for my planned Tate’s Falls and New Luxembourg, or the TF & NL, I have been wondering if it would be realistic to have an old growth forest. The reason for this idea is when My family went to Kinmount, Ontario, about the area my free lance line is set in, there was a HUGE pine tree that was at least 300 feet tall. No Joke. I think it would be very neat to have an old growth FOREST of mostly these trees, as it would be really cool. After all, one of the main purposes of my model railroad will be to capture the intense beauty of Ontario, to show people from the states and other areas of Canada what it’s like just 3-ish hours north of Toronto.
Impressive, but that would be something like 42" tall(HO) - Got that kind of space on you layout? I find that I usually use 3-5" tall deciduous tree and 4-6" conifers on my HO layout.
Jim
A 100’ tree (about 14") is a BIG tree on an HO layout. Since Modeling uses a lot of compression,I think that you could create a nice looking old growth forest by compressing the trees to around that size. Old growth trees in the Catskills (different climate of course) run up to about 150 feet and 4-5 feet diameter. Average will be a bit smaller.
If you have the room, I think it would look cool. Maybe have an Ent in the center.
I had some honkin big trees on my layout. My sister would come over and say “those trees are way to big and not to scale” I would take her out back and show her the 150" trees in my back yard and reality set in instantly. At first they do look too big, but give your brain a second or two to adjust and then it looks stunning, more realistic and you get that “by George I think I’ve got it feeling”. Don’t forget you have the aerial view of your kingdom.
Here’s an unfinished scene of a moss covered dead tree on the edge of the forest scene I was messing around with. I like how small the person looks. I love the outdoors and how mother nature dwarfs us and reminds us she is always in charge.
There are some magnificent layouts on the web that use huge trees. Maybe someone can provide a link.
By all means go for it and send pics.[:)]
Brent
IIRC, one of the much-photographed model empires has a scene where the high level shelf is visually connected to the dark green ceiling by some hefty-looking tree trunks about 14± inches from ground to top. Some of them conceal the threaded rods from which that level is suspended.
When I start adding foliage to my currently `scenery challenged’ layout, the cedars will probably be in the 20-25 scale meter height range. The area has been logged over repeatedly in the past, so the old growth isn’t very old.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Paul Scoles has some like that on hi HO layout. I couldn’t find his tallest but if you check the photo called Big Trees it will come close. Some of his trees as 3’ and 4’ !
http://paulscoles.com/Photo_Album.php
ratled
The tallest pines growing in Ontario are the Eastern White variety, which under extremely good conditions can reach heights of up to 175’. However, 100’ or less would be much more common. As for old growth, you’d be surprised at how much of Ontario has been logged-over.
Wayne
Modeling coastal Oregon in 1900 (before logging there hit the big time), I’m a fan of large trees on a layout. Although 24" tall could easily be a realistic size, it doesn’t work quite so well on my highly compressed HO scale layout. I find 12" actual tall (87ft in HO) to be quite reasonable to convey the idea of size without making everything else (the height of the mountains and rail height above water features) seem out of scale.
Charlie Comstock also models Oregon, and discussed planting a large cedar in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist. He used an unusually tall tree to frame a scene on his layout. Looking at photos of Charlie’s layout (on his web site), he has done a great job of giving the feel of trains traveling through the forests.
That said, one can go overboard (both with trees and $$) and end up shutting off viewing angles that you might want. My experience has been that large tree placement has to be planned - with trial and error planning seeming to be the best. And FWIW, planting a large tree into foam is insufficient to keep it standing straight. Wayne mentioned this once to me, and he’s right.
The other thing about large trees is that they tend to become foreground models because of their size - and some of the less realistic foliage doesn’t cut it in the foreground.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
300 ft. tall sounds a little bit enthusiastic. I’m of the opinion that old growth in Ontario might have reached 150 ft. or so but at 300 ft. I think you are talking about redwood cedars on the west coast. None the less it is your layout so if you want striking trees then go for it. My one criticism of a lot of tall conifer trees that I have seen modeled is that the trunks are often way too thick. My neighbour has four spruce that are in the 60 - 80’ range and their trunks are less than 1.5 Ft in diameter. My own spruce is about 35 ft. and the trunk is about six inches+ in diameter. That is skinney relative to the apparent size of the tree.
