Concept of Efficient Utilization of Railway Station Technical–Hygienic Maintenance Centers—A Case Study from Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the optimization and efficiency improvement of a technical-hygienic maintenance facility at the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia. The topic is clear, the research content detailed, and the analytical methodology demonstrates certain innovation and practical value. However, the current study still exhibits some shortcomings regarding methodological rigor, feasibility evaluation, and the generalizability of the proposed results. To further enhance the quality and applicability of the research, the following specific review comments are provided:

The manuscript uses a considerable amount of average data and estimated values for current state analysis and optimization proposals. However, it lacks a clear explanation of data sources and statistical procedures (such as standard deviation and variability). The authors are advised to supplement the manuscript with detailed descriptions of data collection methods, sample sizes, and statistical analysis procedures. Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify whether the dataset employed is sufficiently robust to support the proposed optimization measures.

The manuscript proposes modernization measures, including automated cleaning equipment and digital diagnostic systems, but lacks comprehensive analysis regarding implementation costs, technological maturity, and practical scalability. It is recommended that the authors incorporate a techno-economic analysis of these optimization measures, clearly outlining the return-on-investment period and evaluating potential technological risks, thereby enhancing the practical guidance value of the proposed solutions.

This research focuses specifically on the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia but does not sufficiently discuss the generalizability of results to other similar railway stations or clearly state conditions required for wider applicability. It is suggested that the authors further analyze and explicitly state the critical factors affecting the applicability of their proposed approach to other stations (e.g., station size, train flow characteristics, and infrastructure layout variations), thus enhancing the broader relevance and reference value of their research outcomes.

 

Recent studies have also highlighted the significance of data-driven strategies in optimizing urban transport infrastructure. For instance, Ji et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110493) proposed a physical-data-driven approach for load identification in tire-type rail transit, offering valuable insights into integrating electric mobility with urban planning strategies. Similarly, Chen et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110596) developed an explicit speed-integrated LSTM network for fault detection under non-stationary conditions, providing new perspectives on predictive maintenance in electric transport systems.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written in English, with clear structure and organization. However, certain sentences and expressions require minor improvements for grammatical accuracy, readability, and overall academic style. Specifically, the authors should carefully proofread for consistency in verb tense usage, clarity of technical expressions, and sentence conciseness. Additionally, attention should be given to the correct use of prepositions and punctuation. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewer comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

Comments from the Reviewer:

Reviewer 1

The manuscript investigates the optimization and efficiency improvement of a technical-hygienic maintenance facility at the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia. The topic is clear, the research content detailed, and the analytical methodology demonstrates certain innovation and practical value. However, the current study still exhibits some shortcomings regarding methodological rigor, feasibility evaluation, and the generalizability of the proposed results. To further enhance the quality and applicability of the research, the following specific review comments are provided:

The manuscript uses a considerable amount of average data and estimated values for current state analysis and optimization proposals. However, it lacks a clear explanation of data sources and statistical procedures (such as standard deviation and variability). The authors are advised to supplement the manuscript with detailed descriptions of data collection methods, sample sizes, and statistical analysis procedures. Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify whether the dataset employed is sufficiently robust to support the proposed optimization measures.

• Thank you for the comment. In the Results section, descriptions of data collection, sample sizes, and applied procedures have been added.

The manuscript proposes modernization measures, including automated cleaning equipment and digital diagnostic systems, but lacks comprehensive analysis regarding implementation costs, technological maturity, and practical scalability. It is recommended that the authors incorporate a techno-economic analysis of these optimization measures, clearly outlining the return-on-investment period and evaluating potential technological risks, thereby enhancing the practical guidance value of the proposed solutions.

• Thank you very much. This has been added in the Discussion

This research focuses specifically on the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia but does not sufficiently discuss the generalizability of results to other similar railway stations or clearly state conditions required for wider applicability. It is suggested that the authors further analyze and explicitly state the critical factors affecting the applicability of their proposed approach to other stations (e.g., station size, train flow characteristics, and infrastructure layout variations), thus enhancing the broader relevance and reference value of their research outcomes.

• Thank you. This has been incorporated and discussed in the Discussion and Conclusions

Recent studies have also highlighted the significance of data-driven strategies in optimizing urban transport infrastructure. For instance, Ji et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110493) proposed a physical-data-driven approach for load identification in tire-type rail transit, offering valuable insights into integrating electric mobility with urban planning strategies. Similarly, Chen et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.110596) developed an explicit speed-integrated LSTM network for fault detection under non-stationary conditions, providing new perspectives on predictive maintenance in electric transport systems.

