Alan Rumsey summarized activities since the last Working Group meeting in June, 1997 which included:

a) a WG2 Task Force meeting in Maryland from August 5 to 7

b) CBTC Peer Group meetings in Washington DC (APTA) on June 11, in New York (NYCT) on July 24/25, in New Jersey (PATH) on September 29/30 and New York (LIRR) on November 6

c) full meeting of IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee (RTVISC) in Washington, DC on October 8, 1997

The objective of the WG2 Task Force Meeting had been to establish standard train/wayside ATP interfaces. This was a three day session supported by suppliers, NYCT and FTA. Although interface data was provided by 8 suppliers and a "best fit" hypothetical interface was defined, consensus on interoperability was not achieved. As a consequence, the Task Force recommended that the interface standardization effort be put on hold, and instead WG2 develop functional and performance standards for CBTC (subject to support of transit agencies).

The objectives of the CBTC Peer Group meetings (which are independent of WG2, but which are supportive of the WG2 activities) are to provide a forum for transit agencies to share past experiences, and discuss future plans, with respect to implementation of CBTC. The peer group meetings also provide a means for transit agencies to explore common operational needs, and operational differences, which may influence CBTC standardization initiatives. The CBTC Peer Group has committed to actively support WG2 in developing a CBTC performance/ functional requirements standard, and to promote the use of such a standard in future CBTC procurements.

At the full RTVISC meeting on October 8, the following motions were tabled and approved:

a) The interoperability standards effort by WG2 shall be put on hold indefinitely. The WG2 chair shall revisit this decision at every RTVISC full committee meeting as part of his report

b) WG2 is redirected in the meantime to develop CBTC functional and performance standards with a goal of having a standard ready for ballot within 18 months (Feb 8, 1999)

Alan Rumsey has been appointed as chair to lead this new activity of WG2.

With respect to Project Authorization Requests, the existing PAR (P1474), with a scope to establish information flow requirements, independent of implementation architecture (interoperability interface definition) will remain on the books. A new PAR (P1474.1), has been established for the new effort to develop performance and functional requirements.

The scope and purpose of the new PAR is to establish the minimum set of performance and functional requirements necessary to achieve an acceptable level of safety, performance, availability and operations for a communications-based train control (CBTC) system. There are currently no independent standards defining the minimum set of performance and functional requirements to be satisfied by communications-based train control (CBTC) systems and a standard will enable transit agencies to streamline their CBTC procurement and enable suppliers to focus their development efforts. A standard will also minimize the amount of new design required for each new CBTC application.

With respect to WG2 membership, there are currently in excess of 83 individuals on the mailing list, approximately equally split between transit agency representatives, supplier representatives and consultants/government/other. Tom McGean noted that individual members on the committee should be classified as either "suppliers", "users" or "general interest" members, with consultants classified as either "suppliers" or "users" depending on the predominant source of their income.

Alan Rumsey also proposed the following membership definitions for WG2:

Participating member: Regularly attends working group meetings and actively participates in development of the proposed CBTC standard; name included in draft/final standards when issued.

Contributing Member: Unable to regularly attend working group meetings but actively participates in development of the proposed CBTC standard through input of review comments, response to action items, etc.; name included in draft/final standards when issued.

Friend: Individual who is interested in the activities of the working group and who wishes to receive meeting notifications, meeting minutes, and other working group documentation, but who does not wish to actively participate in or contribute to the development of the proposed CBTC standard; may or may not attend working group meetings as observers; name would not be listed in the draft/final standards when issued.

The balloting committee has not been defined at this point, and will be defined by the full Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee, unless this committee delegates the role to the working group.

Alan Rumsey suggested the following "guiding principles" for WG2, specifically:

a) WG2 should be a "value added" process, of benefit to the industry and to all WG2 participants

b) WG2 should support the achievement of the anticipated benefits of CBTC technology, such as reduced headway capabilities, enhanced safety, improved operational flexibility, increased system availability, reduced costs, etc.

c) WG2 should encourage an open and frank exchange of views/concerns ("no surprises" philosophy).

d) WG2 should strive for consistency with a commitment to the project purpose and schedule.

