First, are you certain that everything DCC controlled in you layout has a different address than the decoder in this engine.

You are certain? Good.

Maybe the decoder is bad. One experiment to help isolate the source of the problem would be to change the decoder address. Verify the engine responds to the new address and not to the old one. Does the engine still misbehave when others are running? If not, maybe the problem was not in the decoder.

Now program another engine to the same address the previously misbehaving one had. Does *that* engine now misbehave when you are running others?

B&M P-1 or P-2. Especially I suppose P-2-c, for the opportunity to do Minuteman and Flying Yankee

In any period older locomotives would have been retired and ultimately scrapped.

This happened intensively in the late '40s and though the 50's as railroads switched to diesels.

An HO layout that is (or was, 2 or more years ago) on display in the Wenham Museum (Wenham, MA) includes a scene that portrays a steamer being cut up. Has a bright little bulb in a circuit flashing in or by the boiler to mimic a cutting torch.

I sympathize with you on the price issue, despite anyone else's assertions that $250 is not much for an *HO* loco (implication: not so bad to have to spend that to get the much larger G). The G loco you get for $250 is probably a model of a small prototype and maybe a lower quality and/or lower fidelity model than any plastic HO model at that price.

Since you already have the trains but not the indoor space in the quantity you envisioned, maybe you could create outdoor space that was better suited to HO trains? How about a canopy such as offered by these folks: http://www.screen-house.com/canopy.htm. Particularly the "Garden Party".
Then you would have everything sheltered from sun (maybe not a significant concern, we are discussing a deep shade spot), rain, and what comes down from birds in the trees. As Gene suggested, you could put the trains on benchwork (or just tables) as you would indoors.

Quote from: momo on September 26, 2007, 02:51:59 PM
The Bachmann DCC guide said that you could program 9 seperate trains and run them at the same time. Did they mean with the 5 amp power booster,or did they mean you could run them with just the power pack.

I believe the Bachmann guide is pointing out that the E-Z Command can address 9 DCC locomotives. So you could have nine on the layout at once, programmed to address 1 though 9, and that controller could be used to control any of them. But there would not be enough power from that controller by itself to have the motors of all those nine active. Boosters become necessary as the number of simultaneously running motors grows.

Momo-

regarding the direction concern you had:

Quote from: momo on September 25, 2007, 08:27:05 PM
If you program 3 engines to the same address,and there all facing different directictions,they will all pull on each other.I don't want to put them all in the same direction,because it will look unrealistic.Unless there is some twist to DCC that I don't know,than I think it is impossible.If there is a twist let me know.

As noted by others it's quite possible to set up which direction each loco considers "forward". Even with the E-Z Command controller. See topic "Programming Forward and Reverse Operation" in the E-Z Command manual. Here's a link to a pdf of the manual on Bachmann's site: http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/newez/EZ_Command_instructions.pdf

But perhaps Dick has information that suggests there could be a problem depending on the decoder:

Quote from: ddellacca on September 25, 2007, 10:28:34 PM
Almost all (probably all) current decoders have the capability to set
default direction for the engine.
Just check the instructions for the specific decoder(s) you have to
determine the CV to program and it's setting.

Dick

I would have thought that something like this would be covered in the standards that all the current products intend to conform to; certainly for interoperability it does make sense that these things would be done the same way. But the E-Z Command makes things E-Z by hiding the actual CV programming and severely constraining the set of programmable options. So while I expect this procedure will work with all Bachmann decoders, and probably Lenz, whose design is the basis of the DCC-on-board decoders, it is certainly conceivable that it won't work on some other decoder(s) due to the CV to control direction being different.

I expect the Bachmann's response must be that the headlights function as intended. All the Bachmann headlights I have seen on recent production locos are LEDs and seem less bright than the incandescent bulb headlights on others I have seen - such as the proto2000 diesels and some older ones I have seen.

For this application, LEDs have two advantages over incandescents - very long life, and much lower heat. But the standard LEDs are not as bright nor quite the right color: white is too blue and yellow too yellow. Fortunately, there now both ultra bright standard (still bluish, supposed to be good for modern diesels) and warm white LEDs available - if either you are willing to replace you lights or can get/pay someone to do it for you. 

One source is the ebay store "Hi Output": http://stores.ebay.com/Hi-Output, the sellerid that shows up in aution listings is speedypete99. I don't have any experience with this seller.

Quote from: Rangerover on September 21, 2007, 09:32:20 AM
We all have to bend or cut and I wonder why the maufacturer's don't bend them at the right height!

I expect the answer is cost. Generally, tighter tolerances require more expensive processes, or more inspection and scrap to weed out the defects - also more expensive. Note however, the manufacturer is not bending to a height from the rail, rather to a distance from the centerline of the coupler knuckle.
So, if a particular user mounts couplers low - even slightly so - they will be more prone to the problem of trip-pins snagging on things. There are also other variables - some of my son's couplers over time seem to droop. Instances of rough use, as when a coupler hits a track stop can also produce bent shank, head, or pin.

