EP4328112A1 - Method for operating a shunting series system and control device for a shunting series system - Google Patents

Abstract

The subject of the invention is a method for computer-aided simulation and/or carrying out the execution of a large number of processes (100 ... 102) in a shunting processing system (10), in which it is simulated that the processes are pressed and on a path through the Drainage system (10) passes through at least one track brake. The execution of the large number of processes (100 ... 102) is simulated with the aid of a computer, whereby a confidence interval is assumed for the values for the process properties that were still unknown before printing. For each process, starting with the last track brake in the route, the minimum and maximum entry speed for all previous brakes is determined as part of a backward chain. Based on the range of the entry speed into the subsequent brakes (70 ... 77) determined for each process (100 ... 102), the maximum expected running resistance as well as for a The minimum expected running resistance of the process determines the controllable range of the running time from the track brake (60, 61) to the subsequent brake, from which it follows that this running time can be controlled for all process properties lying in the confidence interval. The optimization problem therefore consists of (number of processes to be optimized times number of brakes that can be controlled in accordance with the method) independent solution sets. These can be used to increase performance using altruistic methods or optimization processes such as Nelder-Mead for every process to be optimized and every track brake that can be controlled in accordance with the process. The invention further includes a shunting process system, a computer program product and a computer-readable storage medium.

Description

The invention relates to a method for computer-aided simulation of the execution of a large number of processes in a shunting processing system. The invention also relates to a method for controlling the execution of a large number of processes in a shunting processing system. The invention further relates to a shunting drainage system. Finally, the invention relates to a computer program product and a computer-readable storage medium.

In shunting systems, cars or groups of cars, also known as processes, are sorted from a mountain track into different directional tracks using the gravity acting on the processes. In the interests of efficiency and reliability, the operation of the drainage system is usually largely automated. This automatically influences the speed of the processes from the brake relay (consisting of uphill brakes) to the brake relay (consisting of downhill brakes). This ensures that the directional track brake arranged at the beginning of the respective directional track (which can serve as an example for the downhill brake) enables sufficient braking of the processes under all circumstances that usually occur in practice.

When controlling the brake relays, results from a measurement of the process properties of a relevant process can be incorporated, which are created by a measuring station at the earliest possible point in the process. Since these measurement results are generally only available when the subsequent drain has already reached or left the push-off point, it is hardly possible to increase the performance of a drain system through the improved measurement data. A method for effectively increasing the performance of a The drain system must therefore have carried out the optimization before the pressing process begins.

According to the state of the art, when draining processes over a drain mountain, the theoretically possible drainage performance is not exhausted. The currently best method is based on the fact that all processes are reduced to the running behavior of the comparatively slowest process in order to homogenize the processes in order to reliably avoid collisions.

The aim of the push-off in a drainage system is to allow all processes to run from the mountain into the previously selected target tracks with as little risk or shock as possible under the influence of gravity. The basis for this are automatically controllable switches and brakes; in systems with higher performance, these are supplemented by speed-controlled push-off locomotives. The task of the brakes located in the path is to compensate for the special features of the process with regard to the run through the distribution zone, so that the push-off process remains controllable due to the uniformity of the run of all processes through the distribution zone into the directional tracks.

Due to the principle, for the purpose of optimizing the push-off, no true running resistances of the processes are available for the simulation before the start of the push-off, as these can only be determined while the process is already running. From the known process data such as total weight and number of axles, at least an estimate of the expected range of this size can be made (confidence interval/expectation range). If the worst running resistance values are used, the process is referred to as poor running, and if the values for the lowest running resistance are used, it is referred to as good running. Therefore, in order to take the influence of this insufficiently known quantity into account in the time-distance lines (ZWL), the occupying axis is carried out with the lowest of the running resistances of the expected range (well-running) and the progress of the clearing axis is carried out with the maximum of the expected Running resistance simulated (poor runners). In this way the area widens between the two time-path lines of the process along the path, this form is therefore also referred to below as the ZWL trumpet. For an approximate calculation, two known methods will be explained below as examples.

One procedure will be referred to below as the FDeltaV procedure. Here, all processes, both in the simulation and in the later control, are released from the track brake in such a way that they reach the next target point (usually the track brake) at the same time as a comparable poor runner. Although the ZWL trumpet does not become wider at the target point, on the one hand a good runner must be slowed down accordingly and thus describes an unnecessarily steep ZWL drop within the ZWL trumpet in the path to the destination, and on the other hand, due to the static properties of the process, the optimization potential of the real one is reduced Good runners have not yet been exploited due to a lack of reliable data.

The other process will be referred to below as the VRZ process. Here, the simulation aims at a given entry speed at the destination and into the track brakes. The two methods mentioned above have in common that the brake stopping speeds are determined and controlled by fixed static criteria that in no way refer to the entirety of the processes and their dynamic interactions. The only remaining optimization to increase performance is to adjust the locomotive speed, which ensures that the rigid ZWL are as close to each other as permitted.

An improvement will be made according to DE 10 2011 079 501 A1 achieved in that the run-in speeds in the various brake stages of a run-off system are not fixed based on the project planning, but are determined dynamically based on the run-in data of the processes and the braking capacity of the track brake. This makes it possible to determine the dynamically permitted range of run-out speeds for each process in each track brake, which ensures that the run-out speed from the last The track brake in the directional track can be strictly adhered to.

