Application of Specific Mathematical Methods in the Context of Revitalization of Defunct Intermodal Transport Terminal: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a Research Study

Ján Ližbetin and Ondrej Stopka

In this version of the manuscript, some of the main problems of the previous version have been corrected. Abstract has been greatly improved, the objective of the research has been oriented towards sustainability and the process of determining the weights of the criteria has been clarified in detail.

I consider in any case necessary to make some additional modifications to improve the content of the manuscript which are the following:

1. Introduction. Paragraph 87-94. This paragraph should be consistent with the 5 sections mentioned in the abstract. Only 4 are listed here and do not match the content of the different sections of the manuscript.
2. Data and Suggested Elements. This section should be called Case Study: Nemanice transhipment station or something similar to make its content clearer.
3. Methods, Results and Discussion. In my opinion, Methods should be separated from Results and Discussion.
4. Conclusion. Conclusions described are very general and should be further specified. From the analysis performed, both the TOPSIS method and the WSA method indicate that the best of the scenarios studied is number two (Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes) over number three (Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes) and number one (Stacker Trucks). A paragraph similar to lines 562-564 should be added. It says that two rail gantry cranes and one stacker truck appears to be the most suitable. May be the need of stacker truck should be briefly explained since it is the worst of the three scenarios studied.

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer 1:

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for its expert opinion and beneficial recommendations. We truly appreciate such a professional expertise.

1. Paragraph 87-94. This paragraph should be consistent with the 5 sections mentioned in the abstract. Only 4 are listed here and do not match the content of the different sections of the manuscript.

The authors have completed the introductory section in order to correspond to the abstract; i.e. a description of all five parts of the article has been rewritten.

2. Data and Suggested Elements. This section should be called Case Study: Nemanice transhipment station or something similar to make its content clearer.

In compliance with the remark, we have renamed the Data and Suggested Elements section to “A Case Study: Intermodal Transport Terminal Nemanice”.

3. Methods, Results and Discussion. In my opinion, Methods should be separated from Results and Discussion.

In compliance with the remark, we have renamed the previous section title to “Solution and Results”. The authors have relocated the Discussion into a separate section 6.

4. Conclusions described are very general and should be further specified. From the analysis performed, both the TOPSIS method and the WSA method indicate that the best of the scenarios studied is number two (Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes) over number three (Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes) and number one (Stacker Trucks). A paragraph similar to lines 562-564 should be added. It says that two rail gantry cranes and one stacker truck appears to be the most suitable. May be the need of stacker truck should be briefly explained since it is the worst of the three scenarios studied.

The authors have completed the Conclusion section with a brief evaluation of the major findings. An explanation of the use of reach stacker along with gantry cranes has also been added. In this case, reach stacker will only be an additional device with a lower capacity (up to 8-13 tons). The device will be used to handle empty containers that are sent to or received from customers after the carriage (shipment) is completed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript studies the possible revitalization of non-functioning intermodal transport terminal. The manuscript is well prepared and clearly presented.

Line 45, the term intermodal transport terminals (ITT) is used throughout the manuscript. For consistency, should the title be amended as intermodal transport terminals?

In the literature review, not many papers have been discussed. 9 out of 55 references, i.e. [7] to [15], have been discussed. The authors have not covered related literature of container terminals and associated planning and efficiencies. For example, from Google Scholar, Gosasang, Yip and Chandraprakaikul (2018), and Othman, Rahman and Ismail, Saharuddin (2019).

Line 147 to 154, the texts read very much similar to Krstic, Tadic, Brnjac and Zecevic (2019) and need to be rewritten substantially. This paper has already been cited.

Line 188, Table 1. For those unfamiliar with Czech Republic system, it is better to explain "a.s." and "s.r.o." Would the company type have any implications on the company behaviors?

Line 242, The meanings of ISO 1C, ISO 1A, ISO 1E, swap body of the C series should be elaborated, and their implications on terminal operations should be explained.

Line 256, the unit pcs should be fully spelled at its first appearance. For easy reference, "pcs" should be fully spelled at table note. Like TEU and ITU under Table 1.

Line 268, the meaning of TEN-T should be fully spelled at its first appearance.

