First two modules

These are 18"x48" of 1/2" birch ply cut to form a frame with the top of the same plywood. On top is 1-1/2" extruded foam and (for now) some drywall to visualize. Homosote will probably replace this soon as the track plan firms up.     

The answers are out there!

Drywall V Homosote?? I have

Drywall V Homosote??

I have used both and as a result I will never use Homosote again. However, if your in need of the dust and debris from cutting the Homosote then it is going to be a fantastic product for you. Drywall has it's drawbacks in that it is relatively dust free, easy to work with, readily available and very inexpensive.   

This is a quick pic of my engine terminal . Very easy to use drywall, perfectly flat, and for me as I hand lay all my track it accepts spikes and hold them very well. 

TOMA

So far TOMA is just a non-standard Ntrak module.  Really its just the recycled David Barrow "domino" concept (the more recent version).  Why is everybody just making these flat topped plywood pacific sections? 

The roadbed doesn't have to rest on the frame.  The frame can be below the roadbed to allow for actual scenery.  Literally think outside the "box".

8 foot sections

My current layout uses mostly 8 ft x 28 inch and 8 ft x 18 inch modules with 4 legs each.  I have no trouble building or moving these by myself.

I moved most of these from my last layout and built a few more.  For my current layout, I arranged and rearranged these in the basement until I had an arrangement I liked.  Then I built a few fill-in sections since the modules didin't fill the room exactly.  Then I started the track work, which isn't complete.

I'm moving in a few months.  I plan to move and reuse these modules on the next layout - although I will remove the track since the new layout will be a little different.  Some of the modules will be on their 3rd or 4th layout.

These don't exactly follow the TOMA concept as described in MRH  because I plan to have all the modules in place, then do all the track laying and wiring.  Scenery will be last.  More of a Dave Barrows Domino layout.

Paul

Answers out there!

Thanks Simon. Some reinforcement of what I started is what I needed. I'll think about the joints as a piece of wood simply attached makes a lot of sense. All the rest will come in time. 

Drywall

@Neil - I'd seen this suggested by Joe F but wondered about using it so that's why I grabbed a couple pieces. Are you laying cork over this for the mainline?

BTW - I build my fasttracks turnouts in exactly the same way. In On30, however, his pc ties are not as deep as the wood ties so I end up doing gyrations to use them. I may for Rick R's method of no PC ties at all. 

Domino

Dave, you are completely correct. I remember Barrow's flat Texas layouts. The original Car Mountain had a lot more character. 

The idea behind a layer of foam is so I can go below quite a bit for scenery or add on top. This is really a concept layout that, I hope, will be bullet proof to our frequent humidity changes. My current layout suffers from this for a lot of reasons I believe. Cheap lumber, insufficient support, a difficult space, and my first layout with fully hand laid track all add up to constant maintenance. The only saving grace is the engines are battery powered so electrical connections have not been a problem!  

This is a rather small area for an On30 layout and the run around is too short but I can always add another turnout to extend this if another module is built. The opposite end will have a short timber trestle beyond where an engine house is sketched.

@Paul

Thanks for making that point. I meant to note that it will be easy to repurpose the modules later if this becomes part of a larger layout. The 4' length works for me as my shop is cramped and this size seems manageable. 

I put the first on the legs from an old folding table and there is no height adjustment. The second has corner pockets for 2x2's and the other end is simply C clamped to the first - NTrack style. 

Since this will reside on my patio for a while I have been wondering how to make the structures easily removable so may work on that while I ponder the track configuration. (Admirably not much to think about but ...)

Sheet rock over the foam?

   Seems like the foam would be more useful as the top surface as it's main benefit is ease of carving scenic features. If you plan to handlay the track I'd put homasote on top just in the places where the track will go and leave the foam showing in other spots. If you don't want to mess with homasote roadbed you can cut roadbed from thin plywood and glue cork over it then glue your ties to the cork( the cork is to give the spike tips a softer place to land when they penetrate the wooden ties as plywood alone can cause the spikes to bend). I use this system for S scale track and only add PC board ties for the point throwbars. For domino end joints I'd either bring the wood up to track height and glue PC board ties to it (say the first three ties at the end) then solder the rail to connect without rail joiners, or optionally hold the rails back a couple of inches and use short floating track sections to connect the dominos. Either method  works just a matter of which you prefer, the PC board ties allow a bit better scenic treatment but more chance for rail ends to get damaged as they are out on the point of any moves.....DaveB 

End plates and drywall

Dave - I have been thinking it would be a good idea to add end plates and pc ties as you've described. The modules needn't follow any standard length although I wish I had considered this when building them. It would be easier to plan for a 48" module than 49-1/2" lengths.

