Research on the Causes and Transmission Mechanisms of Railway Engineering Safety Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is quite interesting for subsequent application.

As a wish for the future, it would be good to develop recommendations for the practical use of the results of this study and, possibly, the development of regulatory documents that would take into account the probabilistic approach to assessing traffic safety.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

First of all thank you very much for possibility to read your manuscript.

The findings mark a significant stride forward, pinpointing essential risk factors while refining Bayesian network structures for a precise examination of risk transmission. The synergy of indicators with Bayesian analysis fills a critical void in railway safety research, offering a fresh perspective. A meticulous analysis of 233 accident cases spanning 2005 to 2013 casts a wide net over risk origins, covering personnel, facilities, environment, and management, providing rich insights into the multifaceted nature of safety risks. However could you comment why only up to 2013? It is not critic but couriosity.

Strengths of this endeavor include its novel approach, utilizing a multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm alongside Bayesian networks to meet the study's objectives effectively. The detailed scrutiny of risk origins, categorized into personnel, facilities, equipment, environmental, and management risks, offers a comprehensive landscape of railway engineering safety challenges. The practical recommendations poised to bolster safety measures underscore the study's tangible impact on railway engineering practices.

However, the paper is not without its limitations. The temporal range of accident data, confined to 2005-2013, might restrict the findings' current relevance, suggesting a need for more contemporary data in future explorations. Moreover, the acknowledged potential imprecision in risk classification beckons a more refined framework for future analyses. Maybe you can add one-two sentences about future plans. Expanding the study to encompass data from diverse geographies could also enrich its applicability and insight breadth.

In conclusion, this paper constitutes a vital contribution to the domain of railway engineering safety. It illuminates the complex interplay of risks and their transmission within railway operations, grounded in methodological solidity and enriched with comprehensive analyses. While there's room for enhancement through data updating and classification refinement, the groundwork laid by this study is poised to inspire further research and practical advancements in railway safety protocols.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have applied the multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm to obtain the key risk factors related with safety risks in railway engineering department in China. As new apportation in the field, they have used a multi-objective optimization method (Bayesian networks) for study the risk propagation and probability, proposing the suggestions for mitigating these risks.

Abstract should include the gaps covered and main results more explicitly.

Although the references are appropriate, they are not enough. The state of the art should be enlarged with at least 10 recent references more (less than 5 years). Thus, lines 79-98 have not references support.

Figure 2, improve their quality: improve rows nitidity and increasing the size too

Figure 3, improve their quality: improve the alignment, rows nitidity and increasing the size too

Methods are well explained and applied. Authors could indicate why these factors to study and not others or more factors.

As method is newly applied in this field the results show a new perspective and tradability sequence that will make easier to solve some issues.

Authors should add a new section: Discussion, prior to conclusions section, where they compare and discuss the main obtained results with other published in the existing literature (including the new references too).

 

In conclusion section, authors should indicate clearly how the gaps (how using a multi-objective method the safety risks are well analysed) will be covered by this research and the influence of it in safety policies. Include also main numeric results of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have adressed the main comments.

In the state of the art, I recommend to add at least five references more. 20 references is a low number of references for a scientific paper. Think about to add some of these new references in Discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf