Efficient Reuse of Railway Track Waste Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General recommendations:
Although the Authors’ work is valuable, I have several recommendations, which should be made before the manuscript is processed further. In my view, the methodological proposal shown in the manuscript provides a partly innovative suggestion on the logical connections and steps on the practical side (and can be used as a manual), instead of contributing to scientific-methodological sophistication/development.
Specific comments:
- Regarding language and style, it is worth checking the text with the support of a native speaker or translator to find dozens of inaccuracies and confusing wording. Extensive English editing and revision, as well as editing are essential.
- Table 1.: Column titled “Traffic (Millions of tonnages)”: I see the quantities, but what does this refer to, in what location or area? Quantities for a specific, given system or for other?
- Table 2.: Please include the names of the rows.
Why did you round 10-15 to 15?
Why did you round 30-40 to 40?
How can 10-30 be rounded to 30?
- Line (L) 176-178 and other places in the text: please reduce the number of the expression “for example”.
- L 84-86 and L 90-92: duplication in the content, please revise.
- L139: How does the "cost of fuel" interact with the carbon footprint?
- L212: The content “Slope stabilization, rail-driving (figure 4 centre, right)”: what is on Fig. 4. right photo? “Fishplates to support”: not mentioned in the text.
- Did the authors take all the photos used? If not all of them, please add the sources.
- There are two Fig. 5., Fig. 6. and Fig. 9. in the manuscript, please check and revise. Furthermore, Fig. 7. is after Fig. 9. Several figures should be renumbered.
- The numbering of some of the tables is also wrong, please check and modify it.
- Please consider using the following literature:
Li, P., Li, X., & Li, F. (2020). A novel recycling and reuse method of iron scraps from machining process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121732.
- Several references are incomplete, e.g.: 13; 24-28; 34. Please supplement or modify.
- Please also add the source of the Fig. titled Components of OPC Cement at the figure caption.
- Table 3.: The use of “Etc.” is not preferred in a similar scientific article. Rather, it should be stated that these are the uses that our research has covered.
- Table titled “Track waste classification proposed by authors for second use purposes.”: How and on what basis did you determine the percentages and why are they exactly that high?
- Table titled “Data required for the analysis”: how is it possible that a truck can travel less km on 1 litre of fuel than a dumper?
- Please explain the calculation in the table titled “Carbon footprint estimation for indirect use of rail, sleepers, and ballast” and titled “Carbon footprint estimation to direct use of Rail, sleepers and ballast”. It is hard to decode how each value was calculated only by seeing the numbers. I could judge their correctness by seeing the calculation equations. Maybe these could also be useful for the readers (probably in an annex).
- What is the “10” value in the column of Distance Origin-Destiny (km)?
- I know the meaning of the O-D abbreviation, but it is not mentioned together with the origin-density expression. Please add this into the text or into a footer.
- Table titled “Resume of carbon footprint calculation for Direct and Indirect uses of rail, sleepers and ballast.”: First use and second uses are the two different columns? A formatting error occurs here.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Although the Authors’ work is valuable, I have several recommendations, which should be made before the manuscript is processed further. In my view, the methodological proposal shown in the manuscript provides a partly innovative suggestion on the logical connections and steps on the practical side (and can be used as a manual), instead of contributing to scientific-methodological sophistication/development.
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for his sincerity in his words. This paper is the first step of a more extended research, where the authors want to describe the methodology with a simple example focused on India, where the authors are in contact with local rail infrastructure manager. Authors hope now to have improved the quality of the paper and met the reviewer expectations.
Point 1: - Regarding language and style, it is worth checking the text with the support of a native speaker or translator to find dozens of inaccuracies and confusing wording. Extensive English editing and revision, as well as editing are essential..
Response 1: Thank you for this remark. Authors are not native speakers, but now a native speaker took care of the revision of the whole manuscript.
Point 2: - Table 1.: Column titled “Traffic (Millions of tonnages)”: I see the quantities, but what does this refer to, in what location or area? Quantities for a specific, given system or for other?
Response 2: Thank you for the question, these quantities are from [1] Lichtberger, B. (2011) - Manual de vía. Eurailpress, DVV Media Group, where the author describes the most typical maintenance cycles in Germany on an average life cycle analysis per each material. This has been added above table 1.
Point 3: - Table 2.: Please include the names of the rows.
Why did you round 10-15 to 15?
Why did you round 30-40 to 40?
How can 10-30 be rounded to 30?
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. The names of the rows are now included. Range values are from [2]. The choice of the worst case (the highest, i.e. the most pessimistic) is prudential, as explained in table 2.
Point 4: - Line (L) 176-178 and other places in the text: please reduce the number of the expression “for example”.
Response 4: Thank you. Authors reduced the number of such expressions by reformulating some of them.
Point 5: - L 84-86 and L 90-92: duplication in the content, please revise.