Homosote has been getting increasingly difficult to get here (at a reasonable cost) so I am thinking of cutting the drywall "cookie cutter" method under the track only. Once done and glued to the foam it would get a couple coats of latex paint to keep it from absorbing the water. The foam would be exposed to create landforms.

I'm not much of a cork fan for handlaying track as it seems too soft. I do like your method of building the turnouts on the bench though. For some reason it feels more flowing to me to lay it in place. 

Neil, yes I have used cork

Neil, yes I have used cork glued to drywall and handlayed the track directly to it. In 10 years I have not had any issues with this. HO scale ties are thick enough to hold the ME small spikes on a code 70 rail. I do use PC ties as instructed by the Fastrack templates. this particular location in the yard there was no raised roadbed so I laid directly to the drywall. Most recently, I have started to use ME code 70 flex as I love the detail, and I am not about to use Fish Plates and 4 spikes per tie.... Crazy Talk!!

As for construction; I would add risers where needed then cookie cut plywood and layer the drywall over it. I would then go and add in the foam to the sides, but each to his own... GLHF

"I'm not much of a cork fan

     Hi Neil, I use thin sheet cork, about 1/10 inch thick that comes in rolls. It's plenty hard enough to withstand spiking. I glue it to 1/4 inch plywood roadbed with yellow glue and weight it till it dries to keep it nice and flat. After gluing the ties in place I spray the ties and cork with a spray can to seal up the cork and add some color to the ties. The combination of cork and S scale ties just matches the length of Micro Engineering small spikes so they drive with no problems. If I leave out the cork I found the spike tip would hit the plywood and be hard to set ,sometimes they'd even bend.  As for using sheetrock for roadbed I think the problems would be that once cut to narrow roadbed sections the sheetrock would be quite brittle , and the spike holding power is only the paper face( once the mineral interior is disturbed it has no holding power) so you could have spiking problems if you had to re-do areas. Sheetrock might be suitable for wide areas like yards where it could be kept in sheet form but  other than cost I think homasote would be much better. ......DaveB

Sheet cork

Neil & Dave;

Thanks for explaining. I'm inclined to give cork a try on this. The local automotive shops may have sheet cork - not sure. What about HD cork flooring?

@Neil- As for ME track, nice but I don't mind my handaid track look. I do use code 70 for my On30 track and it has that backwoods look. The micro-spikes sound like I should order some. Tie plates and fish joints? Yeah, crazy.

TOMA or not TOMA

I see TOMA more as a design process than a set of modular rules or a set of construction instructions. The materials and underpinnings are up to the individual. The idea is to attack layout construction in manageable bites instead of leaping into a giant Plywood Pacific that will likely never be operational, let alone finished.

The sizes of the segments are governed by individual circumstances -- does the builder want to be able to flip a segment upside down to work on wiring?  Is the segment going to be taken out of the home and hauled to shows? Is the builder subject to being relocated every year or two?  No TOMA guru can give a good answer to a question like that.  Good advice, maybe, but not a definitive answer.

Right!

This is the right idea - that's why we like to call it an *approach* (The "One Module" APPROACH) rather than a specific do-that-then-do-this method of layout building techniques.

There are, however, some common considerations that are needed when doing TOMA for home layouts that we hope to distill out over time. The TOMA series on TMTV starts to explore what those are, but as the first attempt at doing this, it is a good start, but it's also uncovering topics that need more exploration.

As I'm delving into the design of Siskiyou Line 2 and my way to do TOMA, I'm finding more than a few differences from how the TMTV series is doing TOMA. I'm planning to document all this in a video series and some articles, so we'll be able to further feret out all the "common considerations" needed to do TOMA well for a home layout.

Then discussions like this thread can further drive out the thinking needed. A lot of TOMA is up front planning. The good news here is you can chainsaw¹ the first couple module sections to discover and resolve as many of the bugs as possible up front -- this is one great advantage of building the first couple module sections all the way to completion.

Make sure you operate these first couple modules too -- consider that to be your "proof-of-concept" test. You may be surprised at how some time operating your creation will lead to changes in your approach. Might as well find that out early!

This way, you avoid filling the room with layout only to find you have created some unanticipated problems when you get to later steps of layout construction.

