC, including safety, reliability, ATO functions, etc. Interoperability would be left to NYCT and architecture would be left to each supplier.
• Although it was not clear if this effort could be completed in time to affect the Canarsie line, Jeff Hobbs and Alan Rumsey committed to serve actively on WG2 if it undertook this responsibility.
• After much discussion, the Task Force agreed to recommend that WG2 develop a core functional and performance standard for CBTC. Transit agencies would consider this recommendation at their CBTC meeting at the end of September. The support of transit agencies, who set the functional/performance specs, would be essential to success.
• Based on agreement by the transit agencies of the value of the new direction, the full WG2 would take up the proposal in a FAX/e-mail/mail poll. If supported by the members, the proposal would be presented to the full RTVIS committee at its October 97 meeting.
• It was agreed that the current IEEE PAR would be left in limbo, to be reactivated if conditions change. A new/revised PAR would have to be submitted to create the functional/performance standard, but the group could begin the work without PAR approval, so this is not schedule-critical.
• It was agreed that the WG2 meeting in conjunction with the AAR August Meeting in Nashville would be CANCELLED.

 Regards,

David B. Rutherford, Jr. , WG2 Co-Chair

TOP LEVEL CATEGORIES	ALC	ADZ	GEC	GEH	GRS	HAR	MAT	USS CSEE	WSL
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
- on board		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- broadcast to train	(Ö )
- wayside	X	X		X	(Ö )	X			X
2. LOA XMIT
- xmit each train	X	X		X	X	X			X
- broadcast to zone							X	X
3. LOA (obstacle or EOR)
- actual obs. Position		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- target point includes safety margin from obs.	X
4. ROUTE XMIT
- as switch positions					X	X	X	X	X
- as segments		X		X
- no route info xmitted	X
5. OBSTACLE XMIT
- civil limits as LOA	X
- TSR treated as LOA	X
- unaligned/open switch	X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- vehicle ahead	X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- End of Route	X	X		X	X	X	-	-	X
6.TEMP SPEED RESTRIC’s
- acknowledge required				X			X	X
- treated as temp. topo data		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- rcv’d as LOA obstacle	X
7. ONBOARD SAFE SPEED LIMIT CALC
- uses topo data		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- topo data not used	X
- route info used		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- route info not used	X
8. CIVIL SPEED
- calc from topo data		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
- xmitted as LOA data	X
9. FREQ MSG XMIT
- periodic	1s	1s			1s	PTG	2s	2s	1s
- non-periodic (as needed) - (within range)				X		LOA
10. EMERGENCY STOP
- periodic permiss to go	(Ö )	X			X	X	X	X
- emerg stop request	X	X		X					X
- broadcast						X	X	X	X
- per train	X	X		X	X		X	X	X
11. W>T DATA RATE
- (assume 20 trains per zone)	4*1200	64K		?	38.4K	9.6K	9.6K	9.6K	2.4K
12. T>W DATA RATE
- (assume 20 trains per zone)	4*600	64K		?	38.4K	9.6K	4.8K	4.8K	2.4KM
13. VIRTUAL/MOVING BLOCK
- virtual					Ö		X	X
- moving block	X	X		X	Ö