With respect to the range of applications to be covered by the proposed standard, the scope of the standard should address light rail transit, heavy rail transit and commuter rail. The standard should address fixed length and variable length train configurations, with different performance characteristics for different train classes, and should support automatic (with or without train operators) and manual (with full/partial ATP) operating modes. The standard should also recognize different CBTC system configurations, such as:

a) A CBTC system configuration that supports ATP functions only. No ATO or ATS functions are supported

b) A CBTC system configuration that supports ATP functions, as well as certain basic ATO and ATS functions

c) A CBTC system configuration that supports ATP functions, as well as sophisticated ATO and ATS functions, including, for example, support of fully automatic, driverless, train operations and/or support of complex automatic train regulation and/or energy optimization algorithms

d) Etc.

Tom McGean advised that the IEEE charter does not cover mainline railroads (i.e. Amtrack or freight), however the group recognized the importance of coordinating transit CBTC standardization initiatives with similar initiatives being undertaken by the mainline railroads, particularly with respect to commuter rail with shared rights-of-way.

Tom Prendergast welcomed the meeting participants, indicating that he was a vocal supporter of CBTC and that LIRR was looking to new technology to improve efficiency of operations. Specifically, LIRR anticipate benefits from CBTC with respect to reduced capital and life cycle costs, enhanced safety at grade crossings, and increased line capacity. (The role of CBTC in LIRR’s signal strategy for the next 20 years is described in more detail in section 5.0 of these minutes).

Tom Prendergast indicated that the risks of new technology were not technical, but cultural, and organizations must be ready to adopt the new systems. To realize the ultimate benefits of CBTC, it is also important to maintain a consistent source of funding.

Finally, Tom Prendergast noted that he believed in the CBTC standardization initiatives, and that LIRR will fully support the consensus standard effort, adding that the ultimate users of these systems have the responsibility to articulate their needs.

Typical issues to be addressed by the proposed CBTC standard were reviewed by the working group and the following was noted:

Three pilot CBTC projects are being planned:

a) A grade crossing pilot project with a tie in to an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) - to provide effective preemption of traffic signals - is currently being developed at New Hyde Park. GRS are the contractor for this project and a functional demonstration (not safety certified) is planned for late 1998. Safety verification of the system is expected to be complete approximately 12 months later, with active control of the three grade crossings. Between 3 and 6 trainsets will be equipped.

b) LIRR have made available some limited funding to participate in Phase I of the NYCT Canarsie Line project, and would be prepared to accept the NYCT leader/followers as pre-qualified suppliers for LIRR if a good fit can be demonstrated between the systems being proposed for NYCT and that required by LIRR. To this end, during the Canarsie Phase I demonstration test phase, the shortlisted suppliers will be provided with an opportunity to demonstrate LIRR-specific functions (i.e. grade crossing operation, GPS-based train positioning), and submit a proposal for the implementation of interlocking functions without track circuits.

c) LIRR are also planning a demonstration of basic train separation functions between Babylon to Patchogue which consists of approximately 13 miles of double track and approximately 3 miles of single track operation. Six to ten trains will be equipped with CBTC for this demonstration which will include a continuous demonstration of equipment operation in "shadow" mode with specific train separation demonstrations at night under controlled conditions. An RFP for this project should be issued in approximately 2 months, for demonstrations sometime in 1999.

The "strawman" Draft Standard (IEEE P1474.1/D0.1, dated November 1997) was tabled and briefly reviewed by the group. The following specific comments were noted:

The next WG2 meeting will be hosted by GE-Harris and will be held in Melbourne, Florida on Wednesday, January 21, 1997 (prior to the next meeting of WG4, scheduled for January 22/23).

The objectives for the next meeting will be to begin to address the priority items identified at this meeting, specifically:

a) Definition of CBTC operating modes and mode transitions

b) Definition of headway criteria for CBTC systems

c) Definition of safety criteria for CBTC systems

d) Definition of availability criteria for CBTC systems

e) Definition of functional responses to CBTC failure modes

In response to a question raised by the Chair, no concerns were noted by the group with respect to the new direction being taken by the working group, and the approach being adopted to develop performance and functional requirements for CBTC systems.

Finally, the group thanked the Long Island Rail Road, and in particular Vic Grappone, for their hospitality in hosting this working group meeting.

Dr. Alan F. Rumsey

Chair, WG2