Inspirational!

Now I want to start building more modules for my own layout!

My biggest problem though, is I DO live in San Diego, and the biggest foam I can get out here is 2'x2'x1" pink foam. So I make do. (plus, it forces me to build in smaller sections)

I can relate to the helpfulness of others... why, just the other day, I was at Reed's Hobby Shop, and I saw some diesels that kinda wowed me (I'm a steam only guy) and was really drooling over a DCC and sound F unit... I don't even remember the road, but the detail was amazing for a diesel (the newer stuff is nothing like the diesel models when I was a kid) and as I was considering it, my roommate who was with me, in an attempt to be helpful, I'm sure, reminded me that I model "Old West"... I tried to justify my attempts by stating that I'm modeling a movie set, so I could TECHNICALLY put ANYTHING in it... but, the roommate was quite determined that I not attempt to... errr... ummm... ruin my vision, I think? That roommate is always quite helpful in reminding me of the things I apparently DON'T need... which is strange, really, on how when I talk trains, he zones out completely, but when i'm about to purchase something, he seems to know every fine detail of my layout, and that I shouldn't be buying the new shiny thing I just saw!

(Reed's employees are learning some new techniques to distract him while I shop... out of the kindness of their hearts, I'm sure... I find that to be very helpful in a hobby shop! It hasn't worked so far, but, they are working on a new plan for when I come in next pay day. I admire their dedication!)

TOMA test

Now lets see how you would fit those modules in an 11x12 ft room with the door (opening in to the left) in the middle of the 11 ft wall to the left and a closet door that opens into the room to the right 1 ft from the lower right corner in the 12 ft wall.

Why bother re: TOMA test

Hi all,

Why bother..

when you've already set the conditions to fail it???

Away you go, show us how its done, You must have it all worked out already??

if you want to add more restrictions, try these - you are allowed to change the size and track plan on any 3 of the modules.

As the topic says,  this layout was designed to fit the space available. And it met the space constraints specified.

If you have a different sized space then you can use a different floorplan and track alignment for SOME of the modules, if you already have them built. The "must have" modules with with key scenic features can still be kept, just placed differently in the room. If you don't already have all the modules built, then you build those that aren't already built to fit the new design criteria (ie revised available space) 

You may have to modify the tracks and size on some of the other modules. But, you are not starting from bare floor, as you probably would have to if this layout shown in the article was built as one solid immovable lump and you then applied your new design restrictions. 

As I have said previously when you have raised the re-use "red herring" in other threads How much of any layout that can effectively re-used when the design criteria for its location are changed in an adverse way depends as much on the will and mindset of the layout owner as much as it does upon the method of construction. 

But it could be very easily argued that the ability to keep the bits you want to keep as discrete lumps, when they are built as discrete lumps, makes EVERYTHING (track/wiring/scenery/structures/baseboards etc) a whole lot easier.  

"Now lets see how you would

    I don't think it really matters if a whole layout can fit into a different room. If we move to a new house we can make the best layout for the new space with whatever sections might work there. We could use less sections or we could make many more. If we build sections as layout design elements that can be saved we have a head start on a new layout. We might even connect the design element sections with disposable track if that suits the existing room better, that's the approach I'm taking on my new layout, about 75% will be re-usable and the rest will likely to be undesirable in most common  layout spaces......DaveB

Congratulations Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I would like to congratulate you on a well-thought-out staged implementation plan designed to make full use of the future "Choo-choo room". 

You have obviously put a lot of thought into the method of construction of your modules and the use of a computerised "cut programe" to minimise your timber wastage is a very nice wrinkle that many would not have thought of. 

The choice of N-scale also allows you to make the most of a train running through a landscape, with the tidal zone photos opening up some intriguing scenery possibilities 

Again, well done, 

Toma Test

Well, it was a valid point; even if it was put forth rather bluntly. 

If you want to make it more "valid" do a search on home plans ... grab the first plan that pops up on a given page and fit this into the spare room ....  Repeat a dozen or so times and see how successful you were. 