• Thank you for the valuable comment. These studies have been added to the Literature Review

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written in English, with clear structure and organization. However, certain sentences and expressions require minor improvements for grammatical accuracy, readability, and overall academic style. Specifically, the authors should carefully proofread for consistency in verb tense usage, clarity of technical expressions, and sentence conciseness. Additionally, attention should be given to the correct use of prepositions and punctuation. 

Thank you for the comment. The English language has been thoroughly reviewed and appropriately corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction provides a general context but lacks a strong problem-driven motivation. A more vivid illustration of a typical failure scenario (e.g., winter service disruption due to insufficient THU infrastructure) would better highlight the necessity of the proposed work.
2. The manuscript frequently uses vague or overlapping terms such as “effectiveness,” “operational maintenance,” and “technical-hygienic preparation.” It is recommended to define these terms precisely at first mention and maintain consistency throughout the text. For instance, clarify whether "effectiveness" refers to throughput, time efficiency, cost, or resource utilization.
3. Although the methodology section outlines several steps for workload analysis and facility planning, it is largely descriptive and lacks integration with formal scheduling, queuing theory, or operations research models. This weakens the generalizability of the approach to other stations. Even if simulation or optimization is not implemented, a brief mention of potential formal modeling frameworks (e.g., MILP, discrete-event simulation) would be helpful.
4. The literature review lacks a thematic or comparative structure. Many citations are presented as summaries, without synthesizing the key methodological insights or highlighting gaps that this paper addresses. Additionally, the review is geographically narrow (primarily Eastern Europe), with little reference to international best practices (e.g., German, French, Japanese, or Chinese maintenance depots).
5. The evaluation focuses almost exclusively on time savings, with no discussion of trade-offs between cost, energy use, or personnel scheduling. While quantification may not be necessary, a conceptual framework for evaluating THU efficiency across multiple dimensions would improve the scientific value of the paper.

6.  Some tables contain overly detailed scheduling data that could be summarized. The captions should provide clearer explanations of the table’s purpose.

7. The conclusions are somewhat generic (“efficiency is improved,” “comfort is enhanced”). More specific reflections on which components of the proposal are most impactful or novel would strengthen the closing statements.

8.  Please avoid overly general phrases like “new technologies” or “modern solutions.” Specify which technologies are envisioned (e.g., automatic inspection systems, digital diagnostics, etc.).

9. The paper assumes a fixed demand and station layout. A discussion of scalability or applicability to other stations (with different profiles) would broaden the paper’s relevance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the  reviewer comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

 

Reviewer 2

The introduction provides a general context but lacks a strong problem-driven motivation. A more vivid illustration of a typical failure scenario (e.g., winter service disruption due to insufficient THU infrastructure) would better highlight the necessity of the proposed work.

• Thank you for the comment. In the Introduction section, a paragraph has been added to provide motivation and justification for the proposed solution using a real-world problem example.

The manuscript frequently uses vague or overlapping terms such as “effectiveness,” “operational maintenance,” and “technical-hygienic preparation.” It is recommended to define these terms precisely at first mention and maintain consistency throughout the text. For instance, clarify whether "effectiveness" refers to throughput, time efficiency, cost, or resource utilization.

• Thank you. We have added definitions of key terms and clarified the scope of "effectiveness" in the Introduction

Although the methodology section outlines several steps for workload analysis and facility planning, it is largely descriptive and lacks integration with formal scheduling, queuing theory, or operations research models. This weakens the generalizability of the approach to other stations. Even if simulation or optimization is not implemented, a brief mention of potential formal modeling frameworks (e.g., MILP, discrete-event simulation) would be helpful.

• Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a description to the Methodology section, as well as a brief summary in the Conclusion

The literature review lacks a thematic or comparative structure. Many citations are presented as summaries, without synthesizing the key methodological insights or highlighting gaps that this paper addresses. Additionally, the review is geographically narrow (primarily Eastern Europe), with little reference to international best practices (e.g., German, French, Japanese, or Chinese maintenance depots).

• Thank you for the valuable comment. The entire Literature Review section has been reorganized, and the individual studies have been grouped thematically. At the end of the section, we summarized the current state of research as well as the need to address this issue.

The evaluation focuses almost exclusively on time savings, with no discussion of trade-offs between cost, energy use, or personnel scheduling. While quantification may not be necessary, a conceptual framework for evaluating THU efficiency across multiple dimensions would improve the scientific value of the paper.

• Thank you. We have added explanations and links to the dimensions in the Methodology

Some tables contain overly detailed scheduling data that could be summarized. The captions should provide clearer explanations of the table’s purpose.

• Thank you very much for this comment. Tables 5–11 have been revised and simplified, omitting unnecessary details. We have also adjusted the captions and descriptions for each table in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestions.

