Method for counting axles of a track-guided vehicle

Abstract

The invention encompasses the following subject matter: a method for counting axles of a track-guided vehicle. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a railway system with multiple axle counting sensors (AZ, AZ1, AZ2) installed on a track (GL). Furthermore, the invention encompasses a computer program product containing program instructions. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a computer-readable storage medium containing data.

Description

Technical area

[0001] The invention encompasses a method for counting axles of a track-guided vehicle. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a railway system with multiple axle counting sensors installed on a track. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a computer program product containing program instructions. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a computer-readable storage medium containing data. Technical background

[0002] According to the state of the art, it is known to use classic axle counting methods in which the signal strength is monitored for a threshold being exceeded. Each time this threshold is exceeded, it is counted as an axle. This method is comparatively fast, and the counting of these events is reliable. However, the threshold being exceeded can also be caused by influences other than the passage of an axle (a wheel). To date, these disturbances have been suppressed according to deterministic rules (e.g., signal strength or duration). This method is also known as the multi-axle counting method (MAPC for short). However, it is challenging to detect more complex disturbances using this method.

[0003] Approaches to replacing axle counting with AI-based solutions have already been described in the prior art. However, these have so far failed due to safety (in the sense of functional safety, also known as safety) and the runtime of the algorithms, meaning that their improved potential for error detection has not yet been utilized. For example, document EP 4124539 A1 describes how such an AI method can be implemented to detect, for example, the phenomenon of pinwheel in bogies in a bogie counting method (BC for short) as an axle miscount.

[0004] The problem arising from the state of the art described above is that currently only axle counting systems with high functional reliability but only limited detection reliability or axle counting systems with limited functional reliability but with a potential for improved error detection are available, but no systems that combine all advantages. Summary of the invention

[0005] The object of the invention is to resolve the described problems in the prior art. In particular, it is to provide a method for counting axles of a rail-guided vehicle, a railway system with axle counting sensors, suitable for implementing this method, a computer program, and a computer-readable storage medium containing such a computer program, wherein improved error detection should be possible during axle counting without compromising the functional reliability of the axle counting.

[0006] According to a first aspect of the invention, a method for counting axles of a track-guided vehicle is described, in which a) at least two axle counting sensors mounted on a track are passed by wheels of the vehicle, b) each axle counting sensor generates a measurement signal, c) the course of the measurement signal of each axle counting sensor is evaluated by computer, whereby in each case an axle number is identified based on the passing wheels of the vehicle.

[0007] The function of axle counting sensors is well known. Typically, an electromagnetic field is generated, which changes when a wheel of a vehicle passes over the axle counting sensor. The wheel, and thus the vehicle's axle, is thereby detected. One or more axle counting sensors can be installed in an axle counter (more on this below). Furthermore, an axle counter can also incorporate a processor for processing the measurement data supplied by the axle counting sensor. The processor can be considered part of a computing environment for the computer-aided evaluation of the data from the axle counting sensors. Alternatively or additionally, such data processing can also be performed by a central processor in the computing environment outside the axle counter.

[0008] A device is computer-aided or computer-implemented if it has at least one computer or processor, or a method if at least one computer or processor carries out at least one method step of the method.

[0009] A computing environment is an IT infrastructure consisting of functional components such as processors, memory units, programs, and data to be processed by the programs, which are used to execute at least one application that has to perform a specific task. Additional functional components can consist of sensors and actuators that enable the computing environment to interact with the outside world. The IT infrastructure can also be organized as a network of these functional components.

[0010] Computing instances form functional units within a computing environment that can be assigned to applications (given, for example, by a number of program modules) and can execute them. These functional units form self-contained systems, physically (e.g., a computer, a processor) and / or virtually (e.g., a program module), when the application is executed.

[0011] Computers are electronic devices with data processing capabilities consisting of multiple functional components. Computers can be, for example, clients, servers, handheld computers, communication devices, and other electronic devices for data processing that may have processors and memory units and can also be connected to a network via interfaces.

