i've asked about the height of trees and people had said that realistically sized trees (80' == 11") doesn't look right. I'm wondering about the heights of buildings. Would the layout look better with shorter buildings (fewer stories)?
is it more satisfying that a train stands above the layout with shorter trees and stuctures, or through the layout with taller trees and structures? Would a taller layout look bigger or smaller?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Greg, I have a lot of trees that are in the 9 to 12 inch height and think they look just fine.
I would go with the real word scale unless you are trying to make things look farer away.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
My rail height is about chin high. The tops of the facades of two and three story buildings are above eye level. Mountian peaks are over my head. Seems more realistic at this height. The high layout height makes the layout seem larger because it fills your vision more. I prefer high layouts. It's more like watching from a car instead of a helicopter.
Height of trees and buildings should be based on the look of the area you are modeling. Then use shorter ones in the background for forced perspective. Far off trees on a ridgeline are small pieces of groundfoam. Buildings from a smaller scale placed in the back look goood too.
Seems to me that the title of your thread doesn't really describe your question. From
your title, the answer is that a layout always looks larger when viewed from eye level.
But it doesn't sound like that's really what you're asking. It's not that scale trees don't look right. They do. As do scale buildings. But big as trains are, these things simply overwhelm them. That may not be the best thing for a model railroad, so some structures and vegetation are presented slightly under scale to keep the railroad in the front of perception. For the same reason, your layout looks better when you only model part of an enormous industry like a steel mill or ethanol plant.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Greg
As far as the height of buildings goes, I think you have to reflect the buildings that you are trying to model. If you are trying to model a downtown scene in a large city you won't succeed if everything is only two or three storys high. Its going to look like a small town. That doesn't mean that you have to have tall buildings in the foreground, but they should be represented towards the backdrop or at least on the backdrop itself.
As far as trees go, the point has already been made that large trees can dwarf your trains, but that isn't always a bad thing. If you are modelling an early 20th century small logging operation, tall trees will give you the perspective that you need to 'sell the story' as it were.
I would suggest that you do what looks right to you. The opinions held by the rest of us really don't matter. Its your railroad so do what you want. Before you spend a bunch of money on buildings or trees, make yourself some card stock replicas to see how they fit your needs.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I have more than 7,000 trees on my layout, the vast majority of which are less than 2" tall. Made from bumpy chenille, the small trees provide significant forced perspective and the busy illusion of vastness.
In front of them are considerably bigger trees, although far fewer in number. Being closest to the models, I guess it could be said to overwhelm them...except there's way too much forced perspective going on in the background for that to happen.
This is an example of this in practice. You'll see bigger trees -- not very big -- next to the track and bridge abutmentsin front of the mountain sides behind, which are covered almost exclusively with the bumpy chenille trees.
I had most of the bigger trees when I started the bumpy chenille project. As it progressed, I pulled the big trees forward, further filling the space and distorting perspective in my favor.
On layout height, raising it closer to eye level makes it seem bigger because it cuts down how far you can see when you lift your head to take in the rest of the layout. In my case, though, I wanted tall mountains. It you have your track close to the ceiling, it only allows for relatively shorter mountains with far less vertical rise and thus less dramatic mountains. Having tall mountains on a multideck layout tends to squeeze the vertical height you can allow below and above them
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Personally, I like scenes where trains are dwarfed by the industries they serve, represented by large buildings. I have plans to build a 5 foot long by about 6 inch high lumber shed, based on a real one that stood here in Bend, Oregon. That's 435 feet long, as was the real building.
I once read a line in Model Railroader that said something to the effect, don't build models of models, build models of real things. In other words don't be overly influenced by what other model builders build. Do what looks right to your own eyes. Dan
Hi,
It's nice to see a thread about something relatively new to the forum.....
IMO, it's all about personal perspective, and comes down to what looks right to you. In our real world, we see massive industries and forests, but rarely right next to each other for comparison.
In our modeling world, many/most of our structures are compressed and downsized - while our locos and rolling stock are faithful to the scale. Thus, they appear larger than they would in the real world.
Right now I'm "planting trees" on my HO layout. I'm fortunate (thanks to a couple of good MR friends) to have a good selection of trees to choose from. They are all in scale - meaning the tree they represent can be found at that height in the real world. Thus, some are 2 inches tall, and some are 9-10 inches tall.
The trick (again, IMO) is to place the "right" sized tree to fit the location - be it in a wooded area, with a few in a stand in an open area, or next to a structure.
And making that decision is complicated by the height of the layout and/or what height its viewed (i.e. how tall are the observers).
Anyway, I would definitely keep a scale ruler close at hand while populating the layout, and I would finalize decisions based on "what looks best" to the builder.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Not to go off on a "rabbit trail", but NP2626 brings up an interesting point. The process of building a layout can often bring out talents that one never realized they possessed. And of course, it can bring out the fact that the talents one thinks one possesses....... well, in practice they don't.
