Alan Rumsey provide a summary of WG2 status.

Alan Rumsey noted that it had been the group’s goal to be in a position to ballot the CBTC performance and functional requirements standard by February 1999, and as such the objective of this two day meeting was to resolve any open issues, address any written comments that have not been previously addressed, and finalize all sections such that the complete standard could be submitted to the IEEE to formally commence the ballot process.

Alan Rumsey advised that the current WG2 mailing list consists of over 100 active members and friends and specifically acknowledged those members who had actively and regularly supported the various WG2 meetings.

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). Printouts of the database were tabled for the information of the meeting participants. The printouts 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 (Comments that had been closed prior to the last meeting have been archived, and were not included in the current printout.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 438 written comments had been received to date of which 394 had been addressed and were considered closed.

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 tabled a preliminary listing of the ballot group which currently includes 45 members.

The minutes of the previous WG2 meeting, held at SEPTA on December 1, 1998 were reviewed and accepted as written.

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

Action item closed (ref. 1.4 above).

Alan Rumsey advised that Section 3.2 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard ("Definitions") had been updated to reflect the latest WG5 definitions, including WG5 definition of "light rail transit". In addition, the "note" under the definition of automatic train supervision had been revised. Action closed.

This topic was discussed under agenda item 12 below.

Geoff Hubbs and Ed Mortlock had provided inputs to an update section 6.1.11 (route interlocking protection) that had been incorporated in draft D6.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that a number of revisions had been made to Section 6.1 of draft D6.0 ("ATP functional requirements") based on agreements at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since the last WG2 meeting, only one comment had been received on Annex C in draft D5.0, from Howard Gregson. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that a number of revisions had been made to Section 6.2 of draft D6.0 ("ATO functional requirements") based on agreements at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that a number of revisions had been made to Section 6.3 of draft D6.0 ("ATS functional requirements") based on agreements at the last WG2 meeting. In addition, this section had been restructured to hopefully better reflect the intent of this section. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that a number of revisions had been made to Section 5.3 of draft D6.0 ("System safety requirements") based on agreements at the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since the last WG2 meeting, Bill Petit and Omar Rezzoug had provided additional written comments on section 5.3 ("System safety requirements") in draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since the last WG2 meeting, Bob Anderson, Bill Petit, Omar Rezzoug and Jeff Smith had provided additional written comments on section 5.4 ("System assurance requirements") in draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since the last WG2 meeting, Howard Gregson and Abe Kanner had provided additional written comments on section 5.5 ("Environmental requirements") in draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since the last WG2 meeting, Howard Gregson, Bob MacDonald, Dave Male, Bill Petit and Jeff Smith had provided additional written comments on other sections in draft D5.0 of the proposed standard. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that draft D6.0 of the proposed standard had attempted to respond to all comments received at, and since, the last WG2 meeting. Action item closed.

Alan Rumsey advised that since draft D6.0 had been issued, written comments had been received on draft D6.0 from Bob Anderson, Bill Gallagher, Jim Kemp, Rob McHugh and Ken Vought. These comments, as well as other open comments from draft D5.0 were tabled for the information of the meeting participants. Additional written comments were tabled by Bill Gallagher, Adrian Hellman, and Dave Male.

Section 4 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following specific comments were noted:

a) In 4.1, change "vital processors" to "processors performing vital functions"

b) In 4.3, delete "This standard is not intended to be applicable to mainline railroads".

c) In 4.4, expand to include "variable length uni-directional trains" and "variable length bi-directional trains"

d) In 4.5, expand note to include reference to the ASCE Automated People Mover Standards

e) In 4.5.1.2, change "non-equipped trains" to non-CBTC-equipped trains", and use this term consistently throughout proposed standard

f) In 4.5.2 (and elsewhere in the standard), change "exhibit graceful degradation" to "support degraded modes of operation"

h) In 4.5, clarify that, subject to ATP constraints, it shall not be necessary for a train to come to a stop or reduce speed when entering or exiting CBTC territory

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 4 was now "ballot ready".

Section 4 will be updated in draft D7.0 to incorporate the above agreements.

Section 6.1 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

a) In 6, delete "shall include provisions to overcome interference, and shall provide protection against spoofing, hacking or sabotage" - remaining wording sufficient to cover intent

d) In 6.1.2, re-write first sentence of third paragraph to read "A CBTC system shall provide safe train separation between equipped trains."

g) In 6.1.3, rewrite last sentence of second paragraph as "The safe speed shall be derived by considering the most restrictive of:"

l) In 6.1.11, change "approach locking" to "time or approach locking", change "feature" to "apparatus" and add that sectional release (of routes behind a train) shall be provided, "where specified by the authority having jurisdiction"

m) In 6.1.11, change the last sentence in the second paragraph to read "… the movement authority is pulled back short of the interlocking and is in effect."

o) In 6.1.11.1, re-write item a) as "Time or approach locking shall apply, except in the event of a route being canceled for an approaching CBTC train (i.e. the movement authority is pulled back short of the interlocking and is in effect). In this case, if the train is greater than a safe braking distance from the entrance to the interlocking (as determined by the safe braking model of 6.1.2.1) or the train stops prior to entering the interlocking, the route shall be released without running further time."

p) In 6.1.11.1, re-write item b) as "Traffic locking may be overridden so that CBTC equipped trains may move in opposing directions within their respective movement authorities on the same track at the same time."

