Thank you for submitting the revise manuscript, and detailed response.

I am convinced that almost all of the reviewers' comments are addressed comprehensively. The increased recognition of the extensive underlying model development undertaken elsewhere, and the justification for the need for this manuscript highlighted in your response to reviewer comment 1a, being the most important changes in my eyes.

Before this manuscript is accepted for publication, please can you address two further comments.

1) Please address (either by following the suggestion or explaining why you disagree), the as far as I can see not addressed high-level comment by Reviewer 3 'I would hope that in the final
version there could be a link to the simulation output on the BRIDGE webpage'.

2) The addition of Table 3 is most welcome, but as far as I can see it is not referred to in the manuscript. In addressing this I suggest that you also highlight that the model speed is unlikely to scale linearly with the number of cores. This will avoid any confusion by non-specialists, and acknowledge this limitation in the presented information.

Thanks again for your extensive and considered revisions.