IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee
MEETING OF WORKING GROUP #2
COMMUNICATION BASED TRAIN CONTROL
Date: June 6, 2001 - 9:00 am
Place: New York City Transit, New York, NY
Attendees:
Name |
Representing |
Email |
|
George Achakji |
Transport Canada Rail Safety |
|
|
Fred Childs |
PATH |
|
|
John Cullen |
Rail Science |
|
|
Nabil Ghaly (*) |
NYCT |
|
|
Harvey Glickensstein |
PB Transit & Rail Systems Inc. |
|
|
Vic Grappone |
Grappone Technologies Inc. |
|
|
David Gregson |
Quester Tangent |
|
|
Seyed A. Hosseini |
Metro North Railroad |
|
|
Geoff Hubbs |
NYCT |
|
|
Arshad Jaffri |
NYCT |
|
|
John LaForce |
SEPTA |
|
|
Bob MacDonald |
T.K. Dyer |
|
|
Carmine Montemarano |
NYCT |
|
|
Ed Mortlock |
Parsons Transportation Group |
|
|
Gary Pruitt |
ARINC Inc. |
|
|
William Rooney |
Bombardier |
|
|
Alan Rumsey |
Parsons Transportation Group |
|
|
John Vogler |
NJ Transit |
|
|
Ken Vought |
RT&T Inc. |
|
|
Robert Walsh |
Adtranz |
(*) Part Time
Minutes of Meeting:
1.0 HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
1.1 Introductions
Alan Rumsey thanked Geoff Hubbs, Nabil Ghaly and New York City Transit for hosting this meeting of Working Group #2 (WG2) of the Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee (RTVISC).
1.2 Review of Previous WG2 Meeting Minutes
The minutes of the previous WG2 meeting held on February 22, 2001 were reviewed and accepted as written.
1.3 Liaison with IEC TC9 "Urban Guided
Transport Management and Command/Control Systems" project (UGTMS)
The IEC TC9 Railway Committee has out for ballot (closing June 15th) a proposed new work item to develop a standard covering “functional, system, safety and conformity assessment” for “Urban Guided Transport Management and Command/Control Systems”.
The IEEE RTVISC at its meeting on June 4, has requested that WG2 take a position on how the US should vote on this proposed new work item (Approve/Reject/Abstain).
Following discussion on this item, the WG2 members agreed unanimously on the following position:
"Representatives of the Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Working Group (WG2) of the IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee (RTVISC), at their meeting on June 6, 2001, unanimously recommended US approval of the new work item proposed by the IEC TC9 Railway Committee to develop a standard for Urban Guided Transport Management and Command/Control Systems (ref. IEC 9/612/NP)
The IEEE CBTC Working Group (WG2) was responsible for development of the consensus standard IEEE Std. 1474.1-1999 (IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements) and given that the purpose and justification for the new IEC TC9 work item is similar to efforts currently underway within the IEEE, WG2 further endorses direct liaison between the IEC TC9 Working Group and the IEEE CBTC Working Group. Dr. Alan F. Rumsey (WG2 Chair) has indicated a willingness to act as US representative regarding this new IEC TC9 work item, with other members of WG2 available as alternates, as required."
Alan Rumsey will forward this position to Tom McGean (RTVISC Chair).
1.4 Compatibility
between ASCE APM standards and new driverless "metro" standards
Tom McGean (RTVISC Chair) had asked WG2 to offer a view as to whether they felt there was any distinction between Automated People Movers (APMs), and the concept of automated rapid rail systems, when the latter become truly driverless. The desire being to ensure some degree of "harmonization" between the existing published ASCE APM standards and any new driverless "metro" standards that may be developed. (See also discussion under item 1.5 below).
Following a brief discussion, it was the view of the WG2 participants that existing train control standards in the US had historically evolved from three different perspectives based in part on the specific applications, and also to some degree driven by the different regulatory requirements associated with these applications:
· Mainline railroad standards applicable to freight, high speed passenger rail and commuter rail
· Rail transit standards applicable to light rail, heavy rail (metro) and commuter rail; typically based on an assumption of train operations with a crew consisting of train operator and possibly one or more conductors.