Response 5: Thank you. Now only one paragraphs remains.
Point 6: - L139: How does the "cost of fuel" interact with the carbon footprint?
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. This is a misunderstanding. The authors wanted to say that costs would help the estimation of quantity of fuel. Now “cost of fuel” is no longer in the text (above figure 1).
Point 7: - L212: The content “Slope stabilization, rail-driving (figure 4 centre, right)”: what is on Fig. 4. right photo? “Fishplates to support”: not mentioned in the text.
Response 7: Thank you. It was a mistake, now corrected and fishplates usage is now in the text (second paragraph under figure 4).
Point 8: - Did the authors take all the photos used? If not all of them, please add the sources.
Response 8: In this case, all photos were from authors or from references, in which case the source is in brackets in the caption of the corresponding figure.
Point 9: - - There are two Fig. 5., Fig. 6. and Fig. 9. in the manuscript, please check and revise. Furthermore, Fig. 7. is after Fig. 9. Several figures should be renumbered.
Response 9: Thank you. It was a format error, now it is corrected with all tables and figures re-numbered.
Point 10: - - The numbering of some of the tables is also wrong, please check and modify it.
Response 10: Thank you. This has been corrected now.
Point 11: - - Please consider using the following literature:
Li, P., Li, X., & Li, F. (2020). A novel recycling and reuse method of iron scraps from machining process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121732.
Response 11: Thank you. Authors included this reference in the text as numbered with [7].
Point 12: - - Several references are incomplete, e.g.: 13; 24-28; 34. Please supplement or modify.
Response 12: Thank you again and sorry for these mistakes. The references 24, 25, and 26 are related to carbon footprint calculator. Authors looked at three sources to see whether the results for the carbon footprint should be precise.
Reference 13, 27 and 28 are changed in accordance with the report.
The reference 34 is information on internal railways provided by the firm dealing with this location, RJ Goswami. (chief P.way KMZ, WCR, Indian Railways). Authors provide the reference to his web page.
Point 13: - Please also add the source of the Fig. titled Components of OPC Cement at the figure caption.
Response 13: Thank you for this correction. Now reference is checked and updated. Reference 13.
Point 14: - - Table 3.: The use of “Etc.” is not preferred in a similar scientific article. Rather, it should be stated that these are the uses that our research has covered.
Response 14: Thank you for this point. Authors now corrected it by leaving only the type of uses reviewed during the investigation.
Point 15: - Table titled “Track waste classification proposed by authors for second use purposes.”: How and on what basis did you determine the percentages and why are they exactly that high?
Response 15: Thank you. Indeed the values are from authors’ experience and there is no test to validate these percentages, but as far as these second uses are not main uses, authors estimated these quantities to maximize the use of wasted material. For further investigations, it will be necessary to get values more accurate from laboratory analysis of the material resistance.
Point 16: - - Table titled “Data required for the analysis”: how is it possible that a truck can travel less km on 1 litre of fuel than a dumper?
Response 16: Thank you for this, authors will clarify. This is an estimation. In the case of direct use for the truck there is no need to travel a lot why we normally re used the second-hand close by the initial place.
Dumpers and truck have more or less similar mileage. The contractors who work at these railways’ sites (in India), they use old trucks and dumpers and the data used here are in accordance to the verdict of the drivers who operate the trucks and dumpers. This is the approach the authors took to determine more precisely how much carbon was released during this process. The data used here was taken after the in-person talk to the said drivers by the author with the rest of the details provided by RJ Goswami (Chief P.way KMZ) who helped authors in field research.
Point 17: - - Please explain the calculation in the table titled “Carbon footprint estimation for indirect use of rail, sleepers, and ballast” and titled “Carbon footprint estimation to direct use of Rail, sleepers and ballast”. It is hard to decode how each value was calculated only by seeing the numbers. I could judge their correctness by seeing the calculation equations. Maybe these could also be useful for the readers (probably in an annex).
Response 17: In this case the calculations were made by using a carbon footprint calculator provided by references 24, 25 and 26. These are free web tools to estimate carbon footprint. Authors looked at three sources to see whether the results for our carbon footprint should be precise.
Point 18: - - What is the “10” value in the column of Distance Origin-Destiny (km)?
Response 18: The values are in km for each element considered in calculation, e.g. in table 1 all distances are the same because materials are processed in the same location, thanks to the local availability of manufacturers.
In the case of 10 km, this is the maximum distance to transport this material for a direct re-use, e.g. sleepers in a secondary track located at 10 km from the original position.
Point 19: - I know the meaning of the O-D abbreviation, but it is not mentioned together with the origin-density expression. Please add this into the text or into a footer.
Response 19: Thank you for this comment. Authors explained in the text that O-D is the abbreviation for Origin- Destination. Paragraph over table 7 explains better it.
