Track plan and modules (1 to

Track plan and modules (1 to 7). The non-numbered modules are dispensable made out of salvaged benchwork from my old layout.

Modules 4 and 6 have only urban structures and no track.

Plywood top

Yannis,

My version of TOMA uses 1/2" plywood for the top surface.

How wide?

Just asking, but how wide is it with the addition of the modules with no track? Do you have a plan to reach the track if it is more than an arms length away? Just wondering how you would trouble shoot it or re-rail equipment if needed.

I keep my bench work no wider than 34" from the isle to the wall at 48" high and 24" at 54" high just so I can easily reach everything.

Tim

Plywood

Yannis, I use plywood for the sub road bed under the track, and foam everywhere else for scenery base, even an urban landscape is not totally flat. Having the foam allows for carving, or easily building up some scenery around the buildings. Jim

Dave, Tim and Moe Line thank

Dave, Tim and Moe Line thank you very much for the replies.

Tim: The modules #4 and #6 are on wheels and can be rolled out of the way so that i have access to the tracks behind these modules. I have to thank forum members for this suggestion when i was asking about accesibility in a deep urban scene some time ago. For accessibility purposes all other modules are 27" max with track being in the middle or front 1/3 of the module.

Moe I am with you about carving the foam. I have to make considerations with respect to the fact that track/road will have inclines whereas adjacent buildings must have flat foundations. This is the case both at the main Padadena depot (platform/track on incline, depot flat) and the boulevard with all those commercial buildings, where going east there is an incline.

So i am torn between plywood or plywood/foam combo.

Same as Jim

The plywood gives you the solid base for the track (and if you plan to use under-table switch machines) and then you can use risers to vary the track height and foam can be carved for the landscape around it.

For relatively flat terrain

I use a continuous plywood top then build up the roadbed and building pads with thin layers of suitable material. It's a lot easier to nail solid ply to a box grid frame than to engineer something else and it's handy to have solid wood everywhere to attach switch machines or whatever else needs to go under the table.If the terrain varies by more than a few scale feet below the track elevation I'll switch to risers and foam or screen wire terrain for those parts of a layout. It's a matter of which is easier, build up from plywood or build down from track level,at some point it is more work stacking up enough height to cover the depressions so forming them with wire or foam becomes easier. I strongly agree with keeping all benchwork at 30 inches or less in width and preferably 24 inches or less if at all possible.My new layout has some spots over 30 inches and I'm dreading having to work on them:> ) ........DaveB

Materials

I suggest you run some tests to see how well the Kreg screws hold in half-inch, or even 3/4-inch plywood. Screws into plywood end grain are iffy at the best of times, and an angled installation would add new loads. When using plywood as lumber, I like to screw directly across the grain into a 2x2 screw block instead of trusting to an end-grain joint.

The plan you posted looks like a reasonable start on a layout that can expand as time and space are available.

"I suggest you run some tests

   Kreg type joints were designed for production work where they wanted a way to screw the pieces together while they were held in a jig. They are not ideal for most common joints since they limit the screw length and weaken the end of the material. For typical layout modules I just air nail the end joints with 2 1/2 inch finish nails set on a batter so the joints can't pull apart, then nail on the solid top which locks all the framing solidly in place. Layout framing doesn't need to be too complicated as the loads are very light and the consequences of failure small.....DaveB

If it were me ...

If it were me, I would put a thin 1/4" plywood shell on top and then seal all the benchwork with primer paint like Kiltz.

Next, I would use a layer of 1/4" cork for the areas where the track is the mainline and 1/8" cork for the places where the track is to be lower. I would also seal the cork before laying the track on it with primer paint.

Then I would use something like 6mm black foam to fill in the spaces between the track. If I need to carve a few ditches or add a few imperfections, it's easy to do. Amazon sells the black foam in 10 packs here for $12 US: http://a.co/02NBBWQ

​I have measured foam sheets at the building supply and the thickness can be off edge-to-edge by up to 1/8", and the foam boards sometimes can be warped. Plus as Ken Patterson experienced, over a 15 year timeframe, the foam can shrink. In Ken's case, it was up to 1/4" of shrinkage per module, creating half-inch gaps between modules.

I don't trust foam as roadbed. It's fine for scenery, but I think you're relying a lot on luck if you use the stuff for roadbed.

Dave, DaveB and GrahamLine

Dave, DaveB and GrahamLine many thanks for the replies.