• Besteht für diesen Ablauf bei dieser Geschwindigkeit noch Zeitreserve, d.h. an keiner Stelle im Laufweg kommen sich die ZWL des aktuellen Ablaufs und einer seiner Vorläufer näher als die vorgegebenen Mindestabstände für Zeit und Raum, so wird, sofern dies für die Lok möglich ist, die Abdrückgeschwindigkeit für den aktuellen Ablauf angehoben und der gleiche Prüfvorgang wiederholt.
• Besteht dagegen beim Abdrücken mit der gleichen Geschwindigkeit Zeitmangel, d.h. der aktuell zu prüfende Ablauf und einer seiner Vorläufer kommen sich entlang des Laufwegs an zumindest einer Stelle zeitlich oder räumlich näher als erlaubt, so wird die Abdrückgeschwindigkeit des aktuellen Ablaufs abgesenkt und der Mindestabstand erneut geprüft.
• Kommt es im Zuge der Absenkungen zu einer Konstellation, in der Zeitmangel herrscht, es der Lok aber nicht mehr möglich ist, die Abdrückgeschwindigkeit zwischen den Abläufen ausreichend abzusenken, so muss die Abdrückgeschwindigkeit des Vorläufers abgesenkt werden und der Prüfvorgang - unter Deckelung dieser Abdrückgeschwindigkeit - für diesen Vorläufer neu starten.
• Ist kein weiteres Anheben der Abdrückgeschwindigkeit mehr möglich bzw. sind alle auftretenden Zeitmängel behoben worden, wird der gleiche Vorgang für den nächsten Ablauf wiederholt.
• Für jeden der Abläufe können dabei eigene Grenzen für die erlaubte Abdrückgeschwindigkeit vorliegen, als Beispiel sei dafür z.B. eine durch das notwendige Anhalten der Lok vor dem Berg begrenzte Abdrückgeschwindigkeit des letzten Ablaufs genannt.

In general, all of these procedures are completed by a subsequent adjustment of the push-off speed, as described, for example, in Achim Gottschalk, "Operational Simulation - Increasing the Performance of Automated Drainage Systems", Signal und Draht (93), 6/2001. A starting push-off speed is assumed for a first sequence. Then, for each subsequent process, the push-off speed is initially set to the speed of its predecessor and it is checked whether this process can be pushed off with this push-off speed:

• If there is still time reserve for this process at this speed, i.e. at no point in the route do the ZWL of the current process and one of its predecessors come closer than the specified minimum distances for time and space, then, if this is possible for the locomotive, the push-off speed will be for the current process is raised and the same test process is repeated.
• On the other hand, if there is a lack of time when pushing off at the same speed, i.e. the process currently being tested and one of its predecessors come closer to each other in time or space than permitted at at least one point along the path, the pushing speed of the current process is reduced and the minimum distance is checked again.
• If, during the course of the lowering, a constellation arises in which there is a lack of time, but it is no longer possible for the locomotive to sufficiently reduce the push-off speed between the processes, the push-off speed of the precursor must be reduced and the test process - while capping this push-off speed - for restart this precursor.
• If it is no longer possible to further increase the pressing speed or if all time deficiencies that occur have been remedied, the same process is repeated for the next sequence.
• Each of the processes can have its own limits for the permitted push-off speed; an example of this is a push-off speed of the last process that is limited by the need to stop the locomotive in front of the mountain.

If these iterations have been successfully carried out up to the last process, a solution has been found which, under the boundary condition of the currently selected brake run-out speeds of the processes, approximates a possible optimum for minimizing the pressing time.

The object of the invention is to provide an improved method for controlling or simulating the execution of a large number of processes in a drainage system as well as a further development of the software for carrying out such a method, which ensures that the decisions made a priori in the absence of more precise information about the running resistance via brake run-out speeds and the resulting adjustment of the push-off speed, on the one hand, enable an increased push-off speed compared to the prior art and, on the other hand, are at the same time stable compared to the real running behavior of the processes that occurs in the subsequent push-off operation. In addition, the object of the invention is to provide a computer program product and a provision device for this computer program product with which the aforementioned method can be carried out.

1. a. für die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) ausgehend von einer vorgegebenen Zielgeschwindigkeit für einen vorgegebenen Ort an oder hinter dem Ende der talseitigen Gleisbremse unter Berücksichtigung eines minimal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands des betreffenden Ablaufes (100 ... 102) und des maximalen zu erreichenden Bremsvermögens der talseitigen Gleisbremse eine maximal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit des Ablaufs in die talseitige Gleisbremse berechnet wird,
2. b. für die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) ausgehend von der vorgegebenen Zielgeschwindigkeit für den Ort an oder hinter dem Ende der talseitigen Gleisbremse unter Berücksichtigung eines maximal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands des betreffenden Ablaufes (100 ... 102) und eines nicht zu unterschreitenden minimalen Bremsvermögens der talseitigen Gleisbremse eine minimal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit des Ablaufs in die talseitige Gleisbremse berechnet wird,
3. c. für die bergseitige Gleisbremse (60 ... 61) ausgehend von der maximal zulässigen Einlaufgeschwindigkeit in die talseitige Gleisbremse als Zielgeschwindigkeit unter Berücksichtigung eines minimal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands des betreffenden Ablaufes (100 ... 102) und des maximalen zu erreichenden Bremsvermögens der bergseitigen Gleisbremse eine maximal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit des Ablaufs in die bergseitige Gleisbremse berechnet wird,
4. d. für die bergseitige Gleisbremse (60 ... 61) ausgehend von der minimal zulässigen Einlaufgeschwindigkeit in die talseitige Gleisbremse als Zielgeschwindigkeit unter Berücksichtigung eines maximal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands des betreffenden Ablaufes (100 ... 102) und eines nicht zu unterschreitenden minimalen Bremsvermögens der bergseitigen Gleisbremse eine minimal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit des Ablaufs in die bergseitige Gleisbremse berechnet wird,
5. e. aus einem durch die jeweilige maximal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit und die jeweilige minimal zulässige Einlaufgeschwindigkeit vorgegebenen jeweiligen Geschwindigkeitsintervall eine Einlaufgeschwindigkeit für den betreffenden Ablauf und die betreffende Gleisbremse derart ausgewählt wird sowie jeweils eine zugehörige Abdrückgeschwindigkeit für den betreffenden Ablauf berechnet wird, damit eine Abdrückdauer des Zuges minimiert wird.

