Re: 45 Degree Wide Radius Modules

[Steve Wise <swise@aoot.com>]

Wow,  I haven't seen this much process since my days at IBM.

:)

Ira Schneider wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------
> TTAT members reflector.
>