For Section 5, the labeling is confusing. It appears that Scenario 1, Scenario no. 1, Layout no. 1, and Scenario V1 denote the same Case. Scenario 2, Layout no. 2, and Scenario V2 are found in the same Case. It is better to simplify the labeling. 

Line 441, Table 10 shows two groups of criteria: C1 & C3, and C2, C4 and C5. The values of criteria are so close to differentiate. How can the authors justify their values?

Line 444 to 460, the paragraphs read very much similar to Stopka and Simkora (2015) and need to be rewritten substantially. This paper should be cited.

Line 511, WSA should be fully spelled at its first appearance.

Line 538, the comparison between TOPSIS and WSA is interesting. But, the authors did not justify why the findings of Table 17 is correct. Why is V2 the most appropriate solution.

References:

Gosasang, Yip, and Chandraprakaikul (2018). Long-term container throughput forecast and equipment planning: The case of Bangkok port. Maritime Business Review, 3(1), 53-69.

Krstic, Tadic, Benjac, and Zecevic (2019). International terminal handling equipment selection using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model. Promet - Traffic and Transportation, 31(1): 89-100.

Othman, Rahman, Ismail, and Saharuddin (2019). The sustainable port classification framework for enhancing the port coordination system. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logisitcs, 35(1): 13-23.

Stopka, and Simkova (2015). Proposal of landfill site model in the particular territory. Transport and Telecommunication, 16(4): 320-329.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for its expert opinion and beneficial recommendations. We truly appreciate such a professional expertise.

1. Line 45, the term intermodal transport terminals (ITT) is used throughout the manuscript. For consistency, should the title be amended as intermodal transport terminals?

The authors have unified the designation of intermodal transport terminal throughout the article.

2. In the literature review, not many papers have been discussed. 9 out of 55 references, i.e. [7] to [15], have been discussed. The authors have not covered related literature of container terminals and associated planning and efficiencies. For example, from Google Scholar, Gosasang, Yip and Chandraprakaikul (2018), and Othman, Rahman and Ismail, Saharuddin (2019).

The section “Literature review” has been significantly extended to discuss other scientific contributions (even the recommended ones). In addition, this section has been comprehensively rewritten (modified) in order to meet the reviewer 3 suggestions; i.e. not to copy the whole content from other papers.

3. Line 147 to 154, the texts read very much similar to Krstic, Tadic, Brnjac and Zecevic (2019) and need to be rewritten substantially. This paper has already been cited.

The authors in this section analyze the article entitled “Roso, V.; Brnjac, N., Abramovic, B. Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation: The Case of Croatia. Transportation Journal 2015, 54, 496-515. DOI: 10.5325/transportationj.54.4.0496.” These are the authors from the University of Zagreb, wherein the article focuses on a similar topic as the later described article entitled “Krstic, Tadic, Benjac, and Zecevic (2019). International terminal handling equipment selection using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model. Promet - Traffic and Transportation, 31(1): 89-100.” Therefore, the content of this article may seem similar to the reviewer 2. However, the authors insist on the correctness of the cited references.

4. Line 188, Table 1. For those unfamiliar with Czech Republic system, it is better to explain "a.s." and "s.r.o." Would the company type have any implications on the company behaviors?

Table 1 has been modified so that the company abbreviations have been removed since the company type has no meaning in the context of the topic addressed.

5. Line 242, The meanings of ISO 1C, ISO 1A, ISO 1E, swap body of the C series should be elaborated, and their implications on terminal operations should be explained.

The authors have specified the characteristics of individual intermodal transport units. The influence of different types of intermodal transport units on the determination of the transport potential of the intermodal transport terminal is not crucial, as each unit is characterized by a single loading operation. In this section of the article, the authors find out how many transhipment operations will have to be carried out, while it is irrelevant whether the container, swap body or road trailer is being transhipped.

6. Line 256, the unit pcs should be fully spelled at its first appearance. For easy reference, "pcs" should be fully spelled at table note. Like TEU and ITU under Table 1.

Table 3 was modified according to the instructions.

7. Line 268, the meaning of TEN-T should be fully spelled at its first appearance.

The authors have edited the text.

8. For Section 5, the labeling is confusing. It appears that Scenario 1, Scenario no. 1, Layout no. 1, and Scenario V1 denote the same Case. Scenario 2, Layout no. 2, and Scenario V2 are found in the same Case. It is better to simplify the labeling.

