Dear Gregory Church and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting the revisions of your manuscript. I note that the comments from the referees have been addressed extensively and in detail. Since the manuscript has seen some major changes and additions, I will send it back for a second round of review.
For now, please upload the revised version (if you haven't already done so).
Best,
Nanna, handling scientific editor

Dear Gregory Church and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. I have now received comments from referee #2 (S. Tulaczyk) who is happy with the changes you have implemented. The referee has a few technical comments that I think are worth addressing. In addition, I also have some minor comments that I ask you to consider (see below).
Once these small changes have been implemented the manuscript will be passed on to the editorial team for publication.
Thank you for submitting this very interesting study to The Cryosphere. Your reported findings will help shed light on the evolution of englacial and subglacial conditions - a topic where observational studies such as yours are very valuable.
Cheers,
Nanna B. Karlsson, handling scientific editor

Line 32: "they" -> "it" if it refers back to the "englacial drainage system". Alternatively, change "they" to "englacial conduits".
Line 56: "arose" -> "arise" since the following sentence is present tense
Line 97: "to use direct observations into the englacial conduit network" -> "to directly observe the englacial conduit network"
Line 187: The reference to Fig. 1 is a little confusing. Consider adding "location shown in Fig. 1)" otherwise a reader might go to Fig. 1 in search of the Q-Q' radargram.
Line 241: Do you mean Fig. 6 rather than Fig. 5?
Line 398: "... either the sediments lying within the closed during the winter months..." Word missing?