This task is solved according to the invention with the subject matter of the claim specified at the beginning (both the method for simulating and the method for controlling) in that the problem of simultaneously optimizing all brake run-out speeds is divided into the solution of a finite number of local solutions and is therefore manageable in terms of both data and process technology becomes. During the simulation, the steps are taken for each process and for each track brake

1. a. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) based on a specified target speed for a specified location at or behind the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant drain (100 ... 102) and the maximum braking capacity to be achieved of the downhill track brake, a maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated,
2. b. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) based on the specified target speed for the location at or behind the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a maximum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and a minimum that should not be undershot braking capacity of the downhill track brake, a minimum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated,
3. c. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the maximum permissible entry speed into the downhill track brake as the target speed, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and the maximum braking capacity to be achieved by the uphill track brake maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the uphill track brake is calculated,
4. d. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the minimum permissible entry speed into the downhill track brake as the target speed, taking into account the maximum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and a minimum braking capacity of the uphill track brake that should not be undercut a minimum permissible entry speed of the drain into the uphill track brake is calculated,
5. e. from a respective speed interval predetermined by the respective maximum permissible entry speed and the respective minimum permissible entry speed, an entry speed for the relevant process and the relevant track brake is selected in such a way and an associated push-off speed for the relevant process is calculated so that the push-off time of the train is minimized.

In most cases, an optimization of the pressing time will be achieved by increasing the pressing speed for a relevant process. As part of the simulation, by taking a holistic view of the pressing process, a reduction in the pressing speed for a specific process can also lead to a shortening of the pressing time, if this creates greater potential for increasing the pressing speed for subsequent processes.

It has been shown that, for example, with the two methods FDeltaV and VRZ mentioned above, only the locomotive speed can be used to optimize performance, and therefore any potential from adapting the ZWL through the brakes remains unused. Therefore, the distances to the precursor along the time-path lines are usually significantly higher than the specified minimum distance. This happens because the inlet speed is predetermined in the VRZ process, so that the gradient in the course of the ZWL depends on the running properties of the processes and is therefore inconsistent. In the FDeltaV process, the ZWL are approximately parallel due to the uniform time specification for the route following the track brake, but due to the time specification adapted to the poor runners, any potential due to the possible faster running of the good runners remains unused.

An analysis of the procedure according to the DE 10 2011 079 501 A1 shows that for each process, due to the lack of known running resistance at each brake relay, a continuum of possible run-out speeds and thus times for entering the next running target is created. At the following braking relay, each of these possible points in time becomes the basis for a new range of run-off speeds and thus time periods until the next running target. The multiplication of the solution quantity increases rapidly with the number of brake relays and the number of processes in a train. On the one hand, this set of solutions is too diverse to be determined in the time available for process planning with realistically financeable computing capacity before the running characteristics of the processes during execution can be made more precise by measurement, on the other hand, these process properties only become known one after the other during the push-off process, so it is not guaranteed that the solution found and then controlled in the form of a push-off speed and/or brake run-out speed can still be solved without conflict when measuring the next process. This method alone does not provide sufficient information to guarantee a safe acceleration of the push-off process.

However, simply selecting an entry speed for the next target does not say anything about the subsequent real running time: if the running resistance within the confidence interval is low, the running time if the specified entry speed is maintained differs significantly from that with the highest running resistance within the confidence interval. Since all true running times according to this method only arise during the real run, sufficient time reserves must be created in advance in each section of the route in order to a priori prevent all time conflicts in the entire push-off process, regardless of the real running resistances and thus real running times. The sole selection of an entry speed cannot therefore exploit the potential of adapting the brake speeds due to the absolutely necessary time reserves.

This is where the invention comes into play by creating the possibility of splitting the overall simulation problem into smaller, independent sub-problems. The division into local tasks is done by dividing the entire route for each process into individual sections, which are controlled by a controllable track brake and the subsequent route to the next target object (for example a track brake on the valley side or a target point, in borderline cases also the end of the relevant one Track brake as a target point with the effect that the subsequent travel distance is then = 0). For each of these sections, a range of local solutions is then determined, which are designed in such a way that they are all real in later operation meet the occurring characteristics of the process. The overall optimization is then carried out by mutually coordinating the local solutions in favor of the shortest possible push-off time for the train. The local solutions and their subsequent coordination each represent sub-problems that can be calculated in a sufficiently short period of time for process planning.

In other words, the methods according to the invention for simulation or control achieve the technical effect of limiting the computing capacity required for the simulation to a realistic level by selecting from the theoretically possible combinations of the (simulated) sequence control those that enable reliable optimization the pressing time and lie within a range of control parameters (e.g. inlet speeds, pressing speeds) for the process, which excludes possible corrections based on the actual behavior of the processes or at least makes them very unlikely.

Due to the principle, there are no true running resistances of the processes available for the simulation for the purpose of optimizing the push-off before the push-off, since these can only be determined while the process is already running. Therefore, all calculations for a process must be carried out with a certain range of expected running resistance. This confidence interval can be determined both from the design data of the car and from empirical values, which make it possible to assign a minimum or maximum expected running resistance to the process based on the known data such as approximate total mass, number of axles and axle type. The poor-running behavior (SL) of the process is simulated using the worst value of this confidence interval for running behavior, and the good-running behavior (GL) is simulated using the best value of the confidence interval for running behavior. Using these running resistance values defined for GL and SL, for example DE 10 2011 079 501 A1 For each process in the backward linking process, the minimum and maximum permitted run-in speed in all brakes passed through by the process calculated. As a result of these preliminary calculations, there are then two brake run-in speeds for each process for each track brake passed through, the one with which the good runner (GL) is allowed to run in at the maximum in order to match the selected braking work capacity of the track brake and all subsequent brakes, which have the maximum or also a reduced braking capacity can safely arrive at the end of its travel path at the maximum permitted speed and the brake run-in speed with which the poor runner (SL) must at least run in in order to be able to run in, taking into account the brake that is working minimally or not at all and all subsequent brakes that are working minimally or not at all to reach the end of its travel path at the required minimum speed.

In the context of the invention, “computer-aided” or “computer-implemented” can be understood to mean an implementation of the method in which at least one computer or processor carries out at least one method step of the method.

The term "calculator" or "computer" covers any device with data processing properties. Computers can be, for example, personal computers, servers, handheld computers, mobile devices and other communication devices that process data with computer support, processors and other electronic devices for data processing, which can preferably also be connected to form a network via interfaces.

In connection with the invention, a “processor” can be understood to mean, for example, a converter, a sensor for generating measurement signals or an electronic circuit. A processor can in particular be a main processor (Central Processing Unit, CPU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller or a digital signal processor, possibly in combination with a memory unit for storing program instructions and data. A processor can also be understood as a virtualized processor or a soft CPU.

