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!
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
Thanks for the replies and kind words. I keep looking at prototype steam era photos and the trees next to tracks do indeed tower over the trains. I need to find a compromise that will include tall trees without obstructing the scenes.
The scale down as the railroad and scenery move away needs to also be carefully considered since too much of a reduction in size will not look right.
in my NJ layout I had about 8ft. from front to back and it was easier to reduce trees and buildings toward the back. In fact there were several N Scale items toward the back. This layout is a walk around and no part is more than 3ft. Deep so a little tougher to create the perspective.
Im going to have to try different configurations to get a reasonable result.
all ideas and advice is welcome!
Gary
I recall another thread on this very topic from about a decade ago and the conclusion was that scale height trees often just look "wrong." Most trees on layouts I visit are closer to the height you'd see in an apple orchard, not a forest. A 40' high hardwood tree is not all that tall in real life yet seems to dominate the scene on a model. An 80 or 85 foot tree which I think is pretty common - so the same length as a full sized passenger car -- is rarely encountered on a layout. And a large clump of truly large trees -- even more rare on layouts, yet commonplace trackside.
Oddly enough even in N I mostly see undersized trees, and some O scale layouts seem to use the same size trees as HO layouts.
For what it is worth here are some average tree heights, from the always reliable internet:
http://biorefinery.utk.edu/technical_reviews/Tree%20Size.pdf
We talk about selective compression of structures (not just shorter or narrower, but often built to a smaller overall scale such as 1/8" = 1' for HO), and it is common for utility poles to be placed closer together on layouts than in reality. (We won't even mention how close our block signals and towns and depots are to each other!). But I'd wager that the most severely compressed parts of our layouts, other than our absurdly sharp curves and tight turnouts, are tree height and street and sidewalk width. Guys who would not dream of running an Athearn "shorty" passenger car or RDC are willing to compromise in those areas. Perhaps out of necessity - a full width city street and full length city block is almost shocking to see when you encounter one done to scale, and some logging dioramas feature scale height trees and again it is disorienting - what scale is this?
Dave Nelson
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.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
That's a nice looking backdrop, Gary! I clicked on your picture to see the full version. Nice work!
I don't have many foreground trees, but the few I have are about 40' +.
The tree in the picture close to the signals is about 50'.
Backround trees I scale down to give a sense of distance, probably more around the 30' height.
Since we tend to make our trees in bunches, play around with different sizes, and see what fits the scene best.
Mike.
My You Tube
As big as trains look to a human standing close, nature is that much bigger. If you are running older stuff, not modern AC4400's and double stacks, you can get away with smaller trees than strictly prototypical that will still be taller than the locos and cars, as they should be, but not as much. Where the real trees are 30-40 feet tall, a real double stack train will still be under them, so trees towing over the equipment isn't a bad thing.
Usually, we have too many trains and not enough scenery. Apart from a yard or a complex junction, there just aren't a lot of tracks in any one area. Even large model railroads tend to have a trains to scenery ratio that leans too far toward trains. That's the appeal of N scale for some, even when they have space for a good size HO layout - they don't build more track, they just fill in the area freed up by the smaller trains with more scenery.
Just my thoughts.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Hi all,
My new railroad is set in the Blue Ridge Mountains of south western Virginia. I have completed the backdrop construction, valance and about 1/2 of the backdrop paintings.
Soon I will be building the Benchwork and installing track/electrical. I'll need a lot of trees and thought I would begin building some.
Trees (Decidous and Evergreen) around here are commonly 30 - 40 ft. Tall. When placed next to a locomotive or rolling stock they overpower the scene.
It Seems to me that prototypical Trees, in the foreground close to the rails will be too large.
How do you determine the size of your foreground trees?