The labeling has been unified – as required by the reviewer 2.

9. Line 441, Table 10 shows two groups of criteria: C1 & C3, and C2, C4 and C5. The values of criteria are so close to differentiate. How can the authors justify their values?

Table 10 forms the basic Saaty matrix. The matrix expresses the proportion of preferences of the individual criteria to the subsequent determination of the criteria weights. All the criteria as well as their preference values between each pair being compared were identified and assigned by ten members of the working group, where the particular revitalisation possibilities of the Nemanice transhipment station were discussed. Therefore, only the most relevant criteria are taken into consideration when decision making, and it is highly likely that some of such important criteria could have similar preference values when comparing criterion pairs. If less relevant (important) criteria were taken into account, the preference values of criteria being compared would differentiate substantially.

10. Line 444 to 460, the paragraphs read very much similar to Stopka and Simkora (2015) and need to be rewritten substantially. This paper should be cited.

The original text has been rewritten considerably (replaced by a new one).

11. Line 511, WSA should be fully spelled at its first appearance.

The acronym has been fully spelled at its first appearance.

12. Line 538, the comparison between TOPSIS and WSA is interesting. But, the authors did not justify why the findings of Table 17 is correct. Why is V2 the most appropriate solution.

Evaluation and justification of the order of variants being evaluated are given in first parts of the Discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Title is misleading: I would delete "a research study" from the title. All papers are research studies. I would also remove "exact" from the title.
2. Line 38-39 is a bad definition of intermodal transport. This is not well rewritten. I recommend you to better describe intermodal transport.
3. Certainly contributions of this paper are not well explained and they are not clear and shallow. You should add a paragraph in the introduction to clearly note your strong contributions and strong findings of your study.
4. Following study addresses green and sustainable ports and equipment. You should read it and you can cite and mention it in line 99 and many other places. "A review of energy efficiency in ports: operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 112, September 2019, Pages 170-182"
5. The reason why authors intend to revitalise a defunct terminal is not clear. Motivation should be better explained.
6. Line 161-164 is important to emphasize your difference from previous studies. But it is badly written. You should enhance that paragraph.
7. At the end of line 178, you can cite following study which analyze port-to-port container transport, "The multi-port berth allocation problem with speed optimization and emission considerations, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Volume 54, July 2017, Pages 142-159"
8. Line 203-226 is too long and unnecessary. You should remove that part. Only a couple of vital sentences should be kept there.
9. Line 320-333 can be shortened.
10. What is a stacker truck? I think you mean "reach stacker". You should change the name in the paper, if so, please check English name.
11. It should be shown how equation 2 and 3 are used in the results section.
12. All criteria from C1,..,C5 are about costs. There should be one or two more criteria about green level of each alternative.
13. Language suggestions; "transport speed" should be changed to "rapid delivery" on line 32. Delete line 67. In line 70, replace "the authors of this article" with "we". Delete "by a team of authors from the University of Belgrade" on line 145. Delete such long unnecessary objective, write more entire paper more concise. Delete "in their publications". Rewrite "the literature source [10] written by the authors Lin et al." to "Lin et al [10] "
14. You cannot copy some content from other papers. Entire paper should be checked against plagarism. 

This paper looks into three alternatives for intermodal terminal specifications and ranks them using a MCDM method considering several criteria. The paper requires a major revision to address all above comments. All of above comments are important. They all should be addressed in the paper. I am looking forward to receiving the revision.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for its expert opinion and beneficial recommendations. We truly appreciate such a professional expertise.

1. Title is misleading: I would delete "a research study" from the title. All papers are research studies. I would also remove "exact" from the title.

The authors have revised the paper title as follows: “Application of Specific Mathematical Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Transport Terminal: a Case Study”

2. Line 38-39 is a bad definition of intermodal transport. This is not well rewritten. I recommend you to better describe intermodal transport.

The authors have reformulated the definition of the concept of intermodal transport – as recommended.

3. Certainly contributions of this paper are not well explained and they are not clear and shallow. You should add a paragraph in the introduction to clearly note your strong contributions and strong findings of your study.

The authors have supplemented the Introduction section with one additional paragraph in which they declare the resulting findings. To this end, one additional paragraph has been added even to the Conclusion section.

