NW-Mailing-List Digest, Vol 130, Issue 8

Sun Jan 10 22:10:03 EST 2016

If anyones interested, I can tell about what Wilcoe does now that its
reopened. They average about 3 or 4 crews called out of there each day.

-Chase Freeman
Grundy,VA

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:51 AM, <nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org> wrote:

> Send NW-Mailing-List mailing list submissions to
>         nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/nw-mailing-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         nw-mailing-list-owner at nwhs.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NW-Mailing-List digest..."
>
>
> When replying, please edit the Subject line so it reflects the topic you
> are responding to.
>
> Also delete the non-pertinent parts of the digest when replying to a
> referenced post.
>
> Your fellow list subscribers will appreciate it.
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Virginian AG's taken over by N&W (NW Mailing List)
>    2. Merging the Virginia Division into the Pocahontas Division
>       (NW Mailing List)
>    3. Re: Virginian AG's  taken over by N&W (NW Mailing List)
>    4. Re: Tug Fork Operations (NW Mailing List)
>    5. Re: Virginian AG's  taken over by N&W (NW Mailing List)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:37:41 -0500
> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> Subject: Re: Virginian AG's taken over by N&W
> Message-ID: <mailman.3002.1452433785.20657.nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> N&W merged with the Virginian in december 1959 virtually on the edge of
> steam retirement. Lets just assume steam could continue way beyond that
> date or the merger occur earlier. The A's were designed for a more
> faster less graded level line for speed and some passenger service.
> The Y's were already a proven success on the line. Why not an AG?
> Technical differrences, N&W had in design a Y7 which would be a full
> simple engine, no compound, they more than likely would have gone to
> that design perhaps even one up the AG. N&W needed core power on the
> Blue Ridge hills, their loco design work has always reflected that, when
> they ran the smaller engines like 2-8-0's whatever, and looked for
> better power then, they chose a 4-8-0 over 2-8-2 because they wanted to
> get the most weight on the drivers, hence the M, M-1 and M2 and M2c.
> Perhaps they could have found an operating home for the AG's, likely on
> the aquired Virginian lines anyways since thats where they ran. I wonder
> if there are any other details that might prevent them from using the
> AG. Perhaps they would find a place on the mine runs.
> It  would be a curious theory dig and see what others out there think
> about this. They are clearly one of the most powerfull engines, they
> were also more stocky, shorter than the Y's. 12 driving wheels versus 16
> on the Y, is that a  weight issue on the N&W? Clearanced problems?
>
> Its a good question there.
>
> -Lynn-
>
>
> On 1/10/2016 1:38 AM, nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org wrote:
> > Subject:
> > Virginian AG's taken over by N&W
> > From:
> > NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> > Date:
> > 1/9/2016 4:25 AM
> >
> > To:
> > "nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> >
> >
> > Members , here is a question from an Englishman
> >
> > I have read several books on the Virginian RR and Gene Huddlestones book
> > on the H8
> >
> > My question is  :Why did the N&W mothball the 8 AG's it inherited from
> > the Virginian. It seems to me that those 8 locomotives would have fitted
> > in well with N&W "A" diagrams
> >
> > Geoff Burton
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 00:30:59 -0500
> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Subject: Merging the Virginia Division into the Pocahontas Division
> Message-ID: <mailman.3003.1452433826.20657.nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> From very credible sources that asked to remain anonymous ?.(and rumors
> and info from NS and railfan friends over the last several months):
>
> On February 1st Norfolk Southern's Virginia Division will be merged into
> the Pocahontas Division.  The expanded Pocahontas Division headquarters
> will be in Roanoke along with all Division dispatching.  There is also a
> high probability that the West Virginia Secondary, currently part of the
> Pocahontas Division, (former NYC-PC-Conrail from Columbus to east of
> Charleston,WV) will be merged into the Lake Division.  A key driver in this
> is NS needing to reduce operating costs associated with the falling coal
> business that once made the Pocahontas Division overwhelmingly the greatest
> source of revenue for the N&W and NS.  Additionally?... as a result of CP?s
> attempts to buy NS, NS management is working hard to lower NS's overall
> operating ratio from the high 60?s to the low 60?s.  The expected cost
> savings realized by combining the Divisions will support this goal.
>
> Ed Painter - Narrows,VA living in North Georgia
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:22:31 -0500
> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Subject: Re: Virginian AG's  taken over by N&W
> Message-ID: <mailman.3004.1452433847.20657.nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Geoff -
>
> The VGN was merged into the N&W in late 1959.  N&W had decided to
> dieselize several years before, and the process was almost completed.  The
> Class A engines made their last runs before the VGN merger.  N&W didn?t
> ?mothball? the AGs; it scrapped them.
>
> No VGN steam locomotives operated after merger date that I know of; the
> VGN itself had been dieselized before the merger date.
>
> The AG was not a viable competitor for the Class A.  It was vastly
> overweight for its power output and was, IMHO, misapplied on the VGN ? even
