Review Reports - Investigation of the Causes of Railway Track Gauge Narrowing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is quite interesting paper which nvestigate the causes of localized defects of gauge narrowing in railway tracks based on machine and manual track measurements, laboratory measurements, and theoretical considerations. The literature review is very detailed which is commendable. But as with every paper there are some minor drawbacks which should be corrected before the paper is published.

The section conclusion provides a brief summary of research findings but specific recommended procedures and instructions that professional engineers and practitioners can easily apply are missing.

Please omit the paper structural set-up in lines 327 – 334.

The authors use first person like in row 465: "...we selected the sections under study...". Please do not use the noun "we" and "I" in a scientific paper, you should use the noun "the authors" or "the author", or please apply passive mode. The whole paper should be corrected for usage of first person pronouns.

On Figs. 5 and 6 there are red-white pyramids in the figures. Please explain them!

It would be beneficial that authors prepare a figure where they can show the x, y, z, xx, yy and zz directions graphically concerning the text in rows #725-739.

Table 5: what is the meaning of the different color backgrounds in the table? Please explain them in a more detailed manner.

Fig. 8: what is the difference between "geometrically correct section" and "correct section"? Please explain!

Please consider using "bending moment" or "torque" instead of the word "moment" in the whole manuscript;

At row #864: y(x), please explain this function! You need to rename due to the name of the coordinate axes. You should avoid the mixing of the symbols, acronyms, etc. Please try to revise it!

Tables 6 and 7: what is the meaning of the different color backgrounds in the table? Please explain them in a more detailed manner!

Nomenclature: is V is "speed" or "velocity"? The authors used both names but IIrecommend only one of them. In this situation (according to this manuscript) the term "speed" should be preferred.

Nomenclature: symbol "C"; I recommend modified explanation for "C" as "Bedding modulus below the sleeper's bottom".

There are numerous small technical errors in the paper which should be corrected. The following were found:

- Fig. 1 contains text remained in non-English (assumed Hungarian) language, e.g., "mh.", "ipvk", etc. Please modify them (translate in English) and revise;

- In the bottom row of Fig. 1 the left text cannot be read, please fix it (it is the same problem with the top row 2nd text from the left); please modify them;

- Equations (1) and (2): please modify the "sum" (or in other words "summa") signs "i=1 to n" instead of "n" (see Eq. (1)) and "i" (see Eq. (2));

- Fig. 2 contains text remained in non-English (assumed Hungarian) language, e.g., "mh.". Please modify them (translate in English) and revise;

- Fig. 2: the title of the horizontal axis is missing (the reviewer assumes that it is the chainage in hectometer), please supplement;

- Fig. 3, legend: the word "averge" is not correct, please use "average";

- Fig. 3, legend: the meaning/explanation of the numbers with color lines is missing (it is assumed that they are cross-sections with chainage); please supplement;

- Fig. 4, legend: what is "rsz."?

- Fig. 4, legend: what are "avg" texts? Please use "Average" or the same text as in Fig. 3; please revise them;

- Fig. 7: the title of the vertical axis is missing, please supplement is and delete the title of the diagram from the figure (the title of the figure from below the figure is enough);

- Eq. (29), second part: "EI" or "EIy"? Which is correct?

- Nomenclature: the unit of the symbol "k" is missing, please supplement;

- Nomenclature: x-direction, y-direction, z-direction, xx-direction, yy-direction, zz-direction are missing from the Nomenclature. Please supplement them!

- All figures and tables: where you use a symbol or acronym, please double-check whether you need to use italic style for them or not!

The whole paper should be corrected to omit the usage of first person pronouns.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file, which contains a comparison part where you can check all the changes tracked in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research investigated the causes of localized defects of gauge narrowing in railway tracks based on machine and manual track measurements, laboratory measurements, and theoretical considerations. The measures proposed as a consequence of identifying the causes could significantly contribute to reducing the number and extent of local defects in the future.

Section 4.3: More details should be given about the FE model and the simulation process, how to simulate the relaxation, creep, shrinkage and different days?

Author Response

See the attached PDF file, which contains a comparison part where you can check all the changes tracked in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The presented manuscript is interesting; it is dealing with a real case concern in the railway infrastructure. The Authors performed experiments and examine different factors on the gauge narrowing in the various sections. They have studied different loading conditions as well. However, the paper own serious flaws that must be addressed by the authors in the revised version. Therefore, the main queries raised in the Reviewer’s mind are:

Serious comments:

1. The length of literature review is excessive;

2. There are many assumptions in the paper with no justifications nor details;

3. Equations must include a reference;

4. Numerical part has been weakly described, it is not reproduceable.

Technical comments:

· The organization of the introduction and literature review is quite acceptable. However, the reviewer suggests the Authors to shorten the literature review section. Looking into the references cited, it can be conclude that they are properly assigned but too many details were considered for each reference. Please summarise it and strive to highlight the most important points.

· The second paragraph of the novelty section is somehow repetitive already mentioned in the abstract.

· The structural setup of the paper can be included in the last paragraph of the introduction as it was already partially explained. .

· Wherever introducing equations, it is recommended to cite a reference for them unless it has been developed by the Authors.

· It is recommended to use the passive tense instead of active tense (“WE”) in the academic manuscript.

· Do you have any figure of sleepers? In section 4.1, you gave some information about the dimensions only.

· Line 569, “L4 SV-type” it is not clearly defined.

· Line 576, the speed was set to 160 km/h, what about other velocities?

· Line 577, “Zimmermann method” has been stated with no prior definition nor details.

· The same comment for the “Eisenmann dynamic factor”

· Line 587, there are some assumption with no justifications. Why??

· Line 604, how did you arrive at a conclusion that 65-70% of the load is conveyed onto one sleeper?

· Figure 5 shows the numerical FEM model, right, to apply the load, a surface was considered and then a reference point has been assigned to carry the load, right? If so, you must clearly explain in the text.

· Combine figure 5 and figure 6, they are mainly showing the same thing with a small difference.

· The Reviewer got confused in terms of numerical modelling. You measured the values experimentally and modelling them simultaneously? Right? I mean section 4.3 is related to the numerical results or experimental measurement? If experiments, why did you include it in the numerical section, Table 3?

· The paper seriously lacks the following aspects and details on the numerical modelling:

a. How did you model your numerical problem? It is just mentioned by Ansys. more detail is needed.

b. How did you mesh it? Total number of nodes and elements must be indicated?

c. What was your meshing strategy? Any convergence studies on the mesh density?

d. Boundary conditions? How did you define the boundary conditions?

e. Constraints? Any contact?

· Section 5.1, temperature term dominancy, how did you model it numerically? Any thermal-displacement analysis?

· Section 5.4, lateral buckling, line 800, distorted geometry? It is vague! What do you mean of the distorted geometry?

Very Best

The Reviewer

Please see the reviewer comments.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file, which contains a comparison part where you can check all the changes tracked in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The Reviewer appreciates your efforts to address his main concerns. Therefore, an acceptance is recommended at this stage.

Very best regards,

The Reviewer