HI Mike. Mountains have no scale or height, so whatever looks good to u will work. If u ever get a chance to see some pics of John Allen's ols railroad, he had mountains in HO that went from floor to ceiling. One other point, mother nature has no scale. Santafe834
Most of what we model railroaders, create with scenery and scale height mountains has to do with an illusion. If we want tall mountains we can use a painted or photo back drop or back ground and design the scenery to appear as though it's flowing into the back drop. The further away something is the smaller it appears. In reality the object will always be the same height or size and as we travel away, it begins to appear to get smaller. A classic illusion. Size compression might also fit here. There are areas along the mountains of Cajon Pass and Techachapi that I would like to model. However, the actual scale height needed would be awesome and beyond my eight foot high ceiling. So, a scaled down illusion is needed. I had a teacher who took an interest in my train layout, she built a mountain that appeared to be large at first glance and dwindled away as she built the slopes and peaks. When you got down to eye level it actually appeared to be miles away when in reality, it was only three feet. Just some things to think about. Have fun!
Thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was a certain height everyone used. Now I know. Again thanks.
A nice aspect of N scale, is the potential ratio of scenery, to your trains. If desired, you can really dwarf a train, as it's working through mountains. Boxcab E50
As others have said, "best" size of the mountain will be what looks best to you. Even a 12 inch high hill or mountain in N-scale is only 160 feet tall...scale-wise, perhaps as high as the river bluffs that overlook the Illinois River near my home in the middle of flat Central Illinois prairieland. If you put vertical rock faces with rockfalls and talus deltas and scrub trees or pine trees that look like the pictures you see of a mountain pass, your 12 inch high structure will look like a mountain. Take a look through HemiAdd2d's Railimages albums of his tunnels for some gorgeous mountain shots. Pick what you want your layout to look like and match your scenery to the mountainsides in his pictures as much as you can. Even if it is only 6 inches above your track, people will still be thinking "mountain" because of how you've sceniced the area above the track. Hemi, if you see this thread, please post a pic of how high your foam mountains extend above the track at Crescent or the tunnels on the corners of the U, so Stepchild can see an example of how scenery doesn't have to extend to the ceiling to make the viewer think, "This is Mountain Country!" If you put a more gentle slope on the structure and deciduous trees and not so many pine trees, and have a shale hillside like along the Kickapoo Creek that feeds into the Illinois River a half hour south of where I live, then your 12 inch high structure will look like a little hill or river bluff. You won't have changed its actual height above your track, but by carefully choosing your scenicing details to reflect a particular type of land formation (riverside vs. mountainside), you will convince your viewers they are next to a river bluff in the prairie instead of a mountain pass fighting altitude sickness.
My first N scale layout, ca 1970-- 2x4' layout with mountains approx 1' tall. Yes, I know it doesn't look much like any specific real place, but it was fun. (Supposed to be generic Colorado...and track was absolutely gradeless.)
It would be my pleasure! If you want a sheer wow factor with a side of vertigo, check out this shot of Amtrak in Gore Canyon. The tracks are at least 700 feet straight down below me! Here's a scene at Tunnel 10 on my layout. This mountain towers a mere 18" from staging to summit, but captures the flavor well of this rugged territory: This is set of prototype scenes at Tunnel 10; the ridge towers at least 500 feet higher than track level: A shot looking toward Tunnel 10, even at full wide-angle, the ridge is too tall to get some sky in the shot! Alaska GP49 shot, only about 1/4 or so of the way to the top of the ridge: (that tiny figure next to the lead loco in blue jeans is me!) Since there's no way to build these awe-inspiring views in my layout space, my goal is to create the flavor of the scenes above on my 9x12' layout..... My layout is designed as a railfanning layout, so scenic separation will disguise the fact the scenes are mere inches deep, and only a foot or so apart. Selective compression/forcing perspective will also fool the viewer into thinking this is a much larger layout.
Match this shot with the Amtrak shot above, and you'll see what I am trying to achieve: Or match this one with the awesome bottom shot,a nd you'll see what I'm building there. The tunnel in the distance in Tunnel 8; the kink in the mainline is the site of Tunnel9. It collapsed during construction, and was abandoned/daylighted.
Hey guys, thanks for all the inputs and pictures. This has really helped a lot. Now I just need to build something and see how it's going to look. IF I CAN!!!
You sure can! You can count on us to help with any questions you have. Provided you paint scenery on the backdrop, keep the sky and other stuff out of the photo, even scenicking the backdrop, you can hide the fact your scenery isn't as grand as the trains! This Tunnel 27 scene could be built as well, using the compression, and perspective tricks: It would likely look similar to this (another Tunnel 10 shot, but you get the idea):
You can. As the old saying goes- Practice makes perfect. One way to do this, is to first set up a small area, off the layout. Something that can discarded. And work on techniques there. Track laying, scenery, etc. Boxcab E50
Boxcab, I'm going to do just what you suggested. I have some foam left over from layout that I will use. Hemi, Your photo's gave me a way to make a tunnel. Thanks.
Boxcab brings a great point--practice on a diorama first! Experiment with new techniques that way too.. I'm glad you were able to make sense of my rambling--I am a tunnel junkie, and a picture posting hound!
A little late to the party. As in all things creative consider: Aesthetics - This would include proportions relative to the over all layout as well as the area of the layout of the object. Color and shape also are factors. A dark object appears to be larger than a light one. Shape and textures apply as well. A large dark mountain in the front would be a mistake. An even larger lighter colored mountain in the back might fit perfectly. Technical - Sometimes a modest object with a technical sophistication can be huge visual draw - disproportionate to size. An small intricate trestle in an otherwise1 plain scene can stand out and be visually quite large Intellectual - I have forgotten who put a "Lover's Leap" on his layout. It was a geographical impossibility but it grabbed my attention from the beginning. I was probably in High school but I never forgot it. Perspective - It also depends on the distance, angle, lighting a few other factors. How does one factor all of these things in - and lots more? They don't. Rather they build what they like. If they don't like it they change it. Why did I bring it all up? They might push a button that will give someone a "Ah Ha!" moment as to why they like any given object on a layout which may aide them in in thier own designs. Hope this helps Folks are welcome to comment or disagree.
