Why Open Interfaces Between the System Parts?

Sign outside a country shop: "We buy junk and sell antiques".

Anfang he idea of open interfaces between the ingoing parts in a system comes originally from the field of information technology. Since many years there has been a hard work developing open distributed computer systems.
For communication within and between these systems the term Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) is well known. This is a framework brought forward by the International Standardization Organisation (ISO), to make it easier to communicate between various systems, from various manufacturers, at various levels. The information passing through these interfaces can thus be handled properly on both sides of this interface.
As a comparison; when it comes to systems for data communication, the various system functions have been divided into 7 levels in the OSI-model, and the interfaces between these levels have been clearly defined. There also exists de-facto standards in the data communications field, owing to the fact that the OSI model was a bit slow in coming, and the industry could not wait.
Thus, there exists various standards for interconnection of computer hardware such as between computers, buses for extension cards, card readers, monitors, mass storage equipment, keyboards, printers, and LANs. Similarly, open interfaces have been defined for software, such as between operative systems and their programs, data bases and communication programs.
There are definite drawbacks to having various standards compete in an open market. Some standards soon win out, but not always the best ones, as we give example of on this page.

General
Advantages of open interfaces between system parts in traffic systems
The downside of free competition
Interfaces in the beam network that should be Standardized

Ye olde transportation philosopher
The word "compatible" comes from the latin and means "interchangeable" or "consistent with". The first part of the word is "con" (= with), and con + p becomes "comp" (because the second part of the word starts with "p", and "mp" is easier to pronounce than "np").
The verb "-pati-" (i.e. "patior" in classical latin) means "suffer", "put up with" as in the word "patient" = "one that suffers". So, a compatible person was originally one that had empathy with those who suffered; he suffered with them.
From this, we have over time derived the meaning "consistent with". You didn´t know that, did you?

General

ne of the authors of these Web-pages, Doctor of Technology Sten Staxler, has been project manager for two IT-projects, which led to the development of open distributed computer systems. He holds a doctorate in Information Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden (KTH).		The rather self-evident extension of the concept of open interfaces to new systems of transportation and to the vehicles has gradually come into being in connection with tuition at the institution of Vehicle Design, conducted at the Royal Institute of Technology since the beginning of the 1960-ies.

If the same kind of thinking, with well specified and open standards for mechanical, electrical and electronical interfaces were to be applied between the various parts of a traffic system, one could build complete traffic systems consisting of independent blocks and tie the different parts together even though they may come from different makers. This would result in very important advantages. These are listed below. The maintaining of open interfaces would demand an active participation on the part of the buyers, by means of a step-by step improved international standardization. One often finds that there is a more or less instinctive tendency within the industry to hide the interfaces in the systems they are building, in fear of the competition. This fear clouds their vision, insofar as they do not see the bigger rewards that can be gained from the faster development of the market that will result from open interfaces. The computer industry gives ample proof of that. By expanding the development of standardization of interfaces to other technical systems (such as, for instance buildings), the advantages such as those listed below, of a systematical joining of standardized blocks, from the smallest components to the whole system, could also be shared by other groups of people (such as building contractors and those living in the houses).

Advantages of Open Interfaces Between System Parts in Traffic Systems

	Many industries can easier co-operate, from small sub-contractors up to big system developers.
	Equipment from different providers and designers could without compromising the safety be interconnected to huge and complex systems (look for instance at the international telephone network with its intelligent switchboards).
	The prices can be lowered by an established competitive situation between many providers (one could here make a comparison with the plunging prices for hardware and software for personal computers).
	The technical and economical development can be followed, by exchanging some equipment between two standardized interfaces in a system for a better one.
	The system can be tested in a standardized and well-documented manner, since the flows of information and current/voltages and whatever through the interfaces of all system parts are known. The test results from similar functions in system parts from different vendors can thus be compared.
	The buyer's security increases, since other providers can step in should a provider become too expensive, declare bankruptcy or disband production of the desired system parts.
	The production will become cheaper, since industry robots can be used to automate production. This would be possible, since a standardised construction would lead to longer production series.
	Various owners of the transportation system (such as counties, transportation companies and bigger employers) can build different parts of the traffic system independently, since the traffic anyhow can run through the various parts, as these parts have common standardized interfaces.
	The Quality will improve as time goes by, partly because of competition, partly also because of the possibilities of having the components tested at testing stations and getting them certified with the traffic authorties.
	The length of series on production lines will increase, because the same components can be used in different combinations as building blocks in larger systems, to provide the same or maybe other services.
	The markets will grow quickly, if standardization work is carried on in parallell in various countries, within EU and internationally, and av these standards are accepted in an increasing number of countries.
	Inventories will be easier to maintain, since all components that adhere to documented standards will function as replacements.
	Maintenance will be simplified and become cheaper, since automated production by robots can be used to produce the replacement components.
	The possibility for reuse of components from dismantled system parts will improve, greatly reducing the costs for construction of new systems.
	The longevity of the systems will be extended as lower costs for new parts will make it more economical to replace worn-out parts, and when the technical development makes this desirable.
	Recycling of components will be simplified in a society with a positive attitude towards recycling, since the same types of industrial robots that were used to produce and maintain the components can be used in dismantling them.