I really liked some of the benchwork results i saw here where the kreg jig was used so i ordered it . I hope my results look and function as good as the ones i saw here.

The terrain i got in all of the modules seen here is relatively flat, as is the prototype in ATSF's 2nd district in LA between Pasadena and Cucamonga. Just light gradual inclines and flatland around (urban or rural).

I am thinking for module 1# to use 3 pieces of plywood cap. 1 for tracks and 2 for structures (depot and freight house). I am thinking the plywood for where the tracks will be, to be on a 1.2% incline, whereas the adjacent pieces where the depot and freight house are, to be flat and forming steps where the foundations of the structures end. Having said that, maybe cascading pieces of foam are an easier solution for sequential structures on an incline rather than cascading pieces of plywood. Any ideas here?

I am set on how to build some other modules that involve significant terrain variability (such as Arroyo Seco trestle and South Pasadena for future modules). It is the flatlands on a small incline that trouble me...on the current modules.

EDIT: I just saw Joe's reply. Thanks Joe! I am inclined to go to all plywood with the exception of the trestle area. I did use 5mm cork in the last layout as you described to top the plywood cap (15mm plywood), but i ll try to follow through with more variation exactly as you suggest (thinner cork on sidings etc...). Much appreciated info on the long term behavior of foam!!

Any ideas on how to get 0 incline bases for structures on the plywood cap that will be on a 1.5% incline itself? Cutouts?

EDIT2: Good call Joe on sealing the benchwork. I omitted doing it on the last layout, and although i did not have any warpage issues at all there are other issues involved. First, i admired the neatness of Ken's coated/varnished benchwork pieces, so it is much more (to me) pleasing aesthetically to coat it, and plus a coated less porous surface is easier to clean.

Cutouts or shims

Yes, use cutouts or shims. Shims would be easier ... I would cut out some styrene footprints to match the structure outline, then shim them to level. Finally, apply your favorite terrain-plaster method to smooth out the terrain around the level structure footprints.

On kreg joints

I have used kreg style joints on all of my modules. I use 12mm (ca. 1/2") birch multiplex for the end plates and 9mm birch multiplex for the sides. The end plates have the kreg holes drilled into them using the jig. No problems at all as long as you don't use countersunk crews. Ever.

I also used 12mm multiplex for all areas that have track on them and foam anywhere else. Putting track directly on foam turned out to be too noisy and doesn't offer any support for turnout mechanism of any kind.

Double down on Dave B's advice.

Screws into ply end grain should be avoided at all costs.  Google "wood torsion box" and you will get the idea of how strong a thin ply frame with tops and bottoms can become.  Top only it becomes less strong but still more than adequate for our purposes.  Start cutting more bits out of the top and the structure weakens even more.

Not saying it can't be done but if you start with the understanding of a torsion box (see also Miles Hale's bit on lift ups on TMTV) then give due consideration to how much you remove, you should be fine.

Open Grid

Nominal 1x4, 1x3 grids with a plywood top have been used for thousands of modules and are just about bullet proof.  I would use 1/2 inch plywood, pretty much any screw you drive from the bottom in 1/4 ply will come through.

If you want a grade, I wouldn't put the plywood on the grid, I would do cookie cutter roadbed, elevate the roadbed above the grid on risers.  Then you could build building sites using foam pads, supported on risers or blocks of foam on the grid.

the ONE module approach

I just find it amusing that virtually every single person that says they are using the ONE module approach, describes how they are building multiple modules (including Joe himself).  If you are building multiple modules at the same time then its not TOMA, its just a sectional layout.

What is and is not TOMA?

Sorry, Dave, I created the term TOMA and I don't agree.

To qualify as a TOMA layout, it needs to be:

1. A home layout doing some modular / sectional approach.
2. Detailed pre-planning is occurring only for a subsection of the entire layout.
3. The layout is constructed in phases (can be one or more modules, but not the entire layout) with each phase planned and built to full completion, including staging and operation in each phase.

I agree that the original inspiration for The "One Module" Approach was a single module, and that is what I would call "classic TOMA" but the more loose description above also qualifies as a TOMA.

What makes it a TOMA is not doing the entire layout in a monolithic fashion but using a sectional approach and building a subsection of the full layout to completion including operation.

Put another way, if you're not doing a monolithic construction approach, but doing a phased construction approach, then it can be considered to be using a TOMA philosophy. 

