<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/18/2025 10:20 AM, NW Mailing List
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.12142.1763483227.722595.nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Well crap, now Jim has me thinking about this. . .</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Mike, <br>
<br>
Jim can have that effect on people.<br>
<br>
I haven't run the numbers, but I understand Auville Yard was good
for 1000 loads a day, plus through tonnage west off of the Valley
side. There were two mainline mine runs, four Dry Fork runs, a local
freight and a passenger run, plus five Tug jobs were moved there
from Wilcoe during the latter half of the 1950s. Outbound Elkhorn
crews back to Bluefield each handled 160 loads with a pusher. Tug
River crews back to Williamson could handle over 200, enough to
still get a full brake release on the rear. <br>
<br>
Like other branch lines or the main line, shifters had windows of
time to work as needed, especially considering the through traffic
to and from the Clinch Valley, whose dispatcher handled the Dry
Fork.<br>
<br>
Grant Carpenter<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.12142.1763483227.722595.nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>. . . How busy were some of these branches? I believe that
the Dry Fork was one of the biggest coal producers, so I
wonder how many train movements occurred each day - from the
context of blocking the main, as Jim mentioned. I realize a
lot of the larger tipples would have plenty of track, but I
assume the smaller ones didn't necessarily have that. I'm
going to have to look through the Dry Fork Branch book and see
what I can figure out. Any other resources that might help?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mike Rector</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at
11:07 AM NW Mailing List <<a
href="mailto:nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Jimmy and Chris,
<div>Jimmy thanks for the album picture. This causes me to
ask how the run consist changed as deliveries/pickups were
made. At first, it was all empties sandwiched between
headend and rear end locos. As they picked up loads, did
they put them between the locos with the remaining
empties, or did they stick them on one end or the other.</div>
<div>Also, how did the movements differ when a coal
operation had two switches off the main (? a siding?)?
First the whole movement might be able to clear the main
which would help the flow of traffic, and Second, it seems
like fewer movements might be required to make the needed
drop offs and pick ups. Was less reverse running involved
in servicing operations with this type of track
configuration?</div>
<div>I assume that running a locomotive in the forward
direction was/is safer than running it in reverse due to
visibility and perhaps other factors that I am ignorant
of. So this whole discussion is perhaps about how reverse
movements were minimized during these operations. Or did
it matter that much? Did they just do what was most
expedient to get the empties in and the loads out?</div>
<div>Thanks again,</div>
<div>Jim Cochran <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>