The Nature of Light

Scientists are still working to fully understand light, particularly its enigmatic ability to exist as both a wave and a particle. Waves and particles display contradictory behaviors, for example, in terms of interference patterns, which make it seemingly impossible to exist in both states. Yet quantum physics dictates that light behaves as a particle when treated as a particle, and as a wave when it is handled as a wave.

Investigating this phenomenon, known as quantum weirdness, a team of researchers in Geneva recently divided a beam of light into two identical parts, transmitting the beams via fiber-optic cables to detectors that were over 10 kilometers apart. By forcing one of the beams to polarize in a certain direction, the researchers found that they could force the other beam to immediately assume the opposite direction. Although much work remains to be done in this field, inventors are already imagining the potential of technology such as quantum encryption. Another potential application for quantum weirdness is in quantum computers, which would use the superposed particle/wave states to carry out vast numbers of calculations at a tremendous speed.

MAIT

MAIT is a European non-profit organization that endeavours to speed the development of standards for beamcarried traffic systems. They propose, for example;

A general software package that would facilitate the development and promotion of these transportation systems (Network editing, simulation, performance- and cost analyses, visualization, e.t.c). MAIT international would make substantial contributions to this project.
Exploring possibilities of "fail-safe" non-material coupling between vehicles at short time headways.
Exploring possibilities of automatically transferring small size cabins between different transport modes (PRT/GRT/AGV systems as well as train wagons or lorries). This issue may gain importance considering that development of a new, small-size Euro-container standard is under way.
Develop analytical, quantitative relations between vehicle weight and guideway-costs per km.

The Downside of Free Competition

ur reader Johan Overvest in Holland and others have asked themselves (and each other) about the effects of free competition. Automatic public transport systems such as FlyWay could conceivably compete in different areas, such as:

Different guideways: In some areas Megarail and Higherway compete, in other areas MicroRail and RUF compete, in another area Frog, Ultra and ETT compete, and so on.
Different Dual Mode vehicles: Dual mode vehicles can compete like cars nowadays compete. Open architectures and non-exclusive licenses for patents and other proprietary intellectual property.
Different true PRT vehicles: I suppose: different PRT transit compagnies can compete on the same guideway. Multiple suppliers for parts, civil engineering, manufacturing and construction.
Only one approved type of guideway, but guideways compete with eath other. Multiple management and operating teams. Companies compete on marketing, technology, service, finance and management.
Competition of design, build, operate and maintenance. This is another good possibility, Tad! It is known as DBOM-contracts. It is a form of competition that will be used for building new railways. The designer and builder has a drive to make the overall system as profit making as possible.
A technology competition. As an example; the Philips Video2000 system was far better that the VHS system. But it is now history. So competition selects not always the best technology. And then you have some cities which choose system H, and others which choose system M or system F.

