Feeback on new article on my site... Trees!

[3rdrail]

Ed, what fee do you want back??  ;D ;D ;D  Ohh, you wanted to type feedback!  ;D ;D ;D

[justTRAINcRaZy]

Very good. For me you answered one of the questions I've been meaning to ask and that is what color do you use?

I am doing some winter and know how tough it is to try and hide things with no canopy. I see that I've been doing it backwards in spraying brown and misting the grey on top.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these things jump out to me:

....worth briefly coming through the trees.....

I assume it should be 'combing', unless you're talking about Iain.

[Erik W]

I think on a shelf layout where the benchwork is narrow, larger trees are better as they help disguise the limited depth of the scene. Where there is more scenic depth, such as the Reids and Danneman's layouts, there is more scenic depth. The smaller trees help enhance the feeling of depth. I had a similar experience on my DRGW layout. Lots of smaller trees helped make the scene look bigger.

Bingo.  Ed, maybe you can address both sides of this one.

I agree with this as well.  While not in the same league as the Reids or Danneman's scenery, I deliberately kept the tree size small (and smaller towards the backdrop) to convey a sense of size and distance.


Now if I were modeling a different railroad, say the FEC on a relatively shallow shelf layout, I would opt for larger trees. 

Of course when visiting these areas the viewer is struck with the immensity of the landscape in Colorado where the scenery dwarfs the viewer.  In much of the East Coast area though, the viewer (especially to someone who has lived out west for a while) is struck by the density of large trees and the inability to see great distances because of this.

Erik

[csolivais1979]

Well writen article and your layout looks great! As others have said, this has answered a a few questions as to how to model large groupings of trees along the right of way.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Thanks for the comments guys!

I added some to the paragraph about sizes, mostly in regard to Mike's comments about our perception of relative sizes.

I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm really happy to have finally gotten it written (and an excuse to use the phrase mis en scene)!

[AlkemScaleModels]

I think it may be a matter of geographic reference.  Ed, Dave (and myself) are here on the East Coast, where things are pretty heavily forested.  When you hike along an old right of way, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the trees.  Now granted, these aren't sequoias, but from eye level, a good percentage of your scenery goes up.



Lee

I agree with this analysis for the modern era. However, I have found in studying photos for my 1860's era modeling that the eastern regions of the Virginia and probably most of the eastern seaboard, were denuded of trees. For example look at this photo from my layout blog. This area is Stoneman's Switch (or Stoneman's station). http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2009/02/two-new-photos-of-stonemans-station.html

Here is a aerial photograph of the area today.http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=qcrz3g8jg6rk&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=33528067&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


By 1920 much of eastern Virgina was over farmed and the soil too poor to support agriculture. Farms were abandoned. Gradually the forests returned. Prince William National Forest has a good description of what went down in Va. The Fisher Museum of Harvard University http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/museum/landscape.html  is a good source for what happened in New England. The general progression was similar to happened in Virginia, but the tree species were different.

[AlkemScaleModels]

I think it may be a matter of geographic reference.  Ed, Dave (and myself) are here on the East Coast, where things are pretty heavily forested.  When you hike along an old right of way, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the trees.  Now granted, these aren't sequoias, but from eye level, a good percentage of your scenery goes up.



Lee

I agree with this analysis for the modern era. However, I have found in studying photos for my 1860's era modeling that the eastern regions of the Virginia and probably most of the eastern seaboard, were denuded of trees. For example look at this photo from my layout blog. This area is Stoneman's Switch (or Stoneman's station). http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2009/02/two-new-photos-of-stonemans-station.html

Here is a aerial photograph of the area today.http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=qcrz3g8jg6rk&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=33528067&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


By 1920 much of eastern Virgina was over farmed and the soil too poor to support agriculture. Farms were abandoned. Gradually the forests returned. Prince William National Forest has a good description of what went down in Va. The Fisher Museum of Harvard University http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/museum/landscape.html  is a good source for what happened in New England. The general progression was similar to happened in Virginia, but the tree species were different.

Anybody know why the image links I posted don't show up in the message? The urls work, but the images don't????

[sirenwerks]

I think you don’t lend enough discussion to the grouping concept. In a light grouping, as you’ve presented, your modeling is excellent. But in reality, when you are talking about a larger, denser grouping, the outer trees are often smaller, in part because the outer edge of a forest is always trying to expand via saplings. It’s the nature (bad pun) of trees.

Furthermore, the outer trees in a group are fuller in branch structure because there is more sunlight available to them. As you move into a significant grouping, you’ll find the canopy is higher and low branches are much less significant or dead. Why? Because trees aren’t dumb. If the leaves on a branch of a tree in the middle of a forest don’t get any sunlight because there’s too much shade, the tree doesn’t bother to grow those branches or commits much less of its precious resources to them. This forest quality often means there’s less undergrowth deeper in.

