An Incentive Factor-Based Dynamic Comprehensive Evaluation on a High-Speed Railway Track

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is presenting an interesting topic and is written in clear and straight forward manner. The AHP method is based on experts’ weight ranking and the results change significantly with any change in ranking. I was wondering how the authors came with this ranking. Is it based on the experience, risk analysis, gathered incidents data or just expert’s opinions? If you change the ranking, do you think you will get the same confirmation between AHP and DCE results? This manuscript could be published after applying the recommended corrections.  

In addition, please see to the following comments:

Page 2

• line 48, replace struct with structure or structural
• rewrite lines 62 long short-term needs rewriting

Page 3

• line 110, is the triangle pit analyzing the twist in track.
• One of the important parameters related to the curves is super-elevation (cant). Is this parameter part of your analysis?
• Line 120, Is the data the average TQI for the given track length? If you have any information about the traffic on this line, it is recommended to be presented. For both graphs add labels and units for X and Y axis
• There are other methods like TQI, for analyzing track geometry. For instance TGI and J. (you can find the description of these methods at this conference paper

(https://doi.org/10.1115/JRC2015-5602)). It could be good to look at these other methods and compare them if possible for highspeed track. 

Page 5:

• Line 175, what do you mean by realize? Is it to define the data?

Page 7:

• Line 221, the data was standardized …

Page 8:

• Table 4 and 5, how did you come with this weight ranking proposal? Is it based on risk management or experts’ opinion?
• Line 249, it is better to use irregularities instead of bad incentives. You have used this term in other places as well.

 Page 10 – 11:

• All graphs need x, y labels and units (if appropriate)

Please also see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

     We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments and suggestions that are highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have revised the full text carefully. Revisions in the text are shown using the yellow highlight for the reviewer 1 and red highlight for the reviewer 2. The language and style of the whole paper are enriched.In accordance with reviewer’s suggestion, we hope that the revision in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in applied sciences

    We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses on the current topic of quality assessment track high-speed railway lines. It describes the design of a new evaluation method, which differs from the commonly used one by including the time factor of changes in the evaluated parameters.

I have the following comments on the content of the article:

1. Line 2: The term „incentive“ is not explained properly in the paper. Maybe another word can be more suitable in this context.
2. Chapter 1, line 53 and 55: Name abbreviations (eg. „S.H.“ and „G.Q.“) are not easily understood by readers outside of China.
3. Chapter 1, line 77 and 78: Literature sources No. 16 and 17 have another authors than stated. Please check also all others.
4. Chapter 1, line 93: Explanation of „GM (1,1)“ is missing.
5. Chapter 1, line 114: It is desirable to separate the following text from the previous one, for example by inserting a new subchapter.
6. Figure 1: Description of vertical axis is missing.
7. Chapter 1, line 128: Explanation of „K1006-K1023“ is missing.
8. Table 1: The last column shows the indication that the limit value has been exceeded. This information is missing in the accompanying commentary (it is only listed on line 290).
9. Chapter 2.1, line 144 and 145: Please axplain „left vertical irregularity“ and „left track alignment irregularity“ as well as „right“. Is it an evaluation of a double track line or an evaluation of the left and right rail within one track?
10. Formula No. 10: Right parenthesis is missing.
11. Chapter 2.3, line 194 and 195: Explain how to determine the values of the floating coefficient which should be between 0 and 1 based on the specialist experience.
12. Chapter 3.1, line 225: Change „spearman“ to „Spearman“.
13. Chapter 3.2, line 270 and 271: Explain on the basis of which criteria „three risk sections“ are identified?
14. Chapter 3.2, line 275: In Figures 3-5, the selected sections are not listed in in the same order as on lines 271 and 272 (in logical sequence).
15. Figure 2: Description of both axes is missing. It is also desirable to add kilometers and limits for TQI (8 mm) and DCE (if exist?).
16. Figure 3 and following commentary: What limits are set for individual parameters? Are they the same for TQI and DCE? If yes, why?
17. Chapter 3.2, line 285 and 286: Figures 3c and 3d show a significant exceedance of the limit values, not only „significant fluctuations“.
18. Figures 3-5: For most images, the left axis is drawn in the same color as the monitored parameter, which gives the impression that the limit values have been exceeded at the beginning of the monitored section.
19. Chapter 3.2, line 304: Explain why you rate the section as „dangerous“ at higher fluctuations. How to quantify it?
20. Chapter 3.2, line 306: Explain what do you mean by the "trend line" and why do you rate it in Figures 5a, 5b and 5g as a "potential risk"?
21. Chapter 3.2, lines 308-310: I lack a clear rationale for the evidence on which the newly proposed method is “much more accurate“.
22. Chapter 4, line 313: Specify, if the first sentence in Conclusions is valid for China or for all countries.
23. Chapter 4, line 316 and 317: Explain, why „some potential risks cannot be reflected, and it is very dangerous.“.
24. Chapter 4, line 322 and 323: The text „… proves that the incentive factor-based DCE method is more accurate to identify the risk sections than the TQI method.“ is the same as in lines 308-310.
25. It would be appropriate to supplement the comparison of the graph of the selected parameter (eg Fig. 3c) according to the evaluation of TQI and DCE.

Author Response

  We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments and suggestions that are highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have revised the full text carefully. Revisions in the text are shown using the yellow highlight for the reviewer 1 and red highlight for the reviewer 2. The language and style of the whole paper are enriched. In accordance with reviewer’s suggestion, we hope that the revision in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in applied sciences

  We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors of the article for the modifications made and comments sent to my questions. I agree with the publication of the article in this form. I wish the authors good luck in the next phase of research and putting the results into practical use.