One question about the yard design you showed as an example.

The actual Roseburg yard may be located on a curve, but have you tried it with a model in practice?  Our modular club specifies an minimum radius on the mainline of 36 inches.  Even with that broad of a curve, it is difficult to get body mounted Kaddees to line up for coupling on curves.

You bet

coupling on a curve

Sometimes the brakeman has to kick the coupler over inline ( or an uncoupling skewer for a scale brakeman)....DaveB

Venn Diagram

Joe's going to have to explain how he comes up with the bulge in his revision of my (uncredited) Venn diagram.

How does he have a "modular" layout that is not sectional and not any other thing?  It doesn't matter what "features" are on the TOMA or how good or bad the attributes are, if its a "modular" layout its a sectional layout.  1000% by definition.

Either that or Joe doesn't understand what a Venn diagram is or what my diagram shows.

I think I should clear things up a bit.

We don't have a curved yard on the modular layout.  We have a usual problem with modular set ups in that the modules seem to develop slight bumps or dips where they are joined together after they have had trains running and people bumping into them for a couple of days.  It really doesn't take much of a bump or dip to cause cars to come uncoupled.  We often end up readjusting things 2 or 3 times during a weekend show.

I didn't think of the fact that the drawing of the "sacrificial module" was not to scale.  In the drawing it looks like a 12 inch radius!  Obviously the radius is much bigger than it looks in the picture.

The Idea of Sacrificial Modules/Sections

I have to agree with your thought process and the principal of using sacrificial modules. It is a good way to “fill in the pieces” between major parts of the layout—in your example the curved portion of your yard fills in between the yard’s ladder trackage and other features of the yard .

When working on the design of my own n-scale layout, the Norfolk Southern Kirksville District, I have planned the main towns I want to include on my layout, then I fill the space between them—in my case, farmland, rolling hills with lots of timber, etc., by using 12-inch wide modules going from one town to the next, making use of the available space.

Though, as with everything in life, there has to be sacrifices made for your family—in my case, with having a young family and being a good only-child to my mother, that space is now used for storage instead of a layout. Therefore, I am now working on the first of twelve specific locations that must be modeled on my layout, Moberly, Mo., which is two 5-foot by 18-inch modules. Once I complete Moberly, I will then begin building to the next modeled town, and so forth, all the way to Albia, Iowa (which leads to Des Moines in hidden staging).

Hopefully, one day, I will be able to set these modules up with “filler modules” between each town in my garage and host an operation session every once-in-a-while; or if we buy a new house that has more available space (one can dream), I can then fit my layout into that specific space.

Alignment System failure

Smells like alignment-system design failure...

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

Sacrifice or Filler

I have such a section although in my case it is a filler section unless we choice to move again at some point in the future.

One large recommendation, build it in such a way you can reclaim the pieces and reuse them if possible.

I had built my wife 3 craft benches and one came up for reuse of my choice. Since plywood was on it's way up at the time I took it apart. Unfortunately a her request I had used glue to put the plywood on because she didn't want any ugly screws on top. The frame to hold it all together was made up of 1x2's.

Taking it apart was a royal pain. Getting the glue off turned out to be possible with a chisel and hammer and a whole lot of sanding.

I have used foam also and quit using that for the same reason.

Jack

Non modular TOMA

The only explanation for the purple part of the TOMA set escaping the modular/section set boundaries is applying TOMA concepts to a non-sectional layout.  Not such a crazy idea - build the whole layout as one piece, but focus one one area at a time to finish it.

Aligning modules

My old club, the Muskoka Model Railway Club, had a fool proof way of connecting modules.

They mounted 4" hinges on the front and back of each module. 

I just looked through the 1,128 photos I have of the club's layouts and do you think I could find one showing the outside of the modules. Most were of the top of the layout or closeups. Go figure.

Basically, they lined up the modules, and mounted the hinge flat as shown, with one half on each module and the pin parallel to the join with the pin head on top. Once secured on front and back, the two pins were popped out and the modules separated. Then once at the new location, the two modules were put back together and the pin dropped back in the hinge.

Result, perfect connection every time.

Another club had used two carriage bolts with wingnuts, but they found after several shows, the holes in the wood had developed slack.

Venn

Then that would overlap the conventional one piece layout. 

