Well that's great news.  The best part is that unlike many others on this forum, they never provide a conclusion (outcome) of their particular issue.  In this case you did, and this will allow others to see that there are results (good or bad) in this case good, for making decisions going forward. 

Since I'm a diesel guy, I'll just say, "...Keep on dieseling"

Well I'll be,
 Someone has run into the same issue I ran into.   With that, this is how I solved this problem.  It was painful but it works very well now.  For all the DCC turnouts I had, I changed out all the ones that were easy to get to.  That is, I replaced the DCC controlled turnouts with the analog turnouts.  These analog turnouts are now on a separate power supply and therefore do not task the trains power (track power) to perform switching.  The remaining DCC turnouts that were hard to get to were left intact which meant that I didn't need to have more than 9 DCC controlled turnouts.  Currently I use only 5 DCC turnouts that are seldomly used off my mainline.  Plus those are turnouts that are hard to get to.  My 4 x 8 section of the layout, one side of the 4 x 8 is against the wall where the DCC turnouts are located for example.  Kinda hard to get to- reaching over that 4 ft span.

There is another way to control those DCC turnouts but it will task your knowledge while moving trains on your layout.  Again, moving more than one train could cause issues during your switching.  Therefore, program two or three of your DCC switches to the same logic number. This would allow freeing up other numbers of DCC switches for the remaining logic numbers.  For example,   If there is a siding that has an entrance and an exit, program both the exit and entrance to the same logic number, say program button 1.  In other positions double up on those where when you press say logic number 2 two switches would change position.  Do this for the other switches where a switch needs another switch to be repositioned at the same time.   As you will observe it will free up some of the 9 logic positions available.  Of course this method becomes complicated when there are more than 2 locomotives operating at the same time.

Hope this helps.


Additional reference info can be found here:
Simple answer to feeder lines
Decoder-equipped turnouts with the same address - Only one works

Wow, I really like the videos.  One day I've got to learn how to create videos like yours.

This second video is concerning.  What should occur as you turn the control knob is the green LEDs should move upward on the turning of the knob.  The video definitely shows that is not occurring. 

There are variables that need to be removed in order to isolate an analyze the EZ command controller.  So, with that,
1- remove all locomotives from your track.
2-the EZ Command Plus connected to the track
3-Power up (turn on) the EZ command (press the power button)
4-Slowly turn the control knob and observe the green LED. 
5-Note, that the green LED lights should increase with no load on the track
Actually, it should increase/decrease whether or not there is a load (locomotive) on the track.
My understanding is that the green LEDs are to show the speed setting of the controller, which is supposedly a separate circuit from the track voltage.   

Lastly, before I become bearer of not-so-great news, try this:
Disconnect the track plug from the EZ Command Plus.  (No wires connected to the EZ command Plus except for the power supply)
1- Press the power button (on)
2- Turn the control knob.
3- If the green LEDs stay at 1 or 2, (or does not increase)
4- It's the EZ Command Plus.  I hope you purchased it new, since it's going to need to be returned under warranty.

This is a significant flaw in the new EZ Command Plus model.  The potentiometer (the control knob) is not making constant contact with its connection points, or internal loose solder/wiring.  Lastly, it could be frozen software (but turning the power off, should fix that issue supposedly).
 By all means, if you can get the Bachmann people to view your video, I'm sure once they see it, they will not hesitate in correcting this issue.   

This is the best I can do to support.  PS, your video is the best for troubleshooting.  Something I need to learn how to do.

By the way, I run 3 sometimes 4 DCC locomotives without a Booster, but I do have feeders about every 5 feet.

After reviewing your video, it looks like rotating that knob so rapidly is producing intermittent connection to variable resistor for that knob.  Understand that that knob on the EZ Command Plus (44933) is called an infinity knob.  That is, you can turn it (like shown in the video) without hitting a stop.  By turning it rapidly disconnects occur.  The green indicator to the right of the knob shows the value of the voltage going to the track.  That green indicator should steadily increase power to the track.  The video shows that the green indicator is only increasing by 1 or 2 then reducing back to 1.