1 - Chainsaw - Comes from issue 1 of MRH. The idea is to build something that's likely throw-away and fodder for a chainsaw. This allows you to "relax" and just enjoy the learning process. You don't have to fret if you make mistakes because it's not intended to be permanent.

 "I do like your method of

Hi Neil, I've found I can build turnouts a lot faster and more comfortably on the workbench but I build them on precut roadbed fit to each location then install them on the layout before adding the connecting track so still get the benefit of flowing trackwork. I'm building 8 turnouts now to install along one wall of my new layout benchwork when the 8 are done I'll connect them with track and can run some switching moves. Here's one turnout getting some connecting track at a spur....DaveB 

Joe is correct

I think you're on the right track Neil. Avoid being too strict in your approach to the design of your layout. You do have some special challenges caused by living in a tropical climate that most of us do not.

This layout concept is very flexible in it's design properties. No particular layout section need be built the same as another. One section or 'module' may be 24"x48" while another could be 30"x84" or any other size. They don't even need to be rectangular. They could be trapezoids or curves. The point is, they only need to hold the scene the builder wants. Some standards for end connections would probably be an advantage. Otherwise, any method you desire for construction, track laying and scenery is up to you. Find something that works for you and your situation and use it for each section.

Recently, I have had to dismantle my fixed built in place Monashee Pass Railway. I plan to use the TOMA approach for my next layout as I am getting frustrated of having to tear out fixed layouts and losing all the work that went into them. One of the benefits of this process is the portability of the layout and the flexibility to fit it to various spaces. This is important to me as I plan to take the new layout to shows if I desire. My first section will be 30"x72" with a wood trestle spanning most of the length. I will likely have a couple of 48" sections at each end of the trestle. They will all be joined using a 'standard' connecting plate. All 3 sections will be completed, including scenery before moving on to the next section or sections. I will set some standards for the sections based on construction of these 3 sections.

2 TOMA or not 2

First, thanks for everyone's advice. My approach may not be what other's will use but we have common elements of building a railroad that many could benefit from this discussion. The TOMA approach is one avenue for getting started, and in my case, experimenting with new materials. 

The width (and length) of any model railroad has challenges. With today's ability to build a module and rotate it away from the layout may encourage deeper scenes that would be, will be imho, visible on a monitor or smart phone via onboard video cameras. Aside from occasional access into deep scenes, this might provide a complete immersion experience of another world of our making. Ok, enough of that.

The size and shape of a module can be any configuration. I understand that. Think FREMO. This weekend was a "father day" away from other responsibilities so building another "box" was very easy. The facia may very wll be undulating or curved once I get further along with scenery.

The things that need to be considered are the appurtenances of running a train. My idea is a place for car cards, skewers, and cup holders in a place that looks finished and appropriate for inside my home - not my man cave. Will I use manual switches or electrical. Will they be big out of scale versions or a flick of the finger. Should I consider live frogs and juicers or KA's? Programming via wireless and battery power is not ideal and this will be a place were I can set an engine and configure with my NCE system.

Keep those ideas flowing. I don't have much time during the week but hope to get some caulk to fasten stuff together, cut out the subroadbed, and maybe try a three way stub switch at my workbench! 

Some additional thoughts (long reply)

Hi Neil and all, 

The following answers are based on my personal experience gained when building a O scale narrow-gauge sectional layout using modules in 2 standard sizes that are close to 4' by 2'.in size. The layout of 12 modules is approaching final detailing stage. See  https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/corrimal-colliery-and-its-incline-a-different-slant-on-rails-12206968

In the OP Neil asked about -

Reply 1 - Check out the concept used on Tottenhoe Minerals - See my "String of Pearls" posting at   https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/using-sectionalmodular-methods-on-a-home-layout-toma-12204673  Yes the approach may appear to be a bit extreme for you, but, just because you have a 2' deep module, it does not necessarily follow that the fulll 2' depth has to be modelled in detail. In the following photo the depth modelled is less than 8" deep

 In the next photo of two 4' by 2'  modules, the scenic depth required is less than 12'' for better than 1/2 the length of both modules - nothing like some cliffs to narrow up the amount of real estate that requires landscaping  The figures in the previous photo are on the narrow flat area to the left of the bump at the join in the photo below.

Reply 2 - ths reply is lifted and eddited from  https://forum.mrhmag.com/magazine-feedback-was-ezines-891776  regarding the "awkwardness factor" 

If part of the mission statement was for a module to be moveable by one person, then lightness of construction and module length play into an 'awkwardness factor" of how difficult it is to move an individual module piece by yourself. If you only have one person (yourself) to move a module then a large or heavy module can be a real "bear " to move solo. As someone bulding both 4' by 2' and 4.5' x 2' modules, I "know" when I'm moving one of the longer modules solo and my modules come in at about 30lb all up, fully scenicked. 

The "degree of awkwardness" for handling a single module rapidly increases for every inch increase in any dimension, but a 1" increase in length has a far greater effect than an a 1" increase in width.  What do I mean? 

Assuming the module has to be lifted flat, with the end butted into your belly and using your legs to do the lifting, then you car reach about 18" comfortably support the module weight. Effectively your hands on each side of the module become pivot points about which the weight of the module is balanced.

To keep the maths easy, lets assume that each foot of module length equals 10lb weght. This is probably a considearble underestimate if you are using lumber for a module frame.  

For a 4' by 2 ' module - you will have 2'6" of unsupported length weighing in at 25 lb that you hands have to resist from rotating about the pivot point (your hands and wrists)

For a 6' by 2' module - you will have 4'6" of unsupported length weighing in at 45lb that you hands have to resist from rotating about the pivot point.

For a 8' by 2' module - you will have 6'6" of unsupported length weighing in at 65lb that you hands have to resist from rotating about the pivot point,

But there is more to this than just the weight - the actual load trying to tear the module out of you hands is actually a torque load which is the weight multiplied by the distance from the pivot. 

So taking a worst case, and assuming the weight is a point load at the far end of the module, then your hands have to support a load of:

For a 4' by 2' module = 75ftlb 

For a 6' by 2' module - 202ftlb

For a 8' by 2' module -  422ftlb

Notice that this is not a linear relationship, The load on your wrists (part of the "awkwardness factor") increaes rapidly for every inch of unsupported module length.

The "awkdness factor" is also compounded if you have fragile scenery near the end of your modules. This could mean that you cannot lift the module with your hands placed at the "optimum" positions. This can place even more load on your hands and wrists. 

The "awkwardness factor" also applies when it comes to phyically moving modules, with or without a trolley, when it comes to navigating hallways, stairs and single-width doorways. Trying to move a 8-long module solo with high or delicate scenery on it through a single door into and through a narrow hallway without damaging any of the module, the paintwork on the wall or door is far more challenging than moving a 4' long module. 

Reply 3 - Perhaps far more worrying is the possibility of damage to the track itself if it is snagged as modules are installed/removed or moved between train room and workspace. From what you have shown on your previous photos, you could easily screw/glue/bolt profile boards to each end of your modules. This would add little in entra weight or length, but give you a very solid jump point on each side where the track crosses a module joint.

The trick here is that if your boards and not dead flat, then you cut the profile boards in pairs that will give you a track jump at the same height on both modules.  

Perhaps a more robust track jump can be done with a slab of PC board screwed to each module endplate rather than using individulal PC board sleepers/ties, as shown in the photo below.

 This is an acute angle module jump on a 14" radius curve. The pc board pieces are screwed down into the endplate. The isolating cut through the top layer of copper between the rails has yet to be made. This type of a join gives a whole lot more robust cross-module jump than using individual pcb ties. For a less-than-perfectly- maintained narrow-gauge set of tracks, these pbc plates disappear after ballasting. You only need a thin layer of smaller ballast to camouflage them as shown below

Reply 4 - A thin ply backdrop can be used and screwed to each of the module sections. You will need need to brace any joints between backdrop sections at top and bottom to ensure that the joint area remains flat as shown on the backdrop below

 This method uses square moulding sections double screwed to the module top to give a vertical face that the ply backscene is screwed to. The higher level piece of moulding at top right is used to ensure that the ply stays flat across the join in the backscene.. 

Lighting - Perhaps an acceptable way of providing lighting might be individual flexible LED lamps that can be clipped to the backscene at various spots and aimed to provide a continuous pool of light along the right-of-way? 

Reply 5 - No definite opinion on this, but your requirements could be met in several ways. 

If the "string of pearls" idea is used, then the black-painted foreground of the module top could be used as a flat storage area.

A caution - anything projecting beyond the front of the module should probably be "snag-proofed" by using a tapered piece of moulding or similar for the full height and thickness of the projection on both sides. 

Perhaps a better idea may be a shelf or cupboard unit (think Ikea or similar) that sits under the module. This can sit slightly behind the module front edge and provide a cupholder space or similar that does not intrude into the room beyond the module footprint.

Reply 6 - If you are used to HO scale sizes, then you are in for a nasty shock when it comes to the amount of module real estate O scale buildings can chew up. Can I suggest that you cut out a rectangular building footprint of say 20' by 10' or another known size from a ceral box or similar. You can use this as a template to plan with around your proposed trackplan. The following photo is of the dead-scale 1/43 sized building footprints from the mine plan for my mine modules laid out on a 6' long by 2'6' deep table. These building footprints were used to work out what could and could not be fitted before the tracks were laid.The were also used to determine if a specific building needed some selective compression.

This method means that your are less likely to have to try and "shoehorn in" your buildings as an afterthought after you have laid your tracks.You may have to go to thin building flats against the backscene, but there is nothing preventing you from making those building flats into highly detailed scenic cameos.

I hope that this adds to your inspiration, 

a key question, and some thoughts

There's a very big difference between components that are moved frequently (display layouts or modular set-ups) and those that are moved rarely (say, once every two or three years).

This bears heavily on LENGTH and TRANSITIONS. As John points out, weight and "awkwardness" increase rapidly for larger components. Wear and tear on transitions also increases with multiple moves.

My club has a sectional layout that has been set up perhaps 30 times. The sections have held up well, but they sure feel heavier with each passing year! We use protective boards attached to both ends (for moving) these have worked well to protect the alignment pins and to prevent snagging the track. Nonetheless, the homasote subroadbed is starting to fail and we are considering retrofitting pc board under each end as John shows above.

You can have "wear and tear" in just one move

Hi all again,

One of the repeated claims I've run up against by those who haven't built (and in many cases apparently have no intention of building) a layout in small bites called modules or sections is that "Oh, it's for exhibition use. It can have no relevance for a home build". Well, guess what? -  experience won the "hard way" in exhibition use just might be relevant. We exhibition layout builders have already found a lot of the landmines, have tripped over them, and had to recover when they've detonated. If you truly believe that exhibition layouts have nothing to show of relevance for a home build sectional layout, then read no further..   

Here's just one of those landmines

The reason for advocating the use of the PC block versus individual PC-board sleepers/ties is that, even when taking care moving modules, you can snag tracks on ANY move, even the FIRST move. The copper blocks were not used at module joints on the non-operational O-standard gauge tracks (32mm gauge,  code 124 bullhead rail). We thought that this stuff was "robust enough" as it was. We were wrong. 

But sure enough, somewhere along the line, while we were building other stuff on this particular module, we snagged an end and didn't even know we'd done it. (And, yes it was probably me that did it). The result was a bent rail ripped out of its moulded track chairs for a distance of several inches. We got away with bending it back straight VERY CAREFULLY and then supergluing it back in place. It's not the heavy repair that we should have done, but, we can only get away with this type of a second-rate "bodged repair" because this particular joint is on non-operational track. 

Remember we are talking code 124 O-standard gauge track here that is non-operational (it's a scenic item that is not intended to have trains run over it).. If that had been operational track in code 100 or even smaller rail, then the results at that joint would have been catastrophic. It probably would have meant digging out both rails for several inches at least, on both sides on the joint to make a repair.

If you can avoid this type of heavy repair work, by "doing it right first time", then, is this not a "good thing"? 

If using PCB blocks solidly anchored into module end plates saves you just once when you snag something, somewhere, sometime, somehow then they will have paid for their "unprototypical look" in the construction phase.

Track alignment at module joints is one of the most critical things that will either make or break a sectional/modular layout.

Anything you can do to protect the track alignment at these joints will go a long way to ensuring a long and useful life from a sectionally-built model railroad, regardless of how few times it comes apart, modules are moved to be worked on, or how often it goes back together. All of these events are possible snag events that in a worst case could have catastrophic results for your track.

You need to be aware that  - "Yes it CAN happen", but also that some good engineering gained from the exhibition arena might just save your tail feathers.  

Some changes

After reading everyone's comments I have modified my plan and decided to try the drywall over foam. Of course as soon as I cut it out and did some basic shaping of the terrain I had other ideas. No big deal as I have a lot of drywall to use. I also added some end plates and glued some dowels in as well. 

   Before above and after to the left

This seemed like a good idea but I think I'll cut this area down for a trestle with a roadway going under it. 

Here is what it looked like after attacking with the RotoZip:

New Book

This concept is catching on!

https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/book/12803?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SA000_HBS_170701_P30577_V2_SectionalLayout_MRR-HBS_Final&utm_content=&spMailingID=29601606&spUserID=MTE2ODA0NDM1NzQ0S0&spJobID=1080076393&spReportId=MTA4MDA3NjM5MwS2