Transcript S.F. MUNI’s CBTC System A Brave New World

S.F. MUNI’s CBTC System
A Brave New World
Presentation by Patricia G. DeVlieg
APTA Rail Transit Conference
June 14, 2000
St. Louis, Missouri
TOPICS:
Project
Thumbnail Description
Implementation issues
Progress on project objectives
Hindsight
MUNI Metro Service Territory
Oakland
EXISTING SUBWAY
Embarcadero to
West Portal: 5.5 mi
Sunset Tunnel: 0.8 mi
Embarcadero
Powell
Civic Center
NEW SUBWAY
Embarcadero to
Ferry Portal: 0.5 mi
NEW
INTERLOCKINGS
MMT
Castro Crossover
MUNI Metro
Turnback
(MMT)
Montgomery
Duboce
Portal Van Ness
Golden Gate Park
Ferry
Portal
CalTrain
Depot
Giants’
New
Ballpark
Sunset Tunnel
N
Church
Castro
Crossover
Castro
L
MUNI Metro
Extension
(MMX)
J
Forest Hill
West Portal
ATCS Territory
Zoo
City College
Surface Rail
K
Green Rail Yard
S.F. State
Univ.
N
M
BART
Why did San Francisco MUNI
embark on this project?
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
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

ATCS Shuttle Service on MMX/MMT Extension only


1st train June 13, 1998 (weekends only)
Integrated Operation of existing subway & MMT/MMX



Jan 10, 1998
ATCS in existing subway (MMX shuttle continues)


Operation: all ATP functions, most ATO/ATS
August 22, 1998
2-week demo at 35 tph passed October 14, 1998
ATCS Full Functionality (Substantial Completion)
We are here
 Final Software Release: June 2000


2-week demo at 48 tph: July 2000
Reliability/Availability/Maintainability Demos: Summer, Fall 2000
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
Meltdown
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 & now
Start date August 31, 1992
Original








Completion:
Aug 31, 1995 (3 yrs)
Alcatel Contract (with options exercised)
$48.7M
Consultant Contracts (Safety $0.4M+Engr $2.4M=) $ 2.8
MUNI support Budget
$ 4.96
Tax
$ 2.7
Contingency
$ 5.27
Total Project Budget
Scope changes:
 restructured fleet make-up
 2nd generation Central Control
 enhanced “dual-mode” signaling
 multiple functional enhancements
 phased implementation
$68.43M
Current
est March, 2001(8.5 yrs)
$50.8M
($4.37M + $12.5M =) $16.87
$ 9.93
$ 2.3
$ 0
$79.9M
Where is the project today?
Is the project meeting its objectives?
Is the system a “better mousetrap”?
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
Weekdays AM Peak Throughput, before Stage 2/3 ATCS
Trains per hour
45
pre-ATCS
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Jun 2
Jun 3
Jun 4
Jun 5
7-8AM
Jun 8 Jun 9 Jun 10 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19
8-9AM
Weekdays PM Peak Throughput, before Stage 2/3 ATCS
45
Trains per hour
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Jun 1
Jun 2
Jun 3
4-5PM
Jun 4
Jun 5
Jun 8
5-6 PM
Jun 9 Jun 10 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19
6-7 PM
Avg PM Peak
Trend
Avg AM Peak
Trend
Peak Hourly Throughput (6-8AM, 4-7PM)
60
55
50
Remove 20
unequipped cars
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Trains Per Hour (1-to-4 cars)
Vehicles Per Hour (Capacity)
Throughput Trend
6/3/00
5/3/00
4/3/00
3/3/00
2/3/00
1/3/00
12/3/99
11/3/99
10/3/99
9/3/99
8/3/99
7/3/99
6/3/99
5/3/99
4/3/99
3/3/99
2/3/99
1/3/99
12/3/98
11/3/98
10/3/98
9/3/98
5
8/3/98
No. of cars/trains
45
Capacity trend
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
SAFETY
KUDOS



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
ISSUES



Emergency Brake
Applications
Non-Communicating Trains
Lingering ATCS-Vehicle
interface problems
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
Non-Communicating Trains, typical
160
140
No. of Time-outs
120
100
80
60
40
20
May 23, 00
Jan 31, 00
July 2, 99
Trend
May 3, 99
Daily Train time-outs
Dec 31, 98
Sep3,3,9899
Sep
0
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently
flexible operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
CENTRAL CONTROL
Vehicle Control Center (VCC)
(Vital system controller)
Central Control Operator
Workstation: SMC + VCC
Julio Says:
It’s Great!
Much better
than the old
system !
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
EMBARCADERO
MMT
1063’
to 1st MMT switch
Ferry
Portal
MMX
Project Objectives
PRIMARY
 Obtain
Optimum
Throughput
 Improve Safety
 Increase reliability &
availability, reduce
maintenance
SECONDARY
 Provide
inherently flexible
operation
 Provide fully automated
control of new track areas
 Enhance passenger
information systems, and
improve right-of-way
intrusion security
Train Arrival Message:
At Door Open
Next 6 trains in subway
displayed &
Next 3 announced on PA
Where are we headed?
In the right
direction…..
Why was it so hard?
Anticipated Issues

SYSTEM BOUNDARY PROBLEMS
 Open loop (mixed street & subway operations)



Interface Control




SLRV retrofit, LRV2 interface design
Public Address system, etc.
Dual Mode (simultaneous old & new signal systems)


Failed entries & Non-Communicating Trains
Schedule adherence
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 meeting
San Francisco, September 24-28, 2000
This presentation will be posted at TSD.ORG