In the context of the invention, a “memory unit” can be understood to mean, for example, a computer-readable memory in the form of a random access memory (RAM) or data memory (hard drive or data carrier).

“Interfaces” can be implemented in terms of hardware, for example wired or via radio connection, and/or software, for example as an interaction between individual program modules or program parts of one or more computer programs.

“Program modules” are intended to be understood as individual functional units that enable a program sequence of method steps according to the invention. These functional units can be implemented in a single computer program or in several computer programs that communicate with one another. The interfaces implemented here can be implemented in software terms within a single processor or in hardware terms if several processors are used.

1. a. aus der zuvor bestimmten maximal zulässigen Einlaufgeschwindigkeit für den jeweiligen Ablauf (100 ... 102) in die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) die minimale Laufzeit für die Strecke von der bergseitigen Gleisbremse (61, 61) bis in die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) unter Berücksichtigung des minimal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands berechnet wird,
2. b. aus der zuvor bestimmten minimal zulässigen Einlaufgeschwindigkeit für den jeweiligen Ablauf (100 ... 102) in die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) die maximale Laufzeit für die Strecke von der bergseitigen Gleisbremse (61, 61) bis in die talseitige Gleisbremse (70 ... 77) unter Berücksichtigung eines maximal zu erwartenden Laufwiderstands berechnet wird,
3. c. aus einem durch die jeweilige maximale Laufzeit und die jeweilige minimale Laufzeit vorgegebenen jeweiligen Lauzeitintervall eine Laufzeit für den betreffenden Ablauf und die betreffende Gleisbremse ausgewählt wird,

und dass die Minimierung der Abdrückdauer durch Vergleich und Modifikation der Laufzeiten durchgeführt wird.According to one embodiment of the invention it is provided that for each process

1. a. from the previously determined maximum permissible entry speed for the respective process (100 ... 102) into the downhill track brake (70 ... 77), the minimum running time for the route from the uphill track brake (61, 61) to the downhill track brake ( 70 ... 77) is calculated taking into account the minimum expected running resistance,
2. b. from the previously determined minimum permissible entry speed for the respective process (100 ... 102) into the downhill track brake (70 ... 77), the maximum running time for the route from the uphill track brake (61, 61) to the downhill track brake ( 70 ... 77) is calculated taking into account a maximum expected running resistance,
3. c. from a given by the respective maximum term and the respective minimum term Running time interval a running time is selected for the relevant process and the relevant track brake,

and that the pressing time is minimized by comparing and modifying the running times.

• der GL langsam aus der steuernden Gleisbremse entlassen, um dann mit einer gegenüber seiner durchschnittlichen Geschwindigkeit im Abschnitt erhöhten Zielgeschwindigkeit in die Folgebremse einzulaufen.
• der SL schneller aus der steuernden Gleisbremse entlassen, um dann infolge seines schlechten Laufverhaltens mit einer gegenüber seiner durchschnittlichen Geschwindigkeit im Abschnitt langsameren Einlaufgeschwindigkeit die nächste Gleisbremse zu erreichen.

In other words, for further processing, the problem is advantageously converted from the speed representation into a time representation by converting the minimum and maximum entry speed into the next track brake or another target point into a running time from the controlling track brake to the entry into the next track brake or converted to another target point. In order to be able to select a fixed running time of the process for this section in the course of later optimization, each running time that can be selected as a solution must be controllable by the stopping speed of the controlling track brake for both the good running (GL) and the poor running (SL). This is achieved by looking at the velocity curve. In order to achieve an identical running time

• The GL is slowly released from the controlling track brake in order to then enter the following brake at a target speed that is higher than its average speed in the section.
• the SL is released from the controlling track brake more quickly and then, due to its poor running behavior, reaches the next track brake with an entry speed that is slower than its average speed in the section.

If these two results are limited with the previously calculated minimum and maximum entry speeds into the following brake, then the minimum running time for the good runner (GL) and the maximum running time for the poor runner (SL) limit the time window in which the track brake later applies in real application Adjusting your brake run-out speed can control any running time, provided the running resistance is within the confidence interval.

Based on the specified by the runtime interval Time windows, which describe the local solution area for each section in the path of each process, can be used to search for the overall solution to the push-off process, which is improved compared to the prior art, by varying the brake run-in speeds with a reasonable amount of calculation, using either altruistic methods, such as exhausting the time reserves Processes in route areas without precursors or downstream runners, the equalization of sequences with a common final separating switch, possibly also with subsequent relaxation to defuse extreme solutions or standard optimization processes such as the Nelder-Mead process can be used, although a combination can also be used from altruistic methods using mathematical optimization methods. Each solution chosen in the course of the optimization in the form of selecting a combination of brake run-out speeds can only be evaluated with regard to its reduction in the pressing-off time after a subsequent optimization of the pressing-off speed, which according to the invention is only possible by limiting the computing effort as a result of the restriction to a limited number of independent solutions the simulation is possible with reasonable computing time. The optimization methods mentioned are only mentioned as examples in this context and, like other unnamed optimization methods, are known per se.

In the simulation, a time window is provided in the form of a running time interval, into which the track brake can later target the process dynamically, regardless of its real running characteristics. Based on the variation of the run-in time in the respective time window for all processes to be simulated on their track brakes, a more dense sequence of the entirety of the processes can be calculated.

The restriction to a time window (running time interval) described here also makes it possible in the simulation to have a clear target time in the next destination and thus a fixed running time in this track section from the track brake to the next destination, despite the still undetermined running characteristics because by defining and calculating the time window, all running times selected in it can later be controlled by the brake independently of real running behavior, provided that the real running behavior is within the confidence interval. Without this measure, the possible transit time for the relevant track section would result in a time range, which would cause the ZWL trumpet to expand from brake squadron to brake squadron.

In addition, the use of the time windows when selecting the local solutions enables a continuous increase in safety in the form of edge areas of the time windows, which can be left out in order to adapt the method to any inaccuracies in the real control of the brake run-out speeds or even a basic tolerance of the real push-off process against temporary deviations from the exact simulation result.

