An Examination of the Emissions, Cost, and Time of Intermodal Transportation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend including a list of acronyms used at the beginning.

48 - 68 This part is not relevant to intermodal transport.

135 In figure 2: Avustria instead of Austria

137 Big trains are not roadway transportation.

139 Swap body is not for seaway; it is a type of freight container used for road and rail transport.

157 Equation (1) needs to be explained; reference [16] does not help.

162 The main engine and auxiliary engine are accepted as 190 g/kW and 215 g/kwh; it should be written 190 g/kWh and 215 g/kWh.

264 The four case studies should be indicated on a map, better than the one in figure 2, and the km of each route and the speeds should be added to the table. Furthermore, the number of containers transported between Filyos and Vienna should be indicated. The cost of fuel is not the same for different modes; figures 11 and 12 cannot be the same as figures 5 and 6.

267 The first two assumptions made are unrealistic and compromise the quality of the results. Furthermore, the third assumption does not allow the vehicle operating time to be calculated. To do so it is necessary to decide, in particular for case 4, whether there are two drivers on board (faster but more expensive) or one.

Two suggestions:

1) to improve the quality of the study, add externalities to the costs and not only fuel.

2) also consider the case of reaching Vienna through the ports of Trieste or Fiume.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is technically correct, but there are patches of awkward writing (beginning  with the first sentence of the introduction). The paper would benefit from being gone over by an English-language editor.

Author Response

 

1. 48 - 68 This part is not relevant to intermodal transport.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

2. 135 In figure 2: Avustria instead of Austria

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions have been made on Figure 2 and Figure has been updated.

 

3. 137 Big trains are not roadway transportation.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. The manuscript has been updated with the necessary revisions completed.

 

4. 139 Swap body is not for seaway; it is a type of freight container used for road and rail transport.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. The manuscript has been updated with the necessary revisions completed.

 

5. 157 Equation (1) needs to be explained; reference [16] does not help.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made for Equation 1 and added to the manuscript.

 

6. 162 The main engine and auxiliary engine are accepted as 190 g/kW and 215 g/kwh; it should be written 190 g/kWh and 215 g/kWh.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

7. 264 The four case studies should be indicated on a map, better than the one in figure 2, and the km of each route and the speeds should be added to the table. Furthermore, the number of containers transported between Filyos and Vienna should be indicated. The cost of fuel is not the same for different modes; figures 11 and 12 cannot be the same as figures 5 and 6.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Within the scope of the study, fuel consumption is calculated for each transport mode. While diesel fuel is generally used in ships and trains in the calculations, low-sulphur diesel fuels are used in ships with the regulations introduced under IMO MARPOL Annex 6. Therefore, the properties of the fuels used for each transport mode are very similar and the same fuel use is assumed in the study. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

• The operation parameters of different transport modes are given in Table 7.

 

8. 267 The first two assumptions made are unrealistic and compromise the quality of the results. Furthermore, the third assumption does not allow the vehicle operating time to be calculated. To do so it is necessary to decide, in particular for case 4, whether there are two drivers on board (faster but more expensive) or one.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. The manuscript has been edited by revising the assumptions. Two drivers are used in road transportation, and calculations are made according to the regulations' maximum driving time for one driver.

 

Two suggestions:

9. to improve the quality of the study, add externalities to the costs and not only fuel.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Various explanations have been added to analyze different cost elements in the study. However, examining different parameters such as port costs, loading and unloading, traffic and vehicles may cause the study to be out of context.

 

10. also consider the case of reaching Vienna through the ports of Trieste or Fiume.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Aegean Sea transport has not been considered within the study's scope because it focuses on river transport and reducing the burden of the straits from the Black Sea transport corridor.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the application of multimodal transport in container transport, especially the transport route from the port of Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. The study assessed the efficiency of multimodal transport by comparing the environmental impact, cost and time of different modes of transport (sea, rail and road).

 

Introduction：

1.The introduction to the transport mode is more comprehensive, but it can further strengthen the elaboration of the research background and purpose, and clearly point out the innovation of the research and practical application value.

2.When discussing the environmental impact of global transport, more statistics on carbon emissions from the transport sector could be added to strengthen the argument.

 

Materials and Methods：

The environmental impact of different modes of transport is recommended to add references to existing studies to support the comparison of the assessment methods used and the results.