Since the EZ command plus power knob is (pardon my expression) "sensitive", move the knob slowly and watch how the green power indicator reacts.  Slow movement of the knob should reduce the intermittent loss of connection, thereby allowing the power to the tracks to increase.

Check out the Bachmann video to see how that green indicator should operate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZEmqDHEg78

The video isn't one of Bachmann's better ones, but it shows how moving the knob rapidly produces that what you are finding.  The next portion shows how the green indicator should be increasing with each slow rotation of the knob.

AS for the amount of track in the video, the Booster is (in my opinion) overkill.  With one locomotive it should operate quite well, with the exception of loose track connections, dirty tracks, or dirty loco wheels.


Hope this helps.

Quote from: jward on March 24, 2026, 09:47:30 PMWhy would the mountain stop you from adding industries?

In order to have a mountain you must have a valley or a depression, let alone the slope of the mountain.  Yes, you could effectively make a cliff out of the mountain to place industries, but again that cliff wall will take up some space.  So knowing that the mountain slope takes up space, a bridge does not.  What's really unique about using a bridge, is the fact that underneath the bridge a variety of things can be placed under it.  Lastly, a bridge does not need the detail that a mountain slope would need, i.e., landscaping such weeds, trees, rocks, etc.

Funny you mentioned a spur halfway up the mountain.  I worked on that (see left side of my drawing) and found I needed a loco on that spur to keep the rolling stock from rolling down.  So, I gave up on that spur on a hill and made it go to level ground, just to keep the rolling stock for transiting down the slope.

Just note, I'd probably use a mountain or ridge to raise/lower the track if I had the space to do it.  Currently, my emphasis is on placing additional industries on the layout without it looking congested.  I also would like to keep it from looking like the heart of a city within the industrial area too. 

By the way, that's a good question.

By all means, you haven't hijacked this thread, I've basically hijacked it myself from my original thoughts.

Currently I have an L shape layout (excuse the deficiency in the drawing, didn't want to take too much time trying to make it accurate) where I was looking into a helix (as I call it) to go from the shelf to the base level (table).Understand that the slope would take the entire L shape starting from top of the L to the bottom end of the L.  A sloping bridge in both directions I believe would provide that +/- 2% slope.  In the prior hijacked drawing, the track on the outer edges would be the bridges either rising or dropping (except for the left side track, after the switch, doesn't show the dash line for a bridge).  It would still allow my layout to be modified when new thoughts come into my imagination.

To bring this somewhat back to the original topic, one can note that with the additional "shelf" space additional industries can be added and from my point of view, an additional 4-lane highway could be imagined.  I thought about a mountain grade, but the mountain would remove the number of industries that could be placed.  So, in my imagination, the bridge concept took shape, and industries can be placed close to the bridge and smaller stores, shops, parking lots, etc., could be placed underneath the sloping bridge. All without it looking congested as in the video.

Wasn't expecting that video would go viral on this topic, but since its part of my learning experience, I'll add this comment.
J, sorry I hijacked your image and redrew it to show my existing 4x8 layout.  I wanted to have 3 loops but didn't quite make it.  If that video used larger than 4x8 then here's my 4x8 using only EZ Track and Fleischmann 18-degree curve switches.  I'm leaning toward that fact that the raised track area is actually above the existing 4x8.  Therefore, produces the illusion that all of the video's layout is on a 4x8.  If this is true, then my new section I should definitely create a upper and lower level in order to obtain additional space for my layout.  I alluded to that when I suggested I put in a helix type riser to an upper level.
Diagram Note: Below the black line is the second 4x8 which I'm questioning.

Quotefrom wjstix - March 15, 2026, 01:40:16 AM]
As far as the layout, the balance between track and scenery / structures is going to be different for each person. However, in my experience, many folks (me included) have a tendency to try to cram in too much. I think it was John Armstrong who said something like 'put in the amount of track you think is right, then take out 1/3 of it - that will end up being closer to the ideal'. Leaving some room for scenery does a lot to open up a layout, even if it's just a hill or a small pond.

For industries, sometimes it works better to have one larger industry that realistically could receive 3-4-5 cars, then have several small industries that each get one car.

