Mine runs 2 Re: loco motions

[NW Mailing List]

Jim,

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.

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.

Forward or reverse being secondary, facing the engine upgrade kept more 
water over the crown sheet and allegedly improved the tractive effort.

Thanks for asking.

Grant Carpenter

On 11/18/2025 10:06 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:
> Thanks Jimmy and Chris,
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> Thanks again,
> Jim Cochran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20251121/e514cadf/attachment.htm>