Topics

Detail of AAR 1937 boxcar - Murphy and Hutchins Roofs


S. Busch <SCSBusch@...>
 

Some further thoughts about the Murphy and Hutchins roofs on C&O cars -

Now I've had my work cut out for me!

I normally think of Murphy roofs as the type with raised rectangular panels, as supplied with the Red Caboose / Intermountain / IMWX 1937 boxcars, for example.

The Hutchins Dry Lading roofs were rather flat paneled, with a thin raised stiffening ridge running across the the center, parallel to the seams. Accurail supplies a real nice one with it's 40' outside braced single sheet box car. Ted Culotta used one of these on his Illinois Central auto car article in the Nov. 2004 RMC. Anyway, the C&O Diagram for the 4000-4500 series car says they had this roof. I don't know if I have a photo of one here though.

The 7000 - 7649 series car, according to it's diagram, is reported as having a Hutchins radial roof, except for 50 cars which were fitted with "S.R.E. Co." (Standard Railway Equipment) - Murphy - roofs. Looks to me that he Funaro & Camerlengo 1932 ARA C&O boxcar is a model of the Murphy roof car, even though the photo on the box shows a C&O Hutchins roof car. The radial version of this Hutchins design seems two have had two stiffening ridges per panel. Sunshine released a version of these cars some years back with the Hutchins roof. Also, the C&O bought 3 of the 5 prototype 1932 ARA cars after testing . These were built with Murphy roofs. C&O numbered the cars 1900 - 1902, and later renumbered them 2800 -2802. The C&O diagram for these cars reports them as having "S.R.E. Co." roofs.

Steve Busch
Duncan, Sc


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Steve Busch wrote:
I normally think of Murphy roofs as the type with raised rectangular panels,
as supplied with the Red Caboose / Intermountain / IMWX 1937 boxcars, for
example.
A dangerous generalization, Steve, as Standard Railway Equipment used the term "Murphy" for all its roofs with interlocking elements, starting well before solid-steel roofs were introduced. Within a particular era, it's not even safe, as SRE continued to sell different versions simultaneously. For confirmation, you can look at the Cycs for different periods.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:

A dangerous generalization, Steve, as Standard Railway
Equipment used the term "Murphy" for all its roofs with interlocking
elements, starting well before solid-steel roofs were introduced.
Sorry for interfering these interesting threads with a dull question.

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't they
simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof and weld it
together? Why these individual panels with the accompanying troubles of
making all those seams? Same for the sides?

Manfred


pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

Manfred,
I'm not an expert on this but I can guess as to why,
It's easier during assembly to handle smaller panels.
Ease of panel replacement for repairs.
The bumps, crinkles raised panels, etc, were added to impart more
strength in the roof as a whole. Easier to do with smaller panels
again.
That's my thinking on the question
Pierre Oliver


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Manfred Lorenz" <germanfred55@y...>
wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:

A dangerous generalization, Steve, as Standard Railway
Equipment used the term "Murphy" for all its roofs