Methodology for Quantification of Technological Processes in Passenger Railway Transport Using Alternatively Powered Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  The conclusion part should highlight the importance of this work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The text should be carefully checked by the authors for language/style errors

Author Response

Please see the attachment with the cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduces an innovative approach to quantifying technological processes in passenger railway transport using alternative propulsions. The method is appropriate and well-validated through a practical case study. The presentation can be further improved in terms of the following points:

1. While PERT analysis is mentioned, I would recommend to provide more detailed steps on how it is applied specifically to railway processes so that clarity and reproducibility can be enhanced.

2. The case study on Slovak railway lines is quite persuasive, but including additional case studies from different countries or railway systems could further validate the method and showcase its broader applicability.

3. It is suggested that a sensitivity analysis be performed to understand how changes in key parameters (e.g., energy consumption, maintenance requirements) affect the process durations would strengthen the robustness of the method.

4. I also would suggest a comparison of the proposed method to other existing quantification methods in the literature, so that a clearer picture of its advantages and potential limitations could be presented to readers.

5. The conclusions should be rewritten, the current form is more like an abstract, the authors need to summarize the contents briefly, and present their implications for the railway industry, and potential future research directions. Specifically, highlighting how the proposed methodology can be applied to other contexts would also be beneficial.

6. I noticed multiple typos and grammar issues in the article, e.g., phrases like ”In this paper is proposed” are not grammarly correct, and so is “Methodology is verify within a case study”. Note that these are just two examples, such phrases can be observed throughout the paper, mostly they do not inhibit readers from understanding the exact meaning, but it is preferable for the authors to correct them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Multiple typos and grammar issues can be observed throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment with cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper approaches the comparison between several modular propulsion systems with alternative energies of railway passenger trains, taking into account the technological processes that are carried out in the technical stations of the route.

Most of the work is addressed to the static modelling of three technological processes, namely, the technological process of preparing the train upon arrival at the station, the preparation for dispatch and the process of preparing the train for the turn-arounding. Here, activities dependent on a human agent for execution and activities that do not depend on it are highlighted. The well-known PERT method is used.

The work has the merit of discussing solutions for the modernization of the railway sector, which has been neglected for a long time, especially in the south-eastern part of Europe.

However, the work also has some shortcomings, which are described below.

 Originality/Novelty

The originality consists in joining the static design methodology of a technological process in railway stations with different modular propulsion systems. None of the components is new, but the combination of them leads to an original analysis.

 Significance

The significance of the study is important since it highlights sustainable propulsion alternatives in relation to diesel combustion widely spread today in the majority of processes carried out in railway technical stations.

 Quality of Presentation

 1.The presentation is not sufficiently clear, especially because the large part of justification is based on a number of references in Slovak language. The verification of such literature was a hard and time-consuming task for reviewer (approx. 50% of references are in Slovak language).

2.The Abstract is not clear enough (e.g. at line 18 there is mention related to the graph, but no introduction on the graph is made till that line). Abstract should not contain the abbreviations.

3.The title is Influence of Application of Alternative propulsion….. Therefore it is expected a minimal assessment of that influence in a clear way. In other words, the paper should give a clear answer to the question: What is the Influence of Application……?

 Scientific Soundness

 The scientific soundness is only average because the following aspects (at least):

4. The choice of a static model (such as PERT or CPM) for technological processes in stations must be justified in much more detail.

5. There are insufficient explanations on the modelling of the technological process and on the choice of the linear dependence between the duration of the process and the number of axes.

6. The activity duration distribution function (variables) is chosen as the beta distribution, but without the slightest justification or reference (line 265-266).

7. The work does not provide a clear description of the data used, obtained from the records of real operations (data recording conditions, sample size, its relevance, recording tools, etc.)

8. It is not explained why the duration of the activities is calculated using the fixed number of axes (8 or 12 respectively).

The following typos may also be noted

- sometimes "axle" is written as "axe",

- "measuring" duration is actually "recording" duration,

 Interest to the Readers

In the reviewer's opinion, many readers could be interested in the paper's subject. Still, this interest is diminished because of the lack of clarity on model description.

 Overall Merit:

The authors wrongly claim (in line 194-195) that for the problem of technological processes in the railway station only one reference is available (line a PhD thesis). This is not true (there was Russian and German literature devoted to this issue).

For this distortion, the overall merit is rated as moderate.

 English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

The English language is understandable but rigorously review should be performed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment with the cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was improved according to the majority of recommendations. 

However, the authors are advised to turn lines 75-82 into a single paragraph (because simply dividing the paper content into a list of sections does not improve the clarity of the research).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, Thank You for acceptance of our study and applied corrections, which You have recommended. We are glad, that You are satisfied.

Comments 1: The paper was improved according to the majority of recommendations. 

Response 1: Thank You, Your comments and recommendations significantly improved our article and enhanced scientific level

Comments 2: However, the authors are advised to turn lines 75-82 into a single paragraph (because simply dividing the paper content into a list of sections does not improve the clarity of the research).

Response 2: We did it according to the instructions given by the editors. We discussed it with them and made some improvements. Thank You for Your comment and suggestion.