Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper study the aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed trains running in the bridge-embankment transition section in the wind-sand environment. However, the overall quality of the study is not high.

A professional study on the aerodynamic performance of high-speed trains under the action of wind-sand flow has been made in Reference 17, which is similar to the work of this study. The research method of this paper completely refers to reference 17, and the research method is lack of innovation. In addition, due to the lack of field tests, this study cannot simulate the situation of wind-sand flow, so the study is of no practical significance. The image quality of the paper is not high, and there are no cloud images, such as those of wind speed and pressure. Therefore, I think this study does not meet the publication requirements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study presents valuable insights into the mutual feedback between wind-sand fields and running trains in the bridge-road transition section of railways. Using the sliding grid method and examining aerodynamic pressure changes provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon. It would be beneficial to discuss further the implications of the observed lateral force differences between sand and non-sand conditions. How might these findings influence railway design, maintenance practices, or operational procedures in areas prone to wind-sand environments? Also, the following paper would be interesting to enrich your paper

An integrated train scheduling and infrastructure development model in railway networks

10.24200/sci.2017.4397

The study's findings offer important contributions to enhancing our understanding of the aerodynamic characteristics of trains under wind-sand conditions. Further investigations into the long-term effects of wind-sand interactions on train performance and structural integrity could be valuable for ensuring safe and reliable railway operations in challenging environments.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper aims to study dynamic characteristics of high-speed train surface in passing through the bridge-road transition section under wind-blown sand environment using the sliding grid method. I recommend major revision before publication.

1-    There are typos such as the first sentence of abstract where “In order to study the aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed trains” is repeated please check paper thoroughly.

2-      Please clarify how a buried subgrade influence on aerodynamic characteristics of trains during their operation in introduction.

3-      The novelty of study is not clear please elaborate.

4-      How do you distinguish the dynamic characteristics of passing train is due to the changing stiffness in transition zone or the aerodynamic behavior of train?

5-      Please revise conclusion.

6-      On Fig. 9, please specify the train moving direction.

English language needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper is well-organized and represents a good sample of any research paper. However, the current version of the paper needs improvements to be published in a high-quality journal. The detailed comments are given below:

- The literature review should be improved by the last 3 years papers.
- Some of the sentences are too long to read. This affects the readability of the paper.
- It is not clear how parameters were selected. It is suggested to add the list of parameters as a table.
- The objective of the paper should be stated in the introduction section.
- There are no further study suggestions. For readers, further study suggestions provide good research directions.
- This paper must be revised by a native or professional proofreader. There are many basic grammatical problems and typos (even if in the second sentence of the abstract).

- This paper must be revised by a native or professional proofreader. There are many basic grammatical problems and typos.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have properly addressed the problems I have raised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your response I have no more comments.