The K-3s (W&LE engines) were heavier boilered locos than the K-1s and K-2s, and were not deemed a success by the N&W.  They had the piston rod connected to the third driver, rather than the second driver as on most four coupled engines, and they suffered from imbalance problems that limited their speed.
I sure wish Bachmann had modeled the K-1s of the 50s.

It's been a while, but his description was 100% accurate.  I knew what i wanted so yes I was satisfied.

I have been running traction tires for 30 years with no continuity problems.  But I don't oil my track.  And I thought Wahls was bad.

The Virginian Triplex was a 2-8-8-8-4, and they turned it into a 2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-2.  All these big loco freaks ought to look at a Virginian 800.  2-10-10-2 that was very successful.  Well... except for number 800 herself.

Good job.  Weight evenly distributed has the same effect as weight "centered" over the trucks.  No matter how good it feels, physics, statics, and dynamics are constant.

Actually Gene it isn't hard to imagine because there is one still running in 2007.  I believe N&W 475 at Strasburg still has her USRA tender.  Although I liked the N&W 4-8-0 tenders better.

Might ought to put this on the BLI/PCM forum, where it might have an impact.

Are you sure your crossover track is energized at all points?  Do you have your insulation gaps staggered?  How much?  Are you sure your tender contacts and engine contacts have continuity all the way to the motor?  I have had broken wires on the tender truck pick ups and going from the plunger pick ups to the motor.  Those are some SMALL wires.

N&W's 0-8-0s were improvements to C&Os 0-8-0s which they and VGN had bought, which incorporated several improvements to the basic USRA design.
The USRA 2-8-8-2s were basically N&W's Y-2s.  It is said N&W borrowed the design back after the war, but I think that is a gross misstatement.  N&W proceeded with the improvements to the Y2 they had already intended to pursue, and that resulted in the Y3.  The evolution continued thru the Y6b.

Southern and Alton's Pacifics with their unique paint jobs were among the most attractive non-streamlined locomotives ever built.

So the J wasn't a one railroad loco?  The GS-4?  Southern 1401 is in the SMITHSONIAN fer crying out loud.  Amazes me no one since Rivarossi has done one in non-brass.

Rivarossi had drivers picking up power from one rail thru sping loaded contact pins against the inside of 2 drivers (right rail) as I recall, and the tender picked up the other rail.  I suspect the pin contacts need to be disassembled, cleaned, and lightly lubed.  Make sure the tender contacts are all good too.
I have the exact set-up you have and have no problems with Rivarossis or anything else crossing from one loop/power pack to another as long as the polarity is right.  DC does have it's virtues.

I shall console myself by concentrating on the issue that I am doing my bit to hold costs down.  In over 30 years, I have never sent a locomotive back to anyone, for any reason.  Until people started talking about it a few years ago, it had never occurred to me.

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, is it reasonable to expect manufacturers to stay in business, with decent prices, when consumers buy very complicated little mechanical devices, and do not seem to be able to address any problems on their own?

The need for flywheels is greatly negated by DCC.  And I am not a DCC guy.  The need in DC locos can be greatly lessened by having better contact to the rails and multi pole skew wound motors.
Anyone who thinks flywheels make an engine coast to a stop more like the real thing has certainly had vastly different results than me.  The old Key brass coasting drive was something else all together.
In fact, for a mainline engine that is going to spend minimal time at slow speed, a higher speed motor and more gear reduction may prove entirely adequate.  Flywheels are hard on motor "bushings" (as most little motors do not incorporate real bearings).