> more so than the H-8 was on the C&O.  The H-8 was not designed to provide
> efficient transportation service to the C&O; it was designed to make a name
> for its designers by producing more drawbar horsepower than any steam
> locomotive yet built, and this it did.  But when measured in gross ton
> miles per train hour per dollar (first cost, operating cost, etc.) it was
> not in the same league with either N&W?s A or the Y-6.  The first H-8s
> weighed more than UP?s Big Boy ? more than 100 tons more than the A, and
> cost, on average, more than $100,000 per engine and tender more than the
> A.  These comparisons with backup figures can be found in the last chapter
> of someone?s book on the Class A which has been out for several years (it?s
> available through the Society).
>
> But the 2-6-6-6 was impressive to look at, and Gene Huddleston was its
> most vociferous cheerleader . . .
>
> Ed King
>
> From: NW Mailing List
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 4:25 AM
> To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
> Subject: Virginian AG's taken over by N&W
>
> Members , here is a question from an Englishman
>
> I have read several books on the Virginian RR and Gene Huddlestones book
> on the H8
>
> My question is  :Why did the N&W mothball the 8 AG's it inherited from the
> Virginian. It seems to me that those 8 locomotives would have fitted in
> well with N&W "A" diagrams
>
> Geoff Burton
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20160109/b2423d91/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:24:54 -0500
> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Subject: Re: Tug Fork Operations
> Message-ID: <mailman.3005.1452433860.20657.nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Alex -
>
> You might refer the questioner to an article that appeared in The ARROW a
> while back entitled ?Flagging Instructions?.  It described in detail how
> trains were dispatched on the Tug Fork Branch.
>
> Ed King
>
> From: NW Mailing List
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 7:08 AM
> To: NW Mailing List
> Subject: FW: Tug Fork Operations
>
> I have received a request about operations on the Tug Fork. I expect
> members on the mailing list have firsthand knowledge and can provide better
> information than I can. Any help is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Alex Schust
>
>
>
> To: Alex Schust
> Subject: Tug Fork Operations
>
>
>
> Alex -
>
> Can you provide any information concerning Tug Fork
> operations circa 1950-52 regarding the following:
>
> When trains ran backwards (in reverse) or when they
> pulled backwards by running around their consist.
>
> I assume on the the Sand Lick Branch (freight and
> passenger consists) this happened from Filbert to
> the Gary Wye at least.
>
> I assume on the North Fork Branch they ran backwards
> (freight and passenger consists) from Jenkinjones to
> the Anawalt wye.
>
> How was it done on the South Fork Branch from Munson
> (No. 14) to the USC&C Cleaning Plant at Gary.
>
> If the Cleaning Plant was fed by pushing cars onto the
> car dump lead, where did the run-around of the consist
> take place so the engine could get behind?  Thorpe siding?
>
> Regarding passenger operations, besides the two examples
> mentioned above (Sand Lick & North Fork),  and considering
> there was no wye (that I know of) at Welch, it appears that at
> least in one direction or the other passenger trains had to run
> backwards at least to the Wilcoe turntable.  Can this be true?
> The pictures I have seen show local passenger trains backed
> into the Welch station which would mean, assuming no wye,
> they would start off backing down the Tug Fork Branch.  They
> could get to the other end of the consist by running around at
> the first siding (Storage or Tuglum), but they would still be
> running backwards although pulling their consist at least to
> the Wilcoe yard.
>
> One other thing I am looking for information on is how the
> mine shifter that handled the North Fork keep the USC&C
> coal loads seperate from the Pageton, Jenkinjones & Nassau
> coal loads (ie. the coal going to the cleaning plant versus the coal
> going to the Wilcoe yard for export east or other destinations
> west).
>
> Any information or insight you can provide on these items would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> By the way, I enjoyed Gary Hollow so much I bought a second copy for
> my aunt and uncle in Anawalt.  Also enjoyed Billion Dollar Coalfield as
> well as the NWHS Tug Fork Book.
>
> Thank you again, in advance, for any information you can provide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20160109/62cbd5a8/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:19:17 +0000 (UTC)
> From: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Subject: Re: Virginian AG's  taken over by N&W
> Message-ID: <mailman.3006.1452433872.20657.nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> N&W was almost all diesel by the time of the Vgn merger (late 1959) and
> was already scrapping their own steam. The AG's were not "mothballed;" they
> were sold for scrap, along with the last PA.
> Jim Nichols
>
>     On Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:09 AM, NW Mailing List <
> nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:
>
>
>  Members , here is a question from an Englishman
> I have read several books on the Virginian RR and Gene Huddlestones book
> on the H8
> My question is ?:Why did the N&W mothball the 8 AG's it inherited from the
> Virginian. It seems to me that those 8 locomotives would have fitted in
> well with N&W "A" diagrams
> Geoff Burton
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20160109/61158858/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of NW-Mailing-List Digest, Vol 130, Issue 8
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20160110/1a5a4d18/attachment-0001.html>