Completion time

Cool. 

You started the TOMA concept a while ago, its your signature concept, you had completed your modules to benchwork and track last summer at the NMRA national convention, if TOMA's only take months to complete, show us your completed modules. 

I am going to bet they haven't been finished because, like many of us, work and family life have intervened. 

A place to work

In my case, it's largely the albatross of the existing layout hanging over me. I haven't had a place to work. I spent $250 and last summer's spare time (when not working on my two TOMA modules) ripping out layout. After ten individual trash runs, I got maybe 15% of the layout removed. What a time, effort, and money sink -- 15% sheesh.

Yet it did give me a shop space to finally build the first two modules in, but that was one module at a time and I had nowhere inside the house I could connect up the two modules and the staging together, leaving me rather stuck. Much of TOMA once you get past the trackwork stage is connecting and disconnecting the module sections for various finishing stages.

Plus I'm not just building any old modules -- these are experimental modules with tons of experimental techniques on them, several of which failed. As anyone knows, major trial and error can result in a lot of back peddling and redos. In other words, lots of TIME.

Last fall I determined I would wait until the warm weather this year, rent a dumpster, and continue with the dismantling. Now, with another $500 spent for the dumpster, another 25% of the layout has been removed and I DO have space to connect up the three modules and work on them as a group. But sheesh, still 60% of the layout to go? What a pain ...

In short, give me a break because I'm both struggling with removing a massive old layout (lots of time and effort going into that, not to mention $$$) and at the same time also experimenting and exploring in an attempt to save everyone else from having to make all these mistakes and false starts too. The combined massive dismantling and exploratory construction research is costing me A LOT OF TIME.

I will tell you one thing -- the dismantling effort is convincing me I'm so done with monolithic bolt-it-to-the-wall layout construction methods. What a major pain! The cost and effort of dismantling is far more than I ever would have expected. Remember, I not only have layout to dismantle, but raised floor too. I built the raised floor to be stable and solid -- which means it's taking some major effort to take this raised floor apart and remove it.

At this stage in my life, I need the freedom to relocate at will. TOMA is freeing me up like never before for that.

If I already had the space to work in and if I was just building without any major dead-end exploratory trial-and-error attempts, I'm sure the same effort would have finished modules to show for it.

About the experimenting

Dismantling

A major factor making me seriously considering some form of TOMA this time is the hassle of tearing out my old layout before moving.  What a pain.  The worst part is the inevitable changes that happen over the years that have an uncanny ability to bury screw heads under additional benchwork parts, so you have to dismantled everything in the right order rather than just unscrewing it from the wall and carting it out.  I’ve considered more traditional construction and just being careful about not covering fasteners this time, but something tells me sooner or later it would happen.  Removable sections that you actually remove on occasion for construction/maintenance is probably the only sure way to keep a layout easily removable.

I look forward to seeing the results of your experiments Joe.

Dismantling

Boy, that's the truth!

You build it to last -- and that's a big part of the problem. You give no thought to ever taking it apart later -- either for disposal or just simply removal.

I can't believe the effort I've put in so far -- and the expense -- $750 in disposal fees and I've still got 60% of the layout to go. Sheesh.

No more. It's gotta be easy to remove from the room going forward or I ain't doing it.

Module format and techniques

"The worst part is the

 Once you've removed the parts you want to save  a SawsAll ,chainsaw ,and sledge hammer make the rest go away a lot faster.....DaveB

Experiments

TOMA experiments:

- Super lightweight benchwork that's also distortion-proof if someone stumbles and falls against it (foamcore is a no-go)

- C-shaped module cross-section that includes lighting

- Legs with low-center-of-gravity mass to make the benchwork almost 100% tip-proof

- Legs that are quickly removable for easy transport (thumbscrews)

- lightweight spline roadbed

- foolproof trackwork alignment at module joints that also keeps the valance and fascia in perfect alignment (minimum three-point alignment -- even 1/16 of an inch variance at one of the three points is a fail)

- benchwork construction must allow free-flowing module shapes

- easy access to wiring from front of layout once the modules are in place - no need to crawl under the layout to get to the bus wire connections to the track feeder

- attaching and removing feeder wires to/from the bus does not require a screwdriver, soldering iron or wire cutters yet can be accomplished in an instant for debugging purposes and then reattached quickly with only your fingers

- easy LED strip lighting angled installation base just inside front of valance - angles the LED strip 45 degrees down toward the layout

- max module length 72", max width 24" and max module weight (with scenery): 40 lbs.

- finger-flicking turnout control -- no under-the-benchwork mechanisms

- smooth sky blue backdrop part of each module section

- benchwork is easy to fashion and goes together quickly and is "dummy proof" ... modules align perfectly without a lot of fuss. It's not overly complex and the process tends to self-correct measurement errors. 