4. Following study addresses green and sustainable ports and equipment. You should read it and you can cite and mention it in line 99 and many other places. "A review of energy efficiency in ports: operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 112, September 2019, Pages 170-182"

The authors have studied the recommended article and listed it in the Literature review chapter. Apparently, it is also cited and listed in the list of references.

5. The reason why authors intend to revitalise a defunct terminal is not clear. Motivation should be better explained.

The intention to revitalize the terminal is stated in the Introduction section of the article, where the authors state that they are members of a working group that seeks the options to reopen the Nemanice intermodal transport terminal due to the interest by intermodal transport operators as well as carriers in the region to provide their activities within this site. They are aware of the importance of intermodal transport, given the lack of drivers in international road haulage. Another reason comes out from the analysis of the existing state of intermodal transport infrastructure in the Czech Republic. Figure 1 clearly shows the absence of such a transhipment station in the South Bohemia region.

6. Line 161-164 is important to emphasize your difference from previous studies. But it is badly written. You should enhance that paragraph.

The authors have expanded and completed the paragraph.

7. At the end of line 178, you can cite following study which analyze port-to-port container transport, "The multi-port berth allocation problem with speed optimization and emission considerations, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Volume 54, July 2017, Pages 142-159".

The recommended article has been cited by the authors.

8. Line 203-226 is too long and unnecessary. You should remove that part. Only a couple of vital sentences should be kept there.

The authors have modified the mentioned paragraph. A significant part of the previous paragraph has been removed.

9. Line 320-333 can be shortened.

Similarly to the previous, a significant part of the previous paragraph has been removed.

10. What is a stacker truck? I think you mean "reach stacker". You should change the name in the paper, if so, please check English name.

The authors have unified the denotation to the common term reach stacker, as recommended.

11. It should be shown how equation 2 and 3 are used in the results section.

The above mentioned equations were used when quantifying the operational need of handling equipment in subsections 5.1. – 5.3.

12. All criteria from C1,..,C5 are about costs. There should be one or two more criteria about green level of each alternative.

The authors of the manuscript realize that ecological sustainability is also extremely important, but the authors' prime intention was focused on the operational efficiency of the intermodal transport terminal from an economic point of view. This means that the desired scenario being evaluated is as economically efficient (i.e. viable) as possible. The procedure proposed within our case study has been consulted with several terminal operators. In their view, the sustainability of an intermodal transport terminal operation depends above all on the high competitiveness of the terminal. And, the competitiveness of the terminal consists in providing the terminal services at attractive prices (whether for road freight carriers or end customers). And, in order to make prices as attractive as possible, the terminal's operating costs must be kept as low as possible. That is why we have taken into consideration primarily criteria related to costs.

13. Language suggestions; "transport speed" should be changed to "rapid delivery" on line 32. Delete line 67. In line 70, replace "the authors of this article" with "we". Delete "by a team of authors from the University of Belgrade" on line 145. Delete such long unnecessary objective, write more entire paper more concise. Delete "in their publications". Rewrite "the literature source [10] written by the authors Lin et al." to "Lin et al [10] "

All the language suggestions have been taken into consideration and used.

14. You cannot copy some content from other papers. Entire paper should be checked against plagiarism.

All the cited texts (articles) have been substantially rewritten, properly cited and listed in the bibliography.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has improved significantly.

About the texts similar to Krstic, Tadic, Benjac and Zecevic (2019) and/or Roso, Brnjac and Abramovic (2015), the comment is not related to which article to be cited.  If the texts read very much similar to any previous publication, the texts need to be rewritten substantially.

Line 222, In Table 1, two different units (TEU and ITU) are recorded.  It is better to explain why different units are recorded. Suggest to group terminals according to the unit. For instance, in one single Table, the upper panel is for ITU and the lower panel is for TEU.

Line 225, To cross-reference Table 1 and Figure 1, it will be good to number the ITU (i.e. 1,2,3,...) and show the numbers on Figure 1.

Line 467-480, It will be much clearer if the information of each expert is shown in a Table. The table should report: job position, year of experience, position, and, date of survey.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for its expert opinion and beneficial recommendations once again. We appreciate such a professional expertise.