A thread hijack??.

Hi all,

the "let's resize the room idea and see whether we can still make anything fit" is at best plain bad manners, or worse an intentionally blatant thread hijack, and, even perhaps at worst could be considered to be insulting to the layout designer and other MRH participants in this design competition. The proponent of this idea has pushed this barrow several times elsewhere on here before in different threads. 

It contributes NOTHING to this article in MRH.where the layout designer:

1. met the conditions of the room specified in the design contest.
2. applied considerable thought to his approach.
3. designed the modules and itheir structure so that they were within his capability to make them.
4. chose a subject and scale that offers significant scenic potential for a home layout 
5. used an innovative approach to minimise wastage
6. used this same inaovative technique to more accurately specify the material requirements list for, and ultimately more accurately forecast the cost of his design.
7. spent what looks like considerable time in a graphics program to supply good illustrations of his proposed layout constructiion techniques.
8. formaulated a staged build plan that offered operational trackage in a structured and coordinated manner
9. justified his aisle width criteria
10. designed and justified a novel use of the specified closet area to maximise its potential as part of his layout design and use, and, 

there is probably more stuff that I've missed when reading this article.

The "let's change the room size" idea demeans this competition and the work than MRH members have put into their submissions.It's an idea that doesn't just move the goal posts - It picks up the whole football field and drops it in another town.

'Nuff said by me - I'm sorry to have added to the hijack, 

Again to Dennis and to all others who participated in this design competition, Congratulations and well done.

I couldn't come up with a suitable design for this competition, so I didn't enter it. You are all better layout planners than I am - Well done all!! . 

@Dave1905

Well, Dave, perhaps next month or the following month, my honorable mention contest entry will be published in MRH, and I think you may be pleasantly surprised at my design and the universal adaptions that could be made with the sections as designed. I won't mention anything else about it, at this time, but I hope you enjoy my article if it is published. Jim.

Thanks Dennis

Since we are looking at a move soon, as soon as our house sells​, I find your ideas really helpful. Being a train watcher/rail fan also, the idea of putting in a loop right at the beginning a good one. I think one thing I would do different though is to put in a passing siding at the end of track so the loco and caboose could be swapped without using the 0-5-0 or add it to the one staging yard that moves with every new TOMA section added. If you do end up moving I hope you find the space to fit the dream.

Jack 

Hijack???

TOMA is in the title of the post.  The article is about a TOMA project.  The contest the article was selected as "Honorable Mention" for was based on fitting a TOMA design into a room.  Discussion of TOMA is certainly on topic here.

I'd make the claim that the post claiming "foul" is off topic here.

P.S.  seems like Moe line understand the issue about planning a TOMA to include possible relocation.

TOMA Concept

One of the concepts of the TOMA is that you can build a layout and then reuse the sections if you relocate, because they are sectional.

Is this not correct?

One of the concepts of the TOMA is that you build each section to "finished" then move to the next section so you can experience all the facets of building a layout without getting stuck in benchwork mode for 2 years, then track laying mode for years, and maybe get to scenery a decade later.

Is that not correct?

If the first premise is not feasible, if you can't reuse the sections then the rest of the concept isn't of much use since you have to chainsaw parts of your finished trackplan which can scuttle the whole layout.

The learning point here is maybe a designer needs to think about what happens if the layout is to be moved BEFORE the layout is built.  I've been down this path before and have found that if you want it to be useable in another space then you have plan the layout to have "expansion joints", sections of throw away scenery that can be adjusted to adapt the critical portions of the layout to a new configuration.  That brings up the second point, that the track plan needs to have those same expansion points built into it and the plan needs to be flexible enough to survive rearrangement.

A good example of what I am talking about is the Mt. Gilead layout from the Kalmbach "48 Top Notch Track Plans", "Mount Gilead, a town on the move", by Micheal Rogers.  That had 3 sections that were configured so they could be combined in several arrangements to fit in slightly different rooms and only some sacrificial portions would be lost.

