Thanks for all the nice comments.
I guess thats what makes this forum so good, there are many Model railroaders with many different talents.
I have availed myself of several who have helped me a lot.
Currently there are some helping me to build a curved Truss deck bridge and when I finally get some track layed I look forward to the assistance of another to re-power and DCC a 1990's Riverossi 4-6-6-4.
Happy Model Railroading
Gary
gdelmoroI completed one 2' section of the 40' backdrop with the forest edge at the bottom. These trees are about 6" tall and will be behind some kind of separator (wall, Fence, rocks) not sure yet and the mainline is 3" from the backdrop.
Gary!
You are an excellent artist! The backdrop is enviable.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
gdelmoro...Are your trees made or purchased?...
Most of them are homemade, but I do have some of those "evergreens" made for Christmas displays. My wife found them in a box of junk from a garage sale. I worked them over with scissors to make them a little-less uniform, then covered them with ground foam...
They're quite close to the backdrop, and I've decided that they look more like cedars than pine or spruce trees - a good fit for their location, with Chippawa Creek nearby.
Wow! That's a very well-done backdrop, with a lot of depth!! A fence would set it off nicely...perhaps just a farm-type wire fence, but my first thought while looking at the scene was of a dry stone wall.
Wayne
Thanks Wayne! Great examples and ideas. Nice work.
Are your trees made or purchased?
I completed one 2' section of the 40' backdrop with the forest edge at the bottom. These trees are about 6" tall and will be behind some kind of separator (wall, Fence, rocks) not sure yet and the mainline is 3" from the backdrop.
Thanks for your kind words, Douglas. Your perception of the background trees is pretty-much dead on, with the insulation trees done in a manner which lessens the steepness of the terrain. It's actually "rock wool" insulation, so no harmful fibres to inhale or itchy arms and hands like one often gets when handling fibreglass.
Here's that same area before the trees showed up...
...and the other side of that scene, which will likely use-up a fair amount of insulation-type trees (it's on a peninsula which affords access to a partial upper level)....
There's some more info and photos to be found HERE if anybody wants to take a look.
doctorwayne In the photo below, some of the taller trees scale-out to 125' in height - tall and gangly, just fighting for their share of sunlight....
In the photo below, some of the taller trees scale-out to 125' in height - tall and gangly, just fighting for their share of sunlight....
Wayne, I think this an excellent representation of a forest, and a great use of the canopy. IMO, the foreground trees seen in full set the tone for what my eye perceives to be the size of the trees in the canopy. They don't look like shorter trees (IIRC, your canopy isn't even trees at all, but home fiberglass insulation worked to a frenzy and painted) They look like the same height trees, but more of them.
It probably also conceals the true height of the mountain you built. Whereas the tops of the foliage of the foreground trees might be 10 inches from the ground, the fiberglass canopy could be only a couple of inches from the actual mountain floor, simply being the thickness of the insulation strip resting on the mountain.
You can adjust the perceived grade of the mountain by simply playing with the height of the canopy.
- Douglas
Wayne´s pictures certainly prove, that if you want to create more visual depth, place the taller trees in the foreground and smaller trees to the back of the layout.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
In some areas, I tend to prefer the taller trees in the foreground, with the ones in the not-all-that-far-away-distance being considerably shorter...
This one, in a pasture near Indian Line is about 65' tall, with those in the background (about 250' away) being around 25'-or-less in height...
...while a closer look at those in the background reveals not much in the way of actual trees...
...while the stuff hidden below them (shown before the bigger trees were installed)....
...will often be of different species, content with less light.
The trees in the distance vary in height, but most are quite short, their height created only by the terrain on which they were placed...
None of them have trunks or branches, simply chunks of insulation material, spray-painted green, with some ground foam added...
The trees here aren't much more than 30' in height....
...growing alongside a small creek almost choked with undergrowth
Some of the trees alongside this river might be 50' or 60' in height, but, along with the shorter ones mingled in with them, their main purpose is to separate this scene from the scenes to the left and right....