1. About the texts similar to Krstic, Tadic, Brnjac and Zecevic (2019) and/or Roso, Brnjac and Abramovic (2015), the comment is not related to which article to be cited. If the texts read very much similar to any previous publication, the texts need to be rewritten substantially.

The authors have significantly rewritten some of the text from the given cited publication (see lines 156-162 and lines 169-178). The text is not similar to the cited references any more.

2. Line 222, In Table 1, two different units (TEU and ITU) are recorded. It is better to explain why different units are recorded. Suggest to group terminals according to the unit. For instance, in one single Table, the upper panel is for ITU and the lower panel is for TEU.

The authors agree with the reviewer opinion that the units in Table 1 have not been unified; therefore, this table has been modified. First of all, it has been updated and the terminals, which currently do not carry out intermodal transport while focusing on other modes of transport, have been removed. The authors have also unified the units at TEU, given the fact that the TEU unit (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit - equivalent to a 20 foot ISO 1 container) is used as a standard unit of measure in intermodal transport. All other intermodal transport units are converted to TEU unit, e.g. ISO 1A container or transhipable semi-trailer are equivalent to 2 TEU units.

3. Line 225, To cross-reference Table 1 and Figure 1, it will be good to number the ITU (i.e. 1,2,3,...) and show the numbers on Figure 1.

Due to the subsequent unreadability of Figure 1 (its opacity and inaccurate location), the authors have not regarded it appropriate to insert in the Figure 1 specific values of the reloaded TEUs in each terminal. In case of interest, the reader will find this data in Table 1, which is located right before Figure 1.

4. Line 467-480, It will be much clearer if the information of each expert is shown in a Table. The table should report: job position, year of experience, position, and, date of survey.

The authors have supplemented the text with a table listing the individual experts participating in the survey (while determining the weights of criteria), the scope of business and the date of the survey.

Reviewer 3 Report

My previous comments are addressed.

Before paper goes online, authors should correct following minor grammar mistakes in proof reading stage:

Line 38, change "is such multimodal transport (i.e. using at least" to "uses at least"

Line 95, change "the authors clearly prove that" to "we show that"

Line 97, change "device" to "system"

Line 98, delete "such"

Line 171, delete "for such an expertise"

Line 176, change "the characteristics of" to "for"

Line 193, change "having" to "with"

Line 591, change "Operations Research" to "system modelling"

Line 653, delete "out of all ones being evaluated"

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for its expert opinion and beneficial recommendations once again. We truly appreciate such a professional expertise.

Before paper goes online, authors should correct following minor grammar mistakes in proof reading stage:

Line 38, change "is such multimodal transport (i.e. using at least" to "uses at least"

Line 95, change "the authors clearly prove that" to "we show that"

Line 97, change "device" to "system"

Line 98, delete "such"

Line 171, delete "for such an expertise"

Line 176, change "the characteristics of" to "for"

Line 193, change "having" to "with"

Line 591, change "Operations Research" to "system modelling"

Line 653, delete "out of all ones being evaluated"

The authors have incorporated in detail all the reviewer's comments and edited the text. Thank you very much for identifying the shortcomings with which we fully agree.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

The of manuscript ID: sustainability- 709727, entitled Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study is interesting. However, the current version of manuscript is not ready to be publish on the Journal.

The Authors will have to follow the suggestions here below and re-submit their manuscript for a second evaluation.

First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his insight into the subject addressed.

 First, the abstract has not to include the structure of manuscript but it has to include a summary about the gap existent in the literature, the research question, the methodology, and the findings.

- The abstract has been completely revised – as required by the reviewers. It now contains the structure of the paper, a summary of the identified gaps in existing literature, and a research question.

The introduction should be re written providing more details about the existent gap in the literature and the research question. In add, this section has to include the structure of manuscript.

- Several additional paragraphs have been added, as recommended, in to the Introduction chapter in order to describe the subject addressed and its objectives in detail (deeper analysis of the findings of the literature search and the structure of the article).

The literature review is poor. It is not so clear the current gap! Besides, the methodology should not be include in this section but in the methodology section the authors should explain the main reason about the methodology approach.

- The analyzed literature review was extended by a paper with a similar topic addressed. The article is relatively new and up-to-date, which implies that other authors are also involved in such a research field. The authors in this article approach to the methodology similarly, using multi-criteria methods, or their combination; however, they use a different set of input criteria and their weights. Furthermore, their methodology does not comprehensively address the issue of designing the handling equipment (determination of the required performance, operational need), but it only addresses a variant comparison. The results of their study also show that it is a topical subject with sufficient space for further research.