It was pointed out that:

Having different guideways competing in an area would likely not allow any system to make money because of the division business between systems. I doubt that any investor would put up money to build anything under such an arrangement.
Having guideways of different designs would make it generally impossible for vehicles to transition between systems. It would be much the same as having railroads of different gauges in different areas and experience has demonstrated that such does not work.
Competition is not always the best answer for either the user or the provider. At one time AT&T was the sole telephone service provider for most of the United States and we had the best telephone service in the world. AT&T was broken up in the interest of competition. People found that the overall service level decreased, confusion exists and the cost to many people has increased. California deregulated electrical power and the result was greatly increased prices to comsumers and rolling blackouts to large number of residents. Although Sweden did not experience blackouts as a result of deregulation, we also noted inflated prices as a result(?) of this.
A company providing transportation guideway and stations must be considered a common carrier and regulated as such. Other companies and individuals are able to use the facilities subject to clearly defined conditions. Any other scheme is doomed to failure. With MegaRail, we anticipate that most cargo containers and cargo terminals would be owned by cargo transfer companies such as truck lines and that these companies would own their own vehicles. However, private companies could of course own their own containers and terminals. Individuals would likewise own their own dualmode cars.
Some individuals or companies might also own their own passenger cars and stations as well, although they would be "captive" on the system they run on. All these users would pay for use of the common carrier line facilities and electrical power used by their vehicles. A separate passenger service company might also own its own passenger vehicles and even inter-city passenger terminals in some cases. This level of competition would be workable and practical and would be to the benefit of all concerned. It is also clear that multiple, competing companies might eventually want to build vehicles for sale to operate on the lines.

One type of guideway, but guideways compete with eath other, would workable. When you own a dual mode vehicle then you can really choose which guideway you will ride on. Maybe you can compare it with the private toll-roads for cars.

For PRT vehicles it is a bit more complicated: It belongs of the choice of the guideway owners if they want to use interchanges. If not: service is low due to competition, somewhat similar to the AT&T example.

As a rule, under free competition, the public, as individuals, will eventually make their own choice of product based on some mix between price, quality and emotion, depending how much value it attaches to each of these. That´s the reason that VHS won out over Betamax for public use. Likewise cassette tape won over 8-track and CDs won over LP records. If governments allow it to happen, the same thing might happen with advanced transportation systems. Some systems are going to be put into place and be short lived for one reason or another. The deciding factor as to which systems is often a matter of chance, good marketing or personal connections with politicians.

After that, if one system is superior in the mind of the consumer, it will ultimately dominate the scene. For that reason, the system designer must be careful to wear the consumer hat at every point in the decision process, rather than zeroing in on the designer´s own favored scheme or desire to re-make the world. The system must be designed to fit easily into the scheme of the general public and meet the needs of the majority of consumers. Just having a gee-whiz technical approach or a desire to move everyone from cars to PRT or GRT is not likely to be sufficient in the marketplace.

So; The conclusion seems to be that society should refrain from interfering in areas where it is ineffective.
The Private sector should not get involved in areas where it is ineffective.

The infrastructure (roads, rails, sewage, water, district heating, electricity and telecom physical networks) are typical "natural" monopolies. Two competing sewage water systems would for instance be very impractical.
Monopolies are bad - but private monopolies are even worse.

Interfaces in the Beam Network that should be Standardized

In 1997 a committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers took upon itself the task of developing standards for various interfaces. These standards are consensual and should have a major impact on all future automated people-mover systems for public use in the USA. A standards publication is available from the ASCE with more to come.
Information about the ASCE APM Standards is available at the ASCE web-site.

The illustration depicts some points that should be standardized:

The pole fastenings to the pole footings.

The fastening between the fixed (A) and the extendible (B) sections of the poles.

The interface between the extendible pole segments and the L-sections and T-sections.

The interface between the beams and the attachments to their supports.

The guideways inside the beams.

The attachment of anchor plates to the propulsion cars.

The attachment of elevator to the propulsion car.

The attachment of elevator or shock absorber to the carriage.

The control of the elevator on the propulsion car.

The control of the twisting of the carriage from the propulsion car.

The sizes and shapes of the beams. There should be at the most 3 classes of beams, for successively heavier loads. Each class should be standardized.

The attachment of the carriage to the propulsion car, for those vehicles that do not have elevators.

The seatings in the carriages; attachments to the floor so that they can be swivelled and easily removed.

We at SwedeTrack System would very much like to see a European Standardization effort in this area, hopefully within the framework of EU. If we could come to a consensus with the U.S.A. effort, so much the better.

Copyright © 2004, SwedeTrack System.	Last Updated: 2007-01-17	Webmaster	This site is maintained by Johnson Consulting