Analysis of Lateral Forces for Assessment of Safety against Derailment of the Specialized Train Composition for the Transportation of Long Rails

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the application of a theoretical method, previously developed and published by the authors, for evaluating the "safety against derailment" for a specific case study. The content is interesting, however some modifications must be apported to the paper before being eligible to publication. 

Abstract:

It can be improved by explaining: 

- why the case study is significant in the context of freight train derailments?

- what is the innovation introduced by the proposed method with respect to the state of the art and the already avalaible standards?

Introduction

- in lines 32-37 some numerical data are reported, please add an appropriate reference for them;

- In the paragraph going from lines 48 to 62, it must be highlighted better that derailments can be due to the infrastructure or to rolling stock failures. To this aim, the paper (https://doi.org/10.3141/2289-20) can be introduced as reference. 

- In the paragraph going from lines 48 to 62, it must be highlighted also that, to better investigate the complex phenomenon of derailment, some research activity were devoted to study the problem from an experimental point of view. To this aim, the paper ( https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2021.1877745) can be introduced as reference. 

Computational model

- The first part of Section 2 is more similar to a technical report than a scientific paper. Please improve the manuscript in this part highlighting the features of the descibed phenomenon from a scientific perspective.

- Why only the middle wagon is equipped with the so-called "fixing block" (lines 145-147)?

- Please improve the quality of Figure 2.

- Page 5 and first part of page 6 are quite confusing. Please report relevant data in tables and avoid the use of bullet points to make the text more readable.

- The concept expressed in lines from 289 to 298 is not very clear, please explain better.

- The index corresponding to the wagon with fixing block in Table 6 is below the limit of 1.08 but it's very close. What is the uncertainties present in the shown theoretical method? Please insert some considerations regarding this aspect.

Conclusions

 

- Starting from line 389, a sort of sensitivity analysis is mentioned in the conclusions. It could be interesting to insert this part as a pragraph in the previous Section to assess the robustness of the model.

- Please add a brief discussion on the possibility to use the presented model also on cases different from the one considered in the manuscript.

- Is a validation of the model by comparison with experimental tests planned in the future activities?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check for some minor typo and grammar issues.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled “Analysis of transverse Forces for Assessment of Safety against Derailment of the specialized Train Composition for the Transportation of long Rails”. I recommend accepting after minor revisions.

 

My detailed comments are as follows:

1.   The abstract of the article should be a highly condensed version of the whole text, and should have the content, methodology and conclusions of the study. The abstract of this article describes the content, methodology and purpose of the study, but it lacks specifics on the conclusions of the study, which should be appropriately elaborated by the authors.

 

2.        The number of keywords in the article is usually 4-5, which are related to the content and methodology of the study. The number of keywords in this article is too much, and the authors should consider appropriate deletion.

 

3.        The units of moment (M_A0) in Tables 2 and Table 4 should be in the International System of Units. Authors should check the units in Tables 2 and Table 4.

 

4.        The authors elaborate in line 279 that "there are large forces in Table 2 (A3, A6, A9) because the clearance ∆h is not considered". However, a comparison of Table 2 with Table 4 reveals that the forces at all points except A0 produce large variations, which the authors should explain appropriately.

 

5.        Section 4 of the article is too small and not quite right as a separate section. The author could consider incorporating section 3 or adding the content of section 4.

 

6.        There are two wire tables and three wire tables in the paper. If the journal does not require it, please unify it into three wire tables.

 

7.        The data in the third column of tables 3 and 4 should be changed to decimal point format to maintain consistency.

 

8.        The headings of Figures 9 and 10 have been bolded. Please make them consistent with the headings of other figures.

 

9.        The paper is well organised with the use of more bulleted sequences for exposition. However, it is not used in the conclusion, which appears to be a slightly jumbled logic of the conclusion, and the author should revise the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented manuscript is aimed at the assessment of the running safety of a train during transportation of very long freight.

The manuscript includes the theoretical background, the description of the problem, problem solution and conclusion.

Despite of the authors efforts, it needs the following revisions:

-        Title and the manuscript text: “transverse” should be replaced by “lateral”,

-        Abstract: lines 14 to 16: the sentence is unclear,

-        Keywords: too many keywords, 3 to 6 are recommended,

-        Introduction: lines 28 to 37: the source is missing,

-        Lines 50, 53, 56: correct writing the multiple references,

-        Figure 2, Figure 3: it is not clear, which is the running direction, indicate it, please,

-        Computational model: it is not clear, which theorem was applied for the considered beam,

-        It is not clear, which method was used for solution of the problem. If FEM software, then, it is not clear, why the calculation shown in page 8 is included. If some different approach – not FEM software, it is not clear, what was it?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors,
you should improve the English of the manuscript.
Many sentences are difficult to understand.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the paper titled "Analysis of Transverse Forces for Assessment of Safety against Derailment of the Specialized Train Composition for the Transportation of Long Rails," here are my comments:

1. Need for Experimental Validation: The paper currently lacks experimental data to support its theoretical model. Including real-world data or experimental testing results would significantly enhance the credibility and applicability of the findings.

2. Enhanced Clarity in Methodology: The methodology section requires more clarity and detail. This is essential for the reproducibility of the study and for readers to fully grasp the approach and its limitations.

3. Expanded Discussion on Practical Implications: The paper could greatly benefit from a more in-depth discussion about how its findings can be applied in real-world scenarios, influencing the design and operation of specialized train compositions.

4. Comprehensive Comparison with Existing Methods: A more thorough comparison with other methodologies or models in the field would help to contextualize the study's contributions and situate it within the existing body of research.

5. Addressing Limitations and Future Work: A more explicit section on the limitations of the current study and directions for future research is necessary to guide further work in this area and to clarify the current study's scope.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
all my comments and requests are taken into account.
The manuscript is well improved.
I am satisfied with the current quality of the manuscript.
It can be published in the present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in the present format.