Re: 45 Degree Wide Radius Modules

["Ira Schneider" <ira_schneider@iname.com>]

Hi Bill,

I am sorry that you took my note as another criticism of the 45 degree modules.
I was just using the process we used to build them as an example of what I see
can go wrong with designing new modules.

From my point of view, based on your own note, I don't see that the Requirements Analysis
and Advanced Planning stages were done for these modules.  For example, I never saw
a statement of the requirements for the new modules, so I have no way of knowing whether
or not they were analyzed.  A statement of "wouldn't it be nice to have 45 degree modules"
(which some people have been saying for years) isn't a requirement.  A statement of
"we need corner modules with larger radius curves so we can run larger trains without
colliding on the corners" is a statement of requirements. If this was a requirement,
the new modules don't exactly meet it.  Trains still collide on tracks 1 and 2 when the
new modules are used as an inside corner.  This should have been found during the
"Advanced Planning" stage.  Also, during the Advanced Planning stage the physical
size of the new modules should have been analyzed and the affect on building a layout
using them should have been modeled.  According to your documentation of a process,
this should have occurred BEFORE Detailed Planning, Funding, Production, Test, and Rollout.
According to the minutes of the January Board of Directors meeting, you presented us with
the dimensions of the modules at that meeting and I said I would model the layout using them.
A week or so later, after I had analyzed the modules, I sent out a note to the Board of
Directors (and copied you) with results of my analysis.  That was when I started questioning
whether or not these modules were a good idea, since I found that a layout containing
two pairs of the 45 degree modules would require an extra 4' on each side and a layout
containing four pairs of the 45 degree modules would require an extra 8' on each side.  This
is fine when we are given a large space to work with (like the World's Greates Hobby on Tour
show), but severely limits our participating in a show where we have a small to medium area.

All of my criticism of these modules was due to the fact that we didn't find out until
construction had already started what the implications were.

Also, please tell me if any of these statements about the 45 degree modules which I used
in the note are incorrect:

     We need a much larger space for the layout when using the new corner modules
          [each new corner takes up the space of an old corner plus one 4' module]
     They take up more space in our already packed trailer
          [we needed to put the four new modules in the space formerly occupied by two old corners]
          [YOU first mentioned that the trailer was already well packed in your note about the lift-out bridge]
     They don't provide any improvement in operating large trains since we still
          have to use at least two of the older corners
     Using a pair of the new corners for the inside corner of an L-shaped layout
          didn't completely solve the problem of track 1 being the inside track since we
          still have collisions between trains on tracks 1 and 2

I am sorry that you construed my reference to these modules as "continuing controversy and negative
energy."  I believe these modules are nice to have and we have used them at three shows this year.
The layout looks more dramatic having the 45 degree modules, especially with a straight module
in between each pair.

You are correct that I objected to these modules several times in the past.  First, I objected to the
concept of replacing our existing modules with them once we found out that they would preclude
our setting up small to medium size layouts.  I also objected to replacing the C3 and C4 corners
in the trailer with these modules when the Board of Directors had explicitly approved these modules
as "private" modules and did not agree to store them in the trailer (see the minutes from the January
and February, 2009 Board of Directors meetings).  If you had read the minutes from
the June, 2009 Board of Directors meeting you would know that the board decided to scrap the C3 and C4
corners in favor of the 45 degree modules.  We also added "adjusting the cradle for the 45 degree
modules" to the work list for the June Work Day.  If that isn't a commitment to keeping them in
the trailer, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, what I see happening again is that people want to jump ahead to the
Detailed Planning and Production phases of your development process without
paying any attention to the Requirement Analysis and Advanced Planning phases.

Please forgive me if I offended you.  Please reconsider removing the 45 degree corners
from the trailer.  We intend to use them whenever we have a large enough space for
our layout.

Thanks.




Ira