[0012] Processors can be, for example, converters, sensors for generating measurement signals, or electronic circuits. A processor can be a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, or a digital signal processor, possibly combined with a memory unit for storing program instructions and data. A processor can also be a virtualized processor or a soft CPU.

[0013] Storage units can be implemented as computer-readable memory in the form of random-access memory (RAM) or data storage (hard disk or data carrier).

[0014] Program modules are individual software functional units that enable a program sequence of method steps according to the invention. These software functional units can be implemented in a single computer program or in several communicating computer programs. The interfaces implemented in this way can be implemented in software within a single processor or in hardware if multiple processors are used.

[0015] Interfaces can be implemented in hardware, for example wired or as a radio connection, or in software, for example as interaction between individual program modules of one or more computer programs.

[0016] To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be noted at this point that individual claim features are numbered consecutively with lowercase Latin letters, regardless of the claim numbering. This means that each letter appears only once in the entire set of claims, allowing the relevant claim features to be clearly addressed without mentioning the claim number. Therefore, the order of the letters is irrelevant.

[0017] According to the invention, the evaluation of the measurement signal is carried out in two evaluation routines, namely e) a first evaluation routine in which first axle counting results representing the passing wheels are registered if the measurement signal exceeds a threshold value, and f) a second evaluation routine in which second axle counting results representing the passing wheels are registered if, within the scope of a pattern comparison, a sufficient agreement with a predetermined pattern representing the second axle counting result in question is determined, taking into account permissible tolerance deviations, and that g) based on the first axle counting results, the number of axles of the vehicle is determined and checked for a deviation between the axle numbers identified in this way, and h) based on the second axle counting results, the number of axles of the vehicle is determined and checked for a deviation between the axle numbers identified in this way, wherein i) only in a first case,that both different numbers of axles of the vehicle were determined on the basis of the first axle counting results and different numbers of axles of the vehicle were determined on the basis of the second axle counting results, the error signal is generated.

[0018] The teaching of the invention consists in providing two evaluation routines for evaluating the measurement signals from the axle counters, which run redundantly within the method (hereinafter referred to as evaluation redundancy). Evaluation redundancy means that, if the method runs smoothly, the evaluation of the measurement signals yields the same evaluation result twice. The evaluation result is the determined axle count result (in particular, the number of axles) of the vehicle crossing the relevant axle counter(s).

[0019] Only in the first case mentioned above is it not possible for the computer-assisted evaluation of the measurement signals to provide a sufficiently reliable result regarding the identified axles. This case occurs when different numbers of axles on the vehicle were determined based on both the first axle count results and the second axle count results. Therefore, it is intended to generate an error signal that can directly influence the process running in a railway system for controlling the vehicle, in order to initiate a safety measure during the operation of affected vehicles (e.g., emergency braking of the same).

[0020] Evaluation redundancy has the advantage that, in the event of measurement or evaluation errors, where the evaluation routines may produce different results, an assessment can be made to determine which result is considered trustworthy and therefore used for the procedure. This assessment is preferably performed computer-assisted, with an error signal only being generated if the outcome cannot be determined to be trustworthy.

[0021] The error signal can, for example, be used to be output via an interface. The interface can operate an output device designed for human perception. However, the interface can also be used to process the error signal in an automated process for controlling the railway system to which the axle counters belong. In any case, the error signal leads to functionally reliable operation (safety) of the track-guided vehicle, thereby preventing safety-critical incidents. Safety measures relate to the vehicle in question or vehicles following it and can, for example, consist of emergency braking of these vehicles.

[0022] According to a further aspect of the invention, a railway system with a plurality of axle counting sensors installed on a track and a computing environment is described. According to this aspect, the invention provides that the computing environment is configured to carry out the method according to one of the preceding claims. The advantages associated with this aspect of the invention have already been explained above, and reference is made to these advantages.

[0023] According to a further aspect of the invention, a computer program product is described, containing program instructions that can be executed by a computing environment. According to this aspect, the invention provides that the method according to one of claims 1-5 is carried out.

