John LaForce summarized the status of SEPTA’s plans to install an Adtranz-supplied CBTC system on 115 4-axle cars operating on 5 miles of track within SEPTA’s Light Rail tunnel. The CBTC system will support 60-70 cars per hour in peak periods, with 30+ cars normally operating in the tunnel during the peak. In the event of a delay, the number of cars in the tunnel could be much greater than 30 cars and hence the CBTC system needs to be able to handle bunching of cars, as well as multiple berthing of cars in the terminal station. The CBTC system will provide safe train separation assurance and continuous overspeed protection only, with no ATO or ATS functionality, except for a simple mimic display at the Control Center. There will be no track circuits, except at the one interlocking on the line. A 30 month implementation schedule is envisaged, with car equipment installation being on the critical path as no more than 2 cars per week can be taken out of service.

Alan Rumsey provide a summary of WG2 status, and highlighted the key changes that had been introduced in the latest draft of the WG2 standard since the last WG2 meeting.

Alan Rumsey reiterated that is was the group’s target to be in a position to ballot the CBTC performance and functional requirements standard early in 1999, and as such it was important for the group to reach closure on the various open issues.

Alan Rumsey advised that the current WG2 mailing list consists of over 100 active members and friends. The current mailing list was circulated, reviewed and updated by the meeting participants.

Alan Rumsey advised that all written comments received on draft versions of the proposed CBTC standard were being entered into the WG2 Comments Database (with the exception of minor typographical comments). A printout of the database was tabled and reviewed by the meeting participants. The printout identified all comments that had been open at the last meeting as well as new comments that had been added to the database since the last meeting. (Comments that had been closed prior to the last meeting have been archived, and were not included in the current printout. All comments are being retained, however, to provide an historical record of the workings of the group).

In summary, Alan Rumsey advised that 332 written comments had been received to date of which 320 had been addressed and were considered closed.

The minutes of the previous WG2 meeting, held at the Volpe Center on September 30, 1998 were reviewed and accepted as written.

Action items from the previous WG2 meeting were reviewed as follows:

The full Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee has approved that WG2 form a ballot group from within the WG2 membership, with interested members of the RTVISC, who are not currently members of WG2, also invited to be included within the ballot group.

The WG2 membership consist of "Producers" (suppliers, and consultants who receive the bulk of their income from suppliers), "Consumers" (transit agencies, and consultants who receive the bulk of their income from transit agencies), and "General Industry" (e.g. government and university representatives). No more than 50% of the Ballot Group can be drawn from any one of these three groups. In addition, there can be no more than two members from any one organization. Finally, participation on the WG2 Ballot Group, requires membership of the IEEE, as well as membership of the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA).

Alan Rumsey will be working with Tom McGean to finalize the make-up of the Ballot Group. WG2 members who wished to be part of this Group were encouraged to take out membership of the IEEE Standards Association as soon as possible, if they had not already done so. Action item remains open.

Alan Rumsey advised that no further inputs had been received from Suppliers with respect to Annex C, and as such this action item would now be considered closed.

See also item 3 below.

Alan Rumsey advised that Section 3.2 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard ("Definitions") reflects all agreements reached at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Definitions that had originated from Working Group #5 (WG5) will be reviewed to ensure that WG2 is using the latest revisions to these definitions. In addition, it was agreed that the latest WG5 definition for "light rail transit" should be used instead of the TRB definition.

It was also agreed that the "note" under the definition of automatic train supervision be revised to read:

"Note: the ATS subsystem also typically includes manual and automatic routing functions.]

Section 4 of the draft standard is now considered "ballot ready" and had been revised in draft D5.0 to incorporate minor changes suggested at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that Section 5.3 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard ("System safety requirements") had been revised and reorganized to reflect agreements reached at the last WG2 meeting. This section was now considered "ballot ready". Action item closed.

See also item 6 below.

No inputs had been received on section 6.1.15 ("Grade crossing warning") prior to release of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Subsequent to release of draft D5.0, inputs had been received from Geoff Hubbs (NYCT) that will be incorporated into the next draft. This specific action item considered closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that Section 5.4 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard ("System assurance requirements") had been revised and reorganized to reflect agreements reached at the last WG2 meeting. This section was now also considered close to being "ballot ready". Action item closed.

See also item 7 below.

George Anagnostopoulos (Volpe Center) action item to provide a worked example of how the CBTC system contribution to passenger service delays could be measured in practice had not been completed in time for this meeting and remains open.

Jeff Eilenberg (LSTS) tabled a proposed update to section 5.5, defining environmental requirements for CBTC wayside equipment based on the AAR Signal Manual and ATCS specifications. Action item closed.

See also item 8 below.

Alan Rumsey advised that a number of revisions had been made to Section 6.1 of draft D5.0 ("ATP functional requirements") based on agreements at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

See also item 3 below.

Errol Taylor (BART) had provided a re-write of section 6.1.11 (route interlocking protection) that had been incorporated in draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

See also item 3 below.

Alan Rumsey advised that the remaining sections of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard had attempted to respond to all other comments received at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Section 6.1 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 6.1 was now "ballot ready", subject to a further review of an updated section 6.1.11 (item k) above).

Section 6.1 will be updated in draft D6.0 to incorporate the above agreements, and other meeting comments.

There was insufficient time to review Annex C of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. WG2 participants were therefore actioned to provide any written comments on this Annex no later than January 15, 1999.

Section 6.2 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

Section 6.2 will be updated in draft D6.0 to incorporate the above agreements, and other meeting comments.

Section 6.3 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

Section 6.3 will be updated in draft D6.0 to incorporate the above agreements, and other meeting comments.

There was insufficient time to review the revised section 5.3 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. WG2 participants were therefore actioned to provide any written comments on this section no later than January 15, 1999.

The following specific agreements were noted at the meeting:

There was insufficient time to review the revised section 5.4 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. WG2 participants were therefore actioned to provide any written comments on this section no later than January 15, 1999.

There was insufficient time to review the proposed new section 5.5 of draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. WG2 participants were therefore actioned to provide any written comments on this section no later than January 15, 1999.

The following specific action items were recorded:

The objective of the next meeting will be to resolve any open issues, address any written comments that have not been previously addressed, and finalize all sections such that the complete standard can be submitted to the IEEE to formally commence the ballot process.

It was the consensus of the meeting participants that based on the current status of the draft standard, this was an achievable objective for the next WG2 meeting.

To ensure sufficient time to address all issues, the next WG2 meeting will be a two-day meeting.

Draft D6.0 of the proposed standard will be issued at least two weeks prior to the next WG2 meeting.

The next WG2 meeting will be held on February 22/23 and will be hosted by Safetran in Louisville.

Alan Rumsey closed the meeting thanking the working group participants for their attendance and active involvement in the various discussions, and again thanking the SEPTA for hosting the meeting.

Minutes prepared by: Dr. Alan F. Rumsey, Chair, WG2