• im Falle des Simulationsverfahrens als die berechneten Abdrückgeschwindigkeiten und berechneten Einlaufgeschwindigkeit im bzw. der Laufzeit bis zum nächsten Zielort für jeden Ablauf ausgegeben,
• im Falle des Steuerungsverfahrens die Abdrücklokomotive mit dem Ziel des Erreichens der Abdrückgeschwindigkeit jedes Ablaufes steuern und die mindestens eine Gleisbremse mit dem Ziel des Erreichens der Einlaufgeschwindigkeit im bzw. der Laufzeit bis zum nächsten Zielort für jeden Ablauf steuern.

The results of the procedure will be

• in the case of the simulation method, output as the calculated push-off speeds and calculated entry speed in or during the running time to the next destination for each process,
• in the case of the control method, control the push-off locomotive with the aim of achieving the push-off speed of each process and control the at least one track brake with the aim of reaching the entry speed in or the running time to the next destination for each process.

As a result, the solution according to the invention makes it possible to calculate a priori a time-optimized course of the push-off speeds for the individual processes, despite running characteristics that are not or only insufficiently known. In contrast to the methods currently used, the optimization is not carried out with a view to uniformity (i.e. all processes are planned at the same time as the borderline poor runner, i.e. the process with the worst expected running properties), but rather the time potential of each individual process is exploited as far as possible during optimization ( of course within the limits of Possibilities of the algorithm according to the invention as well as the mechanical limits that are specified by the drainage systems and the push-off locomotive).

In contrast to the previous method, in which only an attempt is made to bring the static ZWL trumpets as close together as possible by varying the push-off speed at the mountain peak, an overall optimization of the The pressing process must be taken into account. As a result of the adjustments in the distribution zone, the push-off time of the train is shortened and the realizable performance of the drainage system increases due to a closer sequence of push-off processes.

The invention thus makes it possible to carry out a calculation of the possible brake run-out speeds or running times up to the subsequent brake and entry speeds into the same for each process before the start of the pressing process, despite unknown process properties, and to determine combinations from this that increase the performance for the entire train, i.e. H. to optimize the push-off speed within the scope of the technical possibilities and limits of the real delivery system (e.g. performance of the push-off locomotive and braking capacity of the track brakes) - with the effect that the push-off time of the train (i.e. the time it takes to push off the entire train) is minimized.

In contrast to the FDeltaV process, which requires the most symmetrical design of the run-off crest to be optimally effective (König design with a cambered height profile), the new process can adapt to special features of the track layout as a result of the local adjustments to the ZWL, such as non-uniform mountain distances within brake relays , very different numbers of switches up to the directional track or even walkways that run at different heights.

The solved optimization problem therefore roughly consists of n (n = number of processes to be optimized x number of brakes that can be controlled in the sense of the method) independent solution sets. From these, an increase in performance can be calculated for each process and each track brake using altruistic methods or optimization methods, for example the Nelder-Mead method or machine learning methods. The aim is to find an optimum (not necessarily the global optimum but at least a local optimum) for the pushing time of at least one train consisting of several processes.

In order to achieve the highest possible pressing performance under the existing conditions, the entire pressing process is calculated before the pressing begins. The result of the calculation is a sequence of push-off speeds assigned to the individual processes. This speed curve is limited by two conditions. On the one hand, there is a dynamic limitation due to the locomotive and the mountain profile, in that the difference between two successive push-off speeds is technically limited. On the other hand, the so-called time-distance lines (hereinafter referred to as ZWL) through the distribution zone must be designed in such a way that they ensure a sufficient minimum time and spatial distance between the processes over the full route. These ZWL are described by the path of the first axis of the relevant process along the path, the so-called occupancy axis, and the path of the last axis, called the clearing axis. The buffer overhang remaining for the evaluation of the effective distance is recorded by a corresponding surcharge for the minimum spatial distance.

The braking ability is related to the maximum and minimum braking work of a track brake. The maximum or minimum braking work is fundamentally dependent on the design, but can be reduced - for example according to the maintenance status - as well as on the process characteristics such as slosh wagon (incompletely filled tank wagon) or weight of the depend on the lightest axle. In other words, a (maximum and/or minimum) braking capacity can be defined in the interval of the maximum and minimum possible braking work in order to take the additionally mentioned aspects into account.

According to one embodiment of the invention, it is provided that several to all processes of a train are taken into account during simulation as a large number of processes to be printed.

According to one embodiment of the invention, it is provided that, as a large number of processes to be printed, processes of a following train and/or a train in front are also taken into account when simulating, so that the overall optimization also takes place across trains.

In the context of this invention, a train should be understood as a wagon group, which is pushed as a whole into the drainage system by the push-off locomotive for the purpose of separation into processes (which can also consist of several wagons). The advantage of taking several or all of the processes belonging to a train into account as a large number of processes is that you can aim for a process planning that is optimized for the entire train or that the following train or the train in front can even be taken into account.

According to one embodiment of the invention, it is provided that in the simulation a maximum acceleration capacity of the push-off locomotive is taken into account when calculating the push-off speed.

The mechanical properties of the push-off locomotive used limit the changes in push-off speed that can actually be achieved between processes and thus the optimization potential determined in the simulation.

The acceleration capacity of the push-off locomotive also includes negative acceleration behavior, i.e. braking.

The stated object is alternatively achieved according to the invention with the subject matter of the claim (device) specified at the outset in that the process system is set up with a simulation program to carry out a method for computer-aided simulation or a method for controlling a large number of processes according to one of the preceding claims.

The device can be used to achieve the advantages that have already been explained in connection with the method described in more detail above. What is stated about the method according to the invention also applies accordingly to the device according to the invention.

Furthermore, a computer program product with program instructions for carrying out the method according to the invention and/or its exemplary embodiments is claimed, wherein the method according to the invention and/or its exemplary embodiments can be carried out by means of the computer program product. The computer program product includes program instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method or at least computer-implemented steps of the method.

The provision takes place in the form of a program data block as a file, in particular as a download file, or as a data stream, in particular as a download data stream, of the computer program product. This provision can also be made, for example, as a partial download consisting of several parts. Such a computer program product is read into a system using the provision device, for example, so that the method according to the invention is carried out on a computer.