If this is a contest winner (it got published), what happens when you move it?  How do the sections survive the rearrangement?  What sections become sacrificial?  What sections would be critical to keep?  Would there be any changes to the track plan made NOW, before they are built that would increase its flexibility and increase its chance for survival?

All these are fair questions.  Knowing the answers and seeing how they would work would IMPROVE the TOMA design process.

I have designed enough layouts, built enough sectional layouts, moved enough, to know that the track plan as drawn would probably have a fairly high mortality rate.  Its geometry.   I can't design it, I don't know enough about what the owner wants out of it.

Asking a question is not trashing anything.  If it doesn't fit, then it should be starting a discussion about how to make the concept work.

I agree

I agree. I think taking a TOMA plan from one given space and trying to fit it into other spaces could be very educational. In fact, if done enough, it might be possible to develop guidelines on what modules are likely to survive and which ones will likely need sacrificed if you move.

I would think a good goal would be to see how likely 50% of your existing module sections could survive in a new space. If each module section took you 6 months to build completely start to finish and you have 16 module sections and only 8 survive, that's 4 years effort you're now ahead in the new space.

The only way we'll really get a large enough body of learnings on the topic of moving TOMA designs is to take a given TOMA design for a space and do a lot of test fitting of it into other spaces. Eventually, some useful principles ought to start suggesting themselves. That's what I'd like to get to with TOMA - make it well-understood from inception to a fully functioning layout and to moving to a new space.

TOMA and Givens and Druthers

First, let me say I am not not interested in the contest, but I think the discussion is useful to many of us building sectional layouts.  While my own layout will not follow the TOMA approach in the sense of finishing a section completely before moving to the next, the intent to move someday and keep my key sections intact (and treat others as connectors that change) is a critical part of my design thinking.

However, there seem to be embedded Givens and Druthers assumptions in some of this discussion.  For example, in my own case, I am building a single level layout in my current space due to having plenty of room to do so.  Someday I will retire and we will move.  I may or may not have enough space to preserve everything in a single level layout.  But is it a necessary Given of TOMA that number of levels must stay the same?  In my opinion, the answer for each layout being considered should be based on the creator's own Givens and Druthers list.  If MY OWN list of Givens is that it always be single level, then I would say yes that what I design should be able to have the majority including the key sections all be able to be reused as a single level in a different space configuration.  But if it is only a Druther then that changes how I should evaluate whether the sections meet the test alongside what percentage of sections must be reworked.  I also reject the notion for my layout of 100% of sections being reused as a reasonable criterion.  But that is because 100% reuse is not on my Givens list.  For someone else that might be on their Givens list so the requirements would be affected for evaluating if the design meets the criteria.

I guess I am suggesting that  in continuing to refine the value achieved though application of TOMA principles, there should be consideration of how those principles get affected by various common important Givens and Druthers, which would include things like number of levels.

Of course, I also recognize that TOMA has multiple uses.  As a means of advancing layout design principles in general, I think Givens and Druthers are extremely relevant.  But as a contest vehicle, then any single running of such a contest needs to specify which Givens the contest would assume, and so if a given contest wants to say it must be reconfigurable on a single level, that would be a Given of the contest, but shouldn't make its way into the overall concept as a required Given for all.

-Ed

"I would think a good goal

     Actually with a little planning a lot more than 50% of your work can be saved by concentrating the work on the layout design elements most likely to be re-used and making the connecting sections more simple. Ideally all the turnouts would be on the permanent sections and the connecting sections just single track with simple scenery  for example......DaveB  

" I may or may not have

     One of the big advantages of the TOMA approach is that sections can be re-used in any configuration or number of levels. There's a thread going on now about steel framing which would be an ideal way to stack TOMA sections into multi level layouts for smaller rooms. It wouldn't take much more effort to make up a steel framed train elevator. For the folks that prefer wood( or plastic or anything else) just substitute the materials and modify the joints and cross sections  a bit. .....DaveB 

Design

If they are designed to do that.  If the ends have unique track configurations, each joint with a different number of tracks and the tracks at different angles or, more difficult, on grades, that cuts down the number of options.  Not criticizing any design, merely pointing out that if you want it to be flexible, you have to design the track plan to be flexible before the first spike is driven.

