Wayside Equipment --> Multi-Access Edge Computing:
track status
This flow may also be implemented by
Wayside Equipment --> Connected Vehicle Roadside Equipment: track status Definitions
track status (Information Flow): Current status of the wayside equipment and notification of an arriving train.
Wayside Equipment (Source Physical Object): 'Wayside Equipment' represents train interface equipment (usually) maintained and operated by the railroad and (usually) physically located at or near a grade crossing. It is a source and destination for information for, or about, approaching trains and their crews (e.g. the time at which the train will arrive and the time it will take to clear a crossing, crossing status or warnings, etc.). Generally one wayside equipment interface would be associated with one highway rail intersection. However, multiple crossings may be controlled using information based on data from one wayside equipment interface.
Multi-Access Edge Computing (Destination Physical Object): 'Multi-Access Edge Computing' ((MEC) previously known as mobile edge computing) represents computing devices that operate and are managed like a cloud server, but are deployed at the edge of a network (typically a cellular network, but it could be any network). While not in strict proximity to the transportation network, these systems do benefit from vastly decreased distances to the roadway compared to central systems, and so can provide lower latency than strictly backoffice systems
Included In
This Triple is in the following Service Packages:
This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:
This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:
- None
This Triple has the following triple relationships:
| None |
Communication Solutions
-
(None-Data) - Secure Wireless Internet (EU) (43)
-
(None-Data) - Secure Wireless Internet (ITS) (43)
Selected Solution
(None-Data) - Secure Wireless Internet (EU)Solution Description
|
ITS Application Entity
![]() ![]()
Development needed ![]() |
Click gap icons for more info.
|
||
|
Mgmt
|
Facilities
Development needed ![]() |
Security
![]()
|
|
|
TransNet
|
|||
|
Access
|
|||
Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.
Characteristics
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Time Context | Recent |
| Spatial Context | Adjacent |
| Acknowledgement | False |
| Cardinality | Unicast |
| Initiator | Source |
| Authenticable | True |
| Encrypt | False |
| Interoperability | Description |
|---|---|
| Local | In cases where an interface is normally encapsulated by a single stakeholder, interoperability is still desirable, but the motive is vendor independence and the efficiencies and choices that an open standards-based interface provides. |
Security
| Information Flow Security | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability | ||
| Rating | Low | Moderate | Moderate | |
| Basis | Track status is typically physically viewable information. | This information is important, but if it is incorrect there are other safety systems that should prevent related incidents. The impact of any rail/road intersection is particularly high, but in this case a MODERATE rating can be justified by the alternative mechanisms. | This information is important, but if it is not reported there are other safety systems that should prevent related incidents. The impact of any rail/road intersection is particularly high, but in this case a MODERATE rating can be justified by the alternative mechanisms. | |
| Security Characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Authenticable | True |
| Encrypt | False |