Further details of the invention are described below with reference to the drawing. The same or corresponding drawing elements are each provided with the same reference numbers and are only explained several times to the extent that there are differences between the individual figures.

The exemplary embodiments explained below are preferred embodiments of the invention. In the exemplary embodiments, the described components of the embodiments each represent individual features of the invention that can be viewed independently of one another, which also develop the invention independently of one another and are therefore to be viewed as part of the invention individually or in a combination other than that shown. Furthermore, the components described can also be combined with the features of the invention described above.

• Figur 1 in einer schematischen Skizze ein Ausführungsbeispiel einer Ablaufanlage mit einem Ausführungsbeispiel der erfindungsgemäßen Steuereinrichtung, in der ein Computerprogramm zur Ausführung des erfindungsgemäßen Verfahrens installiert ist,
• Figur 2 in exemplarischen Zeit-Weg-Diagrammen ZWL als Ergebnis von Simulationen eines beispielhaften Ablaufvorganges eines Zuges gemäß Figur 1,
• Figur 1 zeigt in einer schematischen Skizze ein Ausführungsbeispiel einer Ablaufanlage 10 mit einem Ausführungsbeispiel der erfindungsgemäßen Steuereinrichtung, in der ein Computerprogramm zur Ausführung des erfindungsgemäßen Verfahrens installiert ist. Dabei stellt der obere Teil der Figur 1 das Gleisbild der Ablaufanlage 10 und der untere Teil der Figur das Gefälleprofil beziehungsweise einen Längsschnitt der Ablaufanlage 10 dar.

The invention is explained in more detail below using exemplary embodiments. This shows

• Figure 1 in a schematic sketch an exemplary embodiment of a drain system with an exemplary embodiment of the control device according to the invention, in which a computer program for carrying out the method according to the invention is installed,
• Figure 2 in exemplary time-distance diagrams ZWL as a result of simulations of an exemplary process of a train Figure 1 ,
• Figure 1 shows a schematic sketch of an exemplary embodiment of a drain system 10 with an exemplary embodiment of the control device according to the invention, in which a computer program for carrying out the method according to the invention is installed. The upper part of the Figure 1 the track diagram of the drain system 10 and the lower part of the figure shows the gradient profile or a longitudinal section of the drain system 10.

According to the representation of the Figure 1 the drainage system 10, which is part of a shunting system for rail-bound traffic, has a drainage ramp 20 starting from a mountain peak BG, to which an intermediate slope 30, a distribution zone 40 having distribution switches 80 to 86 and directional tracks 50 to 57 are connected. In addition, in Figure 1 Track brakes in the form of a mountain brake relay BB with mountain brakes 90, 91, a valley brake relay TB with valley brakes 60, 61 and a directional track brake relay RGB with directional track brakes 70 to 77 can be seen.

In addition to the components of the drainage system 10 mentioned, in Figure 1 exemplary processes 100 ... 102 are shown, which were pushed over the discharge mountain by a push-off locomotive 110 or pushed off at a push-off point AP (which does not necessarily have to be on the mountain peak BG and is shown as an example of a process 102) and as a result, driven by the force of gravity, move along the drainage system 10.

To control the valley brake relay TB, containing the valley brakes 60 and 61 is in Figure 1 a valley brake control 200 is indicated, which is connected to the valley brake relay TB via an interface 211, which can be wired or wireless. To control the mountain brake relay BB, containing the mountain brakes 90 and 91, a mountain brake control 250 is also indicated, which is connected to the mountain brake relay BB via an interface 251, which can be wired or wireless. In a corresponding manner, the directional track brake relay RGB, containing the directional track brakes 70 to 77, is connected to a directional track brake control 220 via an interface 221. For reasons of clarity, here is: Figure 1 only one interface 211, 221, 251 between the respective brake relay and the respective track brake control is shown as an example. Of course, every track brake can be controlled. It is also possible to provide a separate control for each track brake and not a common control for the entire brake squadron (not shown).

The valley brake control 200 is connected via an interface 231, the mountain brake control 250 is connected via an interface 233 and the directional track brake control is connected via an interface 232 to a central control device 230 of the drainage system 10. This means that through components 200, 220, 230 and 250 a total of a control device for controlling the track brakes, i.e. the mountain brakes 90, 91, valley brakes 60, 61 and the directional track brakes 70 to 77, is formed in the form of a distributed control system. Alternatively, it would of course also be possible, for example, for the mountain brakes 90, 91, the valley brakes 60, 61 and the directional track brakes 70 to 77 to be directly connected to the central control device 230 and controlled (not shown).

The determination of control parameters for the track brakes in the form of the mountain brakes 90, 91, the valley brakes 60, 61 and the directional track brakes 70 to 77 of the process system 10 is carried out in such a way that a cross-brake consideration or optimization of the respective speeds of the processes 100, 101, 102 is carried out . In the context of the exemplary embodiment described, it is assumed that all processes except for process 102 are intended for the directional track 50 and therefore pass the mountain brake 91, the valley brake 60 and then the directional track brake 70 one after the other on their path, whereas the process 102 after the valley brake 60 as a result of the separating switch 80 runs into the directional track 57 with the directional track brake 77.

For example, in the case of successive processes whose routes separate at one of the switches, a check for retrieving processes behind the switch separating the routes can be ignored. This provides further optimization potential when simulating the process.

In order to carry out the method, the control device formed by the central control device 230, the valley brake control 200 and the directional track brake control 220 has, in addition to hardware components, for example in the form of corresponding processors and storage means, also software components, for example in the form of program modules for simulating the running behavior of the processes 100, 101, on.

In Figure 2 The time path lines ZWL from processes 100, 101 and 102 are shown as examples. Two alternatives to the simulation are shown, both of which were created according to the invention. In each simulation, the complete sequence of the three processes 100, 101, 102 is calculated at least once, and if necessary at least partially several times (if corrections become necessary that bring the simulated solution closer to the optimum to be found.

