Ok so there are all kinds of trees and places around the world with different height trees. Northern California‘s Redwood Forrest may have 80’ tall and 14’wide trees and some desert trees are not even 2’ tall.
I’m modeling a fictional northwestern US area. What I’m really asking is how many scale fee tall should trees be near the front, in the middle (3’ back) and in the back (6’ back)?
I’ve seen some layouts with really Large trees (5 times taller than a double stack) and I’ve seen some with trees that just peak over a 1 story building.
I guess I could just do what looks right to me or what i find in photos.
What do you do?
Gary
Height of HO trees
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I feel your pain. California Redwoods can reach over 300 feet and average 200. And Douglas Fir range from 200-250 feet. I'm going with trees in the 2-2.5 foot range.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I will tend to use some Modeler's license when it comes to placing trees and the height they should be. many time a scale tree of 50-60ft is just too overpowering for a scene. Much depends on what area you are modeling. I do eastern mixed forest pine and deciduous. For tree covered hillside forground can start as low bushes with an occasional 15-20ft tree. as you extend into the tree covered hill/ forest many of the trees can actually be placed "puff ball" these tend to only be a few inches tall at best, but placed properly give the illusion of a vast deep woods.
This view shows small brush and all varying tree heights. some across the bridge are pines that are about 60 scale feet. there were ones placed that were scale height up to almost 70ft, but were out of place and removed. Most of the taller ones here are only 25-30 feet, mixed in with the remaining brush I find that for scene accent or stand alone trees 15-20ft is tall enough. Other mention to use about the height of 1 story, 12-15ft up to roof of say 20ft. Tree height tends to run a bit smaller in scale in most cases. I feel you just need to see what works for your scene to get the feel and look you want.
This view shows small brush and all varying tree heights. some across the bridge are pines that are about 60 scale feet. there were ones placed that were scale height up to almost 70ft, but were out of place and removed.
Most of the taller ones here are only 25-30 feet, mixed in with the remaining brush I find that for scene accent or stand alone trees 15-20ft is tall enough. Other mention to use about the height of 1 story, 12-15ft up to roof of say 20ft. Tree height tends to run a bit smaller in scale in most cases. I feel you just need to see what works for your scene to get the feel and look you want.
Most of the taller ones here are only 25-30 feet, mixed in with the remaining brush
I find that for scene accent or stand alone trees 15-20ft is tall enough. Other mention to use about the height of 1 story, 12-15ft up to roof of say 20ft. Tree height tends to run a bit smaller in scale in most cases. I feel you just need to see what works for your scene to get the feel and look you want.
I find that for scene accent or stand alone trees 15-20ft is tall enough. Other mention to use about the height of 1 story, 12-15ft up to roof of say 20ft.
Tree height tends to run a bit smaller in scale in most cases. I feel you just need to see what works for your scene to get the feel and look you want.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Having fairly recently planted a plethora of trees on my HO layout, I quickly concluded that tree height was what looked good - and right - to me. I fact, I have a pack of very small WS trees that remain in the pack, and two double packs (not cheap) of WS very large deciduous trees that didn't make it to the layout either.
There just isn't a one size fits all solution here, you just have to test different heights in the setting to be.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I found that for redwoods and pines that even foreground trees looked best in the 9 to 12 inch range unless you want that real overpowering look. Have some 16" trees that did not make it to the layout I just took down. The real secret is to have the trees go down in height as you reach the back of the layout. Most of my trees at the far back (layout was generally only 2' deep) were around an inch. You will need a lot of trees, forgrond was alot of hand made trees for me and Philippines imports from e-bay for the rest, real cheap at around $1 for 6" tall ones.
I use goldenrod weed for my trees in HO so I can get trees 30-60 ft tall.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I'm right in the middle of building some trees for my Free-mo module. It represents typical scenery along the WP (now UP) around Sunol CA. Rolling hills covered with yellow dry grass (in the summer). There are coastal oaks scattered around.
I decided to make them full size. Now, a full sized coastal oak is no giant. Mature height is 35-80 feet, though I find the latter hard to believe. Anyway, a module is much more of a "slice through the scenery" than a layout is. So, "shrinking" trees has less benefit. I think.
I want the trains to have the same size relationship with the trees as the prototype. I think the phonyness alarm would go off if I did any significant shrinking.
Since coastal oaks are quite comfortable standing alone, I'll only by having maybe 5 of them on my 2 x 6 module.
My one mature oak is 7" tall and 9" wide (50 feet tall--65 feet wide). The "middle aged" ones are 5" tall (35 feet).
They're all removable (no surprise there), with a center pin that fits into a tube in the scenery.
Ed
While I can undersatnd the reluctance to overpower a layout, I suspect that a portion of it dedicated to 2 foot scale trees might look kinda neat. But then my layout is located in the Sonoran desert, so I dont have an awfull lot of tall trees.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
WOW Lots of great information!