Moreover, I suggest to delete the figure 2. I do not think that is useful for a scientific article, it can be used for a report.

- Figure 2 has been removed, as suggested by the reviewer 1.

It is important to explain the usefulness of results for future research, and for practitioners. Is it possible?

- As required by the reviewers, the Discussion chapter has been significantly extended by several paragraphs. Specifically, the findings achieved have been compared with previous studies. Furthermore, academics, managerial, economic and policy implications have been incorporated.

The procedure was consulted and approved by the experts in the field of transport, intermodal transport and transport infrastructure managers (as our partners).

The authors should include a section to compare the findings achieved with previous studies.

- The sections (in Discussion chapter) describe the major findings achieved and compare them with other studies in detail.

The discussion section is poor. It has to be improved. Academics, managerial and policy implications are missing.

- the Discussion chapter has been significantly extended by several paragraphs. Specifically, the findings achieved have been compared with previous studies. The discussion was further expanded by the political and economic impact of the results, in particular the impacts of implementing transport policy and economic development in the investigated area.

This paper needs a proofreading for the English language by professional provider for scientific papers.

- the whole paper text has been proofread and revised by the native UK English speaker. All the expressions, sentence constructions, word orders and concepts in the certain expertise are now used properly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Application of Exact Methods in the Context of Revitalisation of Defunct Intermodal Terminal: a  Research Study

Ližbetin and Stopka.

This paper studies 3 different intermodal Terminal Scenarios and classified them through 2 methods with authors criteria.

In my opinion, this work is more a professional work than a research work, and I do not think this will be interesting for the readers.

The work presented has the following issues:

This is a very specific study of the intermodal terminals of the Czech Republic, being hardly extrapolated to other terminals in the world. The three scenarios studied (Stacker Trucks, Real Mounted Gantry Cranes and Rubber Tyred Granty Cranes), provide small differences that do not seem to be transcendental when designing an intermodal station The criteria applied to carry out the "Weights of Criteria" are included without any justification; authors simply refer to that “they have been suggested by several experts in the field of research”. The methods used to define the final ranking (TOPSIS and WAS) are applied including very subjective weighting criteria, without clear justification, since no investigation has been conducted.

It is a work that provides methods and parameters that are not the result of an investigation, but of totally subjective assumptions and values, showing that it is a result of technical work and not of an investment work.

For the rest, the article is well written and well understood, but does not provide important information to the field of research and over all, it does not come from the results of the research conducted, but through assumptions and hypotheses made by professionals in these fields.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his insight into the subject addressed.

This paper studies 3 different intermodal Terminal Scenarios and classified them through 2 methods with authors criteria. In my opinion, this work is more a professional work than a research work, and I do not think this will be interesting for the readers.

The work presented has the following issues:

This is a very specific study of the intermodal terminals of the Czech Republic, being hardly extrapolated to other terminals in the world. The three scenarios studied (Stacker Trucks, Real Mounted Gantry Cranes and Rubber Tyred Granty Cranes), provide small differences that do not seem to be transcendental when designing an intermodal station The criteria applied to carry out the "Weights of Criteria" are included without any justification; authors simply refer to that “they have been suggested by several experts in the field of research”. The methods used to define the final ranking (TOPSIS and WAS) are applied including very subjective weighting criteria, without clear justification, since no investigation has been conducted.

It is a work that provides methods and parameters that are not the result of an investigation, but of totally subjective assumptions and values, showing that it is a result of technical work and not of an investment work.

- Even from the title of the paper, apparently, the compiled manuscript discusses a specific case (research) study. This means that the reviewer partially-correctly defines the article as "professional (technical) work". However, in this study, the authors present a general methodical guideline (procedure) to design a suitable type and number of handling equipment, which is based on the long-term research activities of the authors, i.e. definitely it is not based on subjective assumptions and values, as written by the reviewer 2. In the past, the proposed methodology has been investigated as a part of a comprehensive methodology for designing the intermodal transport terminals, from determining the default terminal type, up to specifying the overall operational performance of the terminal depending on the proposed parameters. The Author Ján Ližbetin dealt with this issue in his dissertation and habilitation theses.

