s.f. muni’s cbtc system a brave new world presentation by patricia g. devlieg apta rail transit...
TRANSCRIPT
S.F. MUNI’s CBTC SystemA Brave New World
Presentation by Patricia G. DeVlieg APTA Rail Transit Conference
June 14, 2000St. Louis, Missouri
Project Thumbnail Description Implementation issues Progress on project objectives Hindsight
TOPICS:
MUNI Metro Service Territory EXISTING SUBWAY
Embarcadero toWest Portal: 5.5 miSunset Tunnel: 0.8 mi
NEW SUBWAY Embarcadero toFerry Portal: 0.5 mi
NEWINTERLOCKINGSMMTCastro Crossover
Green Rail Yard
CalTrainDepot
Giants’New
Ballpark
MUNI MetroExtension
(MMX)
Embarcadero
Montgomery
Powell
Civic Center
Van Ness
Church
Castro
Forest Hill
West Portal
Sunset Tunnel
DubocePortal
Golden Gate Park
City College
S.F. StateUniv.
Zoo
BART
ATCS Territory
Surface Rail
M
K
JL
N
FerryPortal
N
Oakland
CastroCrossover
MUNI MetroTurnback
(MMT)
Why did San Francisco MUNI embark on this project?
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
Basic Project Deliverables Replace old Signal System on 6.3 mi of dual track, 3 dual portals Signal new subway extension to waterfront & “Ferry” portal Replace & enhance central control signal & scheduling systems Retrofit 59 Boeing SLRVs for ATCS Equip 77 Breda LRV2s for ATCS Provide enhanced system performance Interface with existing systems (SLRV, Wayside interlockings, PA, etc)
Provide design, installation, test, verification & commissioning Supply training, documentation, spare parts, warranties & DTE Install & Cutover system without impacting revenue service
Phased Service Introduction LRV2 Interim Cab Signaling (existing system)
December 10, 1996
ATCS Operation: all ATP functions, most ATO/ATS ATCS Shuttle Service on MMX/MMT Extension only
Jan 10, 1998 ATCS in existing subway (MMX shuttle continues)
1st train June 13, 1998 (weekends only) Integrated Operation of existing subway & MMT/MMX
August 22, 1998 2-week demo at 35 tph passed October 14, 1998
ATCS Full Functionality (Substantial Completion) Final Software Release: June 2000 2-week demo at 48 tph: July 2000 Reliability/Availability/Maintainability Demos: Summer, Fall 2000
We are here
How did the implementation go?
ATCS Shuttle Service Area
SF Giants
So far so good….Now let’s integrate ATCS with the MMX extension into the existing
subway…..
The Melt-down
August 24 1998
September 2: After tense meetings in the Mayor’s office, ATCS was given one chance
to perform:
To eliminate unequipped trains (non-retrofit Boeings) from the system, running “pure” ATCS.
What went wrong?
Simultaneous system & service changes
New Train Control System+ 1st use of new subway extension & turnback+ New service on “N-Line” out the new Portal+ 1st day of “Proof-of-Payment” fare system+ Elimination of “Reverse Riders”
= Classic System Engineering Problem
Flawed Outreach to Patrons Massive passenger confusion Few PR personnel at problem platforms Absence of Passenger “incentives”
Train Control System Problems Inadequate dual-mode throughput High incidence of failed non-communicating trains Design & Spec deficiencies: e.g.: stopping points &
door-open scenarios Passenger Information bugs
Is this an exceptionally exotic project?
Comparable Projects
Project Estimates, then & nowStart date August 31, 1992
Completion: Aug 31, 1995 (3 yrs) est March, 2001(8.5 yrs) Alcatel Contract (with options exercised) $48.7M $50.8M Consultant Contracts (Safety $0.4M+Engr $2.4M=) $ 2.8 ($4.37M + $12.5M =) $16.87 MUNI support Budget $ 4.96 $ 9.93 Tax $ 2.7 $ 2.3 Contingency $ 5.27 $ 0 Total Project Budget $68.43M $79.9M Scope changes:
restructured fleet make-up 2nd generation Central Control enhanced “dual-mode” signaling multiple functional enhancements phased implementation
Original Current
Where is the project today?Is the project meeting its objectives?