The problem with alignment is floors in the places that we set

up.  Since the floors are not level, a little adjustment needs to be allowed to make up for the unevenness.  Also we use holes drilled in the module frame by a jig that uses 5/16 bolts to hold the modules together.  Some members have had steel sockets machined by a machine shop and 1/4 inch steel pins to align individual sets that go the same way every time, but with 40-50 members and probably 3 times that many modules, there are limits to how many mods we can do to keep things aligned without requiring every module to be changed to some new system of bolting them together.  In addition some set ups have required "special" modifications.  When we set up at the Southern California Railway Museum, one side of the set up has the legs on concrete, the other side has the legs sitting on the rails in the floor!  At one set up we were on a city street that had been blocked off, and due to the crown in the road, we had to put relatively huge blocks on the side that was in the gutter to get it level!  At the L.A. county Fairgrounds there is one building that we have set up in that results in a 3% upgrade on one side of the layout and a 3% down grade on the other side!  There are challenges a many of the venues where we set up.  One of the biggest challenges has been trying to design a gate to allow access to the inside of the layout with out requiring us old guys to get on hands and knees to crawl under the layout!  We don't refuse any venue that is offered to us.  We just find a way to make a set up work.

Try a sheep-shed...

Dear Russ, Joe, MRHers,

I hear and agree with "each venue has it's challenges", I absolutely do,
I've been 30+ years continuously exhibiting layouts,
(along with Concerts, events, and other similar "setup in random venues each night, deal with the variables, and make it work" gigs),

and have met many similar venues...
(More than happy to trade war-stories over a beverage of your choice, if the chance ever presents!   ),

However, I also have seen, built, and crewed layouts with multiple routes covering multiple gauges,
spread accross multiple modules,
spanning 1" <> 30" from the front-fascia edge,
and 4" <> 24" vertically from the frame of the module,
(IE where the alignment systems are anchored)

successfully continuously operate over a 3-day (10+ hr per day) show,
setup in (admittedly worst-case) a sheep-shearing and sale-mustering shed,
featuring a floor formed of 24" wide, 6" shallow-V concrete drainage corrugations,
(don't ask what the stains are running along the drains under the layout.... :-(  ).

requiring zero "multiple re-alignments per show"
(as per earlier postings),

and surviving literal 150kilo humans tripping-over and using the layout to stabilise themselves...

(Apologies for the VHS quality and dodgy MIDI backing music, this example was a long time ago...)

(Consider the above example,
- the distance/leverage effects on even tiny mis-alignments at module frame level,
- multipled by the distance-from-alignment of those High and Far-back tracks,
- mutiplied by having to get All Routes in alignment accross Every joint,
- irrespective of whatever the venue floor is doing,
sheep-shed, railway preservation museum loco shed, or otherwise, 
...this is not a situation where "close enough is good enough" if the paying crowd expects to See Trains Running...)

Point being, properly-engineered alignment systems,
and related "joining" systems (no, these are not the same!),
allow modules to be held together despite the range of venue-variations (within the limits of gravity and physics),
they give consistency to the layout assembly independent within-reason of the uncontrollable environment variables,
which in-turn makes exhibiting a lot easier and more-fun for all involved...

EDIT: I also appreciate the "quantity of modules involved" and "wide variety of builders/sources/build-quality" variables which may differentiate a US-style (Free-mo-esque?) modular rig from a "more-common in Rest of World" sectional exhibition layout. The tighter control of build design, source, and actual construction would appear to be a luxury to such "striving for linear-run distance" modular systems, which I believe has been discussed here on MRH previously?

That said, if "Arid Australia" can do it
(at one time, a Guiness World Record holder for the longest HO scale train operation,
capable of supporting over 1000-car long ore trains)
with a layout that eats 2x basketbal courts on it's own, and requires a 20' bus + 20' trailer to haul,
then I'm not sure the "too many modules to standardise alignment systems" argument holds?
https://wamrc.org.au/galleries/arid-australia-2008

Happy Modelling,
Aiming to be ready to exhibit at the next available local opportunity, whenever it may be,
Prof Klyzlr

PS bringing it back to Joe's OP, such "venue variations/each-layout-setup session is different" issues are problems I would not expect the Home Environment TOMA user to deal with,
they only have the One Venue worth of variables to surmount...
(and again, proper alignment and joining systems would permit the sections to handle movement "between homes" while ensuring consistency and repeatability of assembly...)

So, I can't see into Joe's

So, I can't see into Joe's mind about that little blob, but one option could be what our club is doing.