- The presented methodology is based on the determination of a possible transport potential, which has been acquired by the market research. This transport potential has been identified and consulted with the potential terminal customers such as METRANS intermodal transport operator, ČESMAD Bohemia (two potentially the strongest customers who will provide most of the terminal's material performance) and other smaller terminal customers who have been developing their activities in the region of South Bohemia, and showed their interest in participation in the intermodal transport systems. The authors of the manuscripts are members of a working group that addresses the issue of re-opening (revitalizing) the examined terminal and proposed just this procedure, with which all the parties involved agreed.

- The second step of our methodology is to determine the operational needs of handling equipment and other terminal elements.

- The third stage of our procedure consists in specifying a suitable variant of the terminal technology operation, which is closely related to the type of handling equipment. And here, the authors disagree with the reviewer´ opinion that the differences in the individual types being compared are negligible. A similar methodology was also investigated by a team of authors from the University of Belgrade (closer information can be found in a literature review, publication [15]). The difference lies only in the distinct exact methods applied and the procedure to identify the criteria set and to quantify their weights. The methodology suggested in [15] is aimed at the criteria affecting the technological operation of the handling devices, which have an impact on the overall flow of shipments through the terminal. This includes, for example, device lift speed, device turning radii, its acceleration, etc. The methodology proposed in our article is based more on the economic criteria that are preferred in real traffic (especially by the above mentioned entities and our partners).

- Quantification of the weights of criteria has been justified and explained. Ten experts from the given field of research were asked to lay down preferences among individual criteria pairs. All the values were suggested by ten members of the working group, organized in the city of České Budějovice in 2015, when discussing the possible revitalization of the transshipment station in the Nemanice industrial site, which was represented by the operators of intermodal transport, Railway Administration of the Czech Republic, national railway carrier ČD Cargo, Česmad Bohemia company, the South Bohemia region, as well as representatives of universities specialized in transport fields of study.

- Certainly, the authors take into account the fact that this is only one of the optional scenarios and do not avoid the discussion or opposition in association with possible other alternatives in the future. The draft procedure can be implemented in practice under any conditions, but it is inevitable to correctly and precisely define the inputs, especially the weights of criteria depending on the preferences of the participating entities.

- The abstract and the introduction chapters of the article have been modified in order to clearly define the manuscript structure as well as the research question asked by the authors when investigating the problem.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your efforts. The current version is improved and it can be considered for the publication.

However, in the final version you have to replace Chapter with Section. Your manuscript is an article for a Journal. It is not a chapter for a book.

I suggest to submit your manuscript to a professional service of proofreading!

Reviewer 2 Report

In this second version of the manuscript, the authors modify the following parts of the original manuscript locally:

Abstract, introduction, literature review, justification of the weighting coefficients and finally expand the discussion and conclusion.

In my opinion the problems of the original manuscript remain in this version, so I still consider that it should not be published. They were the following:

The manuscript is a very specific study of the intermodal terminals of the Czech Republic, being hardly extrapolated to other terminals in the world. The three scenarios studied (Stacker Trucks, Real Mounted Gantry Cranes and Rubber Tyred Granty Cranes), provide small differences that do not seem to be transcendental when designing an intermodal station.

The criteria applied to carry out the "Weights of Criteria" are suggested by experts but not as result of any investigation. The same happens with the methods used to define the final ranking (TOPSIS and WAS). It is a work that provides methods and parameters that are not the result of an investigation, showing that it is a result of technical work and not of an investment work.

On the other hand, in this new version I see the following issues:

Manuscript topic does not seem to fit in the sustainability topics. The three scenarios studied and the two methods applied do not take into account the concept of sustainability.

Abstract explains only the different parts of the manuscript, but it must also clearly explain its objective, the main results and conclusions, which are missing in this version. On the other hand, abstract should be a single paragraph of approximately 200 words maximum (this version has more than 300 words).

Conclusions are still some confused since line 593 says “the objective of this manuscript …”, but line 610 says “the fundamental idea of our research study was…”. Anyway, after reading the conclusions, it is not clear what the research findings really are. This may be the reason why they have not been included in the abstract

Finally, in line 601. “High-quality quality”. It seems the last quality should be erased.