on the new prize

 After just having taken delivery of a module from this very vender this week, I consider this a wonderful prize.  Model Railroad Benchwork Is headquartered about 10 miles from my home, so in my case delivery was the owner driving my module over to me.  The module I had made was very exacting in design, involving some measurements of 1/16 of an inch.  The final delivery only required stripping a very tiny bit to achieve a perfect fit on a very hard to measure bridge.   See more of this module in a future article.

The problem with TOMA

 I like the concept of building layouts in reusable sections or modules but not the suggestion to finish each section before moving on to another. Anyone who's seen a modular layout knows that each joint of a finished module creates a spot that must be blended into the next module if a continuous look is desired. I think it's much better to build as much benchwork and trackwork as the layout will require then after it's tested and operating start the scenery so it can run across the section joints unbroken and homogeneous. If the layout does ever need to be moved then the scenery can be broken at the joint if built with that in mind( placement of structurers, track elements, terrain features, etc. ). Freemo or other modular layouts are a great way to enjoy the hobby but they are more suited to their specific task of portability than they are to simplicity and ease of construction for a permanent home layout.....DaveB

Perfect fit

The TOMA philosophy is very close to what I have been planning, out of necessity, for my next layout. After decades of ripping out old layouts and starting over, I like the idea of planning for moving or expansion with a layout that can move or adapt as needed. Also, I am less limber than I was 20 years ago, and the idea of wiring under a layout is not appealing. I like the idea of building layouts in sections that can easily be removed for photography or maintenance, and that can be built on the workbench or at least in the garage.

One other aspect I want to incorporate into my standard design is light weight...the days of ripping sheet plywood and 1x3s are over for me. I am exploring extruded foam with minimal reinforcement from wood veneer to take the place of heavy benchwork. I am building a layout in a spare room upstairs, so sections need to be a manageable length and weight to be usable.

"The Way"?

 Lost me when you said it was "the way" to build a layout.  It is no more "the way" than any era is "the era" or location is "the location" or type of electronics is "the electronics".

TOMA, or not TOMA...

Dave: I think Joe was simply trying to stress that the advantages of TOMA make it an obvious choice for building a layout, large or small.

I have been trying to plan a layout since I moved into my house almost four years ago. A big part of the issue has been time. I have a work bench that would allow me to make 4 - 8 foot sections fairly easily. I think that by setting up a basic track design for the entire layout, and then designing LDEs on each section, the over all layout will flow, but each section will tend to have much more detail than building everything at once.

Also, having track that is fully usable, but limited, will tend to encourage starting each new section, in order to have a longer run. Open country between what is normally considered an LDE, now becomes an LDE in its own right, since it may be the only thing on a particular section. Instead of an empty space between LDEs, you get the chance to focus on making it look just as you want it, before it every goes onto the layout.

I like the idea. Design as you always have, just break the final design into smaller elements in order to build. Start with whatever section appeals to you most, no matter where in the layout it appears. When you get tired of the limited space, start working on the next most interesting section. Connect them with sections that have basic scenery, and can be moved to the work bench to work on, or apply scenery in place.

I consider it a best practice

OK Show us

Take the track plan of the EXISTING Siskiyou line.

Show us the 4-8 ft pieces of the EXISTING track plan that you would have build first and how you would build the benchwork so it would fit into the EXISTING track plan when it was built.

One of the issues I have with the evolution of the domino and the LDE (and based on that pattern,  I can forsee with TOMA) is that they tend to start out fairly sophisticated and devolve into a glorified N-trak module.  Rather than moving away from a "plywood pacific" I see them ending up encouraging that type of construction because the plywood pacific is the path of least resistance that fits the modular concept the easiest.

(PS:  Building a large layout in modular sections dates back over 40 years, there were several articles about the Sunset Valley Lines in MR, plus the original domino concept.)

Nice article. The concept is

Nice article. The concept is sound and adaptable. It is also able to be implemented in various stages as desired by the builder. For example many types of ground cover particularly rural elements can be added very quickly and could be added after the modules or sections have all the mechanical issues worked out and tested and adjusted. A great example is the layout Alan has been working on for quite a while, his LK&O has been being built with the precision of a bridge and has essentially been built with the idea of being able to disassemble and modify as the need arises.

You may be onto the next wave of layout design methods that will likely be modified by the ultimate users to meet their particular needs

I have used this concept

I have used this concept almost 4 layouts. It was more of a necessity, due to moving around with the Military over a 20 year career. 

Its a great concept to build, but only ok if moving is your goal. 

\The biggest downside is that you are forced to integrate modules into a layout. Not because you want to, but because they are there. What works in the spare bedroom in Germany might not work in a garage in Texas. 

Where it works

The "TOMA" concept works if the layout is designed to accomodate it.  The most likely configuration for the benchwork is an open grid style.  A framework with a table top or roadbed on it.  That works fine for a if that's the type of benchwork you want to use (my last 3 layouts used that type of benchwork).  But it can create issues if you are wanting to use a different type of benchwork.  My current layout uses brackets on th ewall and L girder for the peninsulas.  Open grid TOMA's would not work very well there, and building just a short piece of L girder would not be very feasible.

If you are building a purely open grid design layout, then probably not any issue.  If the pieces have to be incorporated in to a future layout with different benchwork, that requires a lot more planning.

I actually have 3 areas that could be built as TOMA's, the Delaware River Extension, the Kentmere Branch and the French Creek Branch.  The problem is that the open grid benchwork is incompatible with the other construction methods and benchwork I'm using.  It would alter the way I am doing the switch controls, the car card boxes, etc. etc.

The track plan has to be considered.  If one is doing a very track sparse, simple, once through a scene plan then yes it should be easy to divide it up into chunks.  If the plan is more involved with a lot more curves and changes in elevation, then it begins to get much harder to do effectively.  Building to match in curves and on grades is a lot trickier, especially if its going to be built someplace else and mated in the railroad room.  Adding to the degree of difficulty is one piece is completely finished, so there is no adjustment, no tweaking, on the existing portion.

Is it a viable concept, sure.  Will it fit some peoples needs better than other design options, sure.  Does it have its drawbacks, yes.  It has limitations (just like everything else).  As the wise philosopher Harry Callahan once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

I can certainly see the

I can certainly see the advantage of building using the sectional approach; however I don't believe that it's the best choice in all circumstances.  My small layout is sectional so that I can move it when necessary.  I did assemble all of the sections first and then install all of the track.  I'm wondering if for bigger layouts it wouldn't be better to not build sectional.  If you look at Michael Rose's wonderful layout you can see that it would slow him down to build sectional without really giving him any advantage.

Modular vs Sectional

The concern I have with this article is NOT whether to TOMA or not.  Whether to TOMA or not depends on the situation and I think DaveB and   Verne Niner effectively identified the different situations.  Personally, I think Alan's LK&O is the best of all worlds.

The concern I have with the article is the use of the terms module.  I have always understood that a module is a interchangeable section of workbench that meets a standardized interface so it can be connected to multiple other modules in different configurations.  When I think of Modules, I think Freemo and N-Track. 

I think what is being described in the article is a sectional layout.  I know this sound like semantics, but with so many modular train clubs out there I think it is important for those new to the hobby that we keep to one set of terms.

Just my thoughts.

Art 

TOMA

Would be interested in you publishing an article or video on Train Masters on How to make modular seams "invisible".

Thanks,

Jeff

TOMA and renewal

Interesting topic, and one that I am now struggling with on my Rio Grande Southern ( http://rgsmodeler.com) that is essentially complete in a 14 by 24 room after five years of work.  It's the second layout (first was HO scale L&N) in that room since I built the house 12 years ago.

I'm a builder, do little operating, more of a lone wolf, and after eleven layouts (of various types and sizes) over 60 years, am ready for something new.  In fact, I'm considering doing away with the Rio Grande Southern meme and going to D&RGW to allow different types of equipment and modeling.

All comments so far are interesting and applicable, and although I have little or no moving in my future, a new approach always challenges the mind and provides enthusiasm.   I seriously doubt I have another traditional railroad in me at this point in my life (age 72), but I do like to build.

Thanks for the prompting disguised as an article!

Michael McCaffery

Yes, but...

In theory, I like the idea. Though not modular, and not always linear, I take a very similar approach to scene building on my TMMC, finishing each area more or less completely before moving on to the next. I also sometimes build large sections at the workbench and then "plug them in" to the layout. As Joe's column suggests, finishing each scene drives me and inspires me to get to work on the next.

