I’m planning on building Five 3’ x 8’ sections to complete my new layout. There are also two 3x7 and one 3x6’ section.
Ideally I would like to put the roadbed down, install the switches and then turn the section on it’s side so I’m facoing the underside of the layout. I can sit and install the switch machines, install wiring and other electronics.
any problem with that?
I don’t think so. That’s how we re-did the wiring on our club’s portable layout. The scenery was still in place too (I won’t tell you how much scenery we discovered that was no longer attached to the layout![(-D]). Just remember that you might have to be able to get at both the top and bottom of the modules, especially if you are mounting Tortoises.
Dave
Your call. I posted some progress photos. I got mine up and on legs and worked on the in that configuration.
Pretty much OK, but you could have an issue with Atlas switch machines, snap relays and maybe other similar devices. They need to be horizontal to operate, so be careful when mounting them sideways. Make sure they are horizontal when you test them.
My layout is built at a height which allows me to use an office chair, with the locking pin that allows it to lean back. I can then roll around under the layout. If I had wired most of it BEFORE adding scenery, it would have that much easier. When I built my last expansion (20x25’), I wired it before adding scenery… Much easier!
google TOMA - The One Module Approach being advocated by Joe Fusate
the idea is to build a layout by completing each module one at a time
each module is the same length and is held in a frame allowing the module to be flipped around while working on it, making it easy to work on the underside as needed.
I wire track busses, DCC control busses and accessory power busses before the layout goes upright, but not much more. I don’t put down track until the sections are in place and joined, so the track gets positioned properly on the subroadbed.
At that point, I have only a rough idea of where structures and signals will go, so not much else can be wired yet.
As a Free-mo guy, my modules end up in just about every orientation. And that was ESPECIALLY true during the early construction and wiring phase.
Right now, both are on end, for storage. They can be on their sides for under-work. They COULD be upside down, with a bit of work.
I’ve never had a problem with that.
I expect the biggest risk is ding-ing something while you flip it. And heavier is worser. One of my modules has, unfortunately, excess scenery glup. And it’s un-fun to swing about. But still doable.
Ed
Your approach makes sense. I did my current U-shapped layout with peninsula in sections. They were much stronger when bound together with bolts.
Yes, definately test, test, test everything before putting down scenery. I too made the mistake of putting scenery first. It was a royal pain lifting it for addressing wiring/track issues.
TOMA is a good idea but I don’t see how it can work for the two-deck parts of a layout. If I need to build my staging yard, which I expect will consist around 5 or 6 sections of benchwork, I would have to finish them all first before adding the second level, at least ideally. I understand the reasoning behind TOMA, but it seems to be practical mainly for single level modules.
wouldn’t you build one level at a time? wouldn’t the sections above/below one another be built separately.
i mentioned TOMA primarily because of the use of a frame making it easy to work on both the top and bottom of section.
Yes, but doesn’t TOMA specify you “complete” a section or module of benchwork or module one at a time? However, if you have staging that has long stretches of track meant to hold 25-30 car trains, it will stretch across mulitple sections or “modules” if yo9u will, as a large as 5 or 6 sections of benchwork/modules required to complete the lower level first, before doing the upper level afterward.
I would think it depends on access partly.
My last layout had a minimal clearance over staging so I tried to make it as complete as possible before builting the next level over the top. So my “TOMA” was to complete a large section of lower level first and then go to the upper level, rather than complete a module fully before moving to the next module.
Here is what I am talking about in-action on my last layout:
5 modules or sections had to be bolted together and all track fully laid before the upper level could be added and completed. Doing this prevented me from completing each section/module fully before moving onto the next.
Or am I misunderstanding the basic concept of TOMA?
TOMA does look like a good concept for spuring progress. I discussed my last layout in a topic “TOMA, sort of?”
i thought with the TOMA approach, the Module is built separate from the layout in the frame allowing it to be flipped around and completed before installing it in the layout.
seems like your approach is build a section of the layout at a time in place.
I don’t see any other way to build when two decks are involved. Can’t be TOMA by definition. Single level. Sure.
Check out Joe’s article a couple issues ago on his use of TOMA for his new Siskyou Line - double decked. He worked out a frame structure that allows for a double decked module section. So it is coompletely doable. It’s mainly a matter of cuttin E shaped sections of plywood and arranging them like ribs in a ship oor airplane. That gives a place for the bottom level, a space for the upper level (with room underneath for lower deck lighting), and a top valance to hid lighting for the upper deck.
Yoou can pretty much modularize anything, really.But I won;t be doing that this time. Given that last time I did so, and I even took it all apart and moved it to my new house - 4 years later I ripped off the electronics and junked the whole darn thing, track and all, other than the legs which had already been removed for moving. I don’t want a row of legs like the last layout, at least along the front edge, so long spans with L girders will be the order of the day. If I move from here after I built it, it’s just an excuse to buy a Sawzall. My thought is, the likelihood of rebuilding the old layout ina new space is practically nil. It’s one thing if you are building modules to participate in a modular club like nTrack or FreeMo, and it’s a good way to get a jump on contructioon and do something knowing a move is pending. I figure if I move from here it will be one of two things - a more favorably shaped and arranged space, meaning a new layout, or a compact place that won;t fit a large layout so once again, new layout which might end up being a small 2x8 switchign layout or something. Either way, a layout designed to fit the space and shape of this basement is not likely to be usable in any other basement.
