Assessment of the Railway Line Capacity on the Railway Network Using a New Innovative Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The paper is strong in domain-specific depth but would benefit from validation on other corridors to show scalability and generalizability. Have the authors considered testing the methodology on electrified or double-track lines?

- What simulation environment (e.g., OpenTrack, RailSys, custom tool) was used, and how was it validated?

- Can the authors quantify improvement in throughput or delay reduction compared to legacy methods?

Suggestion: Addresses throughput optimization and infrastructure bottleneck analysis, key themes in your paper: DOI: 10.3846/transport.2024.21385

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive study on assessing railway line capacity using a novel hybrid methodology that integrates graphical-analytical methods and simulation tools. It applies this methodology to the Bratislava–Komárno single-track railway line in Slovakia, a congested corridor with notable operational challenges. The authors propose a heuristic framework and simulate various capacity scenarios, including occupancy and buffer time modeling, and compare throughput under different operating intervals. Please consider the following points later: 

• More detail is needed on the simulation tool used (name, parameters, assumptions) to enhance reproducibility.

• The literature review is informative but could be more critically synthesized to highlight the paper's novelty.

• The discussion section could go deeper in interpreting results and suggesting practical or policy implications.

• Visuals are useful but sometimes dense—simplifying or splitting complex figures would improve readability.

• The conclusion should more explicitly connect findings to broader sustainability goals and transport policy impact.

In general:
(1)Please clarify the research question more explicitly in the introduction-clearly define whether the main goal is methodological development, capacity quantification, or application to the Bratislava-Komárno case.
(2)It would be better if you can state the practical implications of answering the research question (e.g., informing infrastructure investment or timetable planning).

 

In methodology level:
(3) Can you provide a benchmark to compare with, e.g., UIC 406 and other existing capacity assessment techniques, and discuss your novelty against them.
(4) what simulation tool you use?
(5) Consider incorporating sensitivity analysis or probabilistic variables to account for delays or disruptions in real operations/ describe how scalable or generalizable the method is for other lines or countries with different traffic characteristics (optional).

 

In your discussion/ conclusion:
(6) Consider rephrase the conclusion to highlight the methodological contributions and how they answer the core research question.
(7) Discuss more explicitly how the findings could inform future planning or policy-e.g., timetable restructuring, investment decisions.
(8) You can also discuss potential limitations of your study and point out future directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the article can be published after minor revisions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a method for assessing railway line capacity, focusing on sustainable transport and the efficient operation of railway infrastructure. While the topic is relevant, the paper has several critical shortcomings that warrant rejection.

1. The proposed methodology does not significantly advance the field of railway capacity assessment. The authors fail to clearly differentiate their approach from existing methods, making it difficult to ascertain the novelty and contributions of their work.

2. The theoretical framework supporting the proposed methodology is inadequately developed. The authors do not provide sufficient justification for their approach, nor do they articulate the assumptions made during the development of their method.

3. The results presented in the manuscript rely heavily on theoretical constructs and simulations without empirical validation. The absence of real-world data or case studies undermines the credibility of the findings and their applicability in practice.

4.  There is minimal discussion regarding the limitations of the data used for analysis. The authors should address potential biases and the representativeness of the case study, which is crucial for assessing the reliability of their conclusions.

5. The manuscript suffers from poor organization and clarity. Key concepts are not well-explained, leading to confusion regarding the methodology and results. Improved structure and clearer presentation of ideas are necessary for better comprehension.

6. The discussion on the practical implications of the findings is insufficient. The authors should elaborate on how their results could influence railway operations and management practices.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addressed the majority of my inquiries, and I therefore recommend proceeding with publication.