Assessment and Recommendations for a Fossil Free Future for Track Work Machinery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors. Interesting and completion paper: an excellent summary of this niche market's pollutant challenges. Soundly applied methodology, clear and supported results and conclusions. Only short remarks:

1. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) starts with a pretty long introduction of scientific classification, which is a relevant part within the chapter but cannot be referred exactly. Therefore, this part may get a subchapter number (2.1), and the current numbering of the following subchapters may be shifted consequently.
2. Similar to the previously explained case, Chapter 3 (Materials and methods – CalCAS) also has a relatively long relevant description of the discussed decision-making method, which needs a separate subchapter (3.1), where the following subchapters' numbering needs to be shifted consequently.
3. Line 172: "personal transportation" is wrong terminology; instead of this, "passenger transportation" is suggested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your useful input. You will find my corrections in the new manuscript and some comments below. Best regards, Martina Zeiner (main author)

Congratulations to the authors. Interesting and completion paper: an excellent summary of this niche market's pollutant challenges. Soundly applied methodology, clear and supported results and conclusions. Only short remarks:

1. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) starts with a pretty long introduction of scientific classification, which is a relevant part within the chapter but cannot be referred exactly. Therefore, this part may get a subchapter number (2.1), and the current numbering of the following subchapters may be shifted consequently.

To make it clearer, Chapter 2 Literature Review now starts with 2.1. Status quo of track work machinery, followed by 2.1.1. Track work machinery compared to other modes of transport. The following subchapters are shifted consequently.

1. Similar to the previously explained case, Chapter 3 (Materials and methods – CalCAS) also has a relatively long relevant description of the discussed decision-making method, which needs a separate subchapter (3.1), where the following subchapters' numbering needs to be shifted consequently.

Chapter 3 was now divided into 3.1. Limitations and 3.2. Methodology of CalCAS, which now contains 2 subchapters.

1. Line 172: "personal transportation" is wrong terminology; instead of this, "passenger transportation" is suggested.

Comment 3: Line 172 (now 198) was changed.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the assessment and recommendations for a fossil Free Future for track work machinery.

However, there are some major deficiencies, which must be improved before publishing this work as follows:  

1. The abstract should be briefly discussed the main challenges of the problem. 
2. In the introduction, please rewrite the main contributions of this paper and the research question, and motivations. what are the main reasons to select this optimization method to solve this problem? Furthermore, in this section, initially please answer this research question, what are the benefits and drawbacks of your proposed evaluation method?
3. The section of the results and discussion should be developed.
4. Please develop a section of the related works separately, and add some relevant references (I suggest: Andrukhiv A, Sokil M, Fedushko S, Syerov Y, Kalambet Y, Peracek T. Methodology for Increasing the Efficiency of Dynamic Process Calculations in Elastic Elements of Complex Engineering Constructions. Electronics. 2021; 10(1):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10010040) about the previous works with state-of-the-art optimization methods. 

Thank you for a good job.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your useful input. You will find my corrections in the new manuscript and some comments below. Best regards, Martina Zeiner (main author)

This paper deals with the assessment and recommendations for a fossil Free Future for track work machinery.

However, there are some major deficiencies, which must be improved before publishing this work as follows:  

1. The abstract should be briefly discussed the main challenges of the problem. 

Changed the beginning of the abstract (Line 11-15) and added the importance of the length of the worldwide railway network to underpin the main challenges.

1. In the introduction, please rewrite the main contributions of this paper and the research question, and motivations. what are the main reasons to select this optimization method to solve this problem? Furthermore, in this section, initially please answer this research question, what are the benefits and drawbacks of your proposed evaluation method?

We rewrote the end of the introduction (see Line 114-147) and highlighted the importance of decarbonisation of track work machinery (see also Line 75-76) to make the main contributions and motivation clearer.

Comment: The Literature review and cross-market analysis is a necessary method in this case to understand technology trends and possible solutions for track work machinery – a segment which so far hast not been looked at in detail and has so far been neglected. The research question is stated as the goal. The method of the calculation tool is described in more detail now as well. The benefits and drawbacks of the evaluation method (literature research + calculation tool) are mentioned briefly in the introduction now and in more detail in section results and discussion (see end of chapter 4). 

1. The section of the results and discussion should be developed.

We enhanced chapter 4 to highlight the shortcomings and give a more critical assessment on the results, see end of chapter 4 from Line 649-670.

1. Please develop a section of the related works separately, and add some relevant references (I suggest: Andrukhiv A, Sokil M, Fedushko S, Syerov Y, Kalambet Y, Peracek T. Methodology for Increasing the Efficiency of Dynamic Process Calculations in Elastic Elements of Complex Engineering Constructions. Electronics. 2021; 10(1):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10010040 ) about the previous works with state-of-the-art optimization methods. 

The proposed paper to add as a reference goes beyond the scope of our paper (as described in detail at the end of chapter 4). Our paper assesses the possibilities of switching to alternative drives for track work machinery and gives recommendations for possible solutions. The final application of alternative drives would be a next step which could then also cover the efficiency optimization of engineering constructions, such as engines for example, but was not the scope of this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

In conclusion, there is a lack of critical assessment of the results achieved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your useful input. You will find my corrections in the new manuscript and some comments below. Best regards, Martina Zeiner (main author)

In conclusion, there is a lack of critical assessment of the results achieved. 

We enhanced chapter 4 to highlight the shortcomings and give a more critical assessment on the results, see end of chapter 4 from Line 649-670.