Evaluation and Selection of the Railroad Route between Rijeka and Zagreb
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The title of the manuscript states “Development of a model !!! …”.
- The annotation reads "In order to achieve the research aim, a model comprising".
- In «3. Results »specified« Table 1 shows a model… »
- In the Conclusions it is written "A model set in this way can be applied…"
Where in the manuscript is the "model"? In “2.1. PROMETHEE method "there are three formulas. But this is NOT a "model"!
The manuscript regularly reads "method, methods". "Method, methods" is NOT a "model".
- "With the successful testing of the model…" where is it visible?
- Table 2 is a very large table. What is its value?
- What does "Figure 4" show?
- Conclusions should be brief and to the point.
- On the topic "Development of a model for the evaluation of railway infrastructure" [32] in "References" is not enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) A more specific title is recommended to specify what kind of performance is evaluated in this work. Evaluation of railway infrastructure is too wide and general. It is desired to point out the specific focus in this work.
2) In the introduction, the literature review seems to be missing before you introduce the aim of this work. Generally, you have to introduce how this problem is solved in other railways or literature.
3) Apart from the railroad, the overhead system, as reported in [1-2] is the evaluation of the rail infrastructure. Please also point out this with some literature in the introduction.
[1] Wind deflection analysis of railway catenary under crosswind based on nonlinear finite element model and wind tunnel test, Mech. Mach. Theory. 168 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2021.104608.
[2] Pantograph–catenary interaction: recent achievements and future research challenges. International Journal of Rail Transportation 6.2 (2018): 57-82.
4) In the last paragraph of the introduction, it is desired to point out which method is used in this paper and give some explanation on why the selected method can achieve this goal.
5) It is desired to give a schematic to illustrate how this PROMETHEE method works to solve the problem in this work.
6) Figure 1 is totally unreadable. Please consider improving its quality.
7) Figure 4 is not quite illustrative. A legend or some necessary texts are desired to be included to better illustrate the results in this figure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your work. Simulation - there must be formulas!
Reviewer 2 Report
II have no further comments on this paper. Thanks for good revisions.
