Collaborative Optimization Method for Multi-Train Energy-Saving Control with Urban Rail Transit Based on DRLDA Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think, that your article is very actual with high significance of Content.

I recommend you improve parts - Data and methodology - more describe variables and scientific methods, which you used.

Add discussion and spread conclusion. It is necessary to describe limitation of your study and next researches.

Thank you

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and carefully proof-read the manuscript, which we hope meet with approval. To minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.

 

Part A (Reviewer 1, 31.01.2023)

1. The reviewer’s comment: I recommend you improve parts - Data and methodology - more describe variables and scientific methods, which you used.

The authors’ answer: Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper. Following the reviewer’s comment, As stated in the revised manuscript, we have reorganized the structure of the methodological description section in revised manuscript. We also have modified the contents of data and methodology, more describe variables and scientific methods, which we used (See page 7~30, line 317~1001).

2. The reviewer’s comment: Add discussion and spread conclusion. It is necessary to describe limitation of your study and next researches.

The authors’ answer: Thank you for this valuable feedback. Following the reviewer’s comment, we have added some discussions and detailed conclusions from the research. We also have added the limitation of our study and next researches in revised manuscript, which can be found in Page 52, Line 1459~1497.

 

Thank you very much for your attention and your kind comments on our paper “Collaborative Optimization Method for Multi-train Energy-saving Control with Urban Rail Transit Based on DRLDA Algorithm”. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the reviewers. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Applied Sciences. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please elaborate a little bit more about the energy consumption and the traction efficiency, as it seems that it is only related with the mass of the train, which could oversimplify the involved phenomena.  

Consider the following papers to enhance the review of literature:

-          “Research on multi-train energy saving optimization based on cooperative multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm”

-          The energy performance method for the energy model…

-          The validation of the proposed methodology through some way, directly or indirectly.

-          “Research on Energy-saving Collaborative Optimization Method for Multiple Trains Considering Renewable Energy Utilization”

-          “Energy-saving operation approaches for urban rail transit systems” Speed Profile

-          “Comprehensive Optimization of a Metro Timetable Considering Passenger Waiting Time and Energy Efficiency”

Please explain more about how the data for Actual Energy Consumption was obtained.

To discuss the computer resources demanding of the proposed algorithm, in comparison with the computer resources demanded by alternative approaches.

                Two different efficiencies are described in the paper. One is related with the service quality, represented by the waiting time, and the other has to do with the energy consumption. In Table 9, the actual data is compared with the outputs of the DRLDA approach. While there are positive and negative effects, the global average is positive under the use of the proposed approach, that is, the waiting time is reduced, as well as the energy consumption. However, the time and energy results correlate. That is, the DRLDA approach generates both an increased waiting time and an increase in the energy consumption, simultaneously, and vice versa. It could have been expected that a negative – positive effect could occur as a result of the DRLDA algorithm. The paper should discus more such a biased trend, since one of the assessment parameters, the waiting time or the energy consumption, could have been easily obviated. That is, to much calculation effort to show a quite simple output, which is that more waiting users will cause more energy consumption, and vice versa.  

                In Table 9, it seems that redundant rows of data are included. Also in this table, the term “Time comparison” should be changed, to describe the potential time saving effect. In analogy with the term “Energy Efficiency”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and carefully proof-read the manuscript, which we hope meet with approval. To minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.

 

Part B (Reviewer 2, 01.02.2023)

1. The reviewer’s comment: Please elaborate a little bit more about the energy consumption and the traction efficiency, as it seems that it is only related with the mass of the train, which could oversimplify the involved phenomena.

Consider the following papers to enhance the review of literature:

- “Research on multi-train energy saving optimization based on cooperative multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm”

- The energy performance method for the energy model…

- The validation of the proposed methodology through some way, directly or indirectly.

- “Research on Energy-saving Collaborative Optimization Method for Multiple Trains Considering Renewable Energy Utilization”

- “Energy-saving operation approaches for urban rail transit systems” Speed Profile

- “Comprehensive Optimization of a Metro Timetable Considering Passenger Waiting Time and Energy Efficiency”

The authors’ answer: We are extremely grateful to Reviewer 2 for pointing out this problem. Just like what the Reviewer 2 said, we added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Page 4, Line 155~187, Page 4, Line 200~209 and Line 229~242. Thanks for the Reviewer 2’s kind advice.

2. The reviewer’s comment: Please explain more about how the data for Actual Energy Consumption was obtained.

The authors’ answer: Necessary change in explanations about the data for Actual Energy Consumption used in the paper has been added in the revised manuscript (See page 30~31, line 1002~1026). We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

3. The reviewer’s comment: To discuss the computer resources demanding of the proposed algorithm, in comparison with the computer resources demanded by alternative approaches.

The authors’ answer: Thanks for the Reviewer 2’s kind advice. Following the reviewer’s comment, as stated in the revised manuscript, we have added the content of the computer resources demanding of the proposed algorithm, in comparison with the computer resources demanded by alternative approaches (See page 47~48, line 1343~1360).