...since there's little actual distance between the various towns. Because of that, I consider my around-the-room layout to be a switching layout as much as it's also a point-to-point layout. During operations, attention is focussed only where the train happens to be working at that time. Eventually, it moves on to the next point-of-interest.
The scene below can be viewed only by setting the camera into the area and hoping for a useable photo...
I don't yet have any residential areas on my layout, but the trees around them will be in proportion to the size of the structures. I do have plans to represent a couple of orchards, and the trees there will probably not exceed 15' in height...10' might be more likely.
These trees were planted pretty close to this coal dealer's outbuidings, meant to act as a wind break...
...while the ones in the background, below....
...might be a couple hundred yards away, or maybe a half-mile, while the tiny ones here (about 30' tall...or less) are simply there to take the viewers attention away from the backdrop (against which they're leaning)....
Great back drop Gary.
I happen to like tall trees on the layout. I prefer trees that are closer to scale height because it makes the scenery “look right” to my eye. As was pointed out earlier everything on the prototype is pretty big, be it streets, telephone poles, buildings etc. We all have to use selective compression. However, I think that when it comes to tree height we tend to overdo it a bit.
I model the Sierras and California foothills on the upper deck of my layout. The trees in 3000 - 5000 ft. elevation range can get very big especially the Ponderosa Pines, white firs and cedars. Many can get as big as 150 feet high (or bigger). That is nearly a two foot high tree in HO scale. From the time I have spent in the mountains and from looking at lots of historic photos of the areas that I am modeling, smaller trees don’t look right to me.
I have about 75 trees on the layout that are at least 15” tall and they make the scene. While the trees dominate the scenery, the trains are still the star. Layout viewers are still drawn to the trains. I also have series of around 12 trees that are in the foreground between the viewer and the trains. This gives a feeling of being “in the forest” looking at the trains go by. Most of these trees are on special pins so that they can be removed and moved to another section of the layout for operating session so they won’t be in the way.
IMHO - How big the trees should be in a scene is determined by what trees grow where you are modeling and how big they grow. While I don’t model eastern forest canopies, if I were to approach that type of tree canopy I would opt for cheaper WS foam trees (I have boxes of these pulled from other layouts. They can also be had fairly cheaply used on Ebay) to fill in as much as I can in the back ground and use super trees or a similar quality tree along the leading edge of the canopy.
Your mileage may vary,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Another interesting question would be when to stop using individual trees.
.
My trees have been divided into foreground models, further back models, then the canopy going up the hillside maybe 18 inches away or so.
Results have been mixed. My freind Randy's N scale NORFOLK SOUTHERN had beautiful canopies of trees going up the hillsides. My layouts never looked so good.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
If you model a river valley, with a bridge of trestle crossing the valley, then some large trees back a bit from the stream would look right, and would be in the near background, not between edge/operators and tracks.
I hear ya about the challenge of being able to reach tracks with trees blocking access. Plugs work, but removing trees isn't too difficult. The hard part is remembering where to put them afterward and not removing the foam in the process!
~Lee
I'm not at that stage yet, but I will try to avoid trees, large trees in particular, in the foreground and near the tracks of my layout. Based on the experience of our club, trees can really get in the way when maintenance work is done on the tracks. I might consider using plugs to remove them more easily.
Simon
Doughless Of course, I wouldn't build a canopy forest by using individual trees, but would use some sort of mass application. Just make sure the canopy looks like its taller than the foreground trees.
Of course, I wouldn't build a canopy forest by using individual trees, but would use some sort of mass application. Just make sure the canopy looks like its taller than the foreground trees.
Also agreed, a forest can be modeled with only a few actual trees, and a "canopy" of "leaves".
More later, got to go.
Sheldon
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL So HO trees 6" to 12" would be a realistic range for your biggest "old growth" trees. Sheldon Agreed. If a person is modeling a rural area that is ungroomed by humans, nearly all of the trees will be of that height, and, they tend to be shaped like broccoli, tall stems with the leaves only at the canopy. Overcrowding of forests never allow trees to reach their natural shape, which is the round form we typically see in yards and parks when they are left to grow unimpeded by competing trees. So in the midatlantic and SE USA, IMO, the canopy of a forested area should actually be between 8 and 12 inches tall, with only a few trunks visible and smaller new growth trees along the front edge. A more manicured area would look differently, with the tall trees only along the untouched property lines, IMO. And a person could get fancy and model a section that the railroad recently cut back. A bunch of bare trunks and half-trees near the ROW where the shearing exposed the openness of the previously shaded ground.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So HO trees 6" to 12" would be a realistic range for your biggest "old growth" trees. Sheldon
So HO trees 6" to 12" would be a realistic range for your biggest "old growth" trees.
Agreed. If a person is modeling a rural area that is ungroomed by humans, nearly all of the trees will be of that height, and, they tend to be shaped like broccoli, tall stems with the leaves only at the canopy.
Overcrowding of forests never allow trees to reach their natural shape, which is the round form we typically see in yards and parks when they are left to grow unimpeded by competing trees.
So in the midatlantic and SE USA, IMO, the canopy of a forested area should actually be between 8 and 12 inches tall, with only a few trunks visible and smaller new growth trees along the front edge. A more manicured area would look differently, with the tall trees only along the untouched property lines, IMO.
And a person could get fancy and model a section that the railroad recently cut back. A bunch of bare trunks and half-trees near the ROW where the shearing exposed the openness of the previously shaded ground.
Great additional thoughts.
SeeYou190 I have always used trees in the 5 - 7 inch range for foreground scenes. They just look nice to me. . For these trees I use an armature made from 4/0 battery cable dipped in super glue. Then I model bark using caulk. Foliage from Super-Trees finish the models nicely. . I don't have any pictures, I have only made five or six of these, and I have none made for the new layout. . These look right to my eye, even though in reality they are only 35-50 feet tall. . -Kevin .
I have always used trees in the 5 - 7 inch range for foreground scenes. They just look nice to me.
For these trees I use an armature made from 4/0 battery cable dipped in super glue. Then I model bark using caulk. Foliage from Super-Trees finish the models nicely.
I don't have any pictures, I have only made five or six of these, and I have none made for the new layout.
These look right to my eye, even though in reality they are only 35-50 feet tall.
Kevin, I think you are right on target. This morning on the way to the job, I paid closer attention and confirmed what I posted above.
As I said above, in most places I have been here in the east, 80' to maybe 120' is the typical max for natural forests. Sure there will be the occasional extra tall ones, but typically the whole forest seems to have a canopy topping out at 100'.
But I also saw both forested areas, and individual trees in the open, where most where only in the 50' range and smaller. And most man planted ornamental trees I noted are easily under 50'.
We have one tall tree left on our 1901 property, an old growth pine that is no more than 75' tall. Behind our property the neighbors have two near our property line that might reach 85'.
I trimmed my side of them years ago with bucket lift that reached 75'.
Most of the surrounding trees don't appear much taller. There is one a few houses up that might be over 100'.
Thanks for the ideas and perspectives. Seems I need a few "scale" trees in the 8 - 10" range but others will be made to fit the scene to make sure I can see the trains. In other cases like where there is a tunnel I'm thinking trees could be used to HIDE trains if thats desired.
Regards
I think some selective compression may be in order with trees....
BUT, here in the mid atlantic 50' to 80' oaks, pines, ashes, maples, poplars, etc are pretty typical.
Trees much taller than 80', or maybe 100', are not typical at all. 87' is surely not an average around here.
Ornamental trees planted and groomed by humans seldom exceed 50'.
So there is a difference between modeling a natural forest and modeling the tree in the yard of a house in a neighborhood.
Power lines, not counting long distance very high voltage transmission lines, are typically on poles between 20' and 30' high.
So I think most of the commerically made poles are "close enough".
Tress twice that tall would be "average", and give a good appearance.
Our 1901 house is 55' tall, it once had lots of mature, 80-90 year old Norway Maples in the yard. as they failed we had to remove them. The tallest was about 110' tall and 4'-5- diameter trunk. The rest were only about 60' to 70' tall with 3' diameter trunks.
gdelmoroHow do you determine the size of your foreground trees?
Gary,On some of my past end of the branch line switching layouts I used smaller "new growth" trees around 1 1/2- 3" tall in the foreground. These new growth tress was part of a beaufication project after a off the layout new highway project cleared a lot of the old growth trees.
In your case these new growth trees could be replacement trees from the logging of the old growth trees or a new highway project..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
SPSOT fanVery interesting to see that models trees really should dominate the scenery!
I'm not sure I agree. I want to see trains, not trees. Using trees that are actually sized to scale messes up the compression that we are forced to use. If we want to convey distance I think it would be better done with more trees that are smaller rather than a few trees that are larger.
This is an interesting and timely topic for me. I just ordered a bunch of different trees for the club to see how they look. I thing the largest are only 4" or so.
One thing to note is that trees and foliage encroaching on right of ways or parking lots are going to show signs of uncareful maintenance. When the forest gets too close to traffic, out come the big trucks with the big shears that turn those nicely shaped round trees into a D shape, flat side towards the humans. Then growth fills in, then more shearing. Over time, in a forested setting, the foliage looks more like a wall of leaves than trees.
Oot west, things can be more sparse, but east of the Mississippi the trees and shrubs tend to grow everywhere that isn't routinely maintained by man, which include property lines in the city and farms.
Sometimes, the only foliage around is right along the edge of the ROW, because the land just next to it is being used for some purpose.
Edit: Mike's pic shows this very well, how the foliage fills in the seam of unused land along the ROW.
I don't know if any of that has to do with height. Just a ramble.
kasskaboose on the pragmatic side, tall trees in the foreground both block the view and access. I agree with what you wrote. Currently putting trees on my layout and have 8-10" in the background while smaller ones are in the foreground. Creating depth is far more difficult than many suspect.
on the pragmatic side, tall trees in the foreground both block the view and access.
Usually the philosphy of forced perspective is to place the smaller, out-of-scale things in the background.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Just like with building, if you go scale size things may not fit well on an HO layout. Probably most models of buildings are selectively compressed. Likewise, trees may fit that practice to. Yes, since HO is 1/87 real size, a real 87' tall tree would be 1 foot in HO, or 12 inches tall. Of course tree's vary in size from small to super tall, so try to use some common sense when adding tries.
In my case of doing desert scenes, many tree's in desert environs are not real big, many scrub tree's so I probably won't plan on many large tree's.
gregc average tree height is ~87ft. easy to figure out what that is in HO scale. but i'm told trees in the background and presumably not next to tracks should be smaller to give the impression of distances. (Should structures not next to tracks also be scaled down a bit as well)? on the pragmatic side, tall trees in the foreground both block the view and access.
average tree height is ~87ft. easy to figure out what that is in HO scale.
but i'm told trees in the background and presumably not next to tracks should be smaller to give the impression of distances. (Should structures not next to tracks also be scaled down a bit as well)?
SPSOT fan Very interesting to see that models trees really should dominate the scenery! Definately contrary to what us modelers do. If you suppose an average tree is ~87 ft, as previously stated, they you do have some handy measuring tools: a 87 foot flat or auto rack for more modern eras, and two 40 footers for older eras! Now that is alot bigger than most trees modelers use, so think how AWESOME it would look if we had trains running through full height trees. Scenery would dominate the scene, and I would suspect create a very realistic effect!
Very interesting to see that models trees really should dominate the scenery! Definately contrary to what us modelers do.
If you suppose an average tree is ~87 ft, as previously stated, they you do have some handy measuring tools: a 87 foot flat or auto rack for more modern eras, and two 40 footers for older eras!
Now that is alot bigger than most trees modelers use, so think how AWESOME it would look if we had trains running through full height trees. Scenery would dominate the scene, and I would suspect create a very realistic effect!
Well, you have an even easier measuring tool - if the prototype tree is 87 feet tall, in HO it will be 1 foot tall.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Not even just height. Plenty of oak species hit 70+ in height, but are 120 to 150 across with a trunk 5 feet thick.