Quote from: ebtnut on September 19, 2007, 01:00:53 PM
My guess (subject to revision by any C&OHS members out there) is that the initial C&O Hudsons were introduced during WWII, and folks weren't paying as much attention to loco nicknames at that time.  Once the moniker stuck, the post-war Chessie locos just carried on the name. 

Nice try, but the 2-8-4s were also introduced during the Second World War - actually arriving after the first Hudsons.
I have submitted my question to the C&OHS.
Scott.

Quote from: SteamGene on September 19, 2007, 09:52:09 PM
Scott,
Do you want an Ibid or an Op. cit?

Quote from: SteamGene on September 19, 2007, 09:52:09 PM
The rejection of "Berkshire" by the C&O came from at least one book about the C&O which I can't find just this minute.
If you want, I will contact the C&OHS for verification. 
As noted by at least one other, the South has a long memory.  "...old times there are not forgotten..."

Gene -
No hurry. I hope when you run across a good quote, you will recall my curiosity and send me info about it- through this forum or off-line.
Thanks.

Quote from: Elmore Yard on September 19, 2007, 02:40:17 PM
The Nickle Plate did not own any 4-8-4s.  Wasn't the Dixie name used by the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis for their 4-8-4s.

Right you are, Tom. I meant the NC&StL. I guess I confuse the two, both named for 3 cities, the last of which is St. Louis. Plus I was already primed to think of NKP, in relation to the Berkshire type and its sister (for a while) road C&O.
Thanks,
Scott

In the post starting this topic I neglected to ask:
Does anyone have or know of a contemporary account supporting the notion that C&O used alternate names for 4-8-4 and 2-8-4 due to the established names' "Yankee" association?

All I recall seeing so far are unsupported* assertions such as Gene's "Berkshire name was rejected as being Yankee" from a post in this thread, and the following from SteamLocomotive.com, regarding NKP 4-8-4's: "they called "Dixies" (instead of "Northerns" - a name that would seem inappropriate on a fine southern railroad)".

Regarding the idea that the 4-8-4 broke the tradition of using the name established by the originating Road, there is at least one other instance besides Milwaukee's Baltic for an earlier type: the NYC called their 4-8-2's "Mohawk"; the description on Steamlocomotive.com suggests this decision was made in 1916, after the first sample but before the arrival of the first order of 30 that year.

*I am not criticizing, and Steamlocomotive.com does provide a list of references and places to go for more information.

In a thread on the HO board on 4-6-4 Hudson models, SteamGene wrote:

Quote from: SteamGene on September 17, 2007, 01:01:11 PM
Now why did C&O stick with Hudson and not call the 4-6-4 the Potomac, James, York, Shenandoah, or New River?  (No, I don't have the answer.)
Gene

I find this an interesting question.  C&O had its own names for the 4-8-4 and 2-8-4, thereby avoiding names with Yankee affiliation. But is that why? If so, why not the 4-6-4 too? Certainly, one can reasonably speculate that the C&O and others used a different name due to distaste for the association with the North: just abut every Southeastern road named the 4-8-4 something different from Northern (and from each other). But on the other hand the Southerners were hardly alone in finding their own names, particularly for the 4-8-4 but also other types.
Maybe "Hudson" had some local connection - a geographic feature, station, or junction along the line, or esteemed person or historical figure associated with the C&O - that outweighed the negative of the name from a Northern road?
I thought it odd that someone at C&O thought to reaname the Berkshire - especially considering the design is essentially the same as its van Swerigen sisters NKP and PM used - and NKP also a Southern road. But then, by the time C&O got the 2-8-4 the van Swerigens had gone bust. Ah, but maybe the same design is a clue - could it be a desire to call something their own, when wartime restrictions otherwise dictated reusing an existing design? (if that was so, I  recall reading the PRR used a C&O design for new power during WW2 because of wartime restrictions on new design)

Is the "hang" happening at a certain place?
The FTs fuel tank has little clearance above the rails. I recall another report of such a problem specifically crossing the summit of a grade in an over-and-under figure eight layout. The problem will occur at the transitions from upward slope to level, and again from level to downward when one truck is on the grade and the other the level. The problem is much worse if there is no level track, creating an instantaneous transition between ascent and descent, effectively twice the ascending grade. My son has EZ-track and the Bachmann EZ-track pier set; we minimized the potential problem by making the transition at the top more gradual - the two top piers are at least 9" track apart, and the distance to the next two piers is one and a half track lengths. This means the highest piers are not at track joint, rather in the middle, and there is a track joint in between them, and between each set of a highest pier and the next size down. Note that as well as reducing the vertical curve, this arrangement  leaves a joint with some up-and-down play, which might allow the track to perform some of the transition as the locomotive crosses it.

Ernie wrote to Gene:

Quote from: bevernie on August 21, 2007, 10:58:44 PMAs you said, 2.79 each would be rather expensive, so that was probably the main reason that I understood it to mean 2.79 per packet, which would be 10 pockets.

The price at www.kadee.com for 10 *pair* of draft gear boxes and lids (that would be enough for 20 couplers) is $2.85. This is item #232. I have similar item #233 in my hand, boxes for 30-series, and it says on the packet, ten pair and also 20 each lids and 20 each gear boxes.