Sawzall

That’s certainly true for most things.  In fact I used a sawzall to slice most of the layout about 6” in from the wall so the bulk of it fell away and made it easier to get at the screws holding the remaining bit to the walls.  There was one area though that had started life as a low spot for a stretch of coal hopper unloading into bins below so it was originally a piece of 3/4 ply screwed to the top bump out in the basement wall that happened to be at just the right height.  Several serious plan changes later there were spacer blocks screwed to that plywood, and more plywood screwed onto the spacer blocks, and none of the screws that held the mess onto the house were easily accessible.  Some of them were under the spacer blocks.  I didn’t want to bust up the wall framing of the basement brute forcing it off, so it took a bit of less drastic brute force to bust up the top layer of plywood and the spacers, then chisel up some of the lingering glued on splinters so I could find the screw heads.

The other major hassle was a long peninsula that separated from everything very easily, except a single point where it appeared to be fasted directly into the door frame in such a way that if I brute forced it off I’d wreck the frame.  After a bit of puzzling I realized I had used a pocket screw jig to screw the front frame piece to the door frame.  Which would have been fine if I hadn’t later vigorously glued a 1/4 MDF fascia over the whole frame.  I had to pry that off carefully enough to not damage the door so I could get to the screw.

What a pain!

Experiments

Now I’m REALLY looking forward to seeing you write up some of your experiments Joe - that list is quite tantalizing!

That depends

That depends on if you care about minimizing the damage to the walls when the layout is bolted to it.

Also, with a mushroom layout, all of the upper deck can be less than 24" from the ceiling -- and you don't want to mess the ceiling up either. And the back of the upper deck of a mushroom is bolted to the ceiling -- again a sledge hammer is NOT the answer if you prefer not to re-sheetrock the ceiling.

Similar stories for me

Similar stories for me.

Some things were mystery attached to walls, the ceiling, or the floor. Clearly no thought was given to ever taking it back out without causing damage to the room. With a lot of care, the damage has been minimal, but sometimes it took some real head scratching to figure it out. And some real effort, and a lot of hands supporting things once you found the connection point.

Pain is sooo right!

Experiments : Parameters stated

"I didn’t want to bust up the

At spots with hidden fasteners it often helps to cut as close the the fastener location as possible then split off the remaining piece by chiseling into the end grain.Once the remaining wood is split away you can then decide how to attack the fastener( cut it off with a disc, break it off by bending back and forth, unscrew with vice grips,etc.)    ...DaveB 

It would appear you're

It would appear you're reaping the "rewards" of the perhaps not-so-wise decision to attach a layout to permanent, finished walls, Joe.

On at least the lower deck, wall attachment can be eliminated, or at worst minimized, by using something called legs. In the last decade or so the model press has been, to some extent, pushing "forward thinking" benchwork design approaches (such as no legs, and attaching the layout to the walls) as desirable. 

I've built and torn down a couple of big layouts, and the longest demolition time was three days, which includes removing and packing rolling stock, structures (to be fair, these layouts had only a handful of those), carefully removing track for future re-use, carefully marking and disassembling the benchwork for future re-use, and completely cleaning the room. Why so little time? Because I used conventional construction techniques everywhere possible. 

Where I did attach to walls and ceiling (backdrops and an upper deck), I installed a false stud wall and/or ceiling plates to which the benchwork was attached. I was careful not to cover the attachment points of these elements with the layout. When it was time for everything to come out, removal of a few dozen screws had everything loose, with only small holes (and a small gouge or two from ends of lumber hitting drywall when I slipped) to patch and paint.

As far as cost, I have a pickup truck I used to haul away debris. A tank of gas and some trips to the recycle and / or refuse transfer centers took care of that. So no exorbitant dumpster fees. 

My layouts were not as far along as yours (mostly still Plywood Pacifics, so not much heavy plaster), but weight and volume weren't the issues anyway.

The moral of the story: An innovation-for-the-sake-of-innovation, avant-garde approach to solving minor to non-existent problems has potentially big downsides, and you're seeing one now.

Certainly your TOMA approach requires innovation to maximize portability and robustness, and I wish you good luck with it. But if you go down every rabbit hole just because it's there to explore, you may never get very far. I suggest innovating where really needed early, establish the innovations as practical, then innovate more on the next module.

KISS vs. experiments

My observation is that you may be removing one "over engineered" solution and replacing it with another "over engineered" solution.

The mushrooom required a lot of engineering and was built very stoutly.  Is your TOMA is going down the same path?  Will the "enhanced" design of the new modules end up being more of a barrier than a benefit?  Would a simpler construction be faster and just as satisfactory.  You are building a layout, not an airplane.  Do you really need that highly engineered a module?  People build very simple (compared to your design) N-Trak and Freemo and cart them all over the country for years.

