Contribution to Rail System Revitalization, Development, and Integration Projects Evaluation: A Case Study of the Zadar Urban Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1）This work is a general case study. The results should be highlighted with some statistical results in the abstract.
2) Railway infrastructure planning is a crucial point that should be addressed considering various factors. It is recommended to include some classical references, like [1-3] in different areas of railway engineering to give readers a full picture of the problem.
[1] Liu, Zhigang, et al. "Review of Perspectives on Pantograph-Catenary Interaction Research for High-Speed Railways Operating at 400 km/h and Above." IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification (2023).
[2] Song, Yang, et al. "A spatial coupling model to study dynamic performance of pantograph-catenary with vehicle-track excitation." Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 151 (2021): 107336.
[3] Zhai, Wanming, et al. "Train–track–bridge dynamic interaction: a state-of-the-art review." Vehicle System Dynamics 57.7 (2019): 984-1027.
3) How to avoid a biased outcome by using the present method? Some necessary descriptions could be included in the final paragraph of the introduction.
4) A more specific title can be given for section 2. The current one ‘materials and methods’ is too general.
5) The railway line is not very distinct in Figure 1. It is recommended to replot the railway lines with a more distinct colour and wider line.
6) The optimisation algorithm can be described in more detail. What is the objective and what are the constraints?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is of interest. The text of the article, as well as the research methodology, are presented in a very accessible manner.
But there are several issues that need to be taken into account.
1. The analysis of the literature sources given in section 1 must be strengthened with critical analysis. This will highlight a previously unresolved problem more clearly.
2. The article contains the numbering of Figure 3 twice. Apparently, the authors made a typo. This needs to be fixed.
3. It is not entirely clear how the risk criterion was calculated. I think the authors need to explain this more clearly in the text of the article.
4. In my opinion, it is better to show the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” sections separately.
5. In the Discussion section, it is necessary to emphasize the disadvantages and advantages of this study in comparison with already known results. It is also necessary to provide the limitations of this study and prospects for its further development.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thank you for an interesting read. Your views are quite impressive.
The article seems fine, but add these few comments:
- the article lacks a literature review section, it would be interesting to mention a few contributions that dealt with similar research and compare them with your idea.
- you could expand the discussion and conclusion section, or separate these two sections.
- figures 8,9,10 could be described more in the text.
Otherwise, the article has an interesting idea and a good presentation.
Thank you!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the article was: Contribution to rail system revitalization, development, and integration projects evaluation - Zadar Urban Area Case Study
The article was written to a high standard and I do, however, have some observations and comments:
The abstract is of an appropriate length
Key words have been chosen appropriately
The literature review could be expanded with additional, more recent items.
Materials and Methods is adequately presented
Figures 1 and 6,7 lack a source citation
Figures 2 and 3 lack a description of the axes, I guess the year
Line 194 should be figure 5
Figure 2-5 does not contain the source of the data.
Figure 8-10 does not contain a description of the axes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsApparently, this paper does not implement a valid optimisation method to deal with the current problem. Only a simple sensitivity study is implemented. The scientific contribution is not sufficient for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
