ATTACHMENT B
IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee
MEETING OF WORKING GROUP #2
COMMUNICATION BASED TRAIN CONTROL
Date: February 26/27, 2001 - 9:00 am
Place: New York City Transit, New York, NY
Attendees:
Name |
Representing |
Email |
|
George Achakji |
Transport Canada Rail Safety |
|
|
Michael Crispo (1) |
CTA |
|
|
Ramesh Dhingra |
VTA |
|
|
Jean-Luc Dupont (1) |
BART |
|
|
Nicolas Estivals |
RATP |
|
|
Harold Gillen |
US&S |
|
|
Nabil Ghaly |
NYCT |
|
|
Vic Grappone (1) |
GTI |
|
|
Adrian Hellman (1) |
Volpe/RSRA |
|
|
Geoff Hubbs |
NYCT |
|
|
Ken Karg |
Bombardier |
|
|
John LaForce |
SEPTA |
|
|
Martin Lukes |
WMATA |
|
|
Dave Male (2) |
Systra Engineering |
|
|
Alan Rumsey |
Parsons Transportation Group |
|
|
Carl Schwellnus |
Alcatel |
|
|
Errol Taylor |
WMATA |
|
|
John Vogler |
NJ Transit |
|
|
Ken Vought (1) |
RT&T |
|
|
Robert Walsh |
Bombardier |
(1) Day 1 only
(2) Day 2 only
Minutes of Meeting:
1.
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
1.1.
Introductions
Alan Rumsey thanked Nabil Ghaly, Geoff Hubbs and NYCT 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 December 10, 2001 were reviewed and accepted as written.
1.3.
Liaison with IEC TC9 WG40 "Urban Guided Transport
Management and Command/ Control Systems"
Working Group 40 of the IEC TC9 Railway Committee intends to develop standards for Urban Guided Transport Management and Command/Control Systems.
Alan Rumsey attended the first working group meetings on this proposed new standard in Paris on January 30/31, 2002. At this meeting he provided a status report on the work of IEEE WG2 and the CBTC standard IEEE 1474.1.
Alan Rumsey presented a block diagram that attempted to summarize the relationship between the various standards initiatives. (Attachment B).
1.4.
Liaison with the
ASCE APM Standards Group
Alan Rumsey described a proposal that had been agreed in principle with the ASCE APM working group to develop a single CBTC performance and functional requirements standard that is applicable to driverless/APM applications as well as train operations with drivers. This proposal is included in Attachment A.
1.5.
Date/Location of
Next WG2 Meeting
The next WG2 meeting was scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 2002, either in Ottawa, Canada, or Pittsburgh.
[Post meting note: The meeting will be held in Pittsburgh and will be hosted by Harold Gillen (US&S). Consideration will be given to a meeting in Canada in the Fall].
A WG2 meeting to be hosted by BART was tentatively scheduled for the second or third week in August, 2002.
Alan Rumsey reminded transit agency representatives that APTA was sponsoring the RTVISC activities starting Mar.1, 2002 and that Transit Agencies would be expected to cover the expenses for their employees attending meetings; APTA should be issuing a letter to this effect. (Any problems with this strategy should be reported to the RTVISC Chair.)
Alan Rumsey advised the meeting that the next Railway Age/Parsons CBTC Conference had been scheduled for May 7/8, 2003 in Washington, D.C.
2.
UPDATES TO IEEE STD. 1474.1 “CBTC PERFORMANCE AND
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS”
The WG participants completed a section-by-section review of existing IEEE standard 1474.1-1999 to develop
a preliminary definition of desired updates to accommodate driverless CBTC
applications, and to incorporate other desirable improvements to the
standard.
It was noted that a
general review of terminology would be required to provide for consistency
between the IEEE CBTC and ASCE APM standards.
Other proposed updates
are summarized below.
2.1.
Section 4: General
Requirements
Section 4.3
(range of applications), Section 4.5 (train operating modes) and Section 4.6
(transition between operating modes) will need to be updated to accommodate
driverless applications. It was also
noted that a distinction should be made between driverless and unattended
operations.
2.2.
Section 5:
Performance Requirements
It was suggested
that consideration be given to updating Section 5.1 (CBTC factors contributing
to achievable headways) to put more emphasis on train/passenger throughput
factors.
A review of
Section 5.3 (system safety requirements) was also proposed to re-assess the
quantitative safety criteria, and to consider potential new hazards introduced
with driverless operations.
