Light Weight is the most interesting part of the concept

I've been thinking about a sectional layout, but I was thinking of longer sections to minimize joints.  (My first Toma section would be 14 foot long to accurately model a Kansas City West bottoms area to HO scale , so I was thinking 8 and six foot to use some plywood I have in the basement and garage), but 3/4 inch ply is overkill unless I lean on it......The shadowbox concept is also interesting..my current thinking is to use Micro-Engineering turnouts... both # 6 and 5A in the tighter areas..so they will be finger flick as well, and I'm experimenting with LED strip light as well, to keep amperage demands low.  I have two switched 20 amp circuits in the planned layout area for layout power,   two 15 amp switched circuits for layout lighting, and one 15 amp room lighting circuit.

Your thoughts have got me thinking about selecting the best ways to do what I want.  I would love to see your sections in KC in August,  but I'll be with wife, children, and grandchildren on a beach in Florida that week.

So I will follow your MRH articles with great interest.

Progress

Joe,

Any progress on your first two TOMA sections since you wrote the article? I find this stuff fascinating and I'm learning a lot of good tips that will help me out when I start my Industrial park modules.

Tim Garland

Progress

Yes, the first module is far enough along I can lay track on it and skin the fascia and valance with styrene, as well as skin the backdrop with styrene. I'm working on the system for doing the legs right now using PVC pipe and making sockets in the module section for the legs to pop into.

All told, the first module, which is 44" long, weighs 13 pounds. I'll post a blog entry with the latest details in a few days.

Joe was it hard parting with

Joe good luck with you future efforts in model railroading. I appreciate your work and contributions to the hobby. 

Inspiring!

Joe,

Awesome article!  I'm in the phase of planning the construction of my new layout (third in two years) and this style of construction intrigues me.  

Are you going to apply this concept to a multi-deck design?

Look forward to your progress!

SL2-module1

Following along, Joe. Question I have is: how are you going to isolate track from plywood so it is not a horrendous sound board? John Colley, Sonoma, cA

@andy.dorsch

While the shadowbox benchwork form factor actually allows stacking modules, I'm not planning any multi-deck areas for the moment. I do have in the back of my head, however, doing a second deck for the Coos Bay branch once I get into the final new space several years from now.

But for the moment, I'm focusing on just the Siskiyou Line main and making the Coos Bay branch just staging.

The shadow boxes are stackable, making it possible to do a multi-deck TOMA layout. You could even flip the upper shadow box around and make a mushroom.

@John Colley

John, I've never found the noise from track mounted directly on plywood to be a concern. I had a few places like that on SL1 and it was never a problem. I also suspect masonite hardboard spine isn't exactly quiet either -- and SL1 was full of it.

Bottom line, for me the whole soundboard concern is overblown. It's never bothered me.

That said, the mainline and sidings on the plywood areas will be mounted on cork that's sealed with gray sealer-primer. The main will use HO cork (5mm) and the siding will use N cork (3mm). Everything will be fastened down (track and cork) with gray latex caulk.

The industry spurs will be mounted directly on the plywood using the latex caulk. The rubber-like caulk does seem to ease the noise factor somewhat, though, I've noticed.

A Question.

You note that your TOMA shadow box design is stackable for a multi-decked or mushroomed layout, but don't propose how one is to get from one level to the other.

It looks to me that the shadow box approach is inherently unfriendly to a gradual, "nolix" solution...and I'm pretty sure you're not going to recommend a helix.

Incorrect assumptions on my part? 

David Stewart

Track Location

Joe,

Will you be using a standard track center for locating the roadbed for module to module like n-track or fremo?

I started my new layout with a toma inspired process. Keeping each module 18” deep with 6,8” length (hollow core door blank) as the base/platform with removable legs for each module. Then using with a  2” foam base for the layout it’s self ala Ken Paterson.  I’m very Interested to see how the SKL 2 progresses.

Congratulation on 100 Issues.

Inspiring

Nolix

There is no reason that custom shadow boxes that support the grade cannot be created. I don't see a problem with a nolix design here.in fact, only the boxes at each end of the grade would really need to be customized, unless you object to fascia that is not parallel to the ground.

What I'm seeing...

is diminishing headroom, affecting scenery (what is happening to my trees?), lighting and general viewability (am I gradually tilting my head to still see the train).

If the modules are to be directly stackable and repeatable in their construction then I see this as problematic.

And I'm not seeing how customized modules would remain directly stackable.

I'm interested in learning what it is that I am missing or misunderstanding.

David Stewart

What I'm seeing...

Is modules that slope up as needed.

TOMA is not N-Track where every module must meet each other module the same way.

TOMA is a series of custom/unique modules intended to be in a certain order. Changing later measn new intermediate modules would be needed.

Yep, Bill's got it

Yep, Bill's got it. All you do is plan your shadow boxes to be at different elevations off the floor and adjust accordingly.

