Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of Train Moving-Block Control

  • Giovanni NegliaEmail author
  • Sara Alouf
  • Abdulhalim Dandoush
  • Sebastien Simoens
  • Pierre Dersin
  • Alina Tuholukova
  • Jérôme Billion
  • Pascal Derouet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9826)

Abstract

In moving block systems for railway transportation a central controller periodically communicates to the train how far it can safely advance. On-board automatic protection mechanisms stop the train if no message is received during a given time window.

In this paper we consider as reference a typical implementation of moving-block control for metro and quantify the rate of spurious Emergency Brakes (EBs), i.e. of train stops due to communication losses and not to an actual risk of collision. Such unexpected EBs can happen at any point on the track and are a major service disturbance.

Our general formula for the EB rate requires a probabilistic characterization of losses and delays. Calculations are surprisingly simple in the case of homogeneous and independent packet losses. Our approach is computationally efficient even when emergency brakes are very rare (as they should be) and can no longer be estimated via discrete-event simulations.

Keywords

Emergency brakes Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) European Train Control System (ETCS) 

References

  1. 1.
    Babczyński, T., Magott, J.: Dependability and safety analysis of ETCS communication for ERTMS level 3 using performance statecharts and analytic estimation. In: Zamojski, W., Mazurkiewicz, J., Sugier, J., Walkowiak, T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) DepCoS-RELCOMEX. AISC, vol. 286, pp. 37–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnevali, L., Flammini, F., Paolieri, M., Vicario, E.: Non-Markovian performability evaluation of ERTMS/ETCS level 3. In: Beltrán, M., Knottenbelt, W., Bradley, J. (eds.) EPEW 2015. LNCS, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flammini, F., Marrone, S., Iacono, M., Mazzocca, N., Vittorini, V.: A multiformalism modular approach to ERTMS/ETCS failure modeling. Int. J. Reliab. Qual. Saf. Eng. 21(1), 1450001 (2014). (29 pages)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neglia, G., et al.: Performance evaluation of train moving-block control. Research Report RR-8917. Inria, May 2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hermanns, H., Jansen, D.N., Usenko, Y.S.: From StoCharts to MoDeST: A comparative reliability analysis of train radio communications. In: Proceedings of WOSP 2005, pp. 13–23 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horváth, A., Paolieri, M., Ridi, L., Vicario, E.: Transient analysis of non-Markovian models using stochastic state classes. Perform. Eval. 69(7–8), 315–335 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trowitzsch, J., Zimmermann, A.: Using UML state machines and petri nets for the quantitative investigation of ETCS. In: Proceedings of Valuetools 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zimmermann, A., Hommel, G.: A train control system case study in model-based real time system design. In: Proceedings of IPDPS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimmermann, A., Hommel, G.: Towards modeling and evaluation of ETCS real-time communication and operation. J. Syst. Softw. 77(1), 47–54 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Neglia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sara Alouf
    • 1
  • Abdulhalim Dandoush
    • 2
  • Sebastien Simoens
    • 4
  • Pierre Dersin
    • 3
  • Alina Tuholukova
    • 1
  • Jérôme Billion
    • 3
  • Pascal Derouet
    • 4
  1. 1.Université Côte d’Azur, InriaSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.ESME SudriaParisFrance
  3. 3.Alstom TransportSaint-OuenFrance
  4. 4.Alstom TransportVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations