Challengers and coal

[NW Modeling List]

I would probably slightly disagree with Jim's last point on the N&W getting 
their coal from specific mines.  It is true, but it depends on the time 
line.

When the N&W entered the Pocahontas coal region it was buying coal from 
everybody under the producer contracts.  As the N&W and the coalfields grew, 
the N&W was requiring an increasing amount of coal from the producers which 
led to disagreement between the producers and the railroad since the N&W was 
paying less than the open market.  The railroad was going to get out of the 
coal selling business in 1895, but the WV passed a law (aimed at the C&O) 
that forced them out anyway.

The N&W then bought coal along the line by contact from various producers. 
The rr put in a big coaling station at Keystone in 1906 that spanned six 
tracks, and the Hemphill coaling station in 1903.  They also signed contract 
with many of the new operations coming on line between Davy and Roderfield 
to take up to 30% of their production.

By 1912, N&W was erecting coaling stations at private mines.  In 1912, the 
N&W announced coaling stations would be built at Borderland, Vulcan, 
Keystone, Farm and Morgan.  Coal at Keystone, Farm and Morgan would hve been 
the same, but coal from Borderland and Vulcan would have beeb different. 
Coaling stations were not built at Morgan or Keystone, probably beause the 
yard at Eckman was built instead, but a coaling station was added at Mohwak. 
The station at Farm used coal from the Pocahontas seam,  the one at Mohawk 
used coal from the War Eagle seam.

Around 1917, the N&W bought the Vulcan mine and started the Pond Creek coal 
co to supply the coal at Williamson.  Eventually the N&W owned four mines (I 
think).

On another point, Pocahontas coal and most coal along the Pocahontas Div is 
in the sub-bituminous classification.  Sub-bituminous coal is actually 
superior to the bituminous classification.

Alex Schust



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "NW Modeling List" <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
To: "'NW Modeling List'" <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: Challengers and coal



> Well, no! There is a lot of sub-bituminous too. But that is not the whole

> story. There are great variations in the chemical content of bituminous

> mined at different locations. That is why "Pocahontas coal" was so sought

> after for certain industrial uses. And that is why the facility at 

> Lamberts

> Point was set up to "blend" coal from various mines. And it is why N&W got

> their locomotive coal from specific mines.   Jim Nichols

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org

> [mailto:nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Modeling List

> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:12 PM

> To: NW Modeling List

> Subject: Re: Challengers and coal

>

> Not to sound stupid but what would be a "better" coal to use? Isn't the

> majority of coal deposits in the US  bituminous coal?

>

> Thanks

> Jon Kelley

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________________

> NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

> To change your subscription go to

> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

> Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at

> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/