Tree height

I suggest that you get a Tree Guide. These guides give the average shape and mature height for all species of trees.

Dan, remember tahat the younger the tree, the smaller it will be. Also, the more 'alone' the tree is the more detailed it should be.

If you are mak> Someone here posted the link for the company that made nice looking

In general trees are scaled down just as buildings are on a normal layout setting. If you modeled trees their real size we would have the same problem as if we modeled most building their real size, simple lack of room.

A mature Elm tree could easily top 100 feet. That's over a foot in HO scale.

What trees are you modelling?

Paul

Bob Hundman, the editor/owner of Mainline Modeler, is into modeling trees. He has a paper back book published all about the subject (real trees). "Trees of North America by Alan Mitchell Illustrated by David More" $19.95

Mainline Modeler occasionally has articles on how to make a tree. Check;

John Miller posts:

John is absolutely correct. Most real trees tower over trains. Modeled trees must be selectively compressed to look acceptable. Even mature, middle-sized trees are typically 40-60 feet tall, while elms, oaks, and various firs grow to

100 feet. My own rule has been to make trees about 2/3 or even 1/2 true scale height if they stand alone or are in a sparce stand. Forests, except at the very front, are easily accepted as realistic looking at 1/2 actual scale height or less.

CNJ999

I intend on using "HO Scale" trees on my N Scale layout. An 80' tree is 6" in N, a 100' tress would be 7.5" in N Scale.

Douglas fir, yellow or red spruce:

"

" under "Description" it reads:

"Trees to 90(100) m; trunk to 4.4 m diam.; ..."

Thats ~36" tall and 2" at the base in HO scale.

WOW!!! I'm likin' it. Should be able to obscure just about anything with that !! *8->

Paul

On every layout most dimensions (of scenery) are seriously forshortened. On my layout the depth of "rest of the world" behind the tracks is represented by 6"-12" of scenery and the width is probably 1/2 to 1/3 of the prototype proportion. A single tree has to be chosen that has dimensions that fit with the scenery rather than with the trains.

If your layout is an oval on a flat board then a tree behind the front tracks is also a tree in front of the rear tracks and must be a scale representation or a toy. If you only have a tree behind a track then the tree becomes a tool of forced perspective.

Regards, Greg.P.

Well, in N Scale, I'm a firm believer in full-scale trees. Nothing bugs me more on a layout than a "mature" forest only 3 inches high. I make my own trees, and typically a _small_ tree is 3-4 inches. Trees on my most recently finished modules top out at 8-10 inches (over 100 feet) and I swear that one of these days I'm going to do an N-Track module with full-to-scale redwoods over 300 scale feet tall.

The trees ouside my window are over twice as high as my two-story house, and they're not all that big as trees go. When was the last time you saw that in a model scene? When it comes to trees, size DOES matter... and if you make them big enough, you don't need as many.

There are also many tree making articles in Mainline Modeler to model specific tree types. Most of their back issues are available through the site. Bruce

>

I would hate to model some of the Karri trees from down south,

200+ feet high and 15 feet diameter = 2'3" high & 1.5" thick trunk.

is pics of tree formerly used as a fire lookout, cabin is 190 feet up

Even with 50% compression it would still be BIG

Alan in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8 VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address