Just for reference, there is a pub in Gravenhurst, Ontario that has tables said to be cut from first growth Ontario pine. They are about 4 - 5 feet across. Seems to make the beer taste better just sitting at them!
Dave
My logging camp is in old growth Norway and White Pine in Northern Minnesota. That is almost as large as the fir trees in the west. Not like Redwoods of course. I made all my trees from wood dowel and Caspia. It took about two hours for each and they got to looking better as I went. The tallest are about 14 inches. I think they look great and give the mood of huge trees making everything else look small. In my AZ scenes I also make my Cactus full scale. Some like them, others don’t, but I do so that is the size I use.
I had the good fortune to visit Mr. Scoles layout a couple years ago. His trees are very impressive, and yes some of them are 3 or 4 feet tall! It didn’t seem out of proportion at all. It drew me into the scene, it was like being in the middle of the forest! In our modeling, we strive to have realistic ratios of trains to scenery. But with the compression we use it’s difficult to achieve. If you don’t have length to make your trains look more in scale with scenery I think using vertical elements can help a lot.
This is a photo I took. I hope it comes out. This is the first time I have tried to put a photobucket pic up!
By the way, this is Mr. Scoles work at Big Trees. Missed putting that in my last post.
Phil
Your picture turned out great!
You don’t mention scale but when I look at the picture, assuming it is HO or a variation thereof, the trees in the picture would seem to be somewhere around two feet tall or a bit more. In HO two feet is about 175 ft. I think they look great. Not sure trees of that height would work on my layout but you have inspired me to definately use much taller trees than I had planned.
Dave
I was on his website, can’t remember what it was, but the scale is Sn3. I would also like to have it like this guy, and have it too, so it’s like you’re in a forest.
Most good model railroads have created an illusion whether by selective compression or by other tricks that make everything look real. If you introduce something that seems oversize it usually destroys this illusion. For example, try introducing an 80 ft passenger car in the middle of a small narrow gauge scene. The scale is right but it just doesn’t work even if the era is right. When it comes to old growth forests a large diameter stump looks OK but not with a 300ft tree attached. The same might look OK if the 300ft upper half of the tree disappears into a valance. This technique would also simplify multi tree construction. A clear cut scene on a logging RR would be even simpler.
Peter Smith, Memphis
In studying the photos of various layouts that have used taller trees than most layouts, I have concluded that the height of a layout has a lot to do with what height tree is needed to look “tall”.
In the photo of Mr. Scole’s track/train in the forest of tall trees, the camera is at a significant downward angle.
On my home shelf layout where track height ranges from 56" to 60" (I’m 69" tall), really tall trees are unnecessary, and somewhat impractical. The backdrop only needs to go up about 18"-24" because of the angle of viewing, and the limited depth of the shelf. For the same reasons, going above 12"-16" with a tree makes little sense. Whether the tree extends higher goes unnoticed because the horizon is already fairly high, and the less than 30" from eye to the tree.
just my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
Very interesting. If you scan down with your computer in photo of Mr. Scole’s RR, as the tops of the taller trees disappear from view, it allows you to visulalize the effect that Fred is describing. It also allows you to see the effect that a valance might create as I had suggested in my post.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Wow, that picture is very impressive. The locomotive looks tiny but is actually HO, isn’t it? I can’t help but wonder what it looks like in person. If the scene is wide enough it would fill the visual frame.
Wow! This is interesting to me because this is a constant challenge for me (the proportion of trees and other natural features); I’m an indoor 1:24 scale modeller and a three-hundred foot tree would be twelve and one-half feet tall…NOT happenin’