Milestone-Proposal talk:MARS-1

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and in the citation?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the Advocate. If the Advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the Advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful?
8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement?
9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
10. Will the citation be read correctly in the future by only using past tense? Does the citation wording avoid statements that read accurately only at the time that the proposal is written?
11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
13. Are any scientific and technical units correct (e.g., km, mm, hertz, etc.)? Are acronyms correct and properly upper-cased or lower-cased? Are the letters in any acronym explained in the title or the citation?
14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations
15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title?
16. Note that it is the Advocate's responsibility to confirm that the independent reviewers have no conflict of interest (e.g., that they do not work for a company or a team involved in the achievement being proposed, that they have not published with the proposer(s), and have not worked on a project related to the funding of the achievement). An example of a way to check for this would be to search reviewers' publications on IEEE Xplore.

Re: Advocates’ Checklist -- HiroshiSuzuki (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you fo ryour submision of the items.

Hiroshi Suzuki The proposer.

Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?
5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log

Submitted date: 28 October 2022
Advocate approval date: 29 May 2024
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Review by Expert 1 Dr Joseph Preece (Research Fellow in Rail Electronic, Electrical & Systems Engineering, University of Birmingham) inserted by the advocate -- JaninA (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

From: Joseph Preece <j.d.preece@bham.ac.uk> Date: Thursday, 4 April 2024 at 23:58 To: Janina Mazierska <janina.mazierska@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Kind reminder: Invitation to review an IEEE Milestone nomination 2022-16 "The World’s First On-Line Real-Time Train Seat Reservation System, 1960"

Hello Janina,

Apologies for the delay. Here is my review, in response to the questions asked:

The wording is written in clear English. However, it does not showcase the significant achievement of MARS-1, which is that it was the first reservation system of its kind for the railways. It would benefit to include this. The references provide a clear timeline of MARS. If possible, it would be beneficial to see references on the comparison to other systems, to prove it's claim as the first. However, this is not a necessity. Yes. It was the first of its kind for a railway seat reservation system and was a large improvement over similar systems to bring the processing time down to deal with a larger number of tickets. The legacy of MARS remains to this day, as versions of the system are still in use. The proposal discusses its similarities with the American Airlines approach. However, it goes into ample details of how these systems different, specifically the hardware differences that enabled MARS to process a greater number of reservations. Regarding similar awards, MARS has already been awarded a plaque from the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. I hope this review is of use. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need me to clarify anything!

Kind regards, Joe

Re: Review by Expert 1 Dr Joseph Preece (Research Fellow in Rail Electronic, Electrical & Systems Engineering, University of Birmingham) inserted by the advocate -- HiroshiSuzuki (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Preece for your positive comments. I will modify the proposal.

Hiroshi Suzuki The proposer.

Expert review by Expert 1 Dr Preece continuation inserted by the advocate -- JaninA (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, 01:46 Joseph Preece, <j.d.preece@bham.ac.uk> wrote: Hi Janina, The MARS-1 system is a worthy candidate for the IEEE Milestone Award. Upon its creation, it represented a significant leap forward in seat reservation systems compared with similar attempts, integrating meticulous hardware design with the system requirements, showcasing a due level of skill and deliberation. Its lasting legacy is evident in the iterative and subsequent systems used in Japan, which still bear the name of the original. With such enduring impact and influence, I recommend MARS-1 for this award. Dr Joe Preece, University of Birmingham

Review by Expert 2 Mr David Sarfatti (Senior Passenger Advisor, UIC: Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer) inserted by the advocate -- JaninA (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

From: SARFATTI David <SARFATTI@uic.org> Date: Tuesday, 9 April 2024 at 21:47 To: Janina Mazierska <janina.mazierska@gmail.com> Subject: RE: kind reminder: Invitation to review an IEEE Milestone nomination 2022-16 "The World’s First On-Line Real-Time Train Seat Reservation System, 1960"

Dear Mrs Mazierska, I am very sorry for my late answer. I thank you very much to consider my expertise on Rail Distribution systems. He re below my answers:

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes. 2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? Yes, as explained JNR succeeded to enhance an American computer to be the first to automate the rail distribution. 3. Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? Yes. As explained the real time automation of complex rail seat reservation distribution is an significant achievement. It allowed the easy and smooth distribution of less complex real time products as concert and sports ticket distribution. 4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? In the eighties Deutsche Bahn followed by SNCF implemented their own Ticketing systems. Seat Reservation and yielded prices were then possible, still based on an American computer TPF bought from SABRE and enhanced. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrate_(SNCF) . I should send you, as soon as received it, a DB presentation on their historic first ever European Distribution system called EPA.

Kind regards, David

David SARFATTI Senior Advisor Passenger Department

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS 16 rue Jean Rey - 75015 Paris - FRANCE Mob : 0033 6 29 12 34 16

==From the proposer:

Thank you, the advocate and two reviewers, for your review and positive comments. I modified the proposal and submit. Hope this is accepted.

