Clarification of Features of the Wheel Movement with a Perspective Constructive Scheme on a Rail
, Jozef Harušinec 2 and Maxim Kovtanets 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for conducting a very interesting study to publish it in an international journal. Further information on various issues identified in the manuscript appears below:
1. In the introduction:
- Controversy and divergent hypotheses should be highlighted.
- The main aim of the work should be briefly mentioned and the main conclusions drawn.
For the reader to understand the message. The introduction should be understandable to scientists outside the research area.
2. Literature review is not rigorous. More literature on the safety and:
- Interaction with the railway track (permanent way);
- Wheel/rail interaction;
- Wheel interaction with turnouts design elements;
- Wheel wear;
- Wear on the rails and rail side wear;
- Durability of turnouts;
- Service life of the rails;
- Service life of the turnouts;
- Engine burn;
- Creeping of the rail;
- Running comfort;
- Wheel flange lubrication.
- Service life of the rails and wheel in curve for example with a radius of 190 m, 300 m etc.
For example, lots of recent work done by S Dindar, VL Markine, A Kampczyk, K Dybeł, S Kaewunruen, M Hecht etc. Many work on rail inspections, wheel/rail interaction and monitoring should be appended to improve the comprehensiveness of the paper. Literature and discussion should be supplemented.
3. All indications in the text should be explained. Especially those appearing in the drawings.
4. The equation numbers should be referred to in the text.
5. Legal regulations should be supplemented: norms, technical standards and regulations.
6. Please state how this work is better than the previous (the previous) ways of doing this job. This could take a whole page itself.
This completes the review.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review!
The description of corrections of the revised manuscript are included in the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the basic idea of independent rotation of wheel tread surface and wheel flange in two-point contact is quite interesting. Before the design can be implemented, some stress analyses, especially at the connection between the two rotating elements, would certainly have to be carried out. There is no doubt, however, that friction losses and thus wear caused by the wheel flange contact should be reduced.
Unfortunately, the kinematic derivations in the manuscript are extremely difficult even for the experienced reader to understand due to insufficient explanations. In addition, several inconsistencies and errors are included. The reproducibility of the calculations and results is therefore not possible. Substantial deficiencies which prove why the manuscript in this form is not ready for publication at all are listed below. More can be found in the attached file.
- First of all, I am astonished that you have not referenced one of your publications from 2013 entitled:
Mikhailov, E., Semenov, S., & Panchenko, E. (2013). The possibility of reducing kinematic slip with two-point contacting with rail wheel railway vehicle. Teka Komisji Motoryzacji i Energetyki Rolnictwa, 13(3).
According to this paper, the basic idea was therefore already stated seven years ago. Many of the derivations in this paper and also the structure are identical to those presented here (e.g. Fig.6 in the present manuscript is the same as Fig.4 in the above mentioned one). The only difference seems to be the consideration of a (small) slippage between wheel tread surface and rail, but this only influences the basic statements on energy dissipation quantitatively. Therefore, if the aim of the manuscript is to analyse the effect of the additional slip, then this must be clarified. A clear distinction must be made between what is actually new in the manuscript in comparison to the one from 2013. - Eq. (3): If the angle χ is correctly indicated in Figure 1, it should read CB1 instead of A1B1.
- Eq. (6): The applied cosine theorem should be checked. It does not correspond to the angle χ indicated in Figure 1.
- Eq. (7a), (7b), (7c): All three equations are identical to equation (6) (copy-paste?). Instead of this, the components which are shown in Figure 3, should certainly be listed here.
- Figure 4: Where does this graphic come from? If it is a result of your equations, then please specify which ones. In addition, the used values of parameters (e.g. ß,…) must be given since they are not previously listed in the text.
- Figure 5 and text: Figure 5 shows a velocity VBFP that is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Why is the length of its velocity arrow equal to the one of the driving speed VW, even though V1A is apparently added to it? The text should also make it clear from which coordinate system which velocity is measured, i.e. what are absolute velocities and what are relative velocities. This would help the reader considerably in checking/understanding the kinematic relationships, which is hardly possible at the moment. Due to the large number of different velocities distinguished by upper and lower indices as well as numerous other parameters, a table explaining all variables/sizes used could be helpful.
- Lines 182-184:
…, then the angle of inclination to the horizontal plane of the projection of slip velocity vector of the flange on the rail and the modulus of this vector will also depend on the ratio of the angular velocity of the wheel rotation and the flange.
It seems that the angular velocity of the wheel and the slippage are only entered into both variables via the driving speed defined by the right formula of Eq. (12). Therefore, at a constant assumed, fixed driving speed , Figures 6 and 7 should be valid completely independently of the slippage and angular velocity of the wheel. Only the dashed vertical line for the angular velocity of the wheel would shift horizontally. If this is the case, what exactly do you want to impart?
- Figure 10: Figure 10 is identical to Figure 8 and has nothing to do with the friction power according to equations (24) and (25). For this reason, the correctness of the statements, especially in lines 257 to 260, cannot be verified by the reader.
For the complete review, please see the attached file!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review!
Corrections of the revised manuscript are included in the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have a few major concerns and unfortunately will not be able to recommend this manuscript for publication:
/1/ Introduction: what is this paper’s contribution to the previous works and what is the novelty. It is not clear in the last paragraph, how this work is different from the previous published works.
/2/ Authors have previously published a conference paper: Mikhailov, E., Semenov, S., Tkachenko, V. and Sapronova, S., 2018. Reduction of kinematic resistance to movement of the railway vehicles. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 235, p. 00033). EDP Sciences.
It seems their previous work is addressing the same design and the same problem but using creep effect instead of velocities. The novelty and contribution of the current work and how it is different from the previous publication should be clearly stated in the manuscript. This is critical since the formulations and methodologies in both papers largely overlap.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your review!
Corrctions of the revised manuscript are described in the response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you very much for the detailed answers to my comments. Since it is now clearer from both the title and the paper that this is a follow-up to previously published articles, which merely examines the additional influence of a longitudinal slip, I am satisfied with it. However, since the present manuscript still follows almost completely the structure of your paper from 2013:
Mikhailov, E., Semenov, S., & Panchenko, E. (2013). The possibility of reducing kinematic slip with two-point contacting with rail wheel railway vehicle. Teka Komisji Motoryzacji i Energetyki Rolnictwa, 13(3).
it is strongly recommended to quote it accordingly and to include a small commentary on it. As already mentioned, many of the derivations in this paper and one figure are identical to those presented here.
In equations (25) and (26) you have calculated the friction power and denoted it as "N1B". This is unsuitable and should be changed, since you used the same term for the normal force in Fig. 2. In addition, you should explain in the text beforehand what the two different friction powers according to equations (25) and (26) belong to (traditional vs. perspective design).
The quality/resolution of the figures 8 and 10 in the pdf is not good and should be improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review, 2nd roud.
we send our response in the attached response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have clarified the difference between their current work and
their previous publication both in their reply to my comments and in parts of their manuscript (i.e. abstract and introduction).
Considering the authors’ response, I can now confirm that their
manuscript can be published after implementing the following minor amendment:
Please check the referencing order. Reference 41 appears on page 1 after reference 10?