Mike, that's a really nice scene. It's a good illustration for this thread.
I use 3 and 4 story buildings to fill my "urban" areas. I'm modeling a smaller city, not NYC or Chicago, so these are appropriate. This is a view of Beaver Street on a shelf section that's 30 inches wide.
My train room has the dreaded 45-degree angled roofline, but I've learned to live with it. The buildings almost "reach the sky" even at that height, but they pull the eye away from the ceiling and back into the layout. In this case, they also function as a view block. While there are 3 tracks in the foreground running alongside Beaver Street in the photo above, there are 4 more tracks running behind the row of structures, more or less hiding the tracks from view, except where there's a break between buildings and you can see just a bit.
I think it's very effective to make trains disappear for a while. I don't have mountains or tunnels to hide my trains, but running them behind buildings can be just as effective. It makes the run seem longer that way, and thus give the impression that the layout is larger. Many of us use our buildings as backgrounds, but I have a lot of them right in front so the trains play peek-a-boo running behind them.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasleyI think it's very effective to make trains disappear for a while. I don't have mountains or tunnels to hide my trains, but running them behind buildings can be just as effective. It makes the run seem longer that way, and thus give the impression that the layout is larger. Many of us use our buildings as backgrounds, but I have a lot of them right in front so the trains play peek-a-boo running behind them.
I thought I read that having breaks, where at least part of the train disappears from view, creates the illusion that the train is moving from one scene to another, making the layout look bigger.
NICE PICTURES.
LION runs train in SUBWAY TUNNELS, him has not this problem
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
MisterBeasleyMike, that's a really nice scene. It's a good illustration for this thread.
Mr. B,
Thanks
There's also some sleight of hand going on, along with some careful photo composition and cropping. The bridge crossing the gulch and the gulch are in a drop-down area, so that helps get some additional verticality.This pic is a bit wider view of things to illustrate what's really there.
This can be handled in the top deck of a double-deck layout by having the main on the lower deck dodge behind the drop-down. Which brings us back to making trains disappear...
MisterBeasleyI think it's very effective to make trains disappear for a while. I don't have mountains or tunnels to hide my trains, but running them behind buildings can be just as effective.
In my case, there is a mountain that the track run behind as it turns right and climbs. But as you say, it can be just about any structure or scenery, so long as it hides the trains. Even a good thick forest can be effective in hiding trains.
mlehman MisterBeasley Mike, that's a really nice scene. It's a good illustration for this thread. Mr. B, Thanks
MisterBeasley Mike, that's a really nice scene. It's a good illustration for this thread.
Mike,
I second that. Your layout does look good. I've used your layout as a reference several times.
T e d
As some others have said, the layout height is a direct component of how the trees and building are viewed. My layout height needs to be higher. The rail height comes about to my bellie/chest area.
It really needs to be head/eye level. I have carpet in my basement, sometimes I kneel down and the trains are at eye level and it looks and feels more realistic. My next layout will be eye level.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
gregc i've asked about the height of trees and people had said that realistically sized trees (80' == 11") doesn't look right. I'm wondering about the heights of buildings. Would the layout look better with shorter buildings (fewer stories)? is it more satisfying that a train stands above the layout with shorter trees and stuctures, or through the layout with taller trees and structures? Would a taller layout look bigger or smaller?
Eighty feet is a big tree......a great many trees are much shorter.
I'm looking out my window now at a great many mature trees that are only in the 40' to 60' range at most. So more like 6 to 8 inches is very realistic for deciduous trees on the east coast.
We have a mature pine in our yard that is barely as tall as our 2-1/2 Victorian house - about 55'.
Sheldon
Motley As some others have said, the layout height is a direct component of how the trees and building are viewed. My layout height needs to be higher. The rail height comes about to my bellie/chest area. It really needs to be head/eye level. I have carpet in my basement, sometimes I kneel down and the trains are at eye level and it looks and feels more realistic. My next layout will be eye level.
Michael,
That's actually a pretty good rule, if you can keep to it. Once you go double-deck, then we've obviously not got two sets of eyes, which is something the seductive lure of double-decking's ability to double the apparent square footage should have a warning label on. There's just no way it's all going to be properly in the line of sight.
Then there's situation like mine. I wanted mountains towering over the operator. That gets tricky when the ceiling is only 8" above eye level here in Little Colorado, but I've done what I could. I started mountains low enough to look credible. I also stacked up to of my Mears shortline north of Silverton so one is higher than the other, but the terrain flows between them continuously because they're all technically on the same deck despite a substantial difference in height to rail.
Ted,
Thanks, appreciate your comment, too