Point 20: - - Table titled “Resume of carbon footprint calculation for Direct and Indirect uses of rail, sleepers and ballast.”: First use and second uses are the two different columns? A formatting error occurs here.
Response 20: Thank you for this. Format error is now correct.
Reviewer 2 Report
Track materials life estimation. Conventional values for track renewalShould check the traffic of sleeper
the paper looks like a report to genneral readers, and lack of serious investigations, like standard, problems, just list the resuse of waste in non-reserarch style
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Track materials life estimation. Conventional values for track renewal.
Should check the traffic of sleeper
Thank you for your comment. Authors used the values of table 1 from [1] Lichtberger, B. (2011). Manual de vía. Eurailpress, DVV Media Group. These values are from operational experience. Appearance and resistance of the sleepers could be more expressive than the traffic itself.
Point 1: the paper looks like a report to general readers, and lack of serious investigations, like standard, problems, just list the reuse of waste in non-research style.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The authors made a serious investigation considering several resources, in line with the present research stage. Of course, there is much more to do, but authors would here present problem and methodology, an example of how this can be evaluated and tools for decision making.
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Short and concise title
2) Please, reformatting abstract paragraph and delete the blank line
3) Correct Keywords
4) Excellent paper structure
5) Please, reformatting Figure 1, Figure 10, Table 3, Table 4.
6) Page 18, The table could be the number 5. Plaese correct the numbering for the tables and the formatting.
7) Please insert a limitation and future/practical implications.
8) Page 16, Table: Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of uses of scrap waste of railway track according to direct 484
and indirect methods. Please, formatting the content in a figure.
9) Plaese in graph Figure 19 CO2 must be correct in CO2.
10) Is possible insert a methodological path in a figure?
11) Please, correct formatting of table and figure captions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: - 1) Short and concise title
Response 1: Thank you for this, authors have changed the tittle to “Efficient reutilization of railways track waste materials”.
Point 2: 2) Please, reformatting abstract paragraph and delete the blank line
Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. Authors now revised some parts of the abstract.
Point 3: 3) Correct Keywords
Response 3: Thank you for this. Authors made some changes in the keywords in order to represent better the investigation
Point 4: 4) Excellent paper structure
Response 4: Thank you. The paper will introduce the reader about these track elements and shows a methodology to reuse these materials.
Point 5: 5) Please, reformatting Figure 1, Figure 10, Table 3, Table 4.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment. Figure 1 is now bigger, figure 10 has a reformulated caption and tables are now clearer.
Point 6: - 6) Page 18, The table could be the number 5. Please correct the numbering for the tables and the formatting.
Response 6: Thank you. Now all tables and figures have coherent numbers.
Point 7: - 7) Please insert a limitation and future/practical implications.
Response 7: Thank you for this comment. The concept is now in the conclusion section.
“This paper presents an initial methodological research about the type of track waste materials and how they can be treated, this set the basis for future and deeper investigations for each track material individually”.
Point 8: - 8) Page 16, Table: Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of uses of scrap waste of railway track according to direct 484 and indirect methods. Please, formatting the content in a figure.
Response 8: The content follows now an order to better presenting direct and indirect advantages and disadvantages for all.
Point 9: - 9) Please in graph Figure 19 CO2 must be correct in CO2.
Response 9: Thank you for this comment. It is now correct.
Point 10: - 10) Is possible insert a methodological path in a figure?
Response 10: Authors resumed now the methodological part in figure 18 at the end of section 3.
Point 11: - 11) Please, correct formatting of table and figure captions.
Response 11: Thank you for this comment. Authors corrected all graphic material and the tables.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have addressed all of the comments and provided appropriate answers to them.
In my view, the article is adequately comprehensive, setting a good basis for future and deeper investigations for each track material individually.
The text has been sufficiently improved. I have only two minor recommendations:
- A re-check would be necessary in order to correct some remaining inaccuracies (e.g. last sentence of the Abstract: … such us… à … such as…
- The format of Fig. 5., 6., 7., 8. caption is not as required.
I wish the Authors good luck in their future work.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The Authors have addressed all of the comments and provided appropriate answers to them.
In my view, the article is adequately comprehensive, setting a good basis for future and deeper investigations for each track material individually.
The text has been sufficiently improved. I have only two minor recommendations:
Thank you for the commentaries. They are important to improve the quality of the manuscript. Authors would like to thank again the reviewer´s comments. Authors will follow reviewer´s instructions and make the following changes in the paper.
POINT 1- A re-check would be necessary in order to correct some remaining inaccuracies (e.g. last sentence of the Abstract: … such us… à … such as…
RESPONSE 1 -Thank you. Authors have reviewed again the whole manuscript looking for mistakes. Now we think the paper is properly corrected.
POINT 2- The format of Fig. 5., 6., 7., 8. caption is not as required.
RESPONSE 2-Thank you for this. Authors have changed the captions in the mentioned figures and revised the rest in the manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