This is one of my favorite actions.  Place track as I see fit, then later on, my mind tells me that there is a better way to place it.  I thought about buying that track software you used, but I like seeing the physical layout rather than viewing it on a computer screen.  When I started out, I wanted 5 cities, and trains passing through each city.  I've gotten down to earth once I started physically placing track on the layout.  Looks like I'll only have maybe 2 cities if I'm lucky. 
One of my biggest quests is to build a highway that is under construction, alongside an operating rail line that is also under construction with a second rail. Somewhere in there have a light industrial area, with a helium plant, mining facility, Nuclear Plant, and since I have too many tractors, cranes and mining equipment, a Caterpillar, or Kenworth, dealership with all the tractors I have on the lot.  Believe me, I do not want my layout to look anything like the video.  I hope to make it look more like Sheldon's.

That's a very interesting video (U-tube).  I counted 11, and if you count the passenger station and maintenance yard 13 industries.  There are more industries on this layout, but I only wanted the number that was serviced by the railroad.  I'm not going to critique this layout, although it's definitely detailed.

As for a loop, I am still wanting to keep a main line either around the edge of the layout or maybe make a dog-bone for the main.   In trying to use the number 4, 5, or 6 switches will be challenging if I keep a main in the layout.

The real issue is my imagination, the ideas in my head that, by all accounts, must be limited to the space that the layout can support or space available to me.  When your ideas are larger than the space you have, that's what takes the fun out and/or creates the stress in this hobby.  This is what I'm running into.  I'm not trying to recreate a real place, but I am working to create a realistic imaginary one.   

Quote"...whatever you add to your layout has to make sense."

In that regard, I'm right there, creating that realistic layout.  But my mind wants more, and space to have that "more" stops my creative desires.  I can stay true to the era that have created, it's just that in order to envision that imaginary era I dream of, I need more space.

Quote"...The rule of thumb for me is less is more."

This just boggles my mind.  Makes me think that in order to create space I should move to "N" scale. ...Not happening.  I will definitely give this a lot more thought in the coming days.

Quote...the easy quick answer to this question is, the right number of industries on any layout is the kind that allows some room for scenery of any kind around them."

I wholeheartedly agree, and that scenery needs to have parking for the employees, roads for access of trucks and cars to the industry (this is what you don't see in the U-tube video).  That's one of the main things I like about Sheldon's layout, it has that scenery and access.  I'm not too keen on using buildings as a backdrop.  Mainly because that back edge of the layout I expect to have a main line, and I actually don't have any cut in half or facade buildings.   

Quote"The best that the layout this size can handle is probably two engines and maybe 10 or 12 cars."

My existing 4 x 8 (not the new one in this discussion) can handle 5 engines, and if you add in the museum 7.  I'll have to actually count the number of cars on that section of the 4 x8 since I do have one portion of elevated track (like in the U-tube video) where additional cars could be stored. 

Quote...the branch line actually branches off the oval and climbs above the mainline to a town?"

Coming off the existing 4x8 the track does elevate toward the new section.  I'm considering putting in a Helix but it would not be a circle helix.  More of a mountainous rise going from the first 4x8 then to the new 4x8 that would maybe hold a double deck above the new 4x8 but would be a 2 x 8 ft section.  Trying to place that 2x8 ft section I would prefer not attaching it to the house walls.  This would create some extra space, but the main industry on the 4 x8 would be constrained, I believe.

Quote...keep the oval because everyone at some point just feels like mindlessly watching a train run."

Same here, that's probably why I still want a mainline on this new section of 4x8.  Like my grandma use to say "folks love to watch fish in a fish bowel go round and round." Trains are like fish in a fish bowl.

Downsizing!  I can't imagine what that would be like.  My brain is constantly trying to up-size.  There is one way not to downsize, but I call it "rightsize-sizing", and that is to move from HO to N scale.  You won't lose that virtual acreage.  I myself can't see moving to N scale due to my eyes are not what they use to be.  HO doesn't cause the eye strain.  Lastly, I envy you being able to have a 50 ft long layout, the best I can accommodate is 20 ft.

What's the best number or what's the maximum number of industries that should be or could be to put on a 4 x 8-foot layout.

This pertains to HO scale modelers.  The reason I ask this is....   I think I've overwhelmed my layout by trying to place too many industries on my new section of 4 x 8 or I may have too much track on that same 4 x 8.  I thought this section would be my industrial park, but again I don't seem to have enough space for both the track and industries that the track should be able to support.   I'd show images of my layout but, after looking through Sheldon's layout, I'm too embarrassed to show my behemoth, and it's nowhere near completion.  So I'm scratching my head, (and my kids are of no help) in how to place all of what I envisioned as an industrial park with rail access.

Everyone's thoughts are welcomed, cause at this juncture, I'm hoping I haven't overspent on buildings, scenery and well, one never has enough track, cause I'm always modifying the track.

First off, this is my take on your issue.  Understand that it's only from my experiences and what I could determine from the information provided.  Sorry I'm not as efficient as AI (artificial Intelligence), only human.  With that, here goes it.
Okay, With this additional information, let's get detailed!  First, I need to ensure I have the facts straight.

   1 - You are using the EZ Command (Model 44901) not the 44933 the Plus version or the 44932 which is for O scale.
   2 - You have the Bachmann version of locomotives.  (Can't help with other manufacturers, since I only have
        Bachmann, Tyco, Mantua, Life-Like, AHM, Athearn, that old stuff and not DCC, except for my newer Bachmann DCC locos)
   3 - Your Bachmann DCC locomotive works in DC mode.
   4 - Your Bachmann DCC locomotive works in DCC mode. (Operates but does not respond to commands from the EZ controller)
   5 - The EZ command functions affects all of the locomotives, but operates when emergency stop button is depressed, and/or causes all locomotives to operate and not response to EZ command functions.
   6 - Your EZ command provides power to the track, since you can press the emergency stop button and de-energize the locomotive(s) and power to the track.
   7 - You have changed the address for the Bachmann locomotive and obtained the same results from the EZ controller not producing the response expected, i.e., locomotive moving or stopping.
=================================
Now,
A - When you program your Bachmann locomotive.  Is it on your Main (your layout) and not on a separate isolated track?  The reason I ask this is that I've had in the past with DCC switches, on the layout, I would get some interesting changes on my DCC switches, when trying to program my locomotives.  You might be getting the opposite changes. (See notes for additional info)

B - Ensure all your electrical connections are secure (tight).  That is, the EZ command jack is securely inserted, the connection to the track is secure.  Also ensure all track connections are tight.   

C - If you have an ohm meter then, with no locomotives on the track measure the voltage of the track.  My track normally sees 17.5 volts, but 16 volts should be the norm.

D - Place only one locomotive on the track and program it with the EZ command.  Once programmed go to step E.

E - Place that single locomotive programmed in step D on the track.  With the EZ command operate it as a stand alone.  If the EZ controller operates it as you would expect, that is, forward, backward, speed up and slow down, then your controller could be considered functioning correctly.

F - Perform step D for each of the other locomotives.  If each individual locomotive performs step E correctly, then the EZ controller also could be considered operating correctly.

G - If step D and E are completed satisfactorily, then EZ command might not be the problem.

Again note, that if there are conflicts in the other non-Bachmann locomotives with respect to steps D and E then this issue is beyond my ability to support.

Lastly, there could be the possibility that the function 10 button is possibility failing.  You stated that:

Quote...brand new out of the box locomotive, will start moving at the command of the controller but then won't respond to any command given by the controller except for the emergency stop command."

This button sticking would surely cause the locomotive to operate upon being set on the track.
At this juncture, I was unable to re-create (on my layout) your issue.  If I missed something, let me know, so I can acknowledge it.

Hope this helps, but it will not let you sleep better.

(The above is based on my experience using the model 44901 EZ Command Controller that I still use to this day.)   

