An Integrated Strategy for Rescheduling High-Speed Train Operation under Single-Direction Disruption
, Leishan Zhou 1, Bin Guo 1,2,*, Yixiang Yue 1,2, Wenqiang Zhao 1, Zeyu Wang 3 and Hanxiao Zhou 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study proposes an integrated dispatch strategy (IDS) for high-speed railways during disruptions. The IDS minimizes passenger delay and operational costs using a two-objective model. It employs a Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II and an algorithm acceleration strategy for improved efficiency. Tests on the Beijing-Shanghai line show successful operational rescheduling during disruptions. Some general comments are as follows:
1. How does the integrated dispatch strategy (IDS) adapt to various types of disruptions beyond single-direction disruption? Is there a plan to develop the strategy for a wider range of scenarios?
2. The paper mentions the usage of Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II). How does this specific choice compare to other potential algorithms that could be used for the problem? For example, PSO has been widely used for railway application as reviewed in ‘Applications of particle swarm optimization in the railway domain’. A discussion here is needed.
3. The algorithm acceleration strategy (AAS) is used to enhance the quality of initial solutions. Could the authors provide more detail on how this improvement was quantitatively measured and how significantly AAS impacts the overall effectiveness of IDS?
4. There are many language issues in the paper, for example in line 38, it should be the railway companies schedule…
5. In line 73, the red grid can be misleading as the lines are also red.
6. How were the weighting factors for multiobjective optimisations.
7. How was the computing speed performance of the algorithm. Parallel multiobjective optimisation techniques are also available out there, would the algorithm benefit from parallel computing? Some discussions are needed
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We appreciate these valuable comments and suggestions, which have been considered in our revision of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. In particular, the responses to the comments are detailed point by point. We italicize the revised original text after each response. We hope this version can meet the high-quality standard of Sustainability.
Thanks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is good but needs improvement. Please find comments.
1. Provide motivation for the study in the introduction section. That is missing currently.
2. The gap in the literature can be articulated by conducting a “mini-literature review” that identifies the main work in the subject field and highlights a gap in it. What is missing in the literature? The paper should be geared towards addressing this gap. This gap is critical to demonstrate novelty and the paper is contribution.
3. There are a few typos and grammatical errors fix the same. The literature review needs to be updated in terms of sustainability and energy saving aspects. Here are a few suggestions in this regard. “Green Lean Six Sigma for sustainability improvement: a systematic review and future research agenda” “" Integration of Lean Manufacturing and Industry 4.0:” and Industrial Revolution and environmental sustainability: an analytical interpretation of research constituents in Industry 4.0
4. Conclusion section needs to be revised in terms of the after-effects of the study.
fine
Author Response
We appreciate these valuable comments and suggestions, which have been considered in our revision of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. In particular, the responses to the comments are detailed point by point. We italicize the revised original text after each response. We hope this version can meet the high-quality standard of Sustainability.
Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is promising; However, the abstract section must present the results numerically on how much minimized the delayed time of passengers and the operation costs of railway companies. Likewise, overall, the figures are shown in low resolution. Finally, the conclusion section must describe in detail the implications of results with values that suggest the importance of the study, implementation, scope, applications, and limitations.
The manuscript must be revised to correct English grammar typos.
Author Response
We appreciate these valuable comments and suggestions, which have been considered in our revision of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. In particular, the responses to the comments are detailed point by point. We italicize the revised original text after each response. We hope this version can meet the high-quality standard of Sustainability.
Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the revision is acceptable.
the revision is acceptable.
Reviewer 3 Report
Despite the fact that various aspects were corrected in the manuscript. The figures are low resolution.
The manuscript has been corrected