[0024] According to the invention, a computer program product containing program modules is described with program instructions, wherein the program modules can run in the same computing instance or multiple computing instances of the computing environment. The method according to the invention and / or its exemplary embodiments can be executed by means of the computer program product, which can comprise one or more computer programs, and the above-described advantages are achieved by the execution.

[0025] According to a further aspect of the invention, a computer-readable storage medium is described, containing data stored as data sets on the storage medium. According to this aspect, the invention provides that the data sets make the above-described computer program product executable according to the last preceding claim.

[0026] Furthermore, a provision device for storing and / or providing the computer program in the form of a computer-readable storage medium is described. The provision device is, for example, a storage unit that stores the computer program and makes it available for retrieval. Alternatively or additionally, the provision device is a network service, a computer system, a server system, in particular a distributed, for example, cloud-based computer system or virtual computer system, which stores the computer program on a computer-readable storage medium and preferably makes it available in the form of a data stream.

[0027] The provision takes place in the form of program data sets describing program modules 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. The computer program product is transferred, for example, using the provision device into a computing environment, so that the method according to the invention can be executed in one or more computing instances of this computing environment. Embodiments of the invention

[0028] Variants describing further developments of the invention are explained below without limiting the basic idea of ​​the invention.

[0029] According to a variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by j) in a second case, identical numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the first axle counting results, and k) in a third case, different numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the first axle counting results only and identical numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the second axle counting results, l) a track section enclosed by the axle counters is reported as free.

[0030] An advantage of this variant is that the described evaluation redundancy means that, in certain cases, despite the occurrence of inconsistencies in the evaluation, the actual conditions, namely the number of axles of the vehicle passing over the respective axle counter, can be determined with sufficient certainty. In particular, it can be determined with sufficient certainty that a vehicle has the same number of axles when entering and exiting a track section. Axle counters are provided at the beginning and end of this track section to determine whether the vehicle remained intact while passing through the track section (i.e., whether no wagons were lost).

[0031] According to this variant of the invention, the following relationships play a role in ensuring the safety of the improved axle counting method. In the second case mentioned above, the measured values ​​determined using MAZV are reliable enough to achieve the required safety. This is a proven method that has been in use for a long time. In other words, the probability that the initial axle count results are incorrect when identical axle numbers are determined is so low that safety is guaranteed. Therefore, in this case, the affected track section can always be reported as clear.

[0032] The second axle count results of the BC method can therefore be disregarded. This can be justified by the fact that these results offer a lower degree of security against errors. In other words, the second axle count result confirms the first axle count result, even if identical axle numbers are determined here. In this case, the entire axle count result is, so to speak, additionally secured. In the other case, in which the axle count results are not identical using the BC method, the probability is sufficiently high that the first axle count results are correct and the second axle count results are incorrect. This justifies releasing the track section based on the first axle count results.

[0033] In the third case, where the MZAV delivers different axle count results, a track vacancy report could not be issued if this method, as is the state of the art, were used alone. However, according to the invention, the axle count results of the BC method are also available in this case. Assuming that the MZAV delivers different axle count results, the probability that a counting error has occurred is high compared to the much lower probability that a wagon has been lost. This allows the second axle count results to be used for verification purposes, even though the BC method, used alone, would not provide sufficient reliability for a track vacancy report.Given the high probability of a counting error in the MZAV, if identical axle counts are determined using the BC method, it can be assumed with sufficient certainty that no wagon loss has occurred, thus generating a track vacancy report. This results in the added value that the combination of the MZAV and the BC method achieves greater operational availability of the railway system while maintaining sufficient functional reliability.

[0034] According to a variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined in that in the first case according to the feature i described above, after it has been determined that different numbers of axles of the vehicle have been determined on the basis of the first axle counting results, it is waited until the numbers of axles of the vehicle have been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results before the error signal is generated, if necessary.

[0035] One advantage of this variant is that it increases the availability of the method. In cases where the BC method takes longer to deliver axle counting results, no error signal is generated if different axle counting results are already available from the MZAV. Instead, the system waits until the different axle counting results from the MZAV can be either validated with the BC method as described above (this leads to the generation of the error signal) or classified as a counting error (this leads to the release of the track section).

