Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structured. The railway steels have been studied for more than 100 years, starting from the Wolher’s work, but according to references the topic is still actual.

Rolling contact fatigue is complex phenomena and the wide knowledge of the authors in needed.

The methodology is up-to date.  Especially , I appreciate the SEM images.

Results are carefully presented with enough figures.

First the results of frequency domain in Figure 7 are not clear, or the explanations are not enough.

Second, it is not clear from which surfaces the SEM images are captured. Figures 10-12 have the same caption.

The discussion part is well written, and the conclusions are supported by the results.

 

The overall impression is for very well written , informative paper which can be published with very few corrections in results part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The description of the device's operating principle in Figure 1 is incomprehensible. It should be detailed.

2. The roughness parameter is missing in the text of the article and in Figure 3b.

3. It should be explained what the horizontal axis in Figure 5b describes.

4. It should be explained why such dimensions of the tested elements were proposed (in reality they are different).

5. Showing photographs, e.g. of defects, at different magnifications causes a misleading image (Fig. 8). The note also applies to Figures 10, 11, 12.

6. How was the change in the volume of the object estimated in Figure 9?

7. The conclusions should also include selected numerical data obtained in the tests.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf