My experiences using TOMA

Here's my Experiences with TOMA.

When I built my layout in my Uncle's Library, I tried building just a module's worth of layout.  The total structure was seven feet along one wall and four feet along a second.  For a while, I worked on this until I had it up to about 80% done.  And the, there was nothing more to do with it...

So I moved it upstairs to my room after I had a redesign epiphany that showed how I could have a full circuit if I put it in my room.And this worked well for a while,but I was locked into the original design of that first "module."  This in turn drove my planning decisions that lead to the end result, which had a stub staging yard and two levels, but overall suffered because of how the pieces went together.

In general, TOMA does not address the needs of the large layout builder.  It may address the short term needs of the builder who is in a confined space, who needs to be able to put up a section at a time, or the builder who goes to shows and thus has a place to set up all the modules.  For the large layout builder, though, a sectional or modular layout simply means unnecessary joints in the near future [planning for the sections] and a lock step into whatever design is used now.

When I took down the SASME layout, the 25' along the wall were all old sectional modules.  When I removed the mountains, I found all sorts of evidence of all the railroads that were before on those modules.  Even after all of this work, the modules were reduced down to a straight three track mainline with a branchline running behind; the framing and construction of a layout to support the end result would have been far less than the modular support structure that was under this layout.

These are my experiences with TOMA.  Maybe some have had better results, but thus far, my experience shows once the layout comes up, there's little appeal to recycling it into the next.

Like to explore this comment

I'd like to explore this comment more.

First, could you describe your construction methods more please? How did you build your modules, and what methods did you use to determine and build joints?

Second, you mention TOMA forces you into a "lock step" design. I fail to see how that is so, because with TOMA, if you want to change your mind, you can. Want a different track arrangement? Then move the modules around. Don't like some sections? Replace them. How is that "forcing you" into not being able to change?

If you build a monolithic layout, now that locks you in. Change your mind? Time for wholesale rip-and-replace. Just look at Michael Rose's blog to see how flexible monolithic is.

For the large layout builder

    TOMA would be great for many larger layouts, and not so good for others. The advantages would be having self contained dominoes that could be re-arranged at will or sold if the layout needs change. As long as the layout is linear in nature so the modules can stay less than about 30 inches wide TOMA  makes a lot of sense. The only kind of layouts it would not be a good choice for would be a spaghetti bowl design or a layout with large wide and deep scenic features such as river canyons and tall cliffs adjacent to the track( these wide and steep scenic features could still be built TOMA style but they have longer joints to construct and hide so are not ideal for modular construction) . I'm planning my new layout to use TOMA in the track laying and scenery stages but am building all the benchwork ( as modules or dominoes)first so I can run the buss wires and backdrops around the room. If I decide to modify the plan at some point I can still re-arrange or re-purpose the modules and keep the backdrops and buss wire,I see this as having the best of both worlds........DaveB  

The Toma concept is appealing

The Toma concept is appealing for several reasons. The modules are portable and like some of those free-mo layouts they do not have to have any particular end points. They can be put together in a new location. The seams can be hidden the way Rick hid them on his layout. He built some rip cords that would tear through his scenery allowing it to separate on a predetermined line, but prior to the time a move is planned there is no seam.

Alan who used to post on here a lot built his layout in sections and was able to do wiring track etc at his work bench, and then he put his sections on his layout. I have seen bridges put together with less precision than Alan's layout and they are still in use.

The concept does have some advantages over other ways to build a layout.

I think I have posted this before

I am building my layout in a spare bedroom. It is designed as a modular sectional layout in a shadowbox format what MRH is calling TOMA. Since the bedroom is upstairs, the modules were designed to go up the winding stairs and fit through the bedroom door without removing the door. The base is 24 inches wide, plus a 2 inch think backdrop structure for a total of 26 inches.

The layout is free standing and not bolted to the wall. When I move in 2 or 3 years, the layout is designed to come with me.

The modules were constructed with and integrated back drop, top and valance. 

There are two 5 foot modules a 4 foot corner module and a 6 foot module. The modules bolt together to form a point-to-point layout in an L shape.

The theme of the layout is backwoods lumber loosely based on the West Side Lumber Co. I have a collection of WSLCo Shays in Sn3. The Shays are right at home on a point-to-point layout. Fetching trees from one end and delivering them to the mill on the other end.

Here is a shot of the modules bolted together.

--Bill B.

TOMA at the club

Our local club, Southeast Texas M.R.R.C. Uses the TOMA approach to our layout, the sections are 2 feet wide by 4 feet long, with some only 3 feet long, and two different type of 4 foot square turn around end modules. There are also special corner sections all built with light weight materials due to needing to be portable for shows. The sections can be rearranged in many different configurations due to double main tracks with consistent spacing. We have made the layout as small as 4 foot by 12 foot and as large as 24 foot by 30 foot, and only the lack of more completed modules have prevented any further expansion. It has been configured in a linear shape, "L" shape, "U" shape, and when I complete some of the modules I am building, we will have the option of a "G" shape, or "E" shape, and other combinations. Two turn around ends are single track which give us a dog bone type of layout, and the other two are double track, which allow modules to be arranged back to back to fit more modules in an available space. There are two disadvantages which are unique to the portability of this layout, one is the flat land scenery due to needing to place modules in traveling cases, and the other being the 9 inch drop in track sections needed to connect the module sections together. Both of those disadvantages would disappear on a home layout that wouldn't need to be portable. We have not set up the club layout as a stub ended switching layout, although it would be possible due to the ease of connecting the modules together. We use DCC and the wiring bus connects to the individual modules with quick connect plugs, further expansion can be handled with a second wiring bus plugged into the first one for the additional modules. We have been very pleased with our layout, and have operated it both at the home base and at many train shows. The modules I am personally working on will be used both at the club layout and my future home layout. Jim

How does TOMA differ from modules?

Modules, as in a modular club that gets together and strings modules with set track spacing and set height etc.

 I can see the ability to build such that the track can cross sectional breaks at different locations but I have a hard time understanding how elevation changes are handled both from a track and scenery standpoint. I would really like to know what the ideas are so that a TOMA arrangement can have enough creative freedom to satisfy those of us that enjoy scenery that doesn't  look flat or restricted to allow for interchange.

 I know I'm missing something. Maybe TOMA is an approach that unlike modular allows for scenic freedom but divides the layout building into finishing a section at a time and allows for removal of sections without major damage so they can be moved and re-used?

A means to an end

As I see it, there are many ways to evolve a model railroad.  You can build a large infrastructure and evolve the various scenes one step at a time.  You can build a complete small layout, then replan and evolve to a larger layout.  Or you can be mobile and modular, build Freemo sections.  There are many other approaches.  There is no perfect way.  

In my view, TOMA fits between modular and the builder style that Michael Rose favors.  Exactly how you implement it is up to you.  How mobile or how often you expect to modify your plan.  

I have a plan with lots ideas.  In my plan, I have identified at least a half dozen TOMA options.  These options are all different in nature and have common threads.  They each are unique enough to require some special control and operational aspects.  Plus each will allow the development of the end scene while allowing a good dose of running trains.  This all sounds good to me, a means to an end, 

How does TOMA differ from modules?

Great question: How does TOMA differ from modules?

Here's a quick summary ...

1. TOMA sections can be any shape and size, they don't have to conform to a standard. They also can follow a standard, but they don't need to. With TOMA, each section can and often will be unique.
2. TOMA sections are part of a home layout and not intended for regular mobile transport. As such, making them extremely mobile (like modules) is not a requirement. Most TOMA sections will have only a handful of trips out of the layout room its entire life.
3. TOMA sections are typically installed in place and the joints disguised so they're not visible. If you don't know any better, a layout built with TOMA methods should look like any permanent home layout. Yet a TOMA layout section can be removed with minimal "damage" and the joints easily disguised again.
4. A TOMA layout may also be a hybrid, with some parts of the construction being "sectional/modular" and other parts (like the backdrop or lighting) being room-wide.
5. A TOMA layout may have support adjuncts such as tables or support rails, such that the real support comes from a more monolithic adjunct structure and not the TOMA sections themselves.
6. Since TOMA sections target a home layout space, they may have more extreme scenery height or depth than a module would have.
7. TOMA layout sections will often go together only one way. If you change a TOMA layout's sections around, you may need to build one or more new custom intermediate modules to get everything to fit together again.

This is not a comprehensive list, but these are some differences that come to mind with just a bit of thought. 

TOMA is more for a permanent home layout that lasts years yet allows managing scope or making changes more easily than do monolithic layout construction methods. Modular methods are more for highly mobile, interchangeable, dynamic group-assembled layouts that often may last but a few days in any one single incarnation.

In short, TOMA fits between highly mobile modular methods and monolithic home layout building methods.

We have been building sectional layouts for years

Hi all

Over here in the UK we have been building sectional layouts for years, my first layout in 1968 was sectional with 4 foot x 1 foot modules and my latest layout is being built in sections.

