when i look at the mature trees in my yard or along the road, i'd estimate that the trees are close to 80 feet tall. In HO, doesn't the scale down to 10-12 inches? Considering that a large loco may only be 15' tall, this means a tree is 5-6 times the height of a loco and could easily be hidden behind a grouping of mature trees Yet when i see model trees, i doubt that i've seen more than a few much more that half that height. Is this a form a compression?
So would modeling mature trees at a more correct height add to the realism of a layout or detract from it? If they were to, would they have to be much more realistic and in more realistic groupings?
Fortunately, I see few trees in the denuded Pennsylvania landscapes in the railroad photos that interest me.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Full size trees "look" too big on a layout. Plus they're enormous and make the smaller buildings and everything look too small. An HO scale oak would be as big as a (real size) basketball sitting on your layout.
I think the idea is to trust your gut. If you find properly scaled tres imposing themselves on your scenery and on your enjoyment, cut 'em down to size...or a size that seems to work better. If you want a forest of tall Douglas Firs or Sitka Spruce, the mature ones should be at least 16" high. Trouble is, where to put them? On a hillside set againt a tall backdrop, that would probably be fine. It's a lot of materials, though, and it won't be cheap.
Most of the deciduous trees on my layout are between 5-8" high. Conifers range between 8" and 14", but in truth I only have three of the latter size. It you went on to guess they stand out like sore thumbs, you'd be right.
-Crandell
I think that for most layouts scale size trees would be a distraction. Theoretically the goal is to have the viewer focus on the trains with the scenery being almost anecdotal. The scenery should be there to add detail, not take over the scene. As has already been mentioned, a scale full grown oak tree would be enormous relative to the size of the trains.
On the other hand I have seen a few model logging railroads with very large coniferous trees and in that venue they look good. They do dwarf the locomotives but I think that lends greatly to the effect. However I suspect that in fact they were still not exactly to scale.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Use scale size in the foreground and smaller in the background to create forced perspective.
Scale sized trees, especially confirs always look better. Trains are small in the grand scheme of things and the trees and mountains should dominate.
It's just like many other things in HO, if you did them to their proper scale size, you'd need a lot of room - more than most of us have or will ever have. Maybe thats why modeling the desert isn't such a bad idea! =P
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
LION has a tree that towers over a two story house with attic. But that is what tall trees can do.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
With a few exceptions, our average trees are shorter than most of the average prototypes we see. Similarly, our roads are often narrower, our city blocks considerably shorter, structures are often either of small prototypes or smaller, our utility poles are generally closer together (and often shorter). For that matter our towns are often laughably close together. We call things mountains that are not mountains; we tunnel through hills or mountains that real railroads would daylight.
To have one 80 foot tree surrounded by "normal" model height trees could look very strange. It is sometimes a shocker to scratchbuild a structure that you know to be correct in its dimensions and then see it plunked down on a layout of commercial structures and it just looks oversized -- until then you never realized how compressed the commercial structures are.
The secret is to be reasonably consistent and then things look right. Some modelers maintain that HO trains look best running in a 1/8" scale world (except for doors and figures).
Dave Nelson
I am in the "make trees proper scale size" camp. I am the same with other things on the layout. There may be exceptions, however I will generally do without whatever it is, rather than put it on the layout. This usually means having less on the layout, but sometimes "less is more".
Like so many things in this hobby, do what pleases you.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I prefer to size the trees to suit the scene. In some places, full-size ones are too overpowering but in other locales give a good sense of proportion to a scene.In the photo below, the tree in the right foreground is about 60' tall, but located partway down the bank of the creek. Most of the ones on the far side of the creek are only 35' tall, but appear to increase in height due to the rising of the bank. The tall one, just right of centre in the distance is also about 60', but sits on level ground. Those near the locomotive represent younger trees and are only about 35' tall, while those in the distance are about 15'.
Wayne
BroadwayLion LION has a tree that towers over a two story house with attic. But that is what tall trees can do.
But at the same time the real trees in that picture look to have a spread of 70 to 80 feet. The model doesn't.
I think the Lion's picture with the real tree is very interesting to study from a modeling perspective. (It's interesting how the rails look like they're in a tunnel of trees). In a British scenery book I a recently read, it seems that the Brits pay much more attention to foliage, even modeling vines growing on trees. The book also talks about using trees to break the layout into modeling scenes.
NittanyLionBut at the same time the real trees in that picture look to have a spread of 70 to 80 feet. The model doesn't.
but do you see how sparse the tree is, it's not full, all the leaves are on top (left image). It's not the classic full and round tree we typically think of (middle photo). I think it would be interesting to model a tree such as in the photo with a larger canopy .
In contrast, I think many trees are rather sparse (right figure). I think the inner trees within a group only need to have leaves near the top and the outer trees only need leaves on the outside edge of the group that would get the sun.
Similar recent discussion with additional photoshttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/229259.aspx
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group