Encouraging a Modal Shift to Passenger Railway Transportation: A Case Study in Adaptable Rolling Stock Interior Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Using case study research, this manuscript examines the applicability of adaptable interior rail design to facilitate the shift to rail mode. The manuscript merits favorable consideration following extensive revision based on the comment below.

 

It is suggested that the authors incorporate the potential disadvantages in terms of extra cost, safety, and downtime into their analysis by conducting an expert survey to gauge their opinions on these additional measures. The authors are urged to consider expert elicitation research [1, 2, 3] on how to do so, for example. In addition, authors are encouraged to ground the expert survey component of their work by highlighting such relevant literature. If it is not possible to conduct an expert elicitation survey as part of the current study, the authors should at least caveat their findings and note that such expert elicitation studies could be conducted as part of future research.

 

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856419305798

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484721003048

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517306869

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the useful suggestions and changed our work accordingly:

1. As we are unable to include the expert elicitation research in the current study, we included this suggestion in future research (section 6).
2. Furthermore, we included additional references in the introduction section elaborating on research directions to increase attractiveness of public transport to further encourage a modal shift.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented in the paper is interesting. The main aim of the reviewed paper is to investigate how the interior of a train coach can adapt to peak- and off-peak hours during train operations using design science research in a single case study. In my opinion, the paper can be published after taking into account the following remarks:

- the paper text should be prepared according to the Sustainability journal paper template requirements,

- in the Introduction section, the Authors described the features which contribute to the attractiveness of the use of public collective transport. They mention comfort as one of these features. That's true. In the Introduction section, the Authors should refer to the studied problem in more detail and list other features that contribute to increasing the use of means of public transport and increasing its attractiveness. Such solutions are undoubtedly infrastructure solutions such as park and ride systems, which encourage and facilitate the use of public transport, such as e.g. passenger railway transportation. Authors should refer to this problem in the Introduction section while referring to the latest literature in this area, i.e. "The analysis of the factors determining the choice of park and ride facility using a multinomial logit model" doi 10.3390 / en14010203; '"Optimizing the Location of Park-and-Ride Facilities in Suburban and Urban Areas Considering the Characteristics of Coverage Requirements", doi.org/10.3390/su14031502; '"P&R parking and bike-sharing system as solutions supporting transport accessibility of the city", doi 10.21307 / TP-2020-066. One short paragraph in the Introduction section will be enough,

- does the Authors have written permission for further use of this figure "Figure 1. Research design adopted from Peffers et al. [18]."?

- a section called "3.2. Data collection and methods used": how look like the results of these interviews? How many were these questionnaire surveys done?, etc., the Authors should provide more detailed data describing the gathered data,

-  does the Authors have written permission for further use of this photo from Wikimedia "Figure 3. Impression of the current VIRM train interior retrieved from Wikimedia 228 Commons on January 20, 2020."? This remark is dedicated all similar cases in the paper text,

- a section called "4.2. Define the original design problem": there is a lack of definition of the design problem. The presented content is just a simple description. The design problem should be clearly presented,

- on the figure called "Figure 12. Upper and lower coach compartments." the legend should be added,

- is like follows "6. Discussion and conclusion" should be "6. Discussion and conclusions".

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments and suggestions and changed our work accordingly:

1. Corrections were made based on the template, e.g. Caption table 1
2. We have extended our introduction and elaborate on different research directions  to increase attractiveness of public transport to further encourage a modal shift.
3. Figure 1 has been removed in this revision.
4. We added more detailed information about the data collection and design process.
5. We have obtained all rights to publish the included figures or illustrations.
6. The design problem has now been explicitly stated in section 4.2.
7. We have included a legend to explain the figure more clearly.
8. The title of section 6 changed to discussion and implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with the issue of interior design of rail rolling stock

1. The caption of the table should be given above the table. (Table 1)

2. Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4.5 are repeated twice.

3. It would be nice to have fig. 5, 13, and 14 present in the form of tables.

4. Fractional numbers in English are written with a dot, not a comma as indicated in the article.

5. The article does not provide a mathematical or experimental justification for the effectiveness of the above technical solutions. For example, how the dynamics of the rolling stock affects the proposed location. There are no indicators comparing the existing design with the new one.

 

6. There are no specifics in the conclusions.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments and suggestions. We have changed our paper accordingly:

1. We changed the position of the caption of table 1.
2. We corrected the wrong numbers of the sections.
3. To maintain the current design layout, we did not transform the figures into tables.
4. We have changed the fractional numbers in section 5.2. 
5. We have positioned the justification for the effectiveness of the proposed design concept in section 6 as future research.
6. We renamed the title of section 6  to discussion and implications.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

 Accept in present form.