Dear Dr Grosvenor

Many thanks for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. I find it interesting and suitable for publication in ACP, subject to a few revisions, as indicated below:
- abstract: I think that the fact that you used a nudging above a certain altitude is quite important and explains some of the good agreement of your simulation with observations. I therefore indicate already in the abstract that the simulations have been performed with nudging (except for the lowest ... km.
- p. 3 line 12: "Vaughan et al. (2003) estimated ...", and in several other places: use past tense when referrring to published papers (as you do it, e.g., on p. 4 line 24).
- p. 4 line 4: references should be in chronological order.
- section 2.2: what about the parameterization of convection? I assume that deep convection (which scheme?) is parameterized in the coarser simulations, but not in the 2 km run. What about shallow convection?
- p. 7 line 27: please specify whether you used operational analysis data or reanalysis data.
- section 3.1 and thereafter: time/date indications could be slightly shorter, e.g., just "at 1200 UTC 5 January".
- p. 11 line 4: use consistently the format XXXX UTC 06 Jan.
- p. 11 line 10: I don't understand what you mean by "latent heating through precipitation removal".
- p. 24 line 2: delete "the" before "to allow".
- a critical question about the nudging: I think it is likely that the high-resolution simulations produce gravity wave signals that are not fully represented by the ECMWF analyses used for the nudging. What happens then, if the gravity waves propagate into the layer where the nuding is active? Is the nuding the "killing" then gravity wave, and maybe even spuriously reflecting the wave?
- p. 27 line 9: should read "in contrast to our case".
- p. 27: here you discuss the issue of resolution for generating foehn flows. What about your coarser resolution simulations: for instance, does your intermediate simulation produce a similar foehn as you highest resolution simulation? It might be useful to mention this briefly in the paper (and not only refer to Orr et al. for a coarser resolution run).

Congratulations and best regards,
Heini Wernli