 

Results and Discussions：

1.Chapter words are misspelled（discusions）

2.The discussion section should provide a more in-depth analysis of the trade-offs of different modes of transport in terms of time, cost and environmental impact, and how these factors affect transport decisions.

3.It is suggested that more strategies and suggestions on how to reduce the environmental impact of transportation should be added to the discussion to enhance the practicability and guidance of the article.

 

Conclusions：

1.The conclusion section should summarize the main findings of the study and clearly indicate the specific implications of these findings for the transportation industry and policy makers.

2.The conclusion should highlight the limitations of the study, such as the timeliness of the data, the assumptions of the model, etc., and the impact of these limitations on the results of the study.

 

References：

The formatting of the references is inconsistent and disorganized. It is therefore recommended to reevaluate and standardize the reference format.

Author Response

This paper explores the application of multimodal transport in container transport, especially the transport route from the port of Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. The study assessed the efficiency of multimodal transport by comparing the environmental impact, cost and time of different modes of transport (sea, rail and road).

 

Introduction：

1. The introduction to the transport mode is more comprehensive, but it can further strengthen the elaboration of the research background and purpose, and clearly point out the innovation of the research and practical application value.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

2. When discussing the environmental impact of global transport, more statistics on carbon emissions from the transport sector could be added to strengthen the argument.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

Materials and Methods：

3. The environmental impact of different modes of transport is recommended to add references to existing studies to support the comparison of the assessment methods used and the results.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

Results and Discussions：

4. Chapter words are misspelled（discusions）

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

5. The discussion section should provide a more in-depth analysis of the trade-offs of different modes of transport in terms of time, cost and environmental impact, and how these factors affect transport decisions.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

6. It is suggested that more strategies and suggestions on how to reduce the environmental impact of transportation should be added to the discussion to enhance the practicability and guidance of the article.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

Conclusions：

7. The conclusion section should summarize the main findings of the study and clearly indicate the specific implications of these findings for the transportation industry and policy makers.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

8. The conclusion should highlight the limitations of the study, such as the timeliness of the data, the assumptions of the model, etc., and the impact of these limitations on the results of the study.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

References：

9. The formatting of the references is inconsistent and disorganized. It is therefore recommended to reevaluate and standardize the reference format.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the use of a combination of different transportation modes in container transport from Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. This is an interesting survey report rather a regular research paper, and there are some better steps to be made to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

(1) The introduction section is not well organized. It seems to me that the research question and motivation is not clear. More explanations should be added to clarify the significance and necessity of an examination of the environment, cost, and time of intermodal transportation. These related issues have been studied many years ago, and these related examinations can be found on the Internet. The value and novelty of the manuscript may be weak.

(2) The manuscript should pay more attention to the significance and necessity of investigating the use of a combination of different transportation modes in container transport from Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. Is this route very representative? Are these two places very representative? If so, please give more evidence.

(3) Although some conclusions of the work are interesting, they may not be very significant from the management or planning point of view. The implication of the obtained results can’t be found.

(4) The research in this paper is like a survey report rather than a standardized academic paper.

Author Response

The manuscript investigates the use of a combination of different transportation modes in container transport from Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. This is an interesting survey report rather a regular research paper, and there are some better steps to be made to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

1. The introduction section is not well organized. It seems to me that the research question and motivation is not clear. More explanations should be added to clarify the significance and necessity of an examination of the environment, cost, and time of intermodal transportation. These related issues have been studied many years ago, and these related examinations can be found on the Internet. The value and novelty of the manuscript may be weak.

 

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

2. The manuscript should pay more attention to the significance and necessity of investigating the use of a combination of different transportation modes in container transport from Filyos in Turkey to Vienna. Is this route very representative? Are these two places very representative? If so, please give more evidence.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

3. Although some conclusions of the work are interesting, they may not be very significant from the management or planning point of view. The implication of the obtained results can’t be found.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

4. The research in this paper is like a survey report rather than a standardized academic paper.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Content Description and Contextualization

• Rating: Can be improved
• Recommendation: The study provides a good overview of the importance of transportation modes and their environmental impacts. However, it could more explicitly link its findings to previous research on intermodal transportation, especially in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative and its implications for sustainable trade routes.

Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses, and Methods

• Rating: Can be improved
• Recommendation: The research design and methods are generally clear, but more detail on how specific routes were chosen and how data was collected would enhance credibility. Additionally, explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses at the beginning would guide the reader through the study more effectively.

Arguments and Discussion of Findings

• Rating: Can be improved
• Recommendation: The discussion is coherent but could be more balanced by addressing potential counterarguments or limitations in the study. For example, discussing how geopolitical tensions might affect the viability of certain transportation modes would add depth.

Presentation of Results

• Rating: Good
• Recommendation: The results are clearly presented, but including more specific data on fuel consumption for each mode would further support the findings.

References

• Rating: Good
• Recommendation: The article is adequately referenced, but including more recent studies would enhance its relevance and credibility.

Conclusions and Support

• Rating: Can be improved
• Recommendation: The conclusions are generally supported by the results, but they could be more concise and impactful. Summarizing key findings, explaining their significance, and suggesting future research directions without introducing new information would strengthen the conclusion.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

• Rating: Can be improved
• Recommendation: The English is generally understandable, but there are places where phrasing could be improved for clarity. For example, in the abstract, "The decision of transport modes is extremely important in terms of environment, time and cost" could be rephrased as "The choice of transportation modes is crucial in terms of environmental impact, time, and cost."

Additional Comments

• The paper could benefit from more nuanced discussions on geopolitical factors influencing transportation choices.
• Including more specific policy recommendations based on the findings would enhance the paper's practical impact.
• The study's contribution to the literature is significant, but discussing how these findings might influence future transportation infrastructure investments would be beneficial.

Author Response

1. Content Description and Contextualization

Rating: Can be improved

Recommendation: The study provides a good overview of the importance of transportation modes and their environmental impacts. However, it could more explicitly link its findings to previous research on intermodal transportation, especially in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative and its implications for sustainable trade routes.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

2. Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses, and Methods

Rating: Can be improved

Recommendation: The research design and methods are generally clear, but more detail on how specific routes were chosen and how data was collected would enhance credibility. Additionally, explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses at the beginning would guide the reader through the study more effectively.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

3. Arguments and Discussion of Findings

Rating: Can be improved

Recommendation: The discussion is coherent but could be more balanced by addressing potential counterarguments or limitations in the study. For example, discussing how geopolitical tensions might affect the viability of certain transportation modes would add depth.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. The findings obtained have been evaluated for different modes of transport for the distribution of the products brought from the east to Europe from Filyos port, which is open to development and is one of the major port installation locations. The study has important contributions to the literature to alleviate regional tensions and strait traffic, especially in the Black Sea region. The study analyses different modes of transport in terms of cost, environment, and time. One of the innovations that stands out in the study is the Black Sea and European river transportation without straits. The study examined different parameters and revealed the selection of the appropriate transportation mode. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

4. Presentation of Results

Rating: Good

Recommendation: The results are clearly presented, but including more specific data on fuel consumption for each mode would further support the findings.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. In the study, the fuel consumption of ships is expressed by Equation 1. For road transport, it is given in Figure 4. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

5. References

Rating: Good

Recommendation: The article is adequately referenced, but including more recent studies would enhance its relevance and credibility.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

 

6. Conclusions and Support

Rating: Can be improved

Recommendation: The conclusions are generally supported by the results, but they could be more concise and impactful. Summarizing key findings, explaining their significance, and suggesting future research directions without introducing new information would strengthen the conclusion.

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions. Necessary revisions were made and added to the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

182 Equation (1) needs to be explained reference 20 does not help. What is for example ∑ 𝑺𝑭𝑪𝑨/𝑬 · 𝑺𝑭𝑪𝑨/𝑬 · 𝑷𝑨/𝑬?

because emission and cost are derived from fuel consumption multiplied by a constant, it is better using an index.

396 - 415 this new part is not relevant and can be deleted.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. ME and AE, which are given as sub-indices in the given equations, refer to the main engine and auxiliary engines. The given notations are widely used on ships. This is seen in IMO EEXI calculations. Necessary revisions have been added to the manuscript. 396-415 New paragraphs added have been removed from the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On the whole, this paper has been greatly improved. Suggested adjustments to make the language of the article more concise and clear. It can be accepted in present form.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according most of my comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have revised the manuscript according most of my comments.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.