For major yards and switching areas, everything is built on what could be called modules. Individual plywood boxes that are small enough to be handled by one-ish person. This allowed wiring to be done with the box up.

HOWEVER, it is not by intention a sectional layout. Once in place the gaps between boxes are being sceniced over and it will never move again until/unless we lose our lease and have to move. At that point, it will be pulled out and we will lose some scenery work, but the track work and most wiring will be in place.

Now, you can call it a sectional layout, because those are sections, but it isn't conceived as sectional. That's just how the benchwork is being built. It's conceived and built as a monolith. 

Module leveling

Module leveling was done with threaded feet (Similar to photo) and two 6" levels set at 90 degrees to each other.

Two approaches

There are two approaches a group can take, tight or loose.

With the loose approach there is less precision in the joint and the connection is designed to accommodate that lack of precision.  For example the traditional module approach of a 1/4 inch bolt and a piece of sectional track.   That method intentionally has some slack in it accommodate uneven floors and varying degrees of carpentry and track laying abilities. 

The other is the tight method with a very precise mating surface and more rigid standards.  The welded frames are an example.  Those using precise aligning pins are in that same category.  Running the rails right to the edge of the module is in this category.  

Either method will work.   The more precision, the more consistent the construction has to be.  If you use welded frames you have to have somebody that welds or pay somebody to fabricate it for you.  If your members aren’t finish carpenters then the consistency may not be there.  In some modular clubs of which I was a member we were happy if some of the guys could get a module square and parallel.  Yes other members can help fabricate the modules for others, but that only works as long as those members are available.  If they leave or move away, it can leave the group high and dry.  Have seen that in multiple clubs when the lone guy with a vital talent is no longer there.

Best plan is to make it as precise as you can but within the capabilities of the majority of the members.

Thoughts...

Dear Dave, MRHers,

Thoughts occurring...

Agreed. 

Yes, well stated...

I tend to think of the key elements:

- Module alignment (mechanical system to ensure "falls together, first-time every-time" alignment accuracy)
- Module joining (how each pair of modules are held together)
- Rail-ends accross the joint (Flush-butt, drop-in ballasted sections, drop-in rail sections, se4ctional track, etc)

as 3 seperate-but-interacting systems. Consciously Choose 2 out of the 3,
and the consequent valid options/techniques for the 3rd one become clear...

Sidenote: it is this inter-relationship, and specifically the mis-matching of a "Loose" (or non-existent) alignment system with a "tight" rail-end handling technique (like flush-butt rail joints) which commonly leads to the refrain...

"...flush butt rail joints never work, they never line-up right, it never works..." :-(

Agreed, but pls see below...

Agreed, which is why Qubelok framing
(bangs together with a rubber mallet, pre-cut lengths and joiners for consistent assembly,
no cutting or welding required) 

MDF or ply end-plates
(for transferring the accurate module-end alignment at frame level up to rail-end level,
and providing solid anchor-points for "flush-butt" rail end joints)

and Foamcore
(simple to assemble with X-acto knife and hotglue, lightweight,
and only needs to "hold up the pretty bits in the middle")

makes for a "can be built by anyone" module capable of < 0.005" rail-alignment accuracy...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS I see Joe notes "sliding modules into position between other modules" poses a challenge. I've been keeping a weather-eye out, and it appears there are a number of "retractable" alignment systems commonly available for the woodworking and furniture industries that might present a solution?

For Will - Hinge Theory 101 redux

Hi Will, all,

Maybe I can assist with the hinge linking approach between sections 

see - Hinge Theory 101 for a worked example showing the implementation for a sectional layout with significant height changes in the layout design. As built this layout is a sectional layout of 12 modules that stretches 24' one way and 20' the other. It will just fit in a double-car side-by side garage but this layout is starting to get to to the  "Basement-filler size". Apart from 3 bolts at "difficult" section joins, hinges hold the whole lot together. 

Could it have built bigger ? Yes it could have been BUT for a layout with no permanent home that has to be kept in good order while in storage for prolonged periods, this size is about as big as can be practicably managed over the layout's life span. Yes I would love to have a 30' by 30' airconditioned room where this layout could be permanently set up, but it is not an option for the ownership team.