TOMA is basically David Barrow's "dominoes" reworked.  Reviewing the domino concept articles would give ideas on how to make reconfigurability work.

TOMA = "dominoes"???

This is the first I have read that TOMA = "dominoes".  That was not my impression.  While "dominoes" that are constructed using TOMA principals certainly I expect would qualify as TOMA, I would not expect equivalent membership sets of the two classes.  I would be curious what Joe's thoughts are on the claimed approximate equivalency.  

-Ed

"TOMA is basically David

   Yeah, the only difference is the TOMA focus on finishing each domino at the workbench. Barrow's concepts were sound and hold up well over time. I've re-used some sections of my domino style bench work a few times in scales ranging from O to N  .....DaveB

Example

As an example of a plan designed to expand, here is something quick and dirty, N-scale.

To me ATSF 1954 means a streamliner with red and silver F's, a quartet of blue F's pulling a perishible SFRD train, maybe some hood units on a grain train and maybe a local.  

Most spare bedrooms seen have two long walls and the other walls chopped up with doors.  Not paying attention to windows, I'm putting the layout in front of them.

I'm making the critical parts of the layout fit into that corner, an 8x8 L.  Since I want long trains I will add a long double ended staging yard with 4 tracks.  That will be hidden behind a low backdrop, but if I stand on low stepstool I can easily see and reach over it.  In front will be a long town scene with a passenger station and some industries.  There is a runaround to help the local.  The L could be shortened 6-12" by rearranging the crossovers on sections 2 & 4.

I made the main tracks a dogbone, good for continuous running, and folded it to look like double track because its cool to see trains pass and its typical of the ATSF.

I borrowed the track plan, more or less, of the article layout to form a first section that would allow running in the first stage.  I didn't draw it to scale but the connections to the layout on sections 1 and 5 could be rearranged to mate.  So you could build section 1, then section 5 for a longer run and work on sections 2-3-4 in the mean time.  As an option, the loop around section 1 could be double tracks to form a loop on the inside and the dogbone loop on the outside, for additional continuous running.

The layout could be expanded between sections 1 and 2, and 4 and 5,  I f the room was narrower, a 90 degree turn could be placed between 1 and 2 (or 4 and 5) and move the turnback loop along another wall to fit a narrower room.  The layout would fit in any bedroom in my house, and the 5 sections would form the core of a layout.

Food for thought.

Disclaimer:  This is not a commentary on the original layout.  It is based on my preferences and my experiences.  It is purely an example of how a pre-planning a track plan for relocation is just as important as preplanning the benchwork for relocation.

TOMA vs Dominoes

TOMA = Dominoes? There are some similarities, but there are many differences, too. I've also said TOMA builds on modular sectional concepts that are decades old, but respins them in new ways.

Here's how they're different.

First is the name. Like it or not, David's dominoes term conjures up the image of small flat perfectly rectangular slabs all alike. I know David mentioned in passing that dominoes could be any shape or configuration, but then he used a term that conjures up exactly the *opposite* instead: total uniformity.

Second, David didn't help broaden the domino concept in his examples by pushing minimalist modeling using small uniform modules topped with flat plywood. The image of a domino describes perfectly what David was doing, but greatly limited what was possible. David's approach promoted "cookie cutter" layout thinking.

