More Bare Trees . . . . Ed

[wm3798]

The one on the right does look to be the right height and shape, but the secondary limbs going up still look a little fat to me.  On most trees, once you get away from the main trunk, the limbs drop down to 4" diameter and less pretty quickly. 
The tree in the middle captures this better, although it lacks the lacey little twigs at the ends.

Lee

[SAH]

The one on the right does look to be the right height and shape, but the secondary limbs going up still look a little fat to me.  On most trees, once you get away from the main trunk, the limbs drop down to 4" diameter and less pretty quickly. 
The tree in the middle captures this better, although it lacks the lacey little twigs at the ends.

Lee

I agree.  Once it has leaves I don't think it will matter.  The metal armatures are better in that respect.

Steve

[sirenwerks]

Out of curiosity, would it be possible/practical/worth the effort to graft something like steel wool to the outer branch tips, to get that finer branch look? It seems like it would provide the necessary fineness and density? Then again, it presents like it may be a pain to work with.

[bsoplinger]

The tree on the right that everybody liked is 60' high.  I'd say the tree I circled in the photo is 80' - 100'.

I'm not sure I'll buy that as the height of the circled tree. If it is 80' tall those telephone poles are at least 60' tall. I've never seen telephone poles that tall for local service like in that picture.

[Robbman]

Message deleted

[SAH]

I'd say at the most that tree is 70' tall.  That's assuming the house next to it is ~30' tall (10' per level) 

60'-70' is probably good.  The reference points used in the discussion are not all at the same distance from the viewer and there are elevation changes not readily apparent in the photo.  HOWEVER, in light of the point that began the tree height tangent thread, it doesn't really matter.  We typically underestimate the height of real trees and make the trees on our layouts too small as a result.

[wm3798]

Steel wool presents an interesting prospect, but I would be loathe to use it anywhere near the track, especially on a DCC layout where there is constant track voltage.

Ever see steel wool burn?
14v a.c. is more than enough voltage to get the job done.  I know this because once I thought it would be a good idea to clean my garden railroad track with steel wool, while a train was running :

Lee

[3rdrail]

As to tree height, around here only the tallest longleaf pines achieve 75 ft. in height and they are taller than anything else. Of course, most of the pines around here are cut at about 40 ft. to be chipped and made into paper.

While I agree that a 40 ft. tree looks too small in N scale, anything over about 60 ft. (4.5 inches) tends to dwarf our "selectively compressed" buildings as well as exacerbating the lack of distance between scenes on our model railroads.

Unless you've got a dirigible hangar to build one in, you cannot faithfully replicate landscape on a model railroad. Instead, you've got to create a theater set, using illusion to create distances. One way to do this is to reduce tree height some, especially in the background.

[sparky]

Steel wool is a BAD idea anywhere on a layout.  Steel wool is, of course, made from steel.  Steel is magnetic.  And the motors in our expensive miniaturized locomotives contain... magnets.  I use fine steel wool between finishes in my cabinet shop, and it's amazing how many tiny particles end up stuck to anything magnetic, like screwdriver tips.  Brass and aluminum wool are available, but I think the plain, unflocked poly foliage material available from scenery suppliers would work just fine.

[sirenwerks]

Hmmm, gotta try to find the brass stuff at some point, when I have something ready for trees. I only recommended it as a means of increasing branch density, in addition to the foliage. The middles and ends of model trees tend to look too thick, IMHO. And if bare trees are what is being sought, I just thought the finer wools would help to add density. I know return to my regularly scheduled urban industrial modeling. Sans trees.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh no BB, you can't escape trees in the city.

They're just smaller, but they're still there.

And that smaller stuff is JUST as tough to get right, if not worse.

[sirenwerks]

Oh no BB, you can't escape trees in the city.

If I modeled Baltimore I could.  ;D  I would need a lot of gray paint though.

[railspike55]

I found this during search on trees.

I thought it may help.  :

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook

Ron N.

[SAH]

One more shot at a bare tree.  Dried hydrangia flower stems.  I was going for the "up and up" branch structure rather than the "up and out".  I think I should have chosen a better trunk base.  The hydrangia stems are fragile too.


Since I'm still a weenie, I dressed my trees.  The new hydrangia tree on the left.  The bare middle hydrangia tree (from original post below) is at right.  I stuck some more hydrangia stems in after the first folliation 'cause it looked kind of sparse.  Not bad.


The plastic armature with super tree branch structure is at left (right side of original post).  Metal armature with sedum branch structure at right (left side of original post).  Those little seed pods on the super tree REALLY do a great job of grabbing and holding the foam. 


All four together.  The two on the ends will be used around the farmhouse (mocked-up in the photo).  The other two will go into the corner to replace some poly fibre fill trees that didn't work out so well.  Summary, IMHO or course, the super tree branch structure allows one to make some terrific species specific trees. 


Ed - You're up.

Steve

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've actually been thinking about the "up and up" structure. I was in AC Moore the other day looking for options. I didn't find anything, but I did get some paint.

I really like the look of that when it's bare.