Now For Something Really Different (The P:48 Version)

[E7]

Perhaps Ow5 will alert newcomers to the inaccuracy, thus adding some impetus to the Proto-48 movement? Or less likely, to the 17/64 crowd (ten more would double our numbers)?

Most of my equipment and track is indeed Ow5. I have never regarded its inaccuracy as an insult to anybody, let alone me.

BETTER to represent what it IS than what it isn't! OG2

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It's not the actual gauge but, in fact, the term Ow5 that was used by some P:48 modelers when talking about O Scale. I've been told it was meant as an insult. Again, too many people looking to be offended.

Sadly, that runs both ways - too many people looking to offend......

I'm thinking about doing a copy & paste on the OGR Forum just to see how long it takes to be deleted. I don't think the powers that be will like a non sponsor posting something like this. Could be entertaining.

Indeed! I am in favor of entertainment!

[sleepmac]

For what little it's worth, I like Ow5 versus OG2. OG2 looks to be too close to On2.
Thanks, I'll resume my lurking.

Dan Weinhold

[Jay Criswell]

I'm pretty thick. What does the "2" in OG2 stand for?

Jay

[sarge]

I didn't intend for it to reopen vigourous debate, but now that I'm taken to task a bit let me finally clarify why, and it isn't a matter of oversensitivity.

However, 1.25" gauge is 0 Gauge and has been for 110 years or so. It didn't need to get redesignated when Cronkhite pushed 1.1875" as Q gauge, so I don't see why it needs redesignated Ow5 because 1.177" is (only one element of) P48. Since its inventor coined it just to take the piss out of the rest of the O Scalers as he held court in the bar at Indy (Many of you will recognise who I mean. Grin!), I choose not to use it in a business setting as long as there are people who remember and still resent it.

Its not that I personally have a stake, nor is it a matter of oversensitivity. Right or wrong, purposely anymore or not, the use doesn't do the perception of the P48 community from outside any good at all. Just perceptions, and sure there shouldn't be preconceptions and all that, but there are. So, the perception (whether true or not;its a real world) of whether welcoming or elitist affects the P48 community positively or negatively. I prefer to affect it positively (if we affect it at all) so I get to the same place.

Not telling anyone how to run their business, just explaining why I chose and stick with the path we follow, so don't take me wrong (especially Jay). Just some history to consider is all that's offered from here.

To your points, Bob and Rich, 0 gauge is defined as 1.25" gauge and has nothing to do with scale, number of rails, or how big they might be. Where P48 is arguably the ultimate expression of American O Scale, it is not O gauge; we are talking about gauge. With respect to gauge, whether its scale or tinplate is really moot, and doesn't need yet another obfuscation; the difference is quite painfully obvious beyond pickup methodology. Its 2-rail or three-rail, else we also have to become similarly pedantic and come up with a trophy for the outside third people and the stud-pickup people so everyone gets one. Grin!

Having chucked that grenade into the crowd, I shall now run away, because it doesn't matter to me personally since I'm in 7mm and we have our own issues of scale versus gauge versus profile standards.

[up148]

OW5/P-48 comments have never hurt my feelings or been taken as an insult by me. Maybe I'm too thick or maybe I just don't care. To take it as an insult you have to care. I have many more important things in my life than to worry about a few thousands between my outer rails. If I were younger and building a new layout, I might go that way, but at my age, it aint' gonna happen.

For display, I think having scale wheels and side frames moved in a bit would be a real visual improvement on the 3rd Rail E-8/9's. They are very nice models, but like all 2R/3R compatible models the side frames are spaced a bit wide.

Jay, is it okay to ask what you'll be selling these wheelsets for? If not, please PM me.

BH

[Jay Criswell]

Butch,

For now, I'm asking $11.00 per axle. Believe it, or not, I should probably be asking 12 or 13. Never gonna get rich this way.

Jay

[robert.]

Will these axles 2 rail a 3 rail version?

[E7]

For what little it's worth, I like Ow5 versus OG2. OG2 looks to be too close to On2.
Thanks, I'll resume my lurking.

Dan Weinhold

You need to get new glasses!

[E7]

I'm pretty thick. What does the "2" in OG2 stand for?

Jay

2 RAIL as in O Gauge 2 rail

Which is a promotion of 2 rail modeling. Given that there are people out there that do not know two rail O Gauge even exits maybe it is time to define it better.

None of the other gauges are as fractured as O. It needs EXTRA definition. If you (not pointing at you specifically Jay, but "YOU" meaning the generic batch of people out there) don't like OG2, come up with something better. Anything is better than Ow5. Maybe "O Gauge 2 Rail" is the answer.

Rich

[bob turner]

I am with Jay - somebody is always looking to be offended. I personally think Ow5 should be the new designation, since O scale indeed wncompasses anything 1/4" to the foot. Let me emphasize - this is my opinion, and not something I care passionately about. In fact, I am with Butch - I have way more important things to worry about.

"Always looking to be offended" - I dare not explore some of this, but a more benign example is the label we attach to folks who may have disabilities. It was "cripple" or "retarded". Now it is"physically challenged", etc., and as soon as those terms become associated with whatever they are trying to disguise, we will need new terms.

I think we should opt for the simplest, most descriptive terms to describe things. I like terms like "written exams" much better than I like "knowledge evaluations".

Again, for crissake, Opinion.

[GreggL]

Butch,

For now, I'm asking $11.00 per axle. Believe it, or not, I should probably be asking 12 or 13. Never gonna get rich this way.

Jay

Uhhh, ya' know you're not going to get rich making an extra $1-2 per axle either. Although, you might be able to pay someone to do those chores <g>.

...gregg

[sarge]

... since O scale indeed wncompasses anything 1/4" to the foot.

Well, historically no. O scale also encompasses 7mm (1/43.5), and your beloved 17/64 (1/45).

Scale is not gauge.

It was perfectly clear the way it already was, so I stick with the Butch school. I just avoid the whole thing and everyone is happy. Much more important things to do than champion an un-required change that pisses people off that do care. I'd rather build things.

[rogruth]

A 3 railers opinion.
It may be necessary for the various modelers to have these terms so they can all be happy.
IMHO most of us can get by with what Jay posted earlier.
O scale = 2 rail.
O gauge = 3 rail.
O 48 = exact scale 2 rail.
This is probably all that is needed for most of us.
Even I know what those mean.
It won't make any difference to the general public anyway
so do what keeps the various modelers happy.

[bob turner]

All valid opinions.