Object Investigation of Industrial Heritage: The Forging and Metallurgy Shop in Taipei Railway Workshop

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Actual situation of the Forging and Metallurgy Shop in Taipei Railway
Workshop is very well described.

To my opinion no scientific proposals included in conclusions based on results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes a study on the Taipei Railway Workshop, and the steps foreseen to investigate the possibility to change the maintenance plant into a railway museum in the form of an in-situ site.

The contents of the paper are original and interesting, and they well fit the special issue on Industrial Heritage.

The research design of the paper is adequate, and the methodologies are suitably described. The manuscript is interesting to read and the level of the English language is adequate.

Thus, in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication, provided that the Authors check and correct some minor inconsistencies, such as the references to the Figures contained in the text (e.g. at lines 245-246, 311-312, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this interesting manuscript, the authors presents a study about the forging and metallurgy shop in Taipei railway workshop for its valorization by means of investigation and exhibition planning. They investigate the possibility for changing the plant into a railway museum. However, there are two aspects to improve as follows:

1. The introduction should be improved by including some current references and showing their main findings and drawbacks. For example, it would be convenient to include references regarding ancient techniques of the forging and shaping processes that help the reader understand how they were done. For example, a current reference may be:
2. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; Bouza-Rodríguez, J.B.; Comesana-Campos, A. Study of ancient forging devices: 3D modelling and analysis using current computer methods. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences-Technical Sciences 2019, 67 (2), 377-390. Doi: 10.24425/bpas.2019.1279632.

2. It is also necessary to explain in more detail section 4 (Exhibition Proposal) by improving sub-section 2 (Computer models and animations). Please, include some references that clearly show the advantages and possibilities of the process of geometric modeling and virtual reconstruction in examples of historical heritage, as well as their educational potential. Some suggested current references may be:
3. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. Agustin de Betancourt’s Optical Telegraph: Geometric modeling and Virtual Reconstruction. Applied Sciences 2020, 10, 1857, doi:10.3390/app10051857.
4. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. The hay inclined plane in Coalbrookdale (Shropshire, England): Geometric modeling and virtual reconstruction. Symmetry 2019, 11, 589, doi:10.3390/sym11040589.
5. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; Galán-Moral, B.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. Agustín de Betancourt’s double-acting steam engine: Geometric modeling and virtual reconstruction. Symmetry 2018, 10, 351, doi:10.3390/sym10080351.
6. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. Digital 3D reconstruction of Agustin de Betancourt’s historical heritage: The dredging machine of the port of Krondstadt. Virtual Archaeology Review 2018, 9, 44–56, doi:10.4995/var.2018.7946.
7. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. Geometric Modeling of the Machine for Cutting Cane and Other Aquatic Plants in Navigable Waterways by Agustin de Betancourt y Molina. Technologies 2018, 6, 23, doi:10.3390/technologies6010023.
8. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; De la Morena-de la Fuente, E. Agustin de Betancourt’s wind machine for draining marshy ground: Approach to its geometric modeling with Autodesk Inventor Professional. Technologies 2017, 5, 2, doi:10.3390/technologies5010002.
9. Rojas-Sola, J.I.; Aguilera-García, A. Virtual and augmented reality: Applications for the learning of technical historical heritage. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 2018, 26, 1725-1733. doi: 10.1002/cae.22039

Formal aspects:

1. Please, at line 117, correct the number of items (4 and not 5), and at line 118, change ‘production roles’ by ‘object research’.
2. Please, improve the quality of the figures, increasing their resolution (300 dpi at least).
3. Please, ensure that all unfamiliar abbreviations are defined the first time they are used (i.e, EMU100 - line 184).
4. Please, correct inconsistencies (the references to the figures – lines 245-246, 311-312, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised version is completed.