4. The reviewer’s comment: Two different efficiencies are described in the paper. One is related with the service quality, represented by the waiting time, and the other has to do with the energy consumption. In Table 9, the actual data is compared with the outputs of the DRLDA approach. While there are positive and negative effects, the global average is positive under the use of the proposed approach, that is, the waiting time is reduced, as well as the energy consumption. However, the time and energy results correlate. That is, the DRLDA approach generates both an increased waiting time and an increase in the energy consumption, simultaneously, and vice versa. It could have been expected that a negative – positive effect could occur as a result of the DRLDA algorithm. The paper should discus more such a biased trend, since one of the assessment parameters, the waiting time or the energy consumption, could have been easily obviated. That is, to much calculation effort to show a quite simple output, which is that more waiting users will cause more energy consumption, and vice versa.

The authors’ answer: Thank you for this valuable feedback. Following the reviewer’s comment, we have added some detailed conclusions from the research presented in revised manuscript, which can be found in Page 51, Line 1424~1442.

5. The reviewer’s comment: In Table 9, it seems that redundant rows of data are included. Also in this table, the term “Time comparison” should be changed, to describe the potential time saving effect. In analogy with the term “Energy Efficiency”.

The authors’ answer: Following the reviewer’s comment, we have deleted the redundant rows of data. Also in this table, we have changed the “Time comparison” into “Time Reduction”. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

 

Thank you very much for your attention and your kind comments on our paper “Collaborative Optimization Method for Multi-train Energy-saving Control with Urban Rail Transit Based on DRLDA Algorithm”. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the reviewers. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Journal of Advanced Transportation. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting work carried out in the submitted manuscript. But before proceeding further, the authors are requested to address the following queries,

1. The Abstract can be rewritten. Some words like “more and more” in the first line of the abstract can be eliminated.

2. In Introduction, there are so many numerical values presented without any proper references.

3. In introduction section, there are so many literature works are quoted. Authors are requested to come out with what they infer from that particular paper. They simply mentioned the author details and their work alone. This is not a correct way. Proper review of literature is expected.

4. What is t, b, a in the equation 6?

5. Please check all the equations and provide details of all the symbols.

6. The section “Solving model by GA” in page 12 can be explained in flowchart

7. Figure 5 is not clear. Please provide high resolution images.

8. The authors can provide more explanation towards the evaluation procedure.

9. Please proofread the entire manuscript and correct all the grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and carefully proof-read the manuscript, which we hope meet with approval. To minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.

 

Part C (Reviewer 3, 31.01.2022)

1. The reviewer’s comment: The Abstract can be rewritten. Some words like “more and more” in the first line of the abstract can be eliminated.

The authors’ answer: Necessary change in Abstract in the paper has been rewritten in the revised manuscript (See page 1, line 20~42). We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

2. The reviewer’s comment: In Introduction, there are so many numerical values presented without any proper references.

The authors’ answer: Thanks for the Reviewer 2’s kind advice. As stated in the revised manuscript, necessary change in numerical values presented in the Section of Introduction has been added in the revised manuscript, as well as all numerical values are numbered and referred in the revised manuscript accordingly (See page 2, line 68~82). We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

3. The reviewer’s comment: In introduction section, there are so many literature works are quoted. Authors are requested to come out with what they infer from that particular paper. They simply mentioned the author details and their work alone. This is not a correct way. Proper review of literature is expected.

The authors’ answer: Thanks for the Reviewer 2’s kind suggestion. Following the reviewer’s comment, we have added the proper review of literatures in the revised manuscript (See page 3, line 125~131, page 4, line 175~187, page 5, line 229~241). We also have changed the statement of the problem to clearly separate what is the previous study, which can be found in page 5, line 243~279.

4. The reviewer’s comment: What is t, b, a in the equation 6?

The authors’ answer: Thanks for the Reviewer 3’s kind suggestion. Necessary explain in equation 6 of t, b and a has been made in the revised manuscript (See page 9, line 396~399).

5. The reviewer’s comment: Please check all the equations and provide details of all the symbols.

The authors’ answer: Necessary check in all equations and symbols used in the paper has been added in the revised manuscript, as well as the details of all the symbols are provided accordingly (See page 8, line 365~366, page 10, line 426, page 10, line 428~767, page 11~12, line 471, etc.). We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

6. The reviewer’s comment: The section “Solving model by GA” in page 12 can be explained in flowchart

The authors’ answer: Thank you for this valuable feedback. Following the reviewer’s comment, we have added the flowchart of GA in the section “Solving model by GA”, which can be found in Page 19, Line 645~646.

7. The reviewer’s comment: Figure 5 is not clear. Please provide high resolution images.

The authors’ answer: Thanks for the Reviewer 2’s kind suggestion. We have provided high resolution images of Figure 8 (See page 34, line 1086).

8. The reviewer’s comment: The authors can provide more explanation towards the evaluation procedure.

The authors’ answer: Necessary change in evaluation procedure used in the paper has been provided in the revised manuscript, as well as all detailed conclusions are added and modified accordingly (See page 40~51, line 1166~1442). We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

9. The reviewer’s comment: Please proofread the entire manuscript and correct all the grammatical mistakes.

The authors’ answer: Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper. Following the reviewer’s comment, before paper publication, our paper has been checked and corrected by a professional English Native Speaker.

 

Thank you very much for your attention and your kind comments on our paper “Collaborative Optimization Method for Multi-train Energy-saving Control with Urban Rail Transit Based on DRLDA Algorithm”. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the reviewers. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Journal of Advanced Transportation. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf