# Measures and Methods for the Evaluation of ATO Algorithms
## 4 Demonstration of Approach
### Test Scenario Definition  
To demonstrate the use of the approach a functional scenario has been defined. The following influencing factor for ATO systems is the central element of the scenario:  
Different timetables (Layer 6) yield a challenging set of available running times including additional restrictions by CTPs  
The resulting functional scenario can be described as follows:  
**Different timetables**: The train equipped with the system under test (BEAOnline ATO algorithm) is driving from a station on a reference line to a target destination and needs to stop at one additional station along the line. For this journey, different timetables are provided, which are characterized by the available running time.  
Figure 4: Visualization of the simulation framework consisting of two major components (train simulator and ATO algorithm), their subparts and the data exchange between them.  
The timetable can include time windows for critical timing points. All other necessary definitions are given by the base scenario.  
The case study is based on an existing reference route available for the NEO simulator. This route represents the railway line from Schiphol to Zwolle in the Netherlands. Train operation is organized and constrained by timetables. Their change causes the algorithm to adapt the calculations and thus also the optimal speed profile to the newly arising constraints. Depending on whether the new limitations are tighter or less strict, the performance of the ATO algorithm may change. It is intended to investigate to what extent the algorithm can cope with varying running times set by the timetable.  
The main goal of this demonstration is to show how the developed approach can be applied and whether the defined KPIs allow concluding about the performance of the algorithm in practice.  
Based on the functional scenario two examples of logical scenarios are defined. In Tables 4 and 5 a description of these logical scenarios is given. For both logical scenarios, one part of the reference line functions as the corresponding base scenario, while the baseline scenarios include all the specific characteristics of the section, the two logical scenarios differ in terms of the concepts used to vary the timetables. As the section from Zwolle to Almere Centrum includes two CTPs before the stop at Lelystad Centrum, logical scenario 2 incorporates these as additional constraints. In contrast to that, no CTPs are defined for the section of the reference line between Schiphol Airport and Almere assigned to logical scenario 1.  
Regarding the defined parameter ranges of the timetable properties, concrete timetables were defined. They are changing the original reference timetable of the base scenario in such a way, that the different property parameter values within the defined ranges are achieved. For example, for a concrete scenario derived from logical scenario one, this could result in a two-minute reduction in available running time and for a second concrete scenario, a four-minute reduction. A reasonable gradation of the parameters needs to be selected according to the evaluation objectives.  
Overall, in comparison with a reference drive under base scenario conditions with the standard timetable, performance changes shall be identifiable if existing.