The reason we use the sectional layout is that our houses are smaller and therefore it is a very lucky person who has a dedicated room for their hobby. Most layouts are built either in the roof space or in the garage. To get boards into the roof space requires small boards that can be passed through the hatch way in the roof space. Likewise having a layout in the garage there are times when it needs to be dismantled to allow the space to be used for something else.

The other reason we use the sectional layout is we take our layouts to the shows and they have to be transported either in the owners cars or hire vans. The other thing is if you move home, it is easier if you can dismantle and take it with you.

Joining boards is done with coach bolts and the alignment is done by toolmakers dowels. Power is passed between boards by multipin plugs and sockets. You build all your sections on the bench and join them together to form one base unit as permanent bench work. You then lay track as you would do normally, crossing the joins anywhere across the sections. After I have laid the track I use a slitting disc to cut the rails where they cross the joins. The sectional bench work can be any shape or size to suit your layout and can be either open frame or solid. The only thing is that if it is too big it will be difficult to handle and also heavy.

Do not confuse sectional with modular layouts. Module layouts are usually built by groups of people living distant to each other and are brought together to form a larger layout on set occasions. These modules have set rules so they can be assembled in the layout in different positions. Sectional layouts are usually built by one guy or a club and have no rules about where the track crosses the join and is not flexible when put together.

The module concept is an American idea although it is starting to catch on over here recently.

Loconuts

Sectional

I built my layout in sections, mainly do to the confined spaces and high height. Doing the wiring and hooking up turnout controls with the sections upside down was much easier. Some of the sections haven't moved in years, but others have come down to be worked on.

I was thinking about writing it up as an article for MRH.

TOMA

I built a layout using sectional, open grid construction (its had numerous names over the years, open grid, dominoes, LDE, TOMA,, whatever.)  I found that after I moved the pieces never fit together the same way in the new spaces to the point that the majority of the sections were just kept in storage until I finally got a larger space.

At that point I scrapped the sectional approach, recycle the grids into a "monolithic" design and have been building that style ever since.  I found i was spending a lot of time building "sectional" designs but they never fit back together and required so many revisions it was just as easy to start over with a"monolithic" design.

When I started my 3rd monolithic design (1st change due to a change in era and complete track plan redesign, 2nd change due to a move and a complete redesign) about the only thing I recycled was the yard.  All the rest of the layout had curves in all the wrong places, I was adding depth, I was adding industries, etc., etc. so the track plan changed so much that keeping the old track became a barrier to the design and the flexibility.  Traching the previous layout gave me a tremendously increased operational capability I would have missed retaining the old layout track plan.

I can see  using a TOMA if you are replicating David Barrow's dominoes where there aren't a lot of curves or if its a basic plan that is going to fit in any room and not be expanded that much.  But if the idea is to be prototypical and you have a lot of curves then it may not work to recycle the old layout.

Again?

Really? Here we go again with this idea which has been around for decades and the OP is trying to "re-invent the wheel".

it should be called TOSA...the S is for sectional because the OP's description of a "module" contains no standards and modules are built to standards so they are interchangeable.

now let's hurry up and move on to the next thread on the NMRA...it's time for a new one of those to start.

It's not new

Module vs Section

But it CAN also use modular standards if you want, so then if we did S for sectional, those on the other side would complain it should be M because modular standards can apply too. So our solution? The official meaning is The "One Module" Approach, with the OM in quotes to say it isn't strictly modules per se, but any kind of "chunky" layout design, modules or otherwise.

The western world view can get so wrapped around the axle with splitting hairs on terminology that they sometimes miss the importance of the core ideas themselves. The eastern world view, however, is more interested in getting at the essence of the ideas and is a lot less worried about haggling over terminology subtleties. Google western vs eastern worldview and you will see the leaders in the west are starting to realize the eastern view actually helps reveal some blinders the western world view has developed.

TOMA for home layouts

   Yeah, there lots of ways to incorporate a sectional or unique modular approach into a home layout. If even half of a layout is built with re-useable sections that's half that doesn't have to be destroyed and can be re-used, sold, or given to someone else when a layout must be moved or loses it's charm. Sections built as layout design  elements can be linked with wider conventional non-reusable scenery where needed for scenic purposes, there's no reason one construction method  has to be used for a whole layout. If it's easier to build the mountainous areas with hard shell or screen and plaster then use TOMA where it works best and something else where TOMA would make it more difficult. The total amount of work needs to be taken into account based on the individual layout goals and probable fate, some things are not good candidates for re-use and others are very easy to build in a re-usable form.I started building with re-usable benchwork about 20 years ago and some of my section frames have had 5 layouts in 4 different scales on them. About 75% of my under construction S layout will be re-usable in some form, a few of the sections are 8 feet long and up to 30 inches wide but that's still possible to move if needed. Most of the curved areas will not be built to be saved as they are unique to this space and are easier to build in chainsaw form. I'll keep the detailing on these curve areas to a minimum so not much work is lost when the layout is removed from the present space, all the industries and other detailed elements will be on their own individual sections and easy to salvage........DaveB

TOMA - Sections - Modules

Welcome from Down Under.

