Difference between revisions of "Milestone-Proposal talk:Budapest Metroline No.1."
(→general remark -- Tonydavies (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
(→Advocate comment -- ~~~~: new section)
|Line 64:||Line 64:|
Revision as of 18:13, 2 April 2019
I'm Mort Hans, your milestone proposal advocate.
I read the draft version when it was first submitted and decided to wait until the final version was officially submitted and found the history and development of the Budapest subway system of great interest.
My primary concern is that the proposal does not adequately support a technological or scientific achievement of the Budapest Metroline No.1 in terms of the electrical technology that went into its design. The proposal emphasis is instead more on the construction of the line from a civil engineering and social benefit view. That it was the first modern subway built on the continent in itself is not adequate. What is needed is how electrical engineering innovation or adaptation of existing electrical devices contributed to it success.
For example, how did it compare with the London Underground in terms of the bogie traction motors built by the Shlick Forgery and Machine Factory, the four rail system vs the Metroline No.1 above ground current collector. What about the electrical power requirements to power the system? Did Siemens and Halske also build the Akacfa Street power plant and was the 300V steam turbine generators innovative compared with the London Underground system or existing tram systems. Were the electric devices made by Siemens and Halske new designs or adaptions of in use by surface trams? In general were the electrical parts of the system adaptions of devices in use on the surface trams?
When you are satisfied with the proposal and are ready to submit it again please review the citation in terms of the milestone summarizing the achievement and its significance. Here's an example of an approved citation: http://ethw.org/Milestones:Alternating-Current_Electrification_of_the_New_York,_New_Haven_%26_Hartford_Railroad,_1907
This was a pioneering venture in mainline railroad electrification. It established single-phase alternating current as a technical and economical alternative to direct current. This concept exerted considerable influence over subsequent systems both in the United States and abroad. The major components of the system were developed by the engineering staffs of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company of East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Please keep in mind that the IEEE History Committee will have to approve and recommend your proposal as a milestone. The members have diverse backgrounds but their primary interest will be in the electrical engineering aspects of the achievement. While I personally found the historical and construction aspects of the proposal of much interest their length and detail compared with electrical technology aspects were perhaps more than necessary.
Please keep in mind that my responsibility is to provide guidance on submitting a successful proposal.
Further remarks about the Citation:
Because it is in the English Language, the company name would be better with '&' (ampersand) replacing the German 'und' in Siemens and Halske. The format with & is in common use.
The name of the Schlick company is not translated properly. Forgery has a different meaning! In the name "Schlick-féle Vasöntöde és Gépgyár Részvénytársaság" a better translation of Vasöntöde would be Foundry or Iron Foundry. Since there is a (subsequently formed and unrelated) German company called Schlick, it would be better to make clear that it is a Hungarian company called Schlick which is referred to. It was formed by Ignac Schlick in Buda.
Prof. Dr. Anthony C Davies., Emeritus Professor, King's College London and IEEE Region 8 History Activities Coordinator. 2018 Feb 21st
Re: Advocate Comment -- Kadarpeter (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I am going to develop it. I'll return soon, regards
Dear Peter, I look forward to your update. Mort Hans
general remark -- Tonydavies (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the Budapest Metro line no 1 does merit a History Milestone award. It is well established as the first electrical underground railway system in the whole of continental Europe, following very soon after the one in London, England. The Hungarian industry development of electrical supply and traction was very advanced with many leading ideas and new inventions at this time, and although I am not personally an expert on the 'heavy electrical engineering' history', it would be surprising if these innovative aspects were not to be found in the facilities of the Metro Line No 1. it is one of a number of electrical-related topics in Hungary which I believe deserve the award of a milestone. I agree with the remarks that the electrical engineering aspects might be given more emphasis in the proposal, the other material is interesting and comprehensive but when the citation is chosen, the electrical aspects should be prominent. Another aspect is that the metro line was refurbished recently to match the historical aspects and appearance, it is more evidently a tourist attraction and having a visible IEEE History Milestone Plaque would also be good for IEEE's reputation.
Prof. Dr. Anthony C Davies., Emeritus Professor, King's College London and IEEE Region 8 History Activities Coordinator. 2018 Feb 12th
Dear Prof. Davies, Thank you for your comments. Perhaps after this milestone is approved some other firsts associated with Hungary might be considered. Mort Hans Milestone Advocate
Advocate comment -- Administrator1 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
With your excellent revision of the features section of the milestone proposal and upon receiving the required review comments by two experts I will recommend its consideration for approval by the IEEE History Center Committee. I do suggest that you consider revising the plaque citation to better reflect the several achievements cited in the features section of the proposal. If you can provide me with the email addresses of two experts I will ask them to review the proposal.
- 1 Advocate Comment -- Museum (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- 2 general remark -- Tonydavies (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- 3 Advocate comment -- Administrator1 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)