Toma is an excellent tool and a handy entry point into the hobby, and that's a good enough way to promote it. It doesn't have to be THE WAY. I'm not at all sure I agree that model railroading is evolving toward a "best way" of doing things. That would imply we all agree on what the ultimate goal of modeling trains is. If this board is any indication, that is clearly not the case. I would argue that for every so-called advance, there have also been losses and trade-offs. Linear design, for example, creates more realistic "one time through" railroad-y track layouts, but does so at the expense of realistic scenic depth.

Why does John Allen's work still wow the youngin's who have not yet been taught to know better? Because it is grand and deep and brimming with wondrous imagination. He created an amazing believable world through artistry and stage craft that would not happen today under the currently popular laundry list of best practices. I think that's a shame. I think there is room in the hobby for all kinds of different approaches, including TOMA. However, I doubt it will not suddenly turn train runners into operators, or plywood pacific builders into scenery modelers. People will continue to do what they enjoy most.

Model railroading is a wonderful, enriching hobby with a long history of styles and approaches to study, emulate and build upon. My advice to newcomers would be: Do what inspires you and the rules be damned. Learn the rules, sure, but toss them out the window the minute they stop you from building something cool and unique. Save the techniques and lose the dogma. Model building is an art, not merely an exercise in miniature engineering.

inspired!

Thank you, Joe!  Your article helped me to visualize how to get my layout concepts off the ground.  Instead of planning an entire layout, I'll plan and build the elements that I want to include.  Some will be modularly built to a standard - my own or FreeMo - and will be interchangeable; some will be sectional and might fit in just one or two places on the layout.  I think that in this way I can keep my layout 'fresh' by moving sections/modules around and by switching them out with new or 'stored' modules - and I'm using the terms 'module' and 'section' loosely here.  I've struggled with putting my ideas into practice, because I've got a LOT of them and planning one huge layout that would incorporate them all just ain't happnin'.  My layout will likely be a combination of permanent, sectional, and modular, and this will allow me to concentrate on ONE element of my layout - a particular industry, a farm scene, etc. - build it, run trains on it, switch it out, take it to 'the show' with my club, store it, move it,...whatever!

THANKS!!

Bruce Friedrichsen

Denton Area Model Railroad Club (TX)

TOMA is in its infancy

I think the TOMA concept is in its infancy. Sure, we've got Free-mo and Barrow's dominos, but I'm talking doing a sectional home layout with this concept. I think there's a lot of "how do we do this well?" that has yet to be explored and presented in the hobby press.

So that's why we're pressing so hard on the TOMA idea.

I think it's possible to design and build a very nice home layout with this approach, and it doesn't have to look "modular". The benchwork can be cleverly designed and built to facilitate "built it at the workbench" but the seams can be covered so they disappear once the module is in place. Yet, if done properly, the seams can be easily cut and the wiring disconnected to allow swapping out one or more modular sections later if desired.

Kind of the best of both worlds. To me, TOMA begs to have the concept more fully developed and demonstrated in articles and on video until there's a rich and deep understanding of how to do TOMA well for a home layout. We're just at the beginning of exploring the extent of what's possible with a fully-flowered TOMA used for home layouts of any magnitude.

***About the term module in TOMA. It is spelled The "One Module" Approach ... notice the quotes. That's because you can chose to follow a modular standard with TOMA, or to just go purely sectional and follow no standard. The quotes mean it's a hybrid between modular and sectional. If we instead called it TOSA and used the word "section" in place of "module" then the other side of the aisle would be complaining that sectional doesn't quite cover it because following a modular standard also applies if you wish.

Okay, we could call it THE "ONE MODULE" APPROACH BUT ALSO THE "ONE SECTION" APPROACH IF YOU DO NOT USE A MODULAR STANDARD, or TOMABATOSAIYDNUAMS. Face it, the language is imperfect, so we put quotes around "One Module" in the fully spelled out version to signify it's potentially a hybrid between modular and sectional.

Interesting

As with a lot of general concepts, whether or not this one would be a best practice for you will depend a lot on your mindset.  I can see the advantage of it encouraging you to get things finished as you go, and encouraging moderation in project scope, but in the end maybe it's one more item in the tool kit.

The way I like to envision and build, however, I can see it leading me to lose interest quickly.  Looking around at my current layout, I can't identify any part of it outside of staging where I could have successfully completed it in sections at the workbench and then moved them into position.  I'm not suggesting TOMA isn't a good idea, mind you, just one that works for some situations and modelers more than others.  Good column regardless.