[0036] The time margin available in the event of inconsistencies in the axle count results plays a role here. The BC procedure normally runs slower than the MZAV, but in parallel, and it is only used if the MAZV detects inconsistencies in the initial axle count results. However, this does not represent a safety issue (for example, according to UIC Code 790), but rather an availability issue. In this case, a delay of up to several seconds can be accepted, since the required operational resolution time for the fault is in the range of minutes and is safety-relevant (initial position of the incorrect section).

[0037] According to a variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined by m) a time period (e.g. 10 seconds) is specified which may be waited after the determination of different numbers of axles on the basis of the first axle counting results until the number of axles of the vehicle has been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results, n) after the expiry of the time period the error signal is generated if the number of axles of the vehicle has not yet been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results.

[0038] An advantage of this variant is that it provides additional security for the process. As explained above, operational rectification of the fault can be delayed for a certain period of time without incurring an unacceptable safety risk. However, if the calculation of the second axle count results takes too long (for example, due to a system crash or similar), a safety measure must still be initiated in a timely manner. According to this variant, this is achieved by generating an error signal even without the second axle count results being available if the safety risk would otherwise be too great.

[0039] According to a variant, the aspects of the invention explained above are determined in that, in the pattern comparison according to the feature f) explained above, patterns are used which represent the passage of a bogie of the vehicle as an axle counting result, this axle counting result being equated with the counting of the majority of the axles attributable to the bogie in a computer-assisted manner.

[0040] An advantage of this variant is that both the first axle count results and the second axle count results directly include the counted axles. This makes them directly comparable. For example, an additional query could be added to check whether the first axle count results match the second axle count results. If this were not the case, an error signal could also be output. Exemplary embodiments of the drawing

[0041] Further details of the invention are described below with reference to the drawings. Identical or corresponding drawing elements are provided with the same reference numerals in the individual figures and are explained repeatedly only to the extent that differences arise between the individual figures.

[0042] The exemplary embodiments explained below are preferred embodiments of the invention. In the exemplary embodiments, the described components of the embodiments each represent individual, independently considered variants of the invention, which also further develop the invention independently of one another and are thus also considered components of the invention, either individually or in a combination other than that shown. Furthermore, the described components can also be combined with the variants of the invention described above. Figure 1shows a schematic representation of an embodiment of the device according to the invention with its functional relationships between the functional components used. The figure also shows an embodiment of a computing environment for the device according to Figure 1 as a block diagram of the individual functional components and the interfaces formed between them, wherein individual computing instances execute program modules which can each run in one or more of the processors shown as examples and wherein the interfaces shown can accordingly be implemented in software in one computer or in hardware between different computers. Figure 2 shows example signal curves for the axle counters and their signal processing (measurement signal strength U1, U2 as a function of time t). Figure 3shows an embodiment of the method according to the invention as a flow chart, wherein the method steps shown can be implemented individually or in groups by program modules and wherein the computing instances and interfaces according to Figure 2 are indicated as examples. Detailed description of the implementation examples

[0043] In Figure 1 A vehicle FZ is shown, which is traveling in a direction of travel FR on a track GL. The vehicle FZ has bogies DG, each equipped with two axles. These are Figure 1 indicated by wheels RD.

[0044] As soon as the wheels RD pass over a first axle counter AZL1, comprising a first axle counting sensor AZ1 and a second axle counting sensor AZ2, a pulse is generated in the course of the measuring signal U1, U2 (cf. Figure 2 ) (more on this below).

[0045] The axle counters AZL1 and AZL2 are connected to an evaluation unit AE, which has a first processor PR1. This processor PR1 is connected to both the first axle counter AZL1 and the second axle counter AZL2 via a sixth interface S6, so that with their help, the clearance of a track section GA between the first axle counter AZL1 and the second axle counter AZL2 can be reported by evaluation with the first processor PR1. Instead of two axle counting sensors per axle counter, a single axle counting sensor can also be used; therefore, the individual axle counting sensor of a second axle counter AZL2 is designated by the reference symbol AZ. This is shown only as an example. In each of the axle counters AZL1, AZL2, either a single axle counting sensor or two axle counting sensors (double axle counter) could be used.