(Note that commuter rail falls into both mainline and rail transit categories)
· Automated people mover (APM) standards applicable to driverless systems such as used at airports, for example.
“Driverless rail transit (light rail/metros)” incorporates elements of what has traditionally been referred to as both “rail transit” as well as”automated people mover” applications. In developing train control standards for this “new” mode, WG2 felt that there needed to be a merging of the experience-base that had historically led to the evolution of the rail transit standards with the experience-base that had historically led to the evolution of the APM standards.
1.5 Action plan for updating IEEE Std. 1474.1
“CBTC Performance and Functional Requirements”
The working group had previously agreed that the existing IEEE Std. 1474.1-1999 should be updated in the future to include: a) an expansion of the functional requirements in paragraph 6.1.15: "Highway grade crossing warning", as well as b) any additional CBTC performance and functional requirements that may be required for train operations without crews.
In considering the proposed update to IEEE Std. 1474.1-1999 to incorporate driverless operations, and in consideration of the discussion under item 1.4 above, WG2 felt that the “best” CBTC standard for driverless rail transit would be a standard developed jointly by IEEE WG2 and the applicable ASCE APM working group.
As a first step in perhaps moving towards such a concept, WG2 has undertaken to review the existing APM standards in the area of train control to identify any potential areas of conflict with IEEE 1474.1, if IEEE 1474.1 were to be updated to include driverless operations.
[Post meeting note: Charlie Martin, chair of the ASCE APM ATC working group has indicated his intent to participate in the next WG2 meeting.]
A decision also needs to be made as to whether the additional requirements would best be incorporated into a new standard (e.g. 1474.3), or as an update to 1474.1. The former option may be preferable if no other updates are required to 1474.1 for other reasons.
1.6 Date/Location of Next WG2 Meeting
The next WG2 meeting was tentatively scheduled for September or October in San Francisco. Specific details to be advised.
2.0 REVIEW OF SECTION 6 (CENTRAL CBTC USER
INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS)
Draft 4.0 of the proposed Standard had been distributed on May 21, 2001 and reflected comments/agreed changes on the previous draft.
Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the proposed Standard were reviewed in detail and a number of changes were agreed upon, as summarized below:
· Section 6.1 will be re-written to clarify that the “central” ATS user interfaces” may be centralized at one location or distributed at various wayside locations.
· Section 6.2 will be restructured in a similar fashion to section 5 to include separate subsections on controls (inputs) as well as displays (outputs).
· Section 6.2.1 will be expanded to include permanent operating speed limits.
· Section 6.2.2 will be expanded to include train ID, train type, train make-up (number of basic operating units) and train travel direction. The intent of “absolute and relative” train location display will also be clarified. This section will also include requirements with respect to non-equipped trains.
· Section 6.2.5 will be renamed “Service performance related commands” and this section will be merged with section 6.2.6.
· Section 6.2.7 will also be renamed and updated to relate to failure types as included in IEEE Std. 1474.1-1999.
· Other changes as identified and discussed in the meeting.
Section 6.3 was briefly reviewed and a number of updates were identified for inclusion in the next draft. A detailed review of this section was deferred until a future WG2 meeting.
3.0 SECTION 7 (MAINTENANCE-RELATED USER INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS)
Section 7 of the proposed Standard was briefly reviewed and it was agreed that further discussion would be required to define the intent of this section, and to avoid overlap/conflict with draft IEEE standard P1482. Supplier representatives on WG2 were encouraged to provide inputs regarding maintenance-related user interfaces on currently available CBTC systems.
4.0 SUMMARY
All comments raised by the meeting participants will be addressed by the WG2 Chair in draft 5.0 of the proposed standard. (ACTION: Alan Rumsey).
Any additional comments on draft 4.0, together with suggested wording changes/additions, are to be forwarded to the WG Chair no later than the end of July 2001. (ACTION: All)
The WG Chair will incorporate all additional comments received, and issue draft 5.0 of the proposed standard in early September 2001. (ACTION: Alan Rumsey).
Minutes prepared
by:
Dr. Alan F. Rumsey
WG2 Chair