I think both of these effects are more prevalent in pines and firs. I’ve seen pines and firs at forest edge that only have branches further down their trunk at their outer edge, facing the sunlight. And the second mention is definitely more prominent with pines and firs because of the dropped needles affecting the soil.

These characteristics can often be seen during highway construction, where part of a tree group has been cut away. The interior of a group is exposed and the high canopy is quite evident. There’s one grouping I see on eastbound 50 daily on my drive between Landover and Annapolis. But with time nature fills itself in, in such cases. In other cases, where a narrow route is cut through a tree grouping, such as when a rail line is built, there’s not enough sunlight to promote the natural infill. That, or the maintenance crew's is on top of things and regularly weeds the line, and the spray effectively kills the saplings at the edge.

I’d also be interested in you experimenting (so I don’t have to) with winter trees using the floral wire/static grass method that Lashedup displays in this Atlas board posting - http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52464

[railbuilderdave]

Ed,
You've done a great job on this, I really like what you put together here.
Dave

[3rdrail]

I think it may be a matter of geographic reference.  Ed, Dave (and myself) are here on the East Coast, where things are pretty heavily forested.  When you hike along an old right of way, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the trees.  Now granted, these aren't sequoias, but from eye level, a good percentage of your scenery goes up.



Lee

I agree with this analysis for the modern era. However, I have found in studying photos for my 1860's era modeling that the eastern regions of the Virginia and probably most of the eastern seaboard, were denuded of trees. For example look at this photo from my layout blog. This area is Stoneman's Switch (or Stoneman's station). http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2009/02/two-new-photos-of-stonemans-station.html

Here is a aerial photograph of the area today.http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=qcrz3g8jg6rk&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=33528067&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


By 1920 much of eastern Virgina was over farmed and the soil too poor to support agriculture. Farms were abandoned. Gradually the forests returned. Prince William National Forest has a good description of what went down in Va. The Fisher Museum of Harvard University http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/museum/landscape.html  is a good source for what happened in New England. The general progression was similar to happened in Virginia, but the tree species were different.

Anybody know why the image links I posted don't show up in the message? The urls work, but the images don't????

Your first image was too large, 1600 pixels wide. Chnged to 800 and it worked. The second is not a picture file the forum recognizes (it does not end in .jpg, .gif, etc.)

[up1950s]

Good info Ed , and a spectacular effect you have created of something rarely modeled . Do you have any evergreens on your layout , I didn't see any ? I think the contrast helps the dead ones come to life .

[justTRAINcRaZy]

I know Ed does and Lance Mindheim did, but is there anyone else modeling winter?

It may make a good topic in the Modeling Tutorials.

[sirenwerks]

BTW, as often I do, I forget to mention that I still think it's a great article. And service that you're providing to the hobby with your site and insight.

[JDouglasFisher]

I think it may be a matter of geographic reference.  Ed, Dave (and myself) are here on the East Coast, where things are pretty heavily forested.  When you hike along an old right of way, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the trees.  Now granted, these aren't sequoias, but from eye level, a good percentage of your scenery goes up.



Lee

I agree with this analysis for the modern era. However, I have found in studying photos for my 1860's era modeling that the eastern regions of the Virginia and probably most of the eastern seaboard, were denuded of trees. For example look at this photo from my layout blog. This area is Stoneman's Switch (or Stoneman's station). http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2009/02/two-new-photos-of-stonemans-station.html

Here is a aerial photograph of the area today.http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=qcrz3g8jg6rk&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=33528067&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


By 1920 much of eastern Virgina was over farmed and the soil too poor to support agriculture. Farms were abandoned. Gradually the forests returned. Prince William National Forest has a good description of what went down in Va. The Fisher Museum of Harvard University http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/museum/landscape.html  is a good source for what happened in New England. The general progression was similar to happened in Virginia, but the tree species were different.

Lee is %100 percent right. Even as late as the early 1900's, all of Northern New Jersey was devoid of trees due to the need to make charcoal for iron ore smelting (very popular industry up here.)

Also makes great ammunition for those wacky people who wish to ban the NJ black bear hunt every year, with their argument that we are encroaching on "the bears habitat"..

Once you show them the photos of how North Jersey looked 100 years ago, it takes the wind right out of their sails.

North Jersey was all farmland from the colonial period, (when we were still ruled by the crown) only in the recent 70 or so years, (after the depression) when farming fell to the wayside in favor of more industrious careers, did trees slowly take hold of the land that was no longer being farmed.

Great point Lee,

I would venture to say that anyone modeling from 1940's onward in the New Jersey area should have tall trees, prior to that, either short ones, or none at all. Numerous photos in various museums show this as fact.

J.

[JDouglasFisher]

Since we're talking about old photos and trees,

Heres a look at the old Greenwood Lake Division mainline of the Erie Railroad, crossing over the Morris Canal (from the habs/haer collection)

You'll notice, theres not many trees in this photo. Taken some time in the early 1900's before the canal closed and the bridge was removed.