The path x of the processes taking place is shown on the x-axis. To make this clearer, the drain profile is off Figure 1 in Figure 2 indicated again above the diagram. This makes it clear where the mountain peak BG and the track brakes 91, 60, 70/77 are on the x-axis. The time t is shown on the z-axis. That's why the arrow for advancing time in the drawing is pointing downwards. Around Figure 2 To better explain, the various calculated trumpets are numbered consecutively, from T1 to T6. The trumpets T1 ... T6 each consist of the time path lines ZWL of the processes. The ZWL, which limits a trumpet at the top in the drawing, is described by the first wheel of the process on the valley side and the ZWL, which limits the trumpet T1 ... T6 at the bottom, by the last wheel of the process on the mountain side, so that This ZWL begins at the push-off point AP of the process AP100 of the process 100, AP101 of the process 101 and AP102 of the process 102.

When considering the simulation results in such a way that catch-up processes are to be prevented in successive processes, i.e. the precursor and the associated follower, the areas between the adjacent trumpets T1 ... T6 are decisive, as far as and as long as the trumpets are directly on top of each other The following processes include (more on this below).

According to a first variant of the invention, in Figure 2 , a first run DL1 of the simulation is shown above as an example. Suppose in Figure 2 Let there be a separating switch TW between process 101 and process 102, in Figure 1 the switch 80, entered between valley brake 60 and directional track brake 70, so that the paths separate there and the processes 101 and 102 run through different directional track brakes 70, 77. Then process 101 in the valley brake 60 can use the full available time interval ZA at the directional track brake 70 in order to enter the directional track brake 70 with a time delay, because a critical time interval does not have to be taken into account because the process runs on a different track after passing the separating switch TW 102 can no longer catch up with process 101. The resulting "delay" of the trumpet T2 when entering the directional track brake 70 by Δt3 is available to increase the push-off speed of the sequence 101, with the time gain due to the impending fall below the minimum distance between the trumpets T1 and T2 in the valley brake 60 by braking more strongly of process 101 is prevented. Or to put it another way, because the sequence 101 cannot be caught up with the sequence 102 and can therefore be slowed down more, an optimization potential between the sequence 100 and 101 can be exploited in that the sequence 101 starts earlier with a greater push-off speed (because the Push-off locomotive is accelerated between the push-off of the process 100 and 101). The consequence is a reduction in the pressing time. The example makes it clear that a "deformation" of trumpets of two adjacent processes can create optimization potential between two other successive processes (dynamic threading). However, this potential can only be exploited through a holistic view of the process and variations in the process simulation.

In addition, any solution found in this way must be subjected to an optimization of the push-off speed, which on the one hand takes into account the time intervals between the newly formed trumpets - for example, the previously uncritical time interval ZA between trumpets T1 and T2 in the valley brake 60 can be the minimum time interval between the processes will and the limit the temporal approach (in this case Δt3 cannot be fully exploited as a time optimization potential for the push-off duration) - and on the other hand, the possible change in the push-off speeds between the processes, which is limited by the locomotive properties, is taken into account.

In Figure 2 , below, shows how further optimization potential can be achieved through the simulation (second run DL2). Using the first trumpet T1 it is shown that a fourth trumpet T4 can be derived from this by defining rigid time windows for the respective execution of the relevant process, which lie within the original trumpet T1. In other words, the time windows are the target running times that the relevant process should require between the relevant track brakes. The effect is that - compared to the first trumpet T1 - a fourth trumpet 4 is created that opens less strongly or is of the same width.

How Figure 2 As can be seen further, the same process is also carried out for the second trumpet T2, with the effect of creating a narrower fifth trumpet T5, and is carried out with the third trumpet T3, with the effect of creating a narrower trumpet T6. Since the critical time intervals ZAK remain the same despite this measure, the now larger gaps between the trumpets T4, T5, T6 create further optimization potential for the pressing time, which in Figure 2 is marked with ΔT1 and ΔT2. This potential can be exploited by increasing the speed of the pressing locomotive and thus carrying out the processes at shorter intervals and at a higher speed. This leads to a reduction in the impression time.

In the further application example, a process e.g. B. a track brake. This knows the target running time defined in the last calculated simulation until the next running target, the determined running-in speed and the current measured or calculated value of the running resistance. Is the running resistance value within that used in the simulation Confidence interval, the brake control can calculate and control the coasting speed from the track brake necessary to achieve the target running time. If this is not possible due to an inlet speed that deviates too much from the simulation or if the current value of the running resistance is outside the confidence interval used in the simulation, corrective measures can be triggered. These can include measures such as braking, buffering, moving protective switches or even recalculating and changing target running times for other processes that have not yet been fully braked. In other words, instead of being carried out by the brake control, all of these calculations can also be carried out partially or completely by the control that carried out the original simulation.

The potential for minimizing the pressing time explained in the first run DL1 and in the second run DL2 are merely examples and are shown in two different runs for better clarity. It is well known to those skilled in the art that the potential can also be increased in one and the same simulation run. According to the invention, the simulation takes place precisely in order to identify and exploit existing optimization potential. The optimization potential presented can be identified and used. At the same time, further optimization potential can usually be found, which is shown in the examples Figure 2 are not shown. As already mentioned, the relationships are complex and can therefore only be found in a simulation. Reducing the amount of data through targeted _" deformation" of the trumpets leads to the goal more quickly because this reduces the possible variations in the simulation (lower computing time) and, on the other hand, the targeted deformation of the trumpets already exploits a foreseeable optimization potential (quick approach to a minimum that can be found for the duration).

Another application can be found in the possible construction of drain systems. According to the state of the art, the mountain height is determined by the total running resistance of the worst-running car from the entire rolling stock up to the directional track is determined, the total braking work of the installed brake relays is determined by the difference in the total running resistance between this and the best-running car from the entire rolling stock. However, this means that the timing of a process that can only reach the directional track with little brake action can hardly be controlled in time. Due to a correspondingly higher mountain height and a total braking work of the installed brake devices that is increased by this height difference, the temporal behavior of very poorly running processes can be controlled significantly better and therefore the optimizability and push-off performance of the new process also increase.