Third, David's domino articles in MR used a strict formula approach with 2x4 foot sections built as a plywood box. Here's the complete list of the Model Railroader articles:

• Jun 1995 - Domino layout design introduced: Uniform 2x4 foot "table" units at ~52" high with 30" min radius curves in HO. Design using a 4x4 grid on the room plan.
• Aug 1995 - Building a layout using dominoes following David's methods. Promotes David's specific approach to building 2'x4' layout sections: 1/4" white pine on a 1/4" plywood box with an open bottom.
• Sep 1996 - Building the South Plains District sectional layout using David's 2'x4' flat plywood box domino construction formula.
• Oct 1996 - Building the South Plains District sectional layout, this time focusing on David's roadbed, track, and wiring methods -- again David's layout construction formula.
• Nov 1996 - Building the South Plains District sectional layout, this time with David's limited ballasting and minimalist scenery philosophy.
• Oct 1997 - South Plains District follow-up lessons learned plus Q&A. Main points: ditch homasote (poor dimensional stability), put staging on rollers, temp removable rails at section joints.
• Jul 1998 - Commentary promoting a minimalist representational approach to building layouts rather than a more "realistic" approach.
• Sep 1999 - Visit to the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe. In passing, David mentions preferring domino sections, code 100 track, and minimalist scenery to make layout mods easier and cheaper.
• Dec 2008 - Revisiting the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe (75th anniversary landmark layouts series), brief article again mentioning domino construction for ease of making changes.

At the end of the day, most modelers walked away from David's concept of doing a layout using dominoes as a niche formula approach to "cookie cutter" totally flat (i.e., no grades) layout construction. David and Model Railroader failed to turn the strict formulaic domino methods into a mainstream way of doing home layouts soup-to-nuts.

TOMA aims to change that with a term and examples that broaden the concepts from a narrow "cookie cutter" formula for layout building into a far broader, more mainstream approach for doing a permanent home layout, from soup-to-nuts. TOMA certainly has its roots in David Barrow's dominoes, but with a much broader mindset.

TOMA presents no specific design and construction formula for module sections (like a 2'x4' box using strictly plywood). We also are not advocating only minimalist scenery, flat gradeless modules, and code 100 track as the dominoes method has done. What is more unique about TOMA is the idea of going through the entire process of experiencing the full breadth of the hobby as early as possible. Find all the layout issues early and get to something that looks "done" and can be operated much more quickly.

In one later article (Oct 1997 MR) David finally delved a little into how to deal with track joints at section boundaries. It was all of two paragraphs and a single photo. In short, the domino module sections concept was thrown out, but then the details or alternatives were never explored. Instead it was packaged into a simple one-size-fits-all formula approach and somewhat dumbed down for MR's beginner audience.

TOMA isn't about dumbing down anything, nor will a single design and construction method be advocated for module sections. It's way broader than that. Layouts will have full scenery, grades, backdrops, and good layout lighting. All layout design and construction topics will be explored (including many alternative methods) but all with a TOMA twist.

Look for the orginal series

There was an earlier article (articles?) that describes the rebuilding of the CM&SF (1980's ?).  The dominoes were more or less open grid and were designed to accommodate scenery that varied in elevation.  You have the second and subsequent series of articles, where, yes, the concept evolved to more or less "N-Trak" modules (disappointing turn of what started out as a unique concept).  The concept in the first article was more a original benchwork design, where there were standard grids that formed a base and then the actual layout section grids were supported on risers above the lower gridwork.  

There is no previous "series"

There is no previous "domino series". There is one rebuilding the Cat Mountain layout article in August 1989 that does not mention modular / sectional methods. It simply shows benchwork construction methods used and yes, it shows grades and scenery profiles.

If this article was intended to introduce the domino concept, it's very well hidden.

"There was an earlier article

     The original concept was shown and the advantages noted. Then subsequent articles were focused on the minimalist concept not the various possibilities of domino construction for conventional layouts. It was well understood at the time and many layouts moved away from the old style monolithic L girder construction to box grid "domino" variations as the advantages of re-useable sections became apparent. . ......DaveB   

Example

The example provide by Dave Husman is a pretty good summary of how to design the TOMA layout to maximize its potential for relocation in a space with a different geometry.  Lots of good points can be derived from that example, and I expect we may see some of them appearing in future contests.  Thanks for sharing.