–Randy
I have quasi followed the TOMA saga, and I’m sure it is doable, but I’ve already built benchwork sections which I will be re-using. I don’t see any reason to discard them in order to follow another benchwork method which doesn’t make sense for me.
I’m sure Joes method is doable but it sounds like extra work and honestly defeats the purpose of TOMA in the first place, which is to encourage hobbyists to not procrastinate and to make progress on a layout.
I like to work on one deck to lay the track while there are no obstructions from above and once that is complete, then add the next level above it. To me, that is just common sense.
Thats a good point about the legs, but why can’t you just attach the front legs in-set about 4 inches or a bit more so they are not in a position to be a bother? That can still be done on basic open grid benchwork saving me the need to go with something which is to me, a bit exotic and extra work to build (L-girder). My carpentry skills are fairly basic so I can avoid L-girder and spline and things like that and get good results still.
[quote]
If I move from here after I built it, it’s just an excuse to buy a Sawzall. My thought is, the likelihood of rebuilding the old layout ina
I will probably have plywood ripped to make dimensional lumber this time. Also no extruded foam flat surface - I’ll still use foam to build up hills and so forth, not not as a flat top deck like I did on the last two. So thoose old frames were mostly useless anyway - also new oone will be double decked.
The point of L girder was that it was EASIER for someoone who is not great at woodwooking - I’ve usually rejected it as overly complex since I am quite capable of cutting reasonably accurate lengths with nice square cuts (and on most of the last layout - using hand tools, not a power saw, since I lived in an apartment and didn;t want to make tha tmuch noise). However, spanning a 20 foot or so run with just two legs (also set back - the front girder generally does not go along the front edhe of the benchwork, the joists stick out firther which is where you cna have a nice curving fascia) is very appealing. Not only for access while building, but the end goal is to use all that under layout space to containerize storage items (not just railroad stuff) in uniform plastic totes with labels. Hidden behind some sort of curtain. With all that linear space, and things actually organized, I will be able to actually store even more stuff in far less space without it accumulating on the layout or in the aisles. And since most of it will run along walls - the rear girder will be screwed right to the wall studs, no legs there, either.
The upper deck will of necessity need to be made using some other method. Plywood brackets is the way I’m leaning at the moment. L-girder is far too thick for anything beyond the lowest level.
–Randy
i thought an advantage of L-girders as opposed to a boxed frame is that a joist could be moved if it was in the way because of trackwork above (e.g. turnout linkage).
In his multi-deck book, Tony Koester talks about keeping at least the upper deck thickness thin and suggested using metal shelf brakets.
To me L-girder seems overly complex as well, which is antithetical to the reported advantages if it is supposed to be easier. For me it’s easier to get a frame jig and screw together a rectangular frame and add the cross members as 1x3’s. Building L’s out of wood is an extra step I don’t see any advantage too and then attaching them to long frame members - how do you keep them square while doing that? It seems you would need some sort of funky special jig to get it altogether square… seems like a"faff-on", as my British wife would say.
I did lose maybe 2 inches of space in a few spots to store crap under the layout by using legs, but I didn’t consider that enough of a loss to not use legs.
Also, in my last basement, I was concerned that if I attached everything to the walls to eliminate legs, then I might have to cosmetical
Yes, moving the joist is one of the purported advantages of L-girder. I’ve had an interference issue exactly once with grid benchwork, and that mainly because of the modular construction of my benchwork - it was double thick at the module joints since each module had and end plate. here was only one cross brace, in the middle of each 4 foot long section, so only once did it end up that the turnout throwbar location was too close for even a tiny servo to fit. That helps too - using small servos as the switch motors, they are WAY smaller than a Tortoise and even smaller than most any of the old twin-coil switch machines from back in the day. Making the chance of their being interference with the benchwork even less likely. Had I been paying better attention, I coul dhave shifted the turnout maybe 1/2" and would have had no issue.
The one thing you do get with L girder and not with open grid is a free flowing fascia. Sure, you can attach spacers of varying length along the front of open grid to connect the fascia to, but it comes naturally with l girder - just don;t cut off each joist in a perfect straight line, and the facia will naturally curve in and out along the benchwork.
It always did seem way overkill to make l girder - especially for a layout that was othersise a flat sheet of plywood. Not even cookie cutter - just your basic 4x8 sheet of plywood flat layout - why in the world would you build L girder and add joists when a simple box frame will work just fine? However, in looking for long spans, free form fascia, and vertical scenery variation, I am revisiting l girder construction. I will purchase a nail gun to use with my compressor if I do so - you cna stamp out the girders in minuts with something liek that, instead of having to drill all those holes and then screw the two pieces together. I’ve already made my legs that way for the last layout, a 1x3 with a 1x2 L. Since I can;t find straight 2x2’s anywhere, and without a table saw I wasn’t going