There's a club layout near here that I visited maybe 10 years ago. So my recollection could be in error. But.
When you come it, there's a grove of full-size (HO) redwoods. And a logging (?) railroad winding through them. It surely gets your attention.
Some might think it "too much". Others might go "Oh, yeah!"
I try to size my trees to suit their locale, so some background trees are simply 1" or 2" high hunks of cushion foam, painted green or black, then covered with some Woodland Scenics ground foam, while some foreground trees exceed 120'.
Wayne
I think it boils down to how observant one is. Anything out of scale I notice pretty quickly and that includes trees.
I get comments on the size of my trees sometimes and I inform the viewer that they are looking at them and the layout from an angle that they don't look at the real world from. Fortunately, I have a 165' fir tree in my backyard and can quickly prove my point of scale to those that think I don't know how big trees are.
This is a round from one of the smaller trees on the property that we cut down, the base is half as big again. With a wife that is a Veterinarian and a breeder of Golden Retrievers, putting an out of scale Golden Retriever on a stump just because the stump is out of scale would not fly. As soon as you have one thing out of scale, things spiral down from there.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
The tall fir in the photo below is about 11" with an inch buried. The others, by Busch or whatever, are near 4" and further back.
My opinion is that the trees must be at least 2/3's of a scale tree to look credible.
Trees that are the size of a small house looks like garden trees...
The trees surrounding my own house are at least 2 times as tall as the house, so around 60'...
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
It all depends on what part of the world you are modeling.
I'd say model what's appropriate to the prototype. If the locale calls for trees that tower over the trains, copy that. Sometimes it's necessary to scale back on height, but selective compression can be overdone.
I model an area where trees aren't typically as large as in the Pacific NW, but where it's appropriate for them to be larger than adjacent structures I try to represent that.
As you start assembling vegetation to finish a scene, you can tell what looks right for the situation and what doesn't.
Also keep prototype photos handy so you can judge the result based on reality instead of memory. Your mind can trick you into thinking something isn't right when in fact it is.
Rob Spangler
Fantastic topic! Discussing tree height also requires considering their placement. I would think trees weren't too tall near the mainline to avoid potential dangers of branches falling, etc. Keeping that in mind helps me to read on what types of trees are in my location and adjusting accordingly. There are plenty of free online books that show what trees grow in a location.
As some said, it makes sense to do what's possible and have people focus attention on the trains themselves.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Great conversations. I’m finding that the trees I have on my layout (at least some of them) may be too short.
I need to do some research on the area I’m simulating
Typical mature trees
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
My trees are probably undersized, with most not more than 2 inches. I do, however, build up the terrain on either side of my tracks, so their net height above the railheads is higher than that. Likewise, a lot of my trees are along the water where I've dug riverbeds lower than track height.
My layout base height is only 38 inches, so that lets me look down on my trees and forested areas, which makes the look of even low trees better.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hi all, thanks for all the posts. I started this conversation after viewing Kathy Millatt‘s “Lets make a scene” video. The tre she was making looked enormous for an HO layout. after doing some research it looks like not only do I need to change/add some larger trees but some of the trees are not the correct type for the part of the country I’m modeling.
Rats!
On my ISLs I use some scrubs or some weeds since I am on the "business" side of a industry and not the manicure front side that the public sees.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I go with placement first. And what height are they in 1:1 scale. A relatively new build up area will have shorter trees than say a hundred fifty year old farm. Most trees along rows with in fifty feet have grown in since 1960 ( end of steam). So well under mature hieght. I shoot for 85 scale feet. But dont get picky if limbs push the hieght towards 100. Still within reasonable range. And of course smaller. I also work with a rough ratio of tall to short for a given area which allows for age and type of human activity For said given area
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Gary, I was going over this thread this morning, and noticed you said your modeling the northwest, so I did a quick search of trees of the northwest, and found this site to have a lot of info.
https://oregonstate.edu/trees/name_common.html
Maybe it will help you with trees that fit your model location.
My trees pretty much follow what Dr Wayne does, small in the back round, taller in the front, and no specific height, just what looks good and seems to "fit".
Mike.
My You Tube
I live in the woods and am surrounded by trees. Mostly Southern Pine which can get pretty tall. Also have Oaks, Gums, Dogwoods and Maples. Using my 40 foot flagpole as a reference, I got trees about 60, 70 and maybe 80 feet tall. I put a couple of 8" trees (HO scale) on my layout (about 60 scale feet), they looked some much out of place. So I decided to use smaller trees and put the big ones in the backround.
mbinsewi Gary, I was going over this thread this morning, and noticed you said your modeling the northwest, so I did a quick search of trees of the northwest, and found this site to have a lot of info. https://oregonstate.edu/trees/name_common.html Maybe it will help you with trees that fit your model location. My trees pretty much follow what Dr Wayne does, small in the back round, taller in the front, and no specific height, just what looks good and seems to "fit". Mike.
Thanks Mike!