The conclusions are somewhat generic (“efficiency is improved,” “comfort is enhanced”). More specific reflections on which components of the proposal are most impactful or novel would strengthen the closing statements.

• Thank you. The Conclusion section has been completely revised. We have identified the most effective and innovative elements of the proposal, as well as provided further recommendations.

Please avoid overly general phrases like “new technologies” or “modern solutions.” Specify which technologies are envisioned (e.g., automatic inspection systems, digital diagnostics, etc.).

• Thank you for the comment. The mentioned phrases have been revised and replaced with specific examples.

The paper assumes a fixed demand and station layout. A discussion of scalability or applicability to other stations (with different profiles) would broaden the paper’s relevance.

Thank you. This has been added to the Discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article analyses and proposes solutions for the technical-hygienic maintenance centre (THU) of railway rolling stock at the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia, focusing on improving the efficiency and quality of the provided services.

The analysis includes an assessment of technological procedures, identification of operational deficiencies, and a comparison of current maintenance standards with the requirements for modern railway technologies.

Most technical-hygienic maintenance (THU) is currently carried out in open areas or directly on the tracks at major railway junction stations, which are primarily designated for train set parking.

The authors set the aim of this study as propose the operation of a new technical-hygienic maintenance centre at the Nové Zámky railway station, considering the current railway timetable after the completion of construction and the launch of the centre’s operations. By establishing a modern THU centre that offers higher-quality maintenance, cleaning, technical inspections, and minor repairs of train sets, it can significantly extend the lifespan of not only new but also modernized railway rolling stock.

The methodology used by the authors provides a systematic approach for evaluating and optimizing technical-hygienic maintenance (THU) processes at Nové Zámky railway station. The methodology consists of 5 key steps, each focusing on a specific aspect of (THU) operations.

By implementing optimization measures, the servicing time per train set would be reduced by 18.4 minutes, improving THU efficiency and allowing for the servicing of more trains.

The article is composed of 7 chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Research Background, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

The author referenced and cited 37 sources of literature (References).

 

Comments

Page 6: Line 232
In equation (2), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 237
In equation (3), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 242
In equation (4), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 247
In equation (5), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 10: Line 402
The authors refer to the Z1 railway regulations, but they do not explain what this is. It would be helpful to add a reference to the source from which this was taken.

Page 12:
On this page, the authors describe the locations of the new halls (HPOS) and (HSU) of the new THU center, including the inbound and outbound track groups and the track numbers. It would be helpful to label these track numbers in the visual picture (Figure 2) for better reader comprehension.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewer comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

 

Reviewer 3

This article analyses and proposes solutions for the technical-hygienic maintenance centre (THU) of railway rolling stock at the Nové Zámky railway station in Slovakia, focusing on improving the efficiency and quality of the provided services.

The analysis includes an assessment of technological procedures, identification of operational deficiencies, and a comparison of current maintenance standards with the requirements for modern railway technologies.

Most technical-hygienic maintenance (THU) is currently carried out in open areas or directly on the tracks at major railway junction stations, which are primarily designated for train set parking.

The authors set the aim of this study as propose the operation of a new technical-hygienic maintenance centre at the Nové Zámky railway station, considering the current railway timetable after the completion of construction and the launch of the centre’s operations. By establishing a modern THU centre that offers higher-quality maintenance, cleaning, technical inspections, and minor repairs of train sets, it can significantly extend the lifespan of not only new but also modernized railway rolling stock.

The methodology used by the authors provides a systematic approach for evaluating and optimizing technical-hygienic maintenance (THU) processes at Nové Zámky railway station. The methodology consists of 5 key steps, each focusing on a specific aspect of (THU) operations.

By implementing optimization measures, the servicing time per train set would be reduced by 18.4 minutes, improving THU efficiency and allowing for the servicing of more trains.

The article is composed of 7 chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Research Background, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

The author referenced and cited 37 sources of literature (References).

Comments

Page 6: Line 232
In equation (2), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 237
In equation (3), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 242
In equation (4), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

Page 6: Line 247
In equation (5), the denominator uses a lowercase n, while the explanation below the equation uses an uppercase N. It is probably correct to use: n – number of observations.

• Thank you for the comments. The above-mentioned remarks have been addressed and revised accordingly.

Page 10: Line 402
The authors refer to the Z1 railway regulations, but they do not explain what this is. It would be helpful to add a reference to the source from which this was taken.

• Thank you. This has been added.

Page 12:
On this page, the authors describe the locations of the new halls (HPOS) and (HSU) of the new THU center, including the inbound and outbound track groups and the track numbers. It would be helpful to label these track numbers in the visual picture (Figure 2) for better reader comprehension.

• Thank you for the comment. The THU diagram has been added (Figure 3).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept