<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Jim,<br>
<br>
The one mine run that rated two engines, on the East End anyway, was
the Anawalt Mine Run, later known as Third Tug. It worked out of
Wilcoe Yard up to Jenkinjones at the end of the North Fork of the
Tug Fork Branch. With two crews, a Class Y3 on the head end,
empties, a Class Z1b on the rear, and both engines facing upgrade,
the head end would set off empties into the (trailing-point)
delivery tracks of tipples on the way up. <br>
<br>
At the junction of Ballard Harmon Spur, the remaining empties were
split between the two engines, the Class Z1b shoved up the spur to
work #8 Mine and the Class Y3 continued up to the end of the North
Fork to work #7 Mine. Later with loads, they reassembled their
train, backed down to the Anawalt wye to turn their train, then
eased forward back down towards Wilcoe Yard, the head end picking up
(trailing-point) loads along the way. The rear crew was cut off when
the #8 Mine closed in 1953.<br>
<br>
Forward or reverse being secondary, facing the engine upgrade kept
more water over the crown sheet and allegedly improved the tractive
effort.<br>
<br>
Thanks for asking. <br>
<br>
Grant Carpenter<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/18/2025 10:06 AM, NW Mailing List
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.12139.1763482040.722595.nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>