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