PRR Allegheny Subdivision

[shark_jj]

The second major change was to go away from manual switch controls to tortoises.  This was significant as it meant that the 110 switches already laid would all have to be taken up, rewired, and re-installed.  This was the most significant change and the one that took the longest to decide upon as the work to accomplish this will go on for months.  I also decided that they would be wired from under the tracks and between my eyesight and a little bit of shakiness in the hand found that soldering the wires to the underneath of the rail without butchering ties was difficult.  Fortunately, I have a great N scale group here and Justin pitched in and has been soldering the wires on for me.  Soldering wires underneath the flex track has not been as big a problem since I take out a tie, solder the wire, and then slide a tie back in when they are installed.  Here is a switch with the two outer power wires and the frog wire attached. 

[shark_jj]

The last item that I decided to address was the foliage on the layout.  I began experimenting with trees and woodland scenics armatures and decided that I liked the effect better than the lichen hills I had been using.  Further experimentation may lead to a combination with lichen on the higher slopes and armature based trees down lower.  In any event that is a longer term project that will be done as time permits.  Here are some sample shots of trees just placed into the lichen based hills on the curve.  It is important to note these are not installed, just sitting there, I was looking for the effect.  The one thing I did notice was that I still have that HO "eye" and I need to think smaller when it comes to things like trees. 

[shark_jj]

Well thats the update, I am past my funk, and going full speed ahead on the layout again and will be participating more fully on the Forum. 

[SkipGear]

I must disagree on the "HO eye"comment. Those trees look fine. Too many N scalers don't make trees large enough. Old growth forests car reach upwards of 100' high. I use a standard passenger car as a rough measuring stick for trees. If it is about as tall as an 85' car is long, it's about right.

[Philip H]

I must disagree on the "HO eye"comment. Those trees look fine. Too many N scalers don't make trees large enough. Old growth forests car reach upwards of 100' high. I use a standard passenger car as a rough measuring stick for trees. If it is about as tall as an 85' car is long, it's about right.

I have to agree.  even in "well groomed" urban areas, most real trees ar 40-80 feet high, and really dwarf the trains running throguh them.  If you look at photos in your research materials, and roughly scale them using the railroad equipment, I think you will find bigger is better.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I must disagree on the "HO eye"comment. Those trees look fine. Too many N scalers don't make trees large enough. Old growth forests car reach upwards of 100' high. I use a standard passenger car as a rough measuring stick for trees. If it is about as tall as an 85' car is long, it's about right.

I have to agree.  even in "well groomed" urban areas, most real trees ar 40-80 feet high, and really dwarf the trains running throguh them.  If you look at photos in your research materials, and roughly scale them using the railroad equipment, I think you will find bigger is better.

Yes, yes and YES!!!

Also, it's great to have you back John.

[Philip H]

While I will have trees in various sizes, my general minimum in N scale for the current layout is 3 inches for deciduous and 4 inches for evergreens.  Makes the oaks actually dwarf the house and shade it, just like home.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

3"? Not enough...




(twss)

The trees in my sig are at least twice that, and I think are just about right.

[Philip H]

3"? Not enough...




(twss)

The trees in my sig are at least twice that, and I think are just about right.

um yeah, well . . . 3 inches at 1/160 is . . . . 480 inches at 1/1 . . . . that should be enough . . . .

[Robbman]

The one thing I did notice was that I still have that HO "eye" and I need to think smaller when it comes to things like trees. 

First... awesome job.  Second, it's even better that you're willing to stop and reconfigure to meet your goals rather than forge ahead.  Third, the only thing that sticks out to me in the photo above is the one tree with a ~five foot trunk... while I agree you're trees should be tall...  it's the thickness that really stands out

[shark_jj]

The height of trees is an interesting topic.  I have looked at trees in two areas, firstly at the Curve, and secondly around Bayview Junction on the CN here in Hamilton (our HO Modular layout is an accurate representation of this area) and find that most trees are in the 50ft to 60ft range.  I actually attempted to do some triangulation on the ground to ascertain the height.  In N scale this would put them in the 4" to 5" range.  This height is generally smaller than even the trees in my residential neighborhood.  While I have no background in tree growth, here is my hypothesis.  Both areas were heavy duty mainlines and both areas saw extensive use of helpers in the steam era.  If you look at pictures of the Curve in the 50's and early 60's, the hillsides are almost devoid of vegetation.  I assume that this was due to the cinders coming from the steam plumes.  Those same cinders are all over the ground within a reasonable range of the tracks.  With steam gone, vegetation began to come back, in the case of the Curve it is really growing like crazy in the last 10 years or so, 40 years after steam disappeared.  I hypothesize that 50ft to 60ft is the normal growth pattern for these new trees given the contamination of the ground they are growing in.  I do agree that most people make trees in N scale too small.  The feedback is good, it really has me looking at this issue again.

[wm3798]

For me the trick with trees is to use a variety of sizes and densities to help force the perspective.  In the foreground areas, you want larger more detailed trees to show up in your trackside pictures.  Then gradually fade to smaller and less detailed toward the back, if for no other reason to save time.

Trackwork looks great.  I've got to start accumulating some tortoises, too... I've got a large yard project that's going to keep me quite busy for a while...

Lee

[TrainCat2]

Welcome back John.

Progress looks really amazing. Can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Rob. The height is very good, but the size of the trunk was the first thing I saw in the image. That may be because it is the only large tree in the shot. More trees that size should cause the "one" trunk to disappear in the forest.

So, when are the signals going in?

[shark_jj]

Hi Bob, I am going to tackle some of the signals this summer.  I have noticed lately that my eyesight is getting slightly worse, nothing serious, just age, and my hand has a slight tremor which, also just age, which is one of the reasons I took a bit of a hiatus and thought about going to a larger scale.  Anyway that is behind me and I have decided not to be deterred from trying to do some finescale modelling like the signals.  They will help define the layout as PRR so I want to get to them fairly soon.  Probably right after I paint the 23 engines that are currently sitting on the layout dissassembled, stripped, and cleaned waiting for nice weather outside so I can get to them with the airbrush.

[shark_jj]

That was really good feedback about the tree trunks so I took my scale rule to them.  They are 3 feet wide.  I have a blue spruce in my front lawn that I planted as a seedling in 1975 and is about 60-70 feet tall.  I measured the diameter of the trunk and it is 30 inches.  The perception of the width being oversize may be a factor of the glossy nature of the plastic since I haven't painted the armatures and the fact that I just stuck them in the scenery with nothing else around them, or it may be that tree trunks are one of those things that need to be slightly undersize in order to "look right" in scale.