What is the average and maximum height of a tree? Sounds like a stupid question doensn’t it. But I can’t seem to find a decent answer on the internet, figured folks from this forum will have the answer. I’m looking for an answer for both decidious and evergreen trees. I’m looking for trees that are typical (no sequoia or other giants). Just would you would typically find on the east coast.
I keep hearing that there is no such thing as an N scale, HO scale, etc… tree which I agree with, but when you ask that same person okay so what size would be appropriate I get the “I don’t really know” answer.
A useful guide, Don. For most trees that aren’t part of the background scenery (where selective compression comes into play), trees standing alone or in clumps look good up to about 60’, although for most layouts, 40’ is probably a more practical limit. If you’re modelling specific species, the data provided by Don will be especially useful. A lot will also depend on the area that you’re modelling, too - urban trees are generally smaller, as are those on rocky or very poor soil.
These sizes are for contemporary city scenes. If yoiu are modeling logging and are dealing with old growth stock, the pine and fir trees got much larger than their measurements. If you are doing a logging camp, you may want a few trees that are full size and will make everything else look small. Even the old growth Walnut in the east were much larger than in that chart. I have found Birch stumps in northern Minnesota that were over 3 feet in diameter. So it depends on what you are modeling as to what size you want.
One hundred and fourteen degrees today; it is supposed to cool off to 109º by Tuesday. Thank heavens! A little relief for a change!
Your post has some rather complicated inferrences so I’m afraid I’m going to have to give you one of those “I really don’t know!” answers.
Some years ago - circa: 1980 - I purchased one of those little 5 X 7 Field Guide books dealing with trees; at the time I got this they were considerably cheaper than now but I consider it to have been a good investment. Tree types are illustrated indicating shape - sometimes as they appear in the winter - there is usually an accompanying map depicting it’s range, typical heighth, and a narrative guide as to where one might locate these; there are some trees, for instance, which will be found growing along stream beds while others are to be found clinging to rocky slopes.
You specify
but that seems like a pretty big geographic entity; some trees have a wide geographic range while others are found in more restricted locales and some trees found in New Jersey, for instance, may not be found in Tidewater Virginia and vice versa. The modeled locale of my Seaboard and Western Virginia Railway will be set on the Ohio side of the Alleghenies as opposed to the Chesapeake side and, therefore, the flora will reflect an Ohio River Valley nature.
In this regard this book is invaluable and my suggestion would be that you should consider a $20.00 investment at your local Borders Books.
I would “look, guesstimate and fudge”. Look at trees in the scene you want to model or in pictures if it is a scene you can’t get to except with impossible gasoline prices or slightly less impossible time-machine usage.
See a tree deside a house. How tall is one story of the house? For middle-class houses built 1950 to present, 8’ ceiling plus 1 foot between floors. (10’ ceiling for Victorian house or 12’ or more for commecial bldg, etc Estimate height of house, then estimate tree that is beside house. Then “fudge” to modify toward what “looks right” or “fits”.
I found a field guide to trees that said east Texas and southern pines 80’ to 120’. I went with scale 80’ (6" in N scale) for general treetop line.
In-town deciduous trees in yards and around courthouse about half the height of the forest. I was using tree line to hide other side of layout, may have dwarfed the entire town. And making shorter for treeline may have suggested distance by :forced perspective".
Looks great just as it is, leighant. My own efforts at forced perspective have been abandoned because it looked plain crazy from anywhere other than dead front-on.
I am fairly sure you have your answer on this question - mainly reflecting that there is no “answer” per se!
FWIW, I believe you have to determine the general type of tree, the locale, and what looks good in order to answer that question. Obviously, trees can be anywhere from a few feet to 100 plus - depending. I guess my rule of thumb is a mix of “what looks good”, and logic - using a scale rule (or a scale figure) and going from there.
I just finished another 2500 mile auto trip thru Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. And during the drive I often remarked to my wife about the variety of scenery - including trees, shrubs, color of earth and rock, sky color, and even the color of the roads. There just isn’t any one answer for colors/size of any of these things. So my suggestion is, go with what looks good to you!!!
I have been doing a lot of research on this issue and from my perspective, I find it to be a very complicated but very interesting modeling problem. I model Steam logging in Northern CA in an area where the old growth trees were up to 200 feet or more high. ( Mostly Ponderosa, Sugar, White and Lodge Pole Pine.) I have collected a lot of books on trees and over the years, I have taken a lot pictures of trees in California and Oregon. Recently, I have looked through my collection of Narrow Gauge Gazette magazines and have found numerous articles on how to model large trees. All of this data is helpful but to me, the issue is one of illusion. For example, on my narrow gauge logging branch everything is small and selectively compressed. In the past, I have tried to insert tall and large diameter trees into these scenes and the total illusion that I have so carefully created is suddenly destroyed. ( The same thing occurs when I insert an 80ft. passenger car into the scene) To date, I have solved this problem by modeling clear cut where even a 10ft. diameter stump looks OK and my tallest tree is not higher than a scale 40ft.
So for me , the issue is not how tall the prototype tree is but rather how do you model the prototype tree and make the scene look believable. In some of the NG&SLG articles the tall trees were successfully blended into the scenery and the backdrop. Unfortunately most of these scenes were done by modelers with a much higher level of artistic ability than I have. I believe however, that I might be able create a realistic forest scene using a valance into which the tallest of my trees disappears vertically and the illusion I am trying to create is maintained. I will soon be headed in this direction.
(We shall see. I am attaching pictures of my clear cut scenes and my tallest trees on my current layout about 40ft. The valance and tall trees will be installed to the left of the smaller existing trees)
What I was looking for was a basic average so when anyone views the layout it doesn’t look odd. A couple of you gave me some good ideas, I’ll be using the average height of 40’ to 60’ with some taller and shorter thrown in for variety.
Most model trees are short. Similarly most model buildings are small.
I have always felt a good rule of thumb is that a “tall” tree on the layout should be as tall as your passenger cars are long. If you have a big layout with full size passenger cars, then a tall tree should be 85 or so feet high. If you have a small layout and have to run shorty cars, then a tall tree should be 60 to 73 feet tall.
You already know scale trees look too tall on most layouts, but to answer your original question – ornamental trees mature at about 30’, full grown oak, maple, walnut, and similar trees mature at 75’-90’. In N scale, these would be about 6" tall, but I found that 2.5"-4" trees look better [less overwhelming], especially around compressed buildings. I am looking for some 6" trees for a logging camp where I want them to dwarf the structures.