I'll say it again: much of this is nothing new. What is new is popularizing this approach bigtime to the point it becomes a very common way to do a home layout and a very well understood approach by all.

P.S. The new wrinkle to TOMA is exploring some of the latest developments in material technology to get very strong but extremely light weight module sections. You will see more of this come out as I begin building my Siskiyou Line 2 layout. The "build each piece to completion" thinking and the push to make each section as lightweight as possible is making me consider new ways of doing a layout that I never would have dreamed of before. In that sense, TOMA thinking may lead to ways to do a home layout over time that are completely new.

One module

When we built sections of the Pittsfield Branch for TrainMasters TV, we found that it made a lot of sense (in our case) to build all four modules at once.  We could do this because there was a master plan for the entire layout, and even if it ended up in a different space, those sections could be easily reconfigured.  We tested the fit between them and It was only a one-time mess to clean up afterwards.  Our layout owner "Bill" could then stash them in a storage area until he was ready to use them.  The work on the first section might have kept him busy for a few months, but then the next section would be ready to go when he was.

Can also be the start to a future dream layout

We also would call that a TOMA scenario - you're building a few sections now of a possible future much larger home layout. This was our assumption for Bill. Start small, think big, as we call it.

That's also TOMA. The ultimate end-point is yet undetermined because you don't even know what it might be.

Something to be determined more robustly are principles for designing a TOMA so that it can adapt better to an as yet unknown future space. Can you define sectional boundaries such that the pieces are more likely to adapt to a new space, versus other sectional boundaries that make it likely the module sections you've already built can't adapt and will be dumpster fodder?

That could be an interesting problem to study.

Great Feedback!

Thank you all for the valuable info and help!

Joe: True, shims sound about right given the "flatness" and inclines for foundations. Given 0.5mm cork for track (or roads), 0.3 to 0.5mm sheet styrene shimmed to being horizontal sounds like an ideal foundation for each structure. Plus i avoid cutting the plywood top into pieces, which would introduce added complexity and would compromise its load-bearing capacity.

Dave (Husman): I plan to have the entire plane (plywood cap) on an incline using risers all around the box-frame (which will act as a tilted boxframe in a sense). For places where i have more intense terrain variability i will do exactly as you propose, cookie cutter + foam (for example steep inclined in south Pasadena, around Arroyo Seco etc..)

About the TOMA, (coincidentally Joe's last post contained what i am about to say...): I have read about sectional layouts and construction methods well before i have started building the layout that i am about to tear down (built on top of several tables that are bolted together). It was when i first came across information, discussions and articles about the TOMA, that gave me the inspiration to realize that i could start working on my future layout (future home) now instead of waiting, using the TOMA/sectional principles/concepts.

So in relation to what Joe said in his last post, i designed my future layout for a future hypothetical (but plausible) space. I then decided what where the key modules there. Key refers to both what i consider more important visually/operationally, and to what Joe refers to as the most likely to adapt/survive-modules. I placed those key modules in my current space and then connected them together to form the track plan you saw in my opening post.

For the sake of the discussion i am posting for reference the latest and most probable/finalized incarnation of the future layout next to the current one that i am about to start working on.

A fourth point that makes it a TOMA

I guess you could say this is a fourth bullet point that makes a sectional/modular layout project a TOMA. It's the idea that you can do what we call start small but think big.

The original commentary that evolved into TOMA was my "One Module Challenge" commentary in the May 2013 MRH. The thrust of that commentary was to not wait until you got your final layout space to start building the layout, but to build your first module of that layout now.

So the fourth bullet point of what constitutes a TOMA layout would then be:

4. A project to build to completion one or more module sections of what is intended to eventually be a larger layout in a different space.

The idea is you can start that layout NOW: you don't have to wait.

Module for a layout or a "TOMA LAYOUT"

The first beginning of my layout was when I still living with my parents....a long time ago.

At the same time my late father offer me, the famous Kalmbach book about John Allen and the GD lines by Linn Westcott.

The idea to build my own layout in section or modules come from the fact , John Allen included the first GD in his final project.

Even " I was sure to live in my own quarters someday", I never envisioned to dismantle my first layout.

Today, my "Port Allen" which I began to build at this time  is included in my Maclau river; the basic layout has received a few modifications including many turnouts replacement from Peco to Fastrack one, a kind of modernization if I can say.

