@bigkid posted:One note, people are using pounds to indicate mass, in the English system mass is weight (in lbs)/32 (something called slugs). In the Metric system mass is measured in KG, the weight is KG*9.8.
Doesn't really matter in terms of this discussion (which is a bit off the rails, pun intended, I think the original poster was just asking what the values would be in 1/48th scale if you scaled down weight and the power of prototype rolling stock). It is pretty easy to see why we can't really scale mass and power down, it is why transformers in the scale world had things like momentum and braking and the command control systems spend so much effort on making the train seem realistic in terms of getting to speed and braking. Open the throttle to 18v and watch how fast our trains move, even just the engine. Obviously most of us don't run mile long trains either, and even long trains in our domain on a big layout if you went full out would accelerate way faster than a train the same length in 1:1.
I disagree. I think we did answer the question for the OP... Take the weight and divide by 483 cubed (or multiply by 1/483).
I also don't think you assertion about mass and power not scaling down is correct. The reason we need things like momentum and braking is that most all modern locomotives don't have free rolling wheels (a.k.a. "back-drivable gears") and that traction motors in the real world are directly geared to the drive wheels and spin freely when the brakes and dynamic brakes are not being applied. And for steam engines... well, I think the difference to our models is pretty obvious.