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 6.1 was now "ballot ready".

Section 6.1 will be updated in draft D7.0 to incorporate the above agreements.

Section 6.2 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comment was noted:

a) In 6.2.1, add "cruise speed"

With the above comment, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 6.2 was now "ballot ready".

Section 6.2 will be updated in draft D7.0 to incorporate the above agreement.

Section 6.3 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

a) Section title, section 6.3.1, and wording in other sections, as applicable, to be revised to better reflect the intent of this section i.e. it is not the intent of this section to establish the performance and functional requirements for a complete ATS system, but rather to identify those specific requirements of an ATS system (when interfaced to, or integrated with, a CBTC system) that are necessary or desirable in order to realize the enhanced operational capabilities offered by CBTC.

b) In 6.3.1, delete fifth paragraph; in sixth paragraph, change "supervisor" to ATS user"; in general, throughout section, delete reference to "control center personnel"

c) In 6.3.5.1, change first paragraph to read "An ATS system shall automatically monitor and regulate the performance of CBTC-equipped trains in relation to schedule and/or headway adherence" and delete second paragraph.

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 6.3 was now "ballot ready".

Section 6.3 will be updated in draft D7.0 to incorporate the above agreements.

Annex B was reviewed an updated by the meeting participants and a revised figure will be incorporated in draft D7.0. It was the consensus of the meeting participants that Annex B was now "ballot ready".

Annex C was reviewed an updated by the meeting participants and a revised table will be incorporated in draft D7.0. It was the consensus of the meeting participants that Annex C was now "ballot ready".

Annex D was reviewed an updated by the meeting participants and a revised figure will be incorporated in draft D7.0. It was the consensus of the meeting participants that Annex D was now "ballot ready".

Sections 5.1 and 5.2 were reviewed by the meeting participants, with minor wording changes to 5.1 which will be incorporated in draft D7.0. It was the consensus of the meeting participants that 5.1 and 5.2 were now "ballot ready".

Section 5.3 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

a) In 5.3.1, change "system construction and operation" to "system life cycle"

b) In 5.3.2, re-write first sentence to read "Hazard analyses shall be employed during the design of a CBTC system to assist in the identification and evaluation of potential hazards, to asses their likelihood and severity, and to document their resolution."

c) In 5.3.2, add new item g) to cover collisions with other objects with cross reference to 6.1.16

e) In 5.3.4, add "in revenue service" to the first sentence and delete reference to "hazards shown to be unacceptable or undesirable through the risk assessment process" in the last sentence.

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 5.3 was now "ballot ready".

Section 5.4 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed on a subsection-by-subsection basis, and the following comments were noted:

a) In 5.4.1, re-write last sentence of first paragraph to read "This section establishes qualitative availability, reliability and maintainability criteria for CBTC systems and equipment in order to meet or exceed the on-time performance and fleet availability objectives of the authority having jurisdiction, to minimize delays experienced by passengers."

b) In 5.4.1, re-write sixth paragraph to read "In measuring achieved system availability, system MTBFF and system MTBF requirements, "failures" shall include consideration of software errors (i.e. software fails to perform intended function) as well as hardware failures."

c) In 5.4.2, revise formula to include weighting factors and add definition for weighting factors and revenue trips.

f) In 5.4.4, in second paragraph, change "CBTC equipment" to "in service CBTC equipment"

With the above comments, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 5.4 was now "ballot ready".

Section 5.4 will be updated in draft D7.0 to incorporate the above agreements.

Section 5.5 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed and the meeting participants concluded the following:

a) Delete subsections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2, and re-write 5.5 to read "All wayside and carborne CBTC equipment shall meet all performance and functional requirements of this standard under the range of environmental conditions for storage and operation defined in the AAR Signal Manual Part 11.5.1"

With the above change, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 5.5 was now "ballot ready". Ballot group members may suggest EMI/EMC standards to be included in this section, as ballot comments.

After discussion by the meeting participants, it was agreed that no additional definitions were required in section 3.2.

It was agreed to modify the definition of Movement Authority to read "The authority for a train to …"

A minor change was also made to the definition of Safety Critical for consistency with WG4.

With the above changes, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 3.2 was now "ballot ready".

Section 6.4 of draft D6.0 of the proposed standard was reviewed and the meeting participants agreed to modify the first paragraph to read "This performance and functional requirements standard does not include standards for interoperability. Where interoperability requirements, such as those listed below, are required by the authority having jurisdiction, it shall be the responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction to defined the required interoperability interface standards."

With the above change, it was the consensus of the meeting participants that section 6.4 was now "ballot ready".

It was concluded by the WG2 meeting participants that with the changes identified at this meeting, the proposed CBTC performance and functional requirements standard was now ready to be balloted as an IEEE Standard.

a) Agreed changes will be incorporated in Draft D7.0 (by mid March)

b) Draft D7.0 will be submitted for an editorial review by the IEEE Standards Department. Any editorial changes requested by the IEEE will be incorporated in draft D7.1 which will then be submitted to the Ballot Group (by mid April)

d) A WG2 meeting is therefore tentatively scheduled for mid June to address ballot comments. WG2 meeting will be hosted by NYCT (Geoff Hubbs).

Alan Rumsey closed the meeting thanking the working group for their active and constructive participation in this consensus standard development process, and again thanking Safetran for hosting the meeting.

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