Dry Fork ops Re: loco motions

[NW Mailing List]

On 11/18/2025 10:20 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:
> Well crap, now Jim has me thinking about this. . .

Mike,

Jim can have that effect on people.

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.

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.

Grant Carpenter

> . . . 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?
>
> Mike Rector
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:07 AM NW Mailing List 
> <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> 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/ceb438b5/attachment.htm>