Hiroshi Suzuki

Re: Review by Expert 2 Mr David Sarfatti (Senior Passenger Advisor, UIC: Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer) inserted by the advocate -- HiroshiSuzuki (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

==From the proposer:

Thank you, the advocate and two reviewers, for your review and positive comments. I modified the proposal and submit. Hope this is accepted.

Hiroshi Suzuki

Review by Expert 3, Mr Jaap de Bie, Secretary of Smart Ticketing Alliance, member of Int Organisation for Standardisation. inserted by Janina -- JaninA (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

From: de Bie, Jaap <debie@vdv.de> Date: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 at 17:13 To: Janina Mazierska <Janina.mazierska@gmail.com> Cc: hiroshi.suzuki@tk.jue.ac.jp <hiroshi.suzuki@tk.jue.ac.jp>, shuichi myojo <myojo.shuichi.78@rtri.or.jp> Subject: AW: Expert Opinion on IEEE Milestone nomination 2022-16 "The World’s First On-Line Real-Time Train Seat Reservation System, 1960"

Dear Ms. Mazierska,

Herewith, I am sending a memo with my comments related to the MARS system plaque question. I hope, I did this right. I am very impressed and my memo is very positive.

Please let me know if I need to do something yet.

Kind regards,

Jaap de Bie Member of ISO TC204 WG8 Member of ISO TC 224 Chair of CEN TC278 WG3 SG5

MEMO To: Ms. Janina Mazierska Cc.: Mr. Hiroshi Suzuki, Mr. Shuichi Myojo Date: 29 May 2024 Re.: Expert Opinion on IEEE Milestone nomination 2022-16

Introduction

After receiving a request to inform you about my view on a document in the context of IEEE Milestone nomination 2022-16 "The World’s First On-Line Real-Time Train Seat Reservation System, 1960", I read the document “New 2022-16 Proposal”.

This memo contains my general opinion on the subject with regard to the question if On-Line Real-Time Train Seat Reservation Systems have made a significant difference in efficiency and saved time for railway companies and passengers, as well as assisted advancement and volume of rail travel.

The memo will contain some general remarks and will answer 4 questions that were asked.

General The MARS system was introduced in a time when, in most countries, computers were certainly not common data processing equipment and when, in by far most countries, even computer experts had challenges to get access to computers and to make use of limited processing power of computers, let alone making use of the internet. After, probably, quite some updates during quite some years, the system is still functioning, even large-scale. This context makes commenting on the proposal quite interesting as this is a rare success, especially in the public transport environment that changed a lot, in transport services as well as in (digital) ticketing and reservation services.

Answers related to questions

1) Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes. The wording is accurate as it touches all key matters that should be considered to demonstrate the value of the system, as well as changes in time and context of the system as its significant value.

2) Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? Yes. Huge numbers of use, the stunning reliability of the system and convenience for many users are are strong arguments that show the impressive qualities of the system. Complexity was added to the system as well, and doing so is quite an art if convenience of use is still possible thanks to the system that deals with complexity in an obviously very efficient way. Some obstacles are mentioned that needed to be overcome and that were solved in the course of improving the system.

3) Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? Yes. Absolutely, according to my knowledge, the MARS system was the very first seat reservation for trains in the world. And now, after many years, the system is still functioning, on a very large scale, offering millions of travellers a convenient service every day, with a spectacular reliability of almost 100%. This is a quite impressive achievement.

4) Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? Not according to my knowledge. Even air reservation systems were a challenge to be beaten at the time when MARS already was showing to function on a high level even at the early beginning stage.

Approval for nomination 2022-16 -- JaninA (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

On the basis of reviews from three experts in the field of automatic rail ticketing systems I approve this nomination for the consideration of the IEEE History Committee.

The Title and Citation Need to Be Revised -- Bberg (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank your for this proposal.

Please note that the title is too lengthy. Also, the term "On-Line" is now generally thought to relate to the Internet, and so it should not be used for this 1960 accomplishment. Instead, I suggest "MARS-1 Automated Railway Ticket System, 1960".

The citation has no information about how the system operated when it first became operational, including if 3600 seats as a daily maximum AND ticketing up to 15 days in advance were both functionalities at the outset. The "15 days" topic is discussed in the "What obstacles" section. If the 15 days functionality was added in a later year, such as 1961 or later, you should incude that year in both the citation and the date portion of the title.

The system was computerized at the outset, but no information about what it took to do that is included in the citation. The citation can briefly address how the system matured over time, including to many hundreds of millions of tickets issued. The timeframe for that level of functionality could be included in the citation as a year or, for example, in the "2010s," instead of saying specifically about its operation at the 60 year point since such wording will not read correctly in the future. Perhaps instead include the year when "over 100 million" became accurate. It would not be necessary to extend the years included in the title to include this later functionality.

A comparison with other systems before and/or after could be included if there is room, such as to that of the American Airlines ticketing system.

I invite you to confer with me separately if you have any questions since that could be an easier way to discuss the points I made above.

Thank you. Brian Berg, Milestones Subcommittee Chair