A suggestion to
incorporate a new section on testing requirements for CBTC system was
discussed, but the consensus was that testing requirements would be more
appropriate in a separate standard.
It was proposed
that section 5.4 (system assurance requirements) be reviewed in lights of
experience, specifically section 5.4.2 (system availability requirements), to
establish if the current criteria were practical.
Section 5.5
(environmental requirements) will be updated to reference the new IEEE standard
being developed by Harold Gillen’s working group (IEEE P1582)..
2.3.
Section 6:
Functional Requirements
Only minor
adjustments to Section 5.1 (ATP functional requirements) are anticipated to
accommodate driverless applications (e.g. Section 6.1.8 – door opening control
protection interlocks), and for consistency with the ASCE APM standards.
For driverless
operations, ATO and certain ATS functions become mandatory and Sections 5.2
(ATO functional requirements) and 5.3 (ATS functional requirements) will
therefore need to be updated accordingly.
2.4.
Project
Authorization Request (PAR)
A PAR will now be raised based on the above-proposed scope of the updates to 1474.1 (Action: Alan Rumsey). In order of priority, WG2 agreed to address updating sections in the following order:
Section 4
Section 6.1
Section 6.2
Section 6.3
Section 5.3
Section 5.1
Section 5.4
WG2 agreed to target to have the updated standard balloted before the end of 2003.
3.
REVIEW OF DRAFT
D7.0 OF PROPOSED STANDARD 1474.2
Draft 7.0 of the proposed Standard had been distributed on February 17, 2002 and reflected comments and agreed changes on the previous draft.
WG2 completed a detailed line-by-line review and the following comments were noted:
3.1.
Introduction
The Introduction
section was accepted without change.
3.2.
Section 1: Overview
The overview will
be expanded to include a specific note that this standard should be read in
conjunction with IEEE Std. 1474.1-1999.
3.3.
Section 2:
References
Dave Male will
confirm correct references for Microsoft Windows Style Guide and Motif.
(Action)
Dave Male and
Geoff Hubbs will review Jeff Eilenberg’s independent comments on Version F of
MIL-STD 1472 and incorporate modifications to the referenced sections and subsections
as appropriate (Action).
3.4.
Section 3:
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions
Errors in
definition 3.1.6 (auxiliary wayside system) were corrected and definition 3.1.9
(control action) was revised. Revisions were also agreed to definitions 3.1.11
(display screen), 3.1.16 (user interface) and 3.1.17 (user profiles). Definition 3.1.15 was changed from
“overspeed condition” to “penalty overspeed condition”. The acronym LRU was deleted, as this acronym
is not used in the body of the standard.
3.5.
Section 4: General
User Interface Requirements
Minor changes
were agreed to sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7.
Section 4.4 will
be expanded to include additional requirements applicable to the input of
safety critical commands.
Section 4.8 will
be revised to differentiate between alarm messages and advisory messages.
3.6.
Section 5: CBTC
Trainborne User Interface Requirements
The title of this
section will be revised to “CBTC operations-related user interface requirements
– trainborne”
Section 5.2, the
term “penalty overspeed condition” will be introduced to represent the state
when an actual penalty brake application is initiated.
Other minor
changes were identified in this section.
3.7.
Section 6: CBTC ATS
User Interface Requirements
The title of this
section will be revised to “CBTC operations-related user interface requirements
– non-trainborne”.
This section will
also be revised and restructured to reflect the fact that certain ATS functions
are considered mandatory, whether or not these functions are implemented by
CBTC or by other systems.
Other minor
changes were identified in this section.
3.8.
Section 7: CBTC
Maintenance-Related User Interface Requirements
Minor changes were identified in this section.
3.9.
Next Steps
Given the agreed-to re-structuring of Section 6, WG2
concluded that a final working group review of the proposed standard would be
desirable before the standard is formally submitted to ballot. It is therefore
anticipated that the draft standard will be submitted to ballot shortly after
the WG2 meeting scheduled for May 30.
The WG2 Chair, in draft 8.0 of the proposed standard, will address all
comments raised by the meeting participants and re-distribute in April. (Action: Alan Rumsey). Any significant issues/concerns on this
draft should be brought to the chair’s attention prior to the May 30 meeting.
