Most MR trees seem too small to me...

Ralph, I'm struggling over the same thing. I do believe that we will both have to use "Selective Compression" to solve our predicament.

It must, in the end, just look like they "Fit" into the layout. I think too big of a tree will look out of place, and actually hide what we are trying to show.

Good Luck!

Wayne

:hmm but how many fully grown specimens are there compared to younger trees. Not many methinks

Hi Ralph

You are right but then most layouts are massively compressed anyway.  For example a 80mph crossing is 7mm scale would be well over 12ft long.  A B9 point (in 7mm scale over 2ft long) would have a line speed through the curve of not more than 15mph.

Your options are do EVERYTHING to scale or compromise it all.

Cheers

Jim

Those acrobats are really impressive - did the top one climb the tree first?  Superb balance!

It's a matter that has exercised all three of my brain cells before, too. My theory is thus………

1.  When we are on the 12"/1ft ground, we generally look upwards 'through' locos and r'stock to the trees around, they are then made smaller because the steamy bits are closer and a sense of foreshortening takes place.

2.  When we look upwards through trees, again, foreshortening takes place, so they don't appear as tall as they are. In the same way, SWMBO's dainty size 5 feet are quite in proportion when I look at her from the normal side-on view, but if I look at her from the 'foot end' when she is lying on the sofa, they appear enormous in comparison with her seemingly shortened body. In other words, we are usually to be found looking from the 'foot end' of trees as the rest stretches away upwards.

3.  My OPC GWR loco drawings give the rail to cab height of a Castle class as 12ft-10 1/2", or about 2 1/2 Sues, so a true scale model of that moderate tree would still have 6 or 7 Sues to go to be 'right'. In the sketch below, Sue sees over the loco to the top of a tree. It would take only one more loco's worth of height to make a tree4 or 5 times bigger invisible.



I believe it is this impression of comparative size that makes us model tees at a very conservative height.  Look at

http://www.watercressline.co.uk/Your-Visit/Gallery/Event/4  [Bottom right photograph]{Wonder if Fidge was driving?}

and see the comparison in height of the trees and the loco. With that sort of height model tree you would need to confine them to the rear of your model or stand on a stool to see the railway.

Hhum. Those are my thoughts on the matter, I'm with the 'Selective Compressors'!


Doug

Not my strong point as I consider trees come in all sizes however:

Tim, that is fabulous, three please, I'll send the address….'Owdidyoudoit?'
It does look right, it's just as you would see it from the edge of the field.

Doug

surely trees or anything else for that matter changes size depending on how far away you are from it or from what angle you view it.

[user=1033]spurno[/user] wrote:

surely trees or anything else for that matter changes size depending on how far away you are from it or from what angle you view it.

Not arguing with that at all Alan, but to go back to Fishplates O.P………….

In layout terms on a 4mm scale layout a small tree will be 200mm (8 inches) high and a fully grown oak would need to be 400mm (16 inches) high.

I don't recall seeing a tree 1ft 4" high on an OO layout, and just holding a tape measure beside some of my bits and pieces it does seem enormous.
Doug

I personally think that if you are going to model a tree, you need to give the tree merit. Yes the bigger the tree the more space it will take up on the layout. You don't have to go overboard planting giant forests, but a few decent size trees will always give the layout that 'little bit more'. These are just a few I made up for Callington, in comparison to an OO scale N Class.




L to R, Cedrus libani (Cedar of Lebanon), a frame for a Fagus sylvatica (Common Beech), Fraxinus excelsior (Common Ash). Both of the Beech and Ash are not fully grown specimens modelled, otherwise they would be three times the size, but I have tried to capture their individual shape. The Cedar of Lebanon is 9" tall, not overly big, but effective.

Cheers, Gary.

You can't get away with that Gary. :It's a no no

Those trees are superb.  We want to know how you made them - branch by branch. :thumbs

I was musing recently that we don't normally model 'shadows' - the most noticable thing about trees in a field.
I'm going to try it in the next tree in a field I make.

[user=394]ddolfelin[/user] wrote:

I was musing recently that we don't normally model 'shadows' - the most noticable thing about trees in a field.
I'm going to try it in the next tree in a field I make.

Perhaps '50 Shades of Grey' might be useful……:)
D
O.K., donning coat…

I bough to your greater knowledge, Doug.

G'day all,

To answer Petermac regarding the trees, they are made using the simple wire frame method. After twisting, bending, teasing the wire until the desired shape, they are coated with a slightly watered down solution of acryllic gap filler (Parfix Gap Filler, under $5.00 or 3.25GBP). A few coats are applied to the armature , allowing 24 hrs to dry between coats. After this they are dry brushed with acryllic paints, covered with coloured poly fibre and then the application of appropriate scatter material/flock.









Cheers, Gary.

Using some of the techniques in Gordon Gravett's book but mostly adapted from other sources, this tree is based on organic materials rather than a wire frame.


It stands about 20cms and looks just like the trees alongside the line at Wayford.
 
Please note that it is not yet placed and normally stands 8" tall.
 
Tim

Hi Tim,

That's a pretty nice looking tree. What is the name of the material used for the trunk ? I'm impressed by it ! :thumbs

Cheers, Gary.

Some good looking trees there Gary. I've had ago at doing some myself, not up to your standard as yet though. I thought the names were impressive too: "Cedrus libani (Cedar of Lebanon),  Fagus sylvatica (Common Beech), Fraxinus excelsior (Common Ash)".

Coming from a military background myself, I was always told the only names of trees I needed to know were "bushy topped trees, lone tree and twin trees". Well thats something else I've learnt now.

Barney

 

 

To let you in on a little secret Barney, I spend 40+ hrs/week practising my skills as a horticulturalist ! Now multiply that by 25 years…     

….you get to know your trees ! :mrgreen:

Cheers, Gary.