I'm in the way to build a module with a coal dumper and want to show it in train show, but his conception is already made to be included in the Maclau river layout

So I can say I have a TOMA layout or nearly one, may be well before the "Toma" concept was developed,  because made in Nscale, many of my modules were challenging and depict a specific scene especially on a 2,5m length and I have this concept more than 30 years ago ( I don't believe it's nearly 40 years ago.....My  god I'm now 59!!)

As an information this is how I build everything,

First everything is in plywood, first rate one, cut in length by the wood furnisher.(now I have my own table saw)

The Port Allen section like the rest of the Maclau River is build on a sturdy open grid frame benchwork from 3/8 plywood, each members is 7" width grid are 45cm x 45 cm (nearly 1,5 feet by 1,5 feet)

Each section has a maximum 2,50m length or nearly 7.5 feet and a maximum 1m width or around 3 feet (not port Allen which is 4 feet width, some module are smaller than 2,5 m because space allowed at this time construction).

Each open grid module is glued and screwed and receive on each width extremity,  a members screwed and glued across each members under the open grid frame; this make the module even sturdy and oblige him to stay  square. I now paint all the open grid structures with white primer before use, with an air gun.

Because I'm a iron worker by formation, a iron tube frame was made to support all the modules; the wood modules  are loaded on the iron table on the flat members screwed across each cross members in width.

The modules are screwed on this iron frame by underneath on the flat width reinforce; the iron table  frame is made from rectangular tube (2mmX30X60X6000) soldered together with three cross members in length, this allow to have nearly no feet under the layout; in fact a feet each six meters or 18 feet.( this table was also constructed in smaller section to follow the contour of the train room)

The maximum 2.5m length and the maximum width of 1meter (3 feet) allow these modules to be charged  in a small truck and moved; six of them were moved by the time, fourth or five time, without big trouble.

Many techniques have evolved since I begun to build the layout, the scenery was first  plaster soaked paper, after comes the Styrofoam scenery and now red rosin paper and sure I will stay with the red rosin paper for ever because it produce no dust, no mess when working with it.

Risers for the 1/2 plywood roadbed were first screwed on the side of the open grid cross members, but when I see Michael Rose blog on this site, I also put the risers on the top of the cross members, it's much easier to control the elevation of the roadbed; all the risers are a minimum over 20 cm from the open grid frame this is level "0" and allow negative scenery contour in 20 cm (deep in N scale)

I try to put joiners on track on each "frontier" of each module, I don't make electrical connections between each module, the wire are just receiving a small slope on each "frontier", which allow to cut them and soldered them again after a move.

All modules are just bolted together side by side, and screwed by underneath on the Iron table; The iron table is set full square level, the feet of the Iron table are bolted in the ground.

Two men can easily lift up a module, the 1m maximum width allow to pass between a door frame without to much difficulties,the fascia follow the edge of each module and since each module is a continuation of his predecessor, the contour are the same at each module "frontier". I use  3mm MDF for fascia and if a move is necessary, I cut it between modules like the red rosin paper scenery.

As mentioned the multiple moves have allowed me to conserve my layout  since I begun to build it; some track were laid by my late father, like some structures on Port Allen, this is really fantastic memories for me, and I never have moved his track and his structures since he help me to put them on the layout.

And as a conclusion, I never have believed the decision to make the layout movable when I was young, could give me so much satisfaction illuminated by so sentimental memories.

I posted a pretty ambitious

I posted a pretty ambitious new layout plan in another thread, and I'm looking at ways to "TOMA-ize" at least part of the construction. 

I'm thinking that benchwork (subbenchwork?) might just be low tables onto which I would place modules of the different towns (major yards would be several modules wide). This could be plywood, dimensional lumber or maybe Brian's (railandsail) metal construction. Modules could be entirely different construction, and might be set into place without even being hard fastened to the supporting framework. Then I can shift the modules around, ad if I ever move again, they would go with me, while all the connecting tracks and subbenchwork would be rebuilt in a different configuration to match whatever new space there would be.

There is a LOT to be said for this approach. Modules would be built in a designated "construction area" then moved to the layout room. No construction dust worries around areas of finished scenery anymore, and part of the layout will be finished very early in construction. The biggest downside might be having to decide what piece of the layout to start with!

Plywood can have a

Plywood can have a substantial echo, whereas foam, not so much.

Foam is fun, but I really feel like I am using it way too much as a substrate and not near enough a feature of the landscape.

So there you have a plus on both sides.