Is the system a “better mousetrap”?
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
pre-ATCS
Weekdays AM Peak Throughput, before Stage 2/3 ATCS
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jun 2 Jun 3 Jun 4 Jun 5 Jun 8 Jun 9 Jun 10 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19
Tra
ins
pe
r h
ou
r
7-8AM 8-9AM Avg AM Peak Trend
Weekdays PM Peak Throughput, before Stage 2/3 ATCS
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Jun 1 Jun 2 Jun 3 Jun 4 Jun 5 Jun 8 Jun 9 Jun 10 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19
Tra
ins
pe
r h
ou
r
4-5PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM Avg PM Peak Trend
Peak Hourly Throughput (6-8AM, 4-7PM)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
608
/3/9
8
9/3
/98
10
/3/9
8
11
/3/9
8
12
/3/9
8
1/3
/99
2/3
/99
3/3
/99
4/3
/99
5/3
/99
6/3
/99
7/3
/99
8/3
/99
9/3
/99
10
/3/9
9
11
/3/9
9
12
/3/9
9
1/3
/00
2/3
/00
3/3
/00
4/3
/00
5/3
/00
6/3
/00
No
. of
ca
rs/t
rain
s
Trains Per Hour (1-to-4 cars) Vehicles Per Hour (Capacity) Throughput Trend Capacity trend
Remove 20 unequipped cars
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
SAFETY
Automatically enforced safe train separation
Automatically enforced speed control
Centralized Control train speed control “go-slow” zones enforcement Station & train holds etc
Detailed performance logs
Emergency Brake Applications
Non-Communicating Trains Lingering ATCS-Vehicle
interface problems
KUDOS ISSUES
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
Non-Communicating Trains, typical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160S
ep 3
, 99
No
. o
f T
ime
-ou
ts
Daily Train time-outs Trend
Ja
n 3
1,
00
Ma
y 2
3,
00
Ju
ly 2
, 9
9
Ma
y 3
, 9
9
De
c 3
1,
98
Se
p 3
, 9
8
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
CENTRAL CONTROLVehicle Control Center (VCC)
(Vital system controller)
Central Control OperatorWorkstation: SMC + VCC
It’s Great!Much betterthan the old
system !
Julio Says:
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
EMBARCADERO
FerryPortalMMXMMT
1063’to 1st MMT switch
Project Objectives
Obtain Optimum Throughput
Improve Safety Increase reliability &
availability, reduce maintenance
Provide inherently flexible operation
Provide fully automated control of new track areas
Enhance passenger information systems, and improve right-of-way intrusion security
PRIMARY SECONDARY
At Door OpenNext 6 trains in subway
displayed &Next 3 announced on PA
Train Arrival Message:
In the right direction…..
Where are we headed?
Why was it so hard?
Anticipated Issues SYSTEM BOUNDARY PROBLEMS
Open loop (mixed street & subway operations) Failed entries & Non-Communicating Trains Schedule adherence
Interface Control SLRV retrofit, LRV2 interface design Public Address system, etc.
Dual Mode (simultaneous old & new signal systems) ATCS control of existing block system & signals
STAFFING Central Control skill set & training Maintenance skill set & training
PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY
Issues Less Well Anticipated ORGANIZATIONAL
“Cultural” shift & resistance to change Ambivalent Management support Heavy dependence on Consultants Intensive Training requirements
SPECIFICATION & PROJECT INITIATION LIMITATIONS Software requirements & development cycle Testing Requirements; extended night subway shutdown Inadequate budget for support staff & contingency Unrealistic project schedule
Maintenance issues
Major shift in technology Difficulties diagnosing trouble “to the interface” Configuration Management burden greatly increased Increased importance of PMs Training, training, training
Next Steps Acceptance of Final Software Release 48-TPH Demonstration Reliability, Availability, Maintainability Demos Final Deliverables (Manuals, Source Code, etc) Claims resolution Contract Closeout: target Spring 2001 Final Cutover
Is CBTC/ATCS a better mousetrap?
Judge for yourself…...
…..at the APTA Annual meetingSan Francisco, September 24-28, 2000
This presentation will be posted at TSD.ORG