[0046] The evaluation unit AE also houses a first memory device SE1, which is connected to the first processor PR1 via a fifth interface S5. This contains, for example, a program for implementing the method according to the invention as well as a library with various patterns M1, M2 (see FIG. Figure 2 ), which are used for certain curves to be measured VL1, VL2, represented by standardized curves NV1, NV2, NV3 (cf. Figure 2 ).

[0047] Furthermore, the first processor PR1 is connected via a third interface S3 to a second processor PR2 of a computer CP in a control center LZ. The second processor PR2 is also connected via a fourth interface S4 to a second memory device SE2 of the computer CP. The control center represents a trackside facility, such as a signal box or an automatic train control system.

[0048] The vehicle FZ and the control center LZ are equipped with antennas AT, allowing them to communicate with each other via a second interface S2. Furthermore, the vehicle FZ can communicate with a satellite STL via a first interface S1. This makes it possible, for example, to locate the vehicle FZ, where the satellite STL is a navigation satellite.

[0049] The method according to the invention comprises program modules that can run either in the first processor PR1 or in the second processor PR2. This depends on how "intelligent" the axle counting arrangement formed by the axle counter AZL and the evaluation unit AE is. Processors not shown can also be used in the axle counters, for example, for preprocessing the measurement signals; these are to be considered part of the computing environment RU.

[0050] In Figure 2The process of the method according to the invention is illustrated by a flow chart. Schematic representations of the signal curves are chosen to explain the individual process steps. In the upper part of the Figure 2 The curves VL1 of the first axle counter AZL1 and VL2 of the second axle counter AZL2 are shown. For this purpose, a diagram has been chosen in which the measurement signal U1, U2 is represented as an output voltage over time t. In the lower part of Figure 2 The following processing steps of a normalization with the result of normalized curves NV1, NV2, NV3, NV4 as well as a comparison with patterns M1, M2 are shown.

[0051] Furthermore, it can be seen in the curves VL1 and VL2 that two wheels (axles) of a bogie are passing over the axles. This is evident because, in addition to the first maximum M1, a second maximum M2 can be seen in the curves VL1 and VL2, which is very similar to the first maximum M1. The first maximum M1 and the second maximum M2 are each separated by a time offset ZVR between the wheel passages. This time offset ZVR corresponds exactly to the time difference between the wheel passage of the first wheel of the bogie DG and the second wheel RD of the bogie DG.

[0052] In a first evaluation routine, all maxima that exceed a threshold value SW are counted. This is the classic operating procedure of an axle counter based on the MAZV principle. It is clear that two maxima are determined in the VL1 curve and three maxima in the second VL2 curve. The third maximum is caused by a spike pattern caused by the arrangement of the axle counter in question in a curve. It is immediately clear that the first evaluation routine therefore counts three axles in one case and two axles in the second. This results in a counting error that would prevent the track section from being reported as clear.

[0053] A second evaluation routine with pattern matching according to the BC principle runs as follows.

[0054] In order to generate the standardized curves NV1, NV2, NV3, NV4, a standardization N is carried out in a manner not shown in detail according to the method according to the invention. This standardization includes an amplitude standardization of the measurement signal U1, U2 to a target value ZW, which in the exemplary embodiment according to Figure 2is 1. In addition, dynamic time normalization is performed, whereby the first waveform VL1 and the second waveform VL2 are respectively examined before and after the identified maximum M1, M2, M3 to such an extent that the waveform associated with the maximum M1, M2, M3 can be characterized (and compared with patterns M1, M2; more on this below). This results in the normalized waveforms NV1, NV2, NV3, NV4 being created in time windows ZF1, ZF2, ZF3, which correspond in time to the patterns MT1, MT2 (no pattern is applied for the normalized waveform NV4 because, apart from the noise indicated in the first waveform VL1, no maximum exceeding the threshold SW can be detected).