Ref. notes: (click on topic)
Command Plus CV Setting Capabilities

You bring up a good question.  I fumbled (quite a long time) to find the answer to that question, but alas, I was unable to extract the root cause.   That's when I decided to exit from using the EZ track DCC decoder switches.  I went to the, and I guess old standard of separating the track switch power from the DCC track power to the switches isolated power, i.e., their own power.
By having the track switches with their own power source, provided two benefits.  One, it doesn't cause a running train to hesitate due to the current draw of a track switch being operated. Two, makes it easier to operate track switches without using the function keys.  Understand I use the Bachmann 44901 EZ Command Controller.

Back to your specific question.  From my analysis, and frustration, I can only speculate that the reason it works the first time is that there is no residual current buildup on the first switching of the two track switches.  The reason both switches do not operate all the time is on the second operation of the switch where there is the possible built up of residual (reluctance) current in the inductor of one of the track switches and the other track switch lacks that residual current. They kinda like buck each other.  That second time the switch is activated, the residual current will support one switch operation where the other switch lacking that residual (reluctance) current, just stays put (or vice versa).   

If you have an electrical background, then when I state "residual current" more accurately, I mean the decaying current that exists in an inductor immediately after its source voltage is removed. Mainly from the inertia-like behavior, that an inductor (the EZ track switch) that cannot change its current instantaneously; therefore, it maintains current flow by collapsing its magnetic field, driving a transient current until the energy is dissipated.  Understand that energy isn't dissipated since the track stays energized.   Like I stated, this is the best speculated answer that I came to the conclusion too.   This is based on the fact that when I de-energized the EZ controller (turn it off) and then turn it back on again, the two switches operate the first time and again not the second time, or the third, fourth, etc., until I again de-energized the track.

Sorry for the long explanation, but this is my best theory (speculation) as to why the two switches will not work when both are set to function on the same address.   It would be interesting to know if someone who uses a DCC power source other than Bachmann's EZ Command has the same issue.

 Hope this helps, but it won't be satisfying. 
   

The quick answer to your query (from my experience) is that Bachmann turnout switches can only access address (0-9).
If you use a DCC controller (programmer) other than Bachmann, as you stated (0-100), any address above a single digit will not work.   

Since I do not have the NCE, I cannot answer whether or not you can change the address on a Bachmann turnout switch.  The NCE may or may not send the address as a single digit (0-9). It may send the address as 00-09. That double digit, I believe the Bachmann turnout switch cannot handle.

This is the best answer I can provide.

Well, I guess this post can be relegated to history with the knowledge that curved turnout switches were rare from the start, and companies are dropping (curtailing mass production) of curved switches and definitely eliminating the ballasted versions.  I will state that the ballasted curved track switches I have work great with sectional EZ track, they are 18-radius, and do not require the flexible track unless that's what one uses.

What the curved switches allow is the transition to parallel track right in the curve and not at the curve ends.  This makes it easier to get the longest straight parallel track on a 4x8 section. 

Quote1) is there a ready-made cable that will do this, (ideally, a female-to-female terminal rerailer power cable...

You bring up a good question.  Mr. Trainman provided a great answer.  Here's the but.  Bachmann has a connector (2 wire) for what you are inquiring about.  Unfortunately, what I have found is that Bachmann only sells them in their Automatic Reverse Loop Module (model 44912).  I wasn't able to locate that cable in their parts list.  Maybe you might succeed by contacting their service dept and ask for the cable that comes with the 44912-reverse loop.  Just note that Mr. Trainman probably provided the least expensive fix to your question.

Hope this helps.

After reading the post Switch Radius using #5 turnouts (under General Discussion) I came to realization that there are no EZ track turnout curve switches.  Why is there are no EZ track turnout switch curves?

The image shows two Fleischmann 6142 HO Profi-Track curved switches.  These switches have a roadbed but are thinner than EZ track.  The rails are code 100 just like EZ track.  Yes, that means that the EZ track connector tab does not interfere with the rail connections.  Actually, the EZ track tab provides support to the Fleischmann track.  I use these curved tracks as shown minus the popsicle supports where there will be a small stream/creek type covert will be.
Sorry got off the subject. 

To my disappointment, Fleischmann has discontinued their HO scale track.  Since I was never associated with real railroads, are curved switches only allowed in European countries? 
This is where EZ track could fill the gap and provide HO scale curved EZ track switches.

Bachmann are you listening....