Joe has previously defined TOMA

re Modules and Sections 

Perhaps it would assist if I quote the following from the NMRA. (emphasis, ... anywhere....  etc is mine)               

Design

The key is to design the segments to be reused.  Curves crossing boundries, grades crossing boundaries, diverging tracks near boundaries, mulitple levels all mean issues when trying to reconfigure the sections into a ne space.

The most successful modular designs tend to use tracks that are tangent and at right angles to the end of the section.  The shorter the modular section the more flexible.  The more generic or the more static the module the better chance it will survive.  Stuff that fits a unique position or configuration in a specific room shape is more likely to not be recyclable (like a piece that fits around a soil pipe bump out).

You also have to think about the understructure, does it have a "frame", how do you route switch controls, power busses, wiring, where do you put car card boxes, switch list holders, throttle holders?  How will you attach supports?  If you build peices with elaborate aligning  systems, and then have to  insert a filler piece or rearrange the pieces, will high precision alignment still work?  Is it better to line them up by eye, clamp them together and drive in a couple drywall screws?

The decisions you make before the first screw or spike is driven will have a great deal to do with whether you actually can reuse the sections.  I emphasized track design over interchangability so I got a track plan I really liked but not a very recyclable design.

Don't forget the O...

Joe's original presentation of TOMA was about the procedure. The common approach to building a layout of any size is to build all benchwork, then put down all track, then scenery, then structures. The One Module Approach is to build a part of the layout from bare boards to photo ready before moving to the next area. So it's a definition of process, not design.

You can see the differences by reading Michael Rose's and Rob Clark's blogs. Michael brought in a truckload of lumber one day, and a few weeks later the room was full of benchwork. Rob has just put the finishing touches on the upper section, but the lower section is just a batten on the wall.

pqe

Dave brings up . . .

 . . . and addresses quite well in his two most recent posts the key shortcomings to modular design. I feel this approach doesn't work well unless it's 1) for a freestanding layout or 2) the around-the-walls design can be relocated to a space with exactly or nearly so to the same dimensional footprint.

I've been struggling with whether to use a TOMA/TOSA/Whatever for the new layout, or to just go with the "monolithic" design, as Dave calls it, and not worry about the placement of switches, junctions, curves, etc. 

I'm not certain TOMA is worth the extra planning and extra carpentry. I'm not sure that when we relocate (if ever) that I want to have to worry about how to move a dozen or so modules. Easier just to the reclaim the turnouts and structures, as much flextrack and as many trees as practical, the wiring paraphernalia, and then rebuild according to the new layout space.

Let's get you sure

Then let's get you sure. That's one myth the TOMA series on TMTV wants to break: You CAN plan a TOMA layout so you KNOW which sections will likely survive and which are likely dumpster fodder if you relocate.

Like I've been saying, this is an example of the kind of insight that is not very well known when applying modular/sectional methods to home layouts. Even though modular methods are not new, there's a lot of topics to explore with doing a permanent home layout this way.

Not to argue...

but, I think Mike Rose built his "old" layout in sections. Although he built all of his bench work first, he than laid track, structures and scenery in sections. I'm building mine the same way. The first town, South Greensburg has all the track laid, wired, signals working and the majority of the structures in place. The second town, Youngwood, has the basic track work in, not wired and the rest of the bench work, although built, nothing else has been done. Soooo building a layout in sections is done quite often, I think. Bench work maybe not but, the bench work needs to fit the space...can I reuse the bench work if I move...yes, some, but not all of it. All the wall brackets and joist can be reused. Again a new space will require a new bench work design. A new space will bring new enthusiasm for a "new" layout and track plan...in my opinion.       John

Not to argue...

but, building like I said above gives me the freedom to define the entire space and also the freedom to design the track plan as I go as its a prototype freelanced layout.    John

Yes ...

This is getting somewhat tiring ... this has all been hashed out before ...

Agree it is Sectional vice Modular ... the sloppy use of the term "modular" just adds confusion ....

Agree it works better for some than others.  The planning of the joints makes it more work up front and will likely force some compromises on the track arrangement.

Good luck rearranging the sections if they are not built to some sort of standard ...

Thought the comment about starting up another NMRA bashing thread was clever ...