If you are just testing construction methods just to see how cutting edge you can make it, that's one thing.  A friend of mine built a similar design to yours many moons ago (I helped him build them) and while it was very cool, the complex construction turned out to make them very unwieldly and really hard to move to a new location.  You had to match not only the layout surface for line and grade, but also had to align the backdrop and valance.  It turned out to be a very involved to move and reconnect.  That was my experience with those designs.  Yours may be different.  Just saying.

@Prof_Klyzlr

Sure, now that we've moved this discussion over to my blog, fire away.

Shelf Brackets vs. Legs?

Joe, are you at a point where you can weigh in on using benchwork attached to the walls (shelf brackets) or free standing benchwork with legs?  I think there has been a desire to have benchwork attached to walls to "save" lumber but that may not be the case when it comes time to move, change, or tear down as I've read your comments.

I was wondering if having a TOMA attached to the walls might be easier while building.  Kind of TOMA building fixture if most were similar in size.

Robert

Not the goal

Nope, that's not the idea at all. It needs to be simple and dummy-proof. My first attempt was NOT that -- and that's one of the main criticisms against it, frankly.

It was a pain to construct and the module joints are not square -- they form a shallow V which makes it almost impossible to get a grade where cars don't roll away. If you level one module, the other one has such a grade on it that everything rolls to the middle. If you level the other module, then the the first module that was level is now on a grade and everything rolls.

I've got some ideas on how to do version 2 to make this a lot more dummy proof. The big problem seems to be adding on the backdrop and the valance creates a three point joint that makes it much harder to keep things in alignment. I am hoping there's a way to alleviate that, and I think I know what that is.

That said, I've had enough successes on other items on my list that I'm pretty encouraged overall. I just need to get the joint alignment thing solved and I think I will be there.

My one other big fail -- and I think this is related -- is using 1/4" plywood is a pain. It flexes too much even with my i-beam torsion-box approach. Lots of fiddily laminating and alignment of pieces.

I did try using PVC pipe for legs and that also failed miserably. The stuff just flexes too much over its length with legs that are 48" or more long, and attaching braces to it became a big pain. I tried using various couplings to add bracing and that got pricey pretty quickly -- and didn't remove the wobble completely.

Lessons Through Humility

I appreciate what Joe is documenting. 

Lets be honest, nobody is perfect and there is no perfect model railroad. 

People who post about failures (adventures) in our hobby can help us all. 

Learn from others mistakes, be humble and aware we are all capable of making them. 

Must be free-standing

All of the TOMA layout must be free-standing, but the legs need to be solid and not able to be kicked out of alignment accidentally. Attaching a layout to the walls is NOT a way to make it easy to take out of the room and leave no evidence it was ever there.

I tried PVC pipe for legs, but it flexes too much in 48" lengths. Wood 2x2 legs over that length are much stiffer and it's much easier to attach bracing to them. Plus I can add a solid mounting point on the benchwork that can be attached easily yet solidly using thumb screws and wing nuts.

I also built a 3/4" plywood plate that the legs attach to at the bottom using thumb screws and wing nuts (the plywood uprights for the legs have slots in them, allowing height adjustment) -- and then I put a cinder block on it. Makes the legs extremely stable and kick proof. It also makes the layout impossible to tip over if you accidentally trip and reach out against it to brace yourself. This approach for stability yet portability was a major win.

The legs attach to the outside of these upright plates. About the only other improvement I'd make would be to add a couple of these angle bracket braces (see below) on the outside to keep the braces from flexing up and away from the plywood plate toward the inside.

Recent activity

I recently tore out two layouts for a widow. The club I belong to was interested in one of them and the other was up for grabs...it's an On30 and I had dabbled in it and thought I might keep it for myself. 

4 1/2 hours to remove the older layout which was NOT meant to come out. Lengths were too long to get down the stairway requiring strategic cutting of a new section to be able to remove. It was a beast to get out. 

The On30 was designed completely different...2X2 legs that slip into pockets which are then pinned in place. Pull the pin and it comes right apart. Same general size between the two layouts...20 minutes to disassemble and remove the On30....

SOOOO glad I wanted to On30 instead of the S scale the older layout is in...

Sturdy Layout Legs

Hi Joe,

Have you thought about creating legs using 1”x3” or 1”x4” glued together in an L-shape with a couple of horizontal braces? If you make a template then you could make them all the same. They should be able to bolt under your layout with carriage bolts.

Tm Garland

Went with 2x2 legs

I went with 2x2 legs attached on using 3" long 1/4" diameter thumbscrews and wing nuts. Maximum finger tight is just enough. The 2x2 legs with braces removes all the wobble. Attached on the bottom to the plywood plates with cinder blocks (not seen in this photo) and the layout's not going anywhere.