Reference symbol list

10

drain system

20

Drain ramp

30

Intermediate slope

40

distribution zone

80...86

distribution switches

50...57

Directional tracks

90, 91

Mountain brakes

60, 61

Valley brakes

70...77

Directional track brakes

100...102

Sequence

110

Push-off locomotive

200

Valley brake control

250

Mountain brake control

220

Directional track brake control

230

central control device

211, 221, 231, 233, 241, 251

interface

BG

Mountain peaks

AP

Push-off point

B.B

Mountain braking relay

TB

Valley brake relay

RGB

Directional track brake squadron

MST

measuring station

AZ1 ... AZ3

Axle counter

t

Time

x

walking path

TW

separation switch

l100 ... l102

Length of a process

l60 l70 l91

Length of a track brake

ZWL

Time-distance line

T1...T6

ZWL trumpet

SD

Locking triangle

ZA

time interval

ZAK

critical time interval

U.E

Area of overlap

Δt1 ... Δt2

Time saving

Claims (11)

Method for computer-aided simulation of the execution of a large number of processes (100 ... 102) of a train in a shunting processing system (10), in which it is simulated that the processes are pushed over a mountain (BG) and on a path through the processing system (10) for control, a track brake on the mountain side and a track brake on the downhill side of the valley run through, whereby a sequence behavior of the processes (100 ... 102) is determined,
characterized in that for every process and for every track brake a. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) starting from a predetermined target speed for a predetermined location at or behind the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and the maximum to be achieved Based on the braking capacity of the track brake, a maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated, b. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) based on the specified target speed for the location at or behind the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a maximum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and a minimum that should not be undercut Based on the braking capacity of the track brake, a minimum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated, c. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the maximum permissible entry speed into the downhill track brake as the target speed, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and the maximum braking capacity to be achieved by the uphill track brake maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the uphill track brake is calculated, d. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the minimum permissible entry speed into the downhill track Track brake as the target speed, taking into account a maximum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and a minimum braking capacity of the uphill track brake that should not be undercut, a minimum permissible entry speed of the process into the uphill track brake is calculated, e. from a respective speed interval predetermined by the respective maximum permissible entry speed and the respective minimum permissible entry speed, an entry speed for the relevant process and the relevant track brake is selected in such a way and an associated push-off speed is calculated for the relevant process so that the push-off time of the train is minimized, f. the selected respective entry speeds and the calculated push-off speeds are output. Method for controlling the execution of a large number of processes (100 ... 102) in a shunting drainage system (10), in which the processes (100 ... 102) are pushed over a mountain (BG) and on a path through the drainage system (10) for control purposes, a track brake on the mountain side and a track brake on the valley side located towards the valley pass through, with the sequence behavior of the processes (100 ... 102) being determined by a computer-aided simulation, characterized, that with the computer-aided simulation for every process and for every track brake a. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) based on a predetermined target speed for a predetermined location at or behind the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and the maximum to be achieved Based on the braking capacity of the track brake, a maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated, b. for the downhill track brake (70 ... 77) based on the specified target speed for the location at or behind at the end of the downhill track brake, taking into account a maximum expected running resistance of the relevant drain (100 ... 102) and a minimum braking capacity of the track brake that should not be undercut, a minimum permissible entry speed of the drain into the downhill track brake is calculated, c. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the maximum permissible entry speed into the downhill track brake as the target speed, taking into account a minimum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and the maximum braking capacity to be achieved by the uphill track brake maximum permissible entry speed of the drain into the uphill track brake is calculated, d. for the uphill track brake (60 ... 61) based on the minimum permissible entry speed into the downhill track brake as the target speed, taking into account the maximum expected running resistance of the relevant process (100 ... 102) and a minimum braking capacity of the uphill track brake that should not be undercut a minimum permissible entry speed of the drain into the uphill track brake is calculated, e. from a respective speed interval predetermined by the respective maximum permissible entry speed and the respective minimum permissible entry speed, an entry speed for the relevant process and the relevant track brake is selected in such a way and an associated push-off speed for the relevant process is calculated, so that a push-off time of the train is minimized , and that as part of controlling the process, the push-off locomotive (10) is controlled with the aim of achieving the calculated respective push-off speed of each process (100 ... 102) and the run-out speeds of the respective track brakes using the current running properties of the respective process with the aim the selected inlet speeds for each process (100 ... 102) can be controlled. Method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized, that for every process a. from the previously determined maximum permissible entry speed for the respective process (100 ... 102) into the downhill track brake (70 ... 77), the minimum running time for the route from the uphill track brake (60, 61) to the downhill track brake ( 70 ... 77) is calculated taking into account the minimum expected running resistance, b. from the previously determined minimum permissible entry speed for the respective process (100 ... 102) into the downhill track brake (70 ... 77), the maximum running time for the route from the uphill track brake (60, 61) to the downhill track brake ( 70 ... 77) is calculated taking into account a maximum expected running resistance, c. a running time for the relevant process and the relevant track brake is selected from a respective running time interval predetermined by the respective maximum running time and the respective minimum running time, and that the pressing time is minimized by comparing and modifying the running times. Method according to one of the preceding claims,
characterized,
that several or all processes (100 ... 102) of a train are taken into account when simulating as a large number of processes to be printed. Method according to claim 4,
characterized,
that as a large number of processes to be printed, at least one process (100 ... 102) of a following train and / or a preceding train is also taken into account when simulating. Method according to one of the preceding claims,
characterized,
that in the simulation, switches are taken into account as separating switches for the routes (x) of successive processes, namely a leading precursor and a trailing trailer, in that after the routes have been separated, the named trailer is assigned its current precursor and the named precursor is assigned its current trailer. Method according to one of the preceding claims,
characterized,
that in the simulation a maximum acceleration capacity of the push-off locomotive (110) is taken into account when calculating the push-off speeds. Shunting system (10) for processes, with several routes (50-57) being implemented through the system (10), each with at least two track brakes, and a control for the at least two track brakes
characterized,
that the process system (10) is equipped with a simulation program and is set up to carry out a method for computer-aided simulation or a method for controlling a plurality of processes (100 ... 102) according to one of the preceding claims. Computer program product, comprising program instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to one of claims 1 to 7. Computer program product, comprising program instructions which, when the program is executed by the shunting processing system (10) according to claim 8, cause the method according to one of claims 1 - 7 to be carried out. Computer-readable storage medium on which the computer program product according to the preceding claims 9 or 10 is stored.

Images