[0055] As can be seen, the evaluation of the first maximum M1 leads to the generation of the first normalized curve NV1, and the evaluation of the second maximum M2 leads to the generation of the third normalized curve NV3 (curve of U2) and NV4 (curve of U1). Furthermore, a third maximum M3 is not visible in the first curve VL1, but in the second curve VL2, which leads to the generation of a second normalized curve NV2.

[0056] In the final step, a pattern comparison of the standardized curves NV1, NV2, and NV3 is performed. This shows that the first standardized curve NV1 and the third standardized curve NV3 each match the first pattern MT1, which represents a wheel pass. This results in a count of 2. The second standardized curve NV2 is identified using the second pattern MT2, which represents the pinwheel. Therefore, the standardized curve NV2 is excluded from the count (indicated by an X). Thus, according to the BC principle, a match between the axles during the vehicle's entry and exit can be determined, allowing a clear signal to be issued.

[0057] In Figure 2It is indicated that the sample MT1 and the second sample MT2 have a hatched confidence interval that allows for certain fluctuations with respect to the standardized curves NV1, NV2, and NV3. This takes into account the fact that the measured curves VL1 and VL2 are subject to certain tolerance fluctuations. In addition to measurement tolerance, it must also be considered that different vehicles generate different measurement signals, which depend, for example, on conditions such as the vehicle's wheel wear.

[0058] In the following, the method according to the invention will be described by way of example, as shown in the flow chart according to Figure 3 shown, explained step by step. Computer-aided steps take place in the processors (not shown in detail). Reading and saving data to the memory units has been omitted for clarity.

[0059] In the first step 1, the procedure is started (short: START). In a second step 2, the axle counting takes place when the vehicle passes over using the first axle counter AZL1 (abbreviated to MSE1). The result is the first curve VL1 of the measurement signal. In a third step 3, the axle counting takes place when the vehicle passes over using a second axle counter AZL2 (abbreviated to MSE2). The result is the second curve VL2 of the measurement signal. In a fourth step 4, the multi-axle counting method takes place, in which each crossing of the threshold by the measurement signal is counted as an axle, as in Figure 2 (abbreviated to MAZV). The result is an axle number N1 for the first measurement and an axle number N2 for the second measurement.

[0060] In a fifth step 5, parallel to the fourth step 4, but with a longer process duration, the axle numbers are determined according to the bogie counting method (abbreviated to BC). Figure 2explained pattern comparison, whereby after completion of the procedure an axle number N1 is determined for the first measurement and an axle number N2 for the second measurement.

[0061] In a sixth step (6), a query is made as to whether the first number of axles is equal to the second number of axles, both of which were determined using the MZAV method (in short: N1=N2?). If this is the case, the process continues with the seventh step (7). Otherwise, the process continues with the eighth step (8).

[0062] In a seventh step, the GL track (CLR for short) is reported as clear. In this case, the vehicle can continue driving because it has completely left the relevant GA track section.

[0063] In an eighth step (8), a waiting loop (WT for short) is run. This is intended to ensure that the BC procedure according to the fifth step (5) is not yet completed.

[0064] In a ninth step (9), a query is made as to whether the axle numbers N1, N2 determined using the BC method are already available (abbreviated to: N1,N2?). If this is the case, the process continues with the tenth step (10). If this is not the case, a recursion is performed to repeat the eighth step (8).

[0065] In a tenth step 10, a query is made as to whether the first number of axles is equal to the second number of axles, both of which were determined using the BC method (in short: N1=N2?). If this is the case, the process continues with the seventh step 7. Otherwise, the process continues with the eleventh step 11.

[0066] In an eleventh step 11, an error signal (ERR for short) is generated. In a subsequent twelfth step 12, the process is stopped, and the vehicle whose axles were counted by the respective axle counters with different results is stopped.