Whether you have a more traditional monolithic benchwork design using a shadowbox (SL1) or a TOMA shadowbox design (SL2), the problem is the same. You need to move the fascia and valance up or down to accommodate changes in grade.

With TOMA shadowbox modules, some amount of the grade can be accommodated with simply different length legs. You can also adjust the bottom edge of the fascia and valance to keep the grade changes from looking too abrupt.

SL1 made transitions with its benchwork, fascia, and valance to maintain a similar shadowbox "viewport" around the layout. The same concepts can be applied to TOMA module sections. The problems being solved here are more dependent on the shadowbox form factor than they are on the TOMA sectional/modular concepts.

As far as stacking, SL1's upper deck obviously had to accommodate the lower deck's shadowbox benchwork and valance. I used a few tricks in some locations, such as super-thin valance support structure to allow the upper deck scenery to dip down more into the lower deck's valance area, such as at the North Umpqua river location.

This obviously would make any TOMA module sections that have been customized to stack only over a given lower module section very dependent on the room space they're in. I would expect relocating such ultra-custom stackable TOMA module sections into a new space would be difficult. The more location dependent a module section is the likely you will need to replace such sections because they won't fit the same into the new space.

Now stack 'em.

I guess I'm stuck on Joe's configuration which would be eminently stackable.

The explanation: not so much.

I can see this would work for an around the room layout or for a peninsular approach where you proceed on the level around the back of these modules. Certainly not TOMA dependent as to design.

I'm not against or mystified by the TOMA concept, just confused as to how, in Joe's configuration, one gets between levels.

Stackable? Very much so.

Connectable? How?

David Stewart

Same way as in a monolithic layout that uses shadowboxes

The same way you do in a traditional monolithic layout that uses a shadowbox form factor. The hitch you're having is with the shadowbox form factor. Has little to do with TOMA per se.

I did this with my Siskiyou Line 1 layout, which uses a monolithic benchwork approach with shadowboxes. I got to the next level by using a grade and raising the benchwork around the room, somewhat nolix style, plus a two tier helix, to finally get to the upper level over a spot that was the lowest part of the lower level.

The trick is to connect the highest point of the climbing shadowbox to the upper deck where it sits on top of the lower deck at the lowest level of the shadowbox. If the shadowbox viewport is kept about the same, you can get the track to the upper deck on top of the lowest shadowbox's valance top by climbing around the room nolix-style. You can use a small helix (forget the shadowbox here) to get the rest of the height needed. Got it?

The other trick you can use is making the shadowbox viewport less tall up-and-down if the bottom of the shadowbox is closer to eye level, making it easier to get up and over the lower shadowbox. On a mushroom, this isn't a huge problem because the raised floor compensates for the gain in benchwork height needed.

Thanks.

I had it all along. Not really directly stackable, but configurable into a multi-deck arrangement. Monolithic or TOMA, that much was always apparent.

"Stack" as I saw it:

Onward and upward.

David Stewart

room under and over

after the grade, there is room under or over the module for the stacked module as you show it.

Vertical transition curves - Another consideration??

Hi all, 

This hasn't been mentioned yet. The big thing to consider is the amount of length lost in the vertical transition curves from the flat to the grade at both ends of the grade. For longer length bogie cars this transition curve has to be gradual and will take a considerable horizontal distance..There is no way this type of vertical curve can be run in HO track with HO bogie stock without derailment or uncoupling problems

It is highly likely that the vertical transition curve will "eat" a module at both ends of the grade for longer length HO rolling stock like passenger cars and auto-racks. In the diagram below:

some things to watch for if moving uphill:

• At 1 - the coupling on the rear of the leading wagon will drop relative to the coupling on the following wagon as the wagon starts on to the grade
• At 2 - the coupling on the rear of the leading wagon will climb relative to the coupling on the trailing wagon that is still on the grade.
• From experience, if you have a coupling mismatch of greater than 1/2 a coupling head height, then you are heading into "breakaway" territory. A "jiggle" in the train or a localised track irregularity can bring you undone very quickly. A breakaway can be catastrophic for your models if it occurs at the top of the grade (ask me how I know this - and how many coal skips I've damaged/written off after runaways). On our models, we don't have the prototype's automatic airbrakes and handbrakes to hold breakaways on the grade.  
• This also means that the vertical curves necessary for N-scale and "prototype dimension" HO couplers are significantly longer and more gradual than the length of the vertical curve for the same % of mismatch on a coupler with a larger coupler head (Kadee #5 or similar)  
• For longer length wagons, the amount of horizontal distance chewed up in the vertical transition curves is significantly longer the than the distance required for the vertical curve when using shorter wagons with the same bogie pivot to coupler face distance. This is because the amount of coupler rise or fall is greater on a longer wagon than for a shorter wagon as the wagon enters of leaves the grade.
• As shown in the diagram above, Ii you have a known horizontal distance to fit in the grade, then the "actual grade" will be steeper than the "measured grade" averaged out over that distance. The "actual grade" is really what limits your capacity to tow stuff uphill. The value of the "actual grade" can be a nasty surprise if you haven't allowed the extra horizontal space needed for the vertical transition curves. A measured 2.5% grade could well have an actual grade of well over 3%.
• Even if you have allowed for the length of the vertical curves and  have built the actual grade to your nominated "steepness" but are still limited to a known horizontal distance for the total grade, then you still may be in for a another nasty surprise. The amount of height you were hoping to achieve may be unobtainable because the length of the grade is restricted by the amount of track in the vertical transition curves.  
• If possible, when building a grade on a sectional/modular layout, start and end your vertical curves away from module joints. If you are on the flat, stay on the flat across the module joint. If you are on a grade, keep the grade continuous across the module joint.

