Train communication network

MVB was derived from the P215 bus developed by Brown Boveri Cie, Switzerland (now ABB), incorporating the publisher/subscriber principle from early field busses (DATRAS). Back in 1984, IEC TC 57 defined the requirement specifications for busses to be used in electrical substation in collaboration with IEC SC65C. MVB presents many similarities with the FIP field bus (originally from French "Flux d'Information vers le Processus", relabeled as Factory Instrumentation Protocol or some references also use the hybrid "Flux Information Protocol") that was developed in the French NFC 46602 standard series.[2] Since both stemmed from the same IEC TC 57 specifications. This explains why MVB and FIP have similar operation (cyclic and event-driven), only the arbitration method in case of multiple access differs, as MVB used a binary bisection mode relying of collision detection while FIP piggy-backed a "look-at-me" bit over periodic data. Efforts to merge FIP and MVB failed at the stubbornness of the two parties. MVB, Profibus and WorldFIP were proposed as a substation bus in IEC TC 57, but to avoid parallel solutions, IEC TC 57 decided that none will be used and favored Ethernet as a common denominator.

The MVB frames are not compatible with IEC 61158-2 fieldbus frames as it omits most of the preamble synchronization (which is not required if zero-crossing detection is possible).[1] The paradox situation is that the IEC 61158 field bus and MVB physical layer were developed by the same persons in IEC TC 57. The difference came from the fieldbus physical layer which assumes a phase-locked loop to decode the Manchester data, requiring a preamble to synthonize the decoder, while MVB operated principally with optical fibres where this method is useless, MVB's decoding relies on zero-crossing detectors and Manchester pattern recognition.

However most of the modern development and test equipment can equally communicate WTB/MVB frames as well as Profibus frames on the line as the telegram structure similar to Profibus.

The WorldFIP connectors found usage in train equipment in France and North America (by Bombardier) until a joined effort on a common UIC train bus was started (with Siemens and other industry partners) that led to the WTB/MVB standard in late 1999.

The MVB standard was introduced to replace the multitude of field buses in the train equipment. Despite the advantages of the MVB field bus, many vehicle buses are still built from CANopen, WorldFIP (in France), LonWorks (in the USA) and Profibus components. While the WorldFIP, CANopen, Lonworks and Profinet are controlled by international manufacturer associations targeting a wide range of application, MVB was tailored to the rolling stock application, with the goal of plug-compatibility, and therefore allows no options. This was intentional as the fight between the field busses raged in the 1990s and the decision of the IEC that any of the eight field busses was a standard did not help plug-compatibility.

MVB modules are more expensive than for instance CANopen or LonWorks components. This is not due to the communication technology: most devices implement the MVB protocol machine in a small area of an FPGA which is today anyhow present, and the costliest component remains the connector. But railways certification is costly and not always needed for uncritical applications such as comfort and passenger information. When total cost of ownership is considered, the cost of the hardware elements can easily be outweighed by additional engineering costs in the railways market with its small series.

In the USA, the IEEE RTVISC evaluated both MVB and LON as vehicle and train bus. The IEEE finally decided to standardize both in IEEE 1374, with a clear separation of tasks:

• MVB for critical operation such as traction control and signalling in the driver's cab,
• LON for uncritical and slow data transfer, but low-cost connections such as passenger displays and diagnostics. This separation is not always observed.

Additionally more and more components are added to rail vehicles that need far more bandwidth than any field bus can provide (e.g. for video surveillance), so switched Ethernet IEEE 802.3 with 100 Mbit/s is being introduced into train sets (according to the EN 50155 profile). Still all the alternate vehicle buses are connected to the Wire Train Bus.[3]

MVB is similar to FlexRay, both have the "process data", which is called "static segment" in FlexRay, and "message data", which is the "dynamic segment" and are driven by a fixed TDMA scheme. Running FlexRay with 2.5 Mbit, an RS-485 physical layer and only one "coldstarter" would lead to a very similar behavior in respect to the application. Despite the similarities, no rail-manufacturer has considered FlexRay, since they valuated a common solution higher than a multitude of better busses. Conversely, in 1999, the automotive industry evaluated MVB (in an extended 24 Mbit/s version), but dropped it because of the costs, which should be unreasonably low for the mass-market of millions of vehicles.

The WTB was derived from the German DIN bus developed by ABB Henschel (now Bombardier). It benefited from the phase/quadrature decoding provided by Italy and from an improved train inauguration provided by Switzerland, based on the experience with the FSK multiple traction bus of ABB Secheron, Geneva used in the SBB freight trains. The physical layer of WTB shows similarities with the WorldFIP field bus (EN 50170 part 4) - its "voltage mode" did use 1 Mbit/s and a maximum of 32 stations on the bus with a maximum length of 750 meters, the use of FIP transceivers was studied early in the TCN evaluation, but the Phase/Quadrature decoding was used instead.