[0067] If the seventh step (7) described above has been performed to release the GA track section, in a 13th step (13) the second axle count N2 is set equal to the first axle count N1 (in short: N2 -> N1), because the vehicle has entered the next GA track section. This is followed by a recursion to the third step (3), where a second measurement step is performed at the end of the new GA track section to determine the second axle count N2 again. The process then continues as described above. List of reference symbols

[0068] 2Counting result AEEvaluation unit ATAntenna AZ, AZ1, AZ2Axle counting sensor AZL1 ... AZL2Axle counter CP1 ... CP2Computer DGBogie FRDirection of travel FZVehicle GAGTrack section GLTrack LZControl center M1 ... M3Maximum MT1 ... MT2Pattern NNormalization NV1 ... NV4Normalized course RDWheel RUComputing environment S1 ... S5Interface SE1 ... SE2Storage device STLSatellite SWThreshold U1 ... U2Measurement signal VL1 ... VL2Course XExclusion ZF1 ... ZF3Time window ZVRTime offset between wheel passages ZWTarget value

Claims

1. A method for counting axles of a track-guided vehicle, in which a) at least two axle counting sensors (AZ, AZ1, AZ2) mounted on a track (GL) are passed by wheels (RD) of the vehicle, b) each axle counting sensor (AZ, AZ1, AZ2) generates a measurement signal (U1 ... U2), c) the course (VL1 ... VL2) of the measurement signal (U1 ... U2) of each axle counting sensor (AZ, AZ1, AZ2) is evaluated by computer, whereby an axle number is identified in each case based on the passing wheels (RD) of the vehicle, d) an error signal is generated if a deviation between identified axle numbers is detected, characterized in thatthe evaluation of the measurement signal takes place in two evaluation routines, namely e) a first evaluation routine in which first axle count results representing the passing wheels (RD) are registered if the measurement signal exceeds a threshold value, and f) a second evaluation routine in which second axle count results representing the passing wheels (RD) are registered if, within the framework of a pattern comparison, a sufficient agreement with a predetermined pattern representing the second axle count result in question is determined, taking into account permissible tolerance deviations, and that g) based on the first axle count results, the number of axles of the vehicle is determined and checked for a deviation between the axle numbers thus identified, and h) based on the second axle count results, the number of axles of the vehicle is determined and checked for a deviation between the axle numbers thus identified,where i) the error signal is only generated in a first case where both different numbers of axles of the vehicle were determined on the basis of the first axle counting results and different numbers of axles of the vehicle were determined on the basis of the second axle counting results.

2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that j) in a second case, identical numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the first axle counting results, and k) in a third case, different numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the first axle counting results only and identical numbers of axles of the vehicle are determined on the basis of the second axle counting results, l) a track section (GA) of the track (GL) enclosed by the axle counters is reported as free.

3. A method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in thatin the first case according to feature i) according to claim 1, after it has been determined that different numbers of axles of the vehicle were determined on the basis of the first axle counting results, it is waited until the numbers of axles of the vehicle have been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results before the error signal is generated, if necessary.

4. A method according to claim 3, characterized in that m) a time period is specified which may be waited after the determination of different numbers of axles on the basis of the first axle counting results until the number of axles of the vehicle has been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results, n) after the expiry of the time period the error signal is generated if the number of axles of the vehicle has not yet been determined on the basis of the second axle counting results.

5. A method according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in thatin the pattern comparison according to feature f) according to claim 1, patterns are used which represent the passage of a bogie of the vehicle as an axle counting result, this axle counting result being equated with the counting of the majority of the axles attributable to the bogie by computer aid.

6. A railway system with several axle counting sensors (AZ, AZ1, AZ2) installed on a track (GL) and a computing environment (RU) for evaluating the measurement signals of the axle counting sensors (AZ, AZ1, AZ2), characterized in that the computing environment (RU) is configured to carry out the method according to one of the preceding claims.

7. A computer program product comprising program instructions executable by a computing environment (RU) such that the method according to any one of claims 1-5 is carried out.

8. A computer-readable storage medium containing data stored as records by the storage medium such that the records make the computer program product according to the last preceding claim executable.

Images