Yes, it was built using an "almost TOMA" approach of staged construction of several modules at a time. Because of the mechanical and electrical complexity of this layout, scenery came after track reliability was proven. Tracklaying and scenery was done in 2-module stages with the hinges ensuring accurate alignment while on the workbench. The hinge is the black blob on the aluminium frame at right

This allowed effective landscape profile matching and scenery blending across section joints. Previously I have mentioned elsewhere on here the idea of blending scenery across module joints, where you pull up short and then apply scenery across the module joint and into the next module to get a consistent scenery "look" across the module joint.  

Here's the blend after it was done. You don't have to go far into the next module. This photo was after the modules were split to allow the glue to dry.

Here's what came next

Once clear of the joint area, detailed scenery was done with one module on the workbench at a time on a module-by-module (TOMA?) construction approach. Like cliff building on a different module

It's really not that hard to do - Hey if I and a mate who'd never built a model railway before can do it anyone else should be able to do something similar. 

Depends on how you view the Venn diagram

...

So don't couple and uncouple on the curve.  Keep the tracks long enough that there is at least a two car straightaway on either side of the curve and do all yard coupling and uncoupling there.  Couple up to the line on the track that you're dealing with, pull the cars out to where you want to uncouple them, and uncouple them on the straightaway.  Now, when you need to recouple, there are no coupler alignment problems.  You as the brakeman/switchman are further not required to move long distance in the yard to accomplish your work.

My club's old modules solved this problem by drilling a 5/16" hole in the bottom of each leg vertically and then putting a T-nut into the bottom of every post with a 4" x 1/4" bolt.   Board or block could be placed between the floor and the bolt, if it was an excessive difference, and then the bolt tensioned until the layout was level.  One could use rivet nuts or threaded EZ-Lock threaded inserts other alternatives nowadays.

This system was under the entire old layout, whereas they used the modular materials to build the permanent layout.

This is the idea precisely, except the T-nots were mounted on the ends of 2x2 materials, they simply didn't buy the feet but used a lot of round smoothhead carriage bolts instead.

TOMA concepts that could be adapted to non-sectional layouts.

Yeah, folks have been using them for decades. Finishing one section of scenery before moving to the next, building modular benchwork designed to be easy to move, and re-using old sections in new layouts for example. Every layout is in a state of change and at  any given time contains different  aspects of design, construction,operation,decay,etc. ....DaveB

Ideas aren't so new, but the TOMA spin may add a new twist

The ideas aren't so new, but the TOMA spin may add a new twist.

For example, I've seen lots of thoughts around "potentially sectional" layout designs where the track plan included the concept of "sections" that could be cut apart later if the owner ever needed to move.

Most of the time, however, not a lot of thought is given to those sections and how much they might weigh, for example. Or how maneuverable those sections may be when trying to wrestle them down the hall, up stairs or around corners. Often if the move does come, those sections have problems such as not being very maneuverable or weighing a lot.

TOMA forces you to "field test" those sections to make sure they're truly portable. TOMA module sections don't get moved a lot, but just enough so you know they're portable.

The sacrificial module concept is another one I've not seen discussed much. Since TOMA can be a home layout design that's intended to be moved, then considering sacrificial modules can be helpful to make sure you can use more of the old layout in a new differently shaped space.

In fact, I can see an entire discipline being developed around sacrificial module section best practices. In other words, TOMA thinking could lead to new areas we've never explored much before.

The overall ideas may not be new, but the depth to which we explore them may be new, thanks to TOMA thinking.

Section weight

Model railroaders for some reason seem overly concerned with layout section weight. We don't worry so much about other household items. If we move we just hire someone to carry the piano, large couch, heavy dining room table, refrigerator, etc. So why all the concern about the layout size and weight?  As for TOMA , I think it's a  great way to think about building your sections to be move-able, use sacrificial sections, build in stages, etc. These are things that should be considered in any layout construction....DaveB

Weight and portability

I wasn’t concerned about weight at all with Siskiyou Line 1. The 12 feet of benchwork where my Dillard lumber mill was located ended up weighing something like 300 pounds when I hauled it all the scrap benchwork and plasterwork to the dump. That would never work for my 6 foot TOMA sections … 150 pounds each!

My goal with TOMA is making each 6 foot section come in at around 40 lbs each when finished.

Then maneuverability is another question. Getting a long TOMA module section around corners can be a challenge … making my shadowbox module sections a 24” x 24” box that’s 6 feet long and weighs only 40 lbs means one guy can upend it to get it through doors and around corners.