Epithet Creek

The Epithet Creek series in MR several decades ago was sorta this concept and Arnold had an article on something like this about 40 years ago in N Scale.

The trackplan has to be designed to accommodate the concept, having individual scenes that are capable of being reduced to one section where the track makes minimal operating sense.  Ironically, I have 3 areas that I could have done something like this.  There is also one other "section" that would be built as a separate piece, Carney's Point, but it would end up being the last, not the first section and would be more of a stand alone display/switching layout.

TOMA

Joe, I think you have hit the nail, right on the head.

As I'm getting closer to the time when I must leave my house and move to an apartment (or, heaven forbid, "The Home"), the idea of smaller, doable modules is the only way to go.

I could build a freestanding modular layout, in an apartment, and not have to nail or screw anything to the walls.  The average apartment owner kinda frowns on that, ya know.  Modules would allow me to fit a lot of railroad into different shaped rooms.

I'm not ready to move out, yet, but the time will be coming, and I'm definately going to be doing some planning along these lines.

I currently have a built in place HO Std Gage Colorado Midland layout that's 8' X 29'.

I want to build a smaller HOn3 layout.   TOMA will be the answer, I'm certain.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Mike Van Hove

This layout for me was TOMA

This layout for me was TOMA free after running into problems I didn't like on my last home layout, which was designed to incorporate  modular areas.

1. In or out? Removable sections that go to shows are a great theory  but the demands of the travel require different standards of durable construction than a home layout. In N this even goes to track with some modular standards requiring code 80, which looks awkward mixed with code 55 in other places. Also, removable sections take away from construction of the rest of the home layout because of the increased maintenance demands from travel damage and show accidents.

2. Bench work thickness of my new double deck approach led me not to go modular in some areas to avoid module framing causing access or visibility issues on the lower deck. Overcoming such complications is possible, but requires careful forethought and planning.

Electrical and mechanical connections are another area that require special considerations.

A way!

To me it is not so much the way to go, but a way to go. Whilst I have limited space and am building my layout in sections, I do not have space on my workbench to construct a fully built up module. A layout can be fully planned and then built in sections, maybe just laying track and wiring elsewhere and then when it comes to scenery then building a lot of this in-situ. The scenic side is no different to building a large layout in stages, but with sections, then its always possible to scenic over the joins, cutting it if necessary should a move (or update) be required. Where I do not see a TOMA being realistically practical is with multi-level layouts (but I do stand to be proved wrong!).

Brian

. "Where I do not see a TOMA

    I think sections could be used on a multi level layout with no problems if the support was shelf brackets. The slotted wall track mount type would be a very easy way to get multiple mounting points .......DaveB 

Just an Opinion..simply

Just an Opinion..simply put...TOMA is a great concept if you are arm chair modeling one section at a time at your work bench, and if you are without the desire to have the trains up and running, Or also if you enjoy the one piece at a time diorama style modeling...Or if you already have trains up and running somewhere else and you are ready to move on and make a change ..That works for some or most that are beyond 4x8 central or huge rooms filled with shelves and peninsulas ...Or for those looking to toss out all the old and rebuild and start a new..I saw a blurb from Joe that mentioned "Fewer Plywood" centrals etc.. but Joe please don't forget the old 4x8 plywood central is what hooks most of us young and old  into this great hobby...Getting the trains up and running, to me, stimulates the creative juices..Don't get me wrong diorama building is just as creative, but me ? I want Trains running ASAP and I take the scenery and track layout and planning adjustments from there.  Paper planning works okay too but the trains aren't running on paper..Paper planning can kep you stimulated creatively  but odds are you will be changing things once the lumber starts filling up the room..I also would like to get reliability and smooth operations into my track work first as a whole before scenery goes down anywhere not four to six feet at a time ..Its my opinion that Model Railroads  are never finished, with the exception of those that end up at the dump only to start over from scratch. That is the hook line and sinker of the hobby. You start ONCE and if you are hooked Once you start you are NEVER finish..trial and error... Its a great hobby..You yourself Joe even said you are debating some rework on your home layout...The hobby has more than one way to skin a cat so to speak..real estate plays a huge role for most if not all. My take on TOMA is its a great way to start, a great way to get your vision on plywood central even if its only four to six feet at a time...but I don't think its the latest and greatest for every one.