Minutes prepared
by:
Dr. Alan F. Rumsey
WG2 Chair
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSAL FOR EXPANDING THE IEEE RAIL TRANSIT VEHICLE
INTERFACE STANDARDS COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP 2 WITH ADDITIONAL MEMBERS DRAWN FROM
THE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP A REVISED CBTC PERFORMANCE AND
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS STANDARD THAT IS APPLICABLE TO DRIVERLESS/APM
APPLICATIONS
Introduction:
At present the only
internationally used standard related to driverless automatic train operation
is ASCE 21-96, Automated People Mover
Standard. This standard is a performance/functional standard and is not
specific to any particular train control technology.
In addition, IEEE 1474.1, IEEE Standard Method for
Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional
Requirements, provides performance/functional standards specific to CBTC
technology for applications in commuter rail, heavy rail and light rail transit
systems with operators.
However, there are a
number of Train Control standards efforts underway requiring coordination
including: 1) Plans for IEEE 1474.1 to extend its Communication Based Train
Control Performance Standard to cover driverless systems 2) The IEC WG39 work
on Railway Applications - Urban Automated
Guided Transit, and 3) Proposed IEC WG40 work on Urban Guided Transit Train Control Standards.
The purpose of this
proposal is to provide the basis for cooperation between current individual
members of the IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle
Interface Standards Committee's WG2 and the ASCE Automated People Mover Standards Committee in harmonized
development of train control standards for CBTC technology. This proposal recognizes that CBTC
technology is increasingly being selected as the train control technology of
choice for driverless applications, regardless of whether the application is
classified as an Automated People Mover or an Automated Urban Transit System.
This proposal also recognizes that CBTC suppliers and users are seeking a
single standard to define the performance and functional requirements for this
technology for a wide range of application, both driverless and with
drivers. This proposal also recognizes
that there already exists a high level of consistency between the existing IEEE
and ASCE standards. This proposal does not
involve any joint action between the IEEE and ASCE as corporate or professional
organizations.
Approach
At present, it is
planned to update and revise both the IEEE and ASCE standards in essentially
the same time frame. It is therefore proposed that the IEEE standard be
expanded to encompass driverless operations and Automated People Mover
applications, that current members of the ASCE
Automated People Mover Standards Committee be permitted to participate in
the IEEE RTVISC WG2, and that the
balloting group for the revised IEEE standard be composed of a balanced group
drawn from WG2, the parent RTVISC and the ASCE
APM Standards Committee, to equitably represent all interests. The IEEE
standard would continue to be specific to CBTC technology only.
In addition, it is proposed that the ASCE standard
be revised to include the same definition for CBTC technology as is used in the
IEEE standard, and the ASCE standard would simply refer to the revised IEEE
standard for those APM applications that utilize CBTC technology for train
control functions i.e. for APM applications that utilize CBTC technology, the
IEEE standard would be the applicable standard for train control performance
and functional requirements. The ASCE
standard would continue to define the performance and functional requirements
for APM applications that do not utilize CBTC technology for train control
functions. In addition, every effort
should be made to maximize the commonality between the revised IEEE and ASCE
standards, with respect to use of identical terminology and identical wording,
wherever this is reasonable and practical, when defining performance and
functional requirements for CBTC and non-CBTC technology.
The primary advantage of this proposal is that
suppliers of CBTC systems would only need to refer to a single standard (the
revised IEEE 1474.1 standard), and could develop a standard CBTC product, or
range of CBTC products applicable to commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail and
APM applications, including both driverless operations and operations with
drivers.
Alternatives to CBTC systems can continue to be
deployed for commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail and APM applications. For APM applications, the revised ASCE
standard would be applicable. To date,
commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail user have not identified any urgent
need for a standard to cover non-CBTC train control technologies.
Make-up
of New WG2 and Balloting Group
The new WG2 would be
open to all interested parties as is the case at present. However,
it is expected that a number of ASCE APM
Standards Committee members would join the RTVISC working group.
To facilitate a cooperative effort between the IEEE
and ASCE working groups, it is proposed that, where practical, the IEEE RTVISC
WG2 meetings would be held in conjunction with ASCE APM Standards Committee
meetings.
Invitation to join the balloting group would be extended to 1)RTVISC WG2 members 2) APM Standards Committee Members and 3)RTVISC members. In the event the balloting group becomes unbalanced or unwieldy, decisions on the balloting group will be jointly made by the APM Standards VP and the chair of the expanded working group subject to review and appeal to the ASCE APM Standards Committee full membership and the IEEE RTVISC full membership.
ATTACHMENT B