 The module join is just out of shot in the foreground. This eliminates another variable that can cause derailment problems at the module joint.

Don't mind the tracklaying in the photo - it's coal mine track on the side of a mountain moving single O-scale narrow-gauge 4-wheel coal skips one skip at a time . If you are running coupled HO or N scale bogie wagons, you'll have to do far better than this   Mind you, that shouldn't be too hard..

There are also some tricks to getting rails to bend smoothly in a vertical curve. The vertical curves in the above photo are probably about as extreme that you can bend HO code 100 rail without breaking it or kinking it into un-usability. We can cover that later if required. 

I'VE bEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS - YET........

I have tended to make my layout "modular" in the sense that sections are done at a time. I've used 8 foot by 24" modules because they fit perfectly in the back of my 1964 Corvair Greenbriar van. And I sometimes like to take them to shows/contests.

Right now my wife and I are downsizing and I'll lose my 13 foot by 30 foot basement. But the good news is this series of articles has a lot of good ideas I am going to try and incorporate into my new layout. I'm going for the TOMA approach in practice as well as name.

So while my layout room will only be 13 x 13 foot, I expect to enjoy just as much fun as I always have. (and it doesn't hurt that I'm moving just 4 blocks away from the 1 to1 scale Oregon Coast Scenic railroad. Oh the sacrifices.........

Lon Wall

Fireman SVRY and Oregon Coast Scenic

One comment on your article, Joe.

Linda - the painter in the family has always championed for painting the backdrop before the track work and other scenery are installed. Even before the benchwork is in place, at least permanently.

Glad to see your progress.

Out of curiosity, and if

Out of curiosity, and if you've mentioned this and I just glossed over it, I apologize, but how do the costs of your specific TOMA approach compare to a more traditional design either modular or monolithic? 

My immediate thought is things like everything being sheathed in styrene is far more expensive than masonite.

But the actual cost differential is of interest to me. 

Lightweight self-supporting module sections cost more

On the old layout, I just screwed everything to the wall and didn't build legs. I also reused a lot of lumber from prior layouts, so the lumber costs were cheap. Construction was L-girder ... 1x4s and 1x2s.

These days, clear dimensional lumber isn't cheap, though.

I used one 4x8 sheet of fir / pine plywood, $37 at Home Depot. I actually used a bit of another sheet but that was a redo because of a mistake on this first prototype module section. Done right, only a single sheet would be needed.

Then I also used two clear 1x4s to rip the 3/4" ribs and the valance triangular strip. Going forward, I'm going to use 1-1/2" by 3/4" ribs ... the 3/4" square ribs are just a bit too flexible for my taste. Assuming clear 1x2s going forward, then the 1x2s for this module section would cost about $12. I can rip the triangular strip from a 1x2.

For the triangular brace on the underside of the valance, you can rip a 5/16" piece off a clear 2x4. A premium 2x4 costs about $5, and you can get about 8 of these strips from a good 2x4, so that's about 60 cents each.

Then there's glue and brads, but that's pennies per module section.

Looking at just the lumber (no legs), this module section costs about $55 in lumber.

The styrene cost about $40. All told then, $95 for this module section.

If I was to build this using L-girders and 1x2s at today's prices, plus 1/2" plywood roadbed, plus particle board fascia, the base module would cost about $55. But then I also mounted a 1x4 L-girder upside down onto the ceiling to get the valance, and faced it with masonite. So that would add another $20. All told, SL1 for the same linear amount of benchwork attached to the wall with no legs at today's lumber prices -- about $75.

So SL1 benchwork: $75, SL2 benchwork: $95.

But the legs add to the cost. The legs for one module using PVC pipe and fittings cost about $70. However, once each module is attached, I will only put legs on one end of each module, allowing the legs on the attached module hold up the next attached module on one of the ends. Only the very last module in the chain will need legs on both ends.

So knowing that each module only needs one set of legs on one end, that means the $70 becomes about $35 per module for legs.

All told then ... wall-mounted SL1 benchwork: $75 ($20 per foot), SL2 TOMA module with legs: $130 ($35 per foot), or about 75% more.

In summary, it's the legs that add the extra cost. Walls are free support (so-to-speak).