ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper UP paint schemes question


vapeurchapelon
 

Hello friends,

Intermountain did both closed side and open side versions of the ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper in UP paint schemes - but strictly divided: -the open side car is box car red and the closed side car is grey:

http://static.pwrs.ca/product_images/213212_1.jpg

https://www.pwrs.ca/announcement_images/products/Intermountian/HO%20Scale/Freight-Passenger/48680.jpg

Does that mean that there simply was neither any grey open side car nor any bcr closed side car?

Many thanks

Johannes


Tim O'Connor
 


oxide red color - CH-70-1

gray color - CH-70-2

Eventually UP adopted gray paint for most covered hoppers (airslides got aluminum paint)

Tim O'Connor


Intermountain did both closed side and open side versions of the ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper in UP paint schemes - but strictly divided: -the open side car is box car red and the closed side car is grey:

http://static.pwrs.ca/product_images/213212_1.jpg

https://www.pwrs.ca/announcement_images/products/Intermountian/HO%20Scale/Freight-Passenger/48680.jpg

Does that mean that there simply was neither any grey open side car nor any bcr closed side car?

Many thanks

Johannes

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


vapeurchapelon
 

Thanks again, Tim.
 
>> Eventually UP adopted gray paint for most covered hoppers <<
 
Do you know when, at least the year?
 
Johannes
 
Gesendet: Samstag, 17. November 2018 um 01:07 Uhr
Von: "Tim O'Connor" <timboconnor@...>
An: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Betreff: Re: [RealSTMFC] ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper UP paint schemes question

oxide red color - CH-70-1

gray color - CH-70-2

Eventually UP adopted gray paint for most covered hoppers (airslides got aluminum paint)

Tim O'Connor

 
Intermountain did both closed side and open side versions of the ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper in UP paint schemes - but strictly divided: -the open side car is box car red and the closed side car is grey:

http://static.pwrs.ca/product_images/213212_1.jpg

https://www.pwrs.ca/announcement_images/products/Intermountian/HO%20Scale/Freight-Passenger/48680.jpg

Does that mean that there simply was neither any grey open side car nor any bcr closed side car?

Many thanks

Johannes

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Ed Hawkins
 


On Nov 17, 2018, at 12:40 PM, vapeurchapelon <j.markwart@...> wrote:

Thanks again, Tim.
 
>> Eventually UP adopted gray paint for most covered hoppers <<
 
Do you know when, at least the year?
 
Johannes

Johannes,
I don’t have an exact answer but can provide some guidance that may be useful. Information & photos about UP’s 1958 cu. ft. covered hopper cars were published in RP CYC Volumes 28 and 30. 

UP 92000-92099, 100 cars built 11-40, CH-70-1, GATC, painted UP red oxide. Re# 1-100 in 1948 and re# again 10001-10100 in 1959-1963.

UP 101-500, 400 cars built ca. 3-49, CH-70-2, GATC, painted gray. Re# 10101-10499 in 1959-1963.

UP 500-999, 500 cars built ca. 2-52, CH-70-3, UP-Omaha, painted gray. Re# 10500-10999 in 1959-1963.

I have not found in-service photos of the CH-70-1 to help determine when they may have been repainted gray. What is known is that new UP cars of this type built in 1949 & 1952 were gray, so it’s likely that repainted CH-70-1 cars in 1949 & later were gray.

Incidentally, none of the UP's 1958 cu. ft. covered hopper cars were an exact match for the ACF-design InterMoutain HO model. The GATC cars had welded roofs vs. the ACF model with riveted roof seams, and the locking bars were different. The 1952 UP cars had an unusual Murphy roof variation as well as a substantially-different hatch cover arrangement & cover locks. 

Note: From ORER data it’s apparent that the original  UP 500 was one of 5 CH-70-2 cars built in 1949 removed from service prior to the 1952 cars being built. Car number UP 500 was repeated as part of the 1952 order, and thus the railroad used 500-999 for the 500 CH-70-3 cars built rather than 501-1000. 

Hope this helps. 

Regards,
Ed Hawkins








Tim O'Connor
 


Possibly hard to find photos because the UP rebuilt the CH-70-1 and CH-70-2 classes
as CH-90-17 in 1969, giving them 3209 cuft capacity with 12 hatches (they kept their
original square hatches).

Ed, would the old KATO kits be a better choice to model these? I recall the general
consensus was that the Kato models were closest to the General American cars.

Tim O'Connor





Johannes,
I dont have an exact answer but can provide some guidance that may be useful. Information & photos about UPs 1958 cu. ft. covered hopper cars were published in RP CYC Volumes 28 and 30.

UP 92000-92099, 100 cars built 11-40, CH-70-1, GATC, painted UP red oxide. Re# 1-100 in 1948 and re# again 10001-10100 in 1959-1963.

UP 101-500, 400 cars built ca. 3-49, CH-70-2, GATC, painted gray. Re# 10101-10499 in 1959-1963.

UP 500-999, 500 cars built ca. 2-52, CH-70-3, UP-Omaha, painted gray. Re# 10500-10999 in 1959-1963.

I have not found in-service photos of the CH-70-1 to help determine when they may have been repainted gray. What is known is that new UP cars of this type built in 1949 & 1952 were gray, so its likely that repainted CH-70-1 cars in 1949 & later were gray.

Incidentally, none of the UP's 1958 cu. ft. covered hopper cars were an exact match for the ACF-design InterMoutain HO model. The GATC cars had welded roofs vs. the ACF model with riveted roof seams, and the locking bars were different. The 1952 UP cars had an unusual Murphy roof variation as well as a substantially-different hatch cover arrangement & cover locks.

Note: From ORER data its apparent that the original  UP 500 was one of 5 CH-70-2 cars built in 1949 removed from service prior to the 1952 cars being built. Car number UP 500 was repeated as part of the 1952 order, and thus the railroad used 500-999 for the 500 CH-70-3 cars built rather than 501-1000.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Ed Hawkins
 


On Nov 17, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Ed, would the old KATO kits be a better choice to model these? I recall the general
consensus was that the Kato models were closest to the General American cars.

Tim,
The Kato model was derived from the design used by GATC with a welded roof and GATC-version locking bar arrangement. So it would be the better choice in some ways for modeling the UP CH-70-1 & -2. A downside is the molded-on grabs & other details that I believe the InterMountain model is better. 

The UP CH-70-1 came with wood running boards, whereas the CH-70-2 cars had U.S. Gypsum.  The now-available Kadee U.S.G. running board could be shortened to fit. Hand brakes & trucks will require changes & improvements for both models. 
Regards,
Ed Hawkins




Bryian Sones
 

Both the Intermountain and the Kato are good choices though neither one is a perfect model without some modification if you want an accurate U.P. model. If you upgrade the Kato car and make some glaring correction to the Intermountain car it is very difficult to distinguish which is which in a train.
   
I modeled the CH-70-1 and CH-70-2 using the Kato car back in the late 90's for the WRPM meet here in So Cal. I have also done some more recent modeling of them too using both the Intermountain and the Kato cars. You can easily bring the Kato car's detail up to par with the Intermountain by cutting out the modeled grab irons and re-placing them with brass grab iron. The models is fairly ridged even though I would still recommend cutting and replacing them one by one and giving the model some support as you go.Though time consuming It is not that difficult to do. As mentioned, the lock bars on the Kato car are closer to the U.P. Prototype. You will need to re-paint the cars if you are modeling the 1948-1950 era, The Kato closed side version of the U.P. paint scheme  was not properly painted. They were a very light grey, almost white and they never made the open side in any U.P. Paint scheme to my knowledge. The hatches on the car are a bit low. I replace mine with the Detail associates part FC 6212 also replace the walk ways with plano gypsum part #090. You could also nit bash the Intermountain car and the Kato together I suppose but I prefer just making correction to the Intermountain car without going that route.


Regards,
Bryian Sones 
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA 


On Saturday, November 17, 2018 5:58 PM, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:



On Nov 17, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Ed, would the old KATO kits be a better choice to model these? I recall the general
consensus was that the Kato models were closest to the General American cars.

Tim,
The Kato model was derived from the design used by GATC with a welded roof and GATC-version locking bar arrangement. So it would be the better choice in some ways for modeling the UP CH-70-1 & -2. A downside is the molded-on grabs & other details that I believe the InterMountain model is better. 

The UP CH-70-1 came with wood running boards, whereas the CH-70-2 cars had U.S. Gypsum.  The now-available Kadee U.S.G. running board could be shortened to fit. Hand brakes & trucks will require changes & improvements for both models. 
Regards,
Ed Hawkins






vapeurchapelon
 

Bryian, Ed, Tim,
 
please excuse the delay - I am still far from being retired and have tremendously to work (but this is good for earning money to buy more freight cars ;-)).
Many thanks for all your help! It's entirely enough, and I will (let) paint the CH-70-1 in grey, too.
 
Thanks again and greetings
 
Johannes
 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. November 2018 um 11:23 Uhr
Von: "Bryian Sones via Groups.Io" <bryian.sones@...>
An: "main@RealSTMFC.groups.io" <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Betreff: Re: [RealSTMFC] ACF 1958 cuft covered hopper UP paint schemes question
Both the Intermountain and the Kato are good choices though neither one is a perfect model without some modification if you want an accurate U.P. model. If you upgrade the Kato car and make some glaring correction to the Intermountain car it is very difficult to distinguish which is which in a train.
   
I modeled the CH-70-1 and CH-70-2 using the Kato car back in the late 90's for the WRPM meet here in So Cal. I have also done some more recent modeling of them too using both the Intermountain and the Kato cars. You can easily bring the Kato car's detail up to par with the Intermountain by cutting out the modeled grab irons and re-placing them with brass grab iron. The models is fairly ridged even though I would still recommend cutting and replacing them one by one and giving the model some support as you go.Though time consuming It is not that difficult to do. As mentioned, the lock bars on the Kato car are closer to the U.P. Prototype. You will need to re-paint the cars if you are modeling the 1948-1950 era, The Kato closed side version of the U.P. paint scheme  was not properly painted. They were a very light grey, almost white and they never made the open side in any U.P. Paint scheme to my knowledge. The hatches on the car are a bit low. I replace mine with the Detail associates part FC 6212 also replace the walk ways with plano gypsum part #090. You could also nit bash the Intermountain car and the Kato together I suppose but I prefer just making correction to the Intermountain car without going that route.
 
 
Regards,
Bryian Sones 
Union Pacific Prototype Modeler
Murrieta, CA 
 

 
 

On Saturday, November 17, 2018 5:58 PM, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:
 
 
On Nov 17, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
 
Ed, would the old KATO kits be a better choice to model these? I recall the general
consensus was that the Kato models were closest to the General American cars.
 
Tim,
The Kato model was derived from the design used by GATC with a welded roof and GATC-version locking bar arrangement. So it would be the better choice in some ways for modeling the UP CH-70-1 & -2. A downside is the molded-on grabs & other details that I believe the InterMountain model is better. 
 
The UP CH-70-1 came with wood running boards, whereas the CH-70-2 cars had U.S. Gypsum.  The now-available Kadee U.S.G. running board could be shortened to fit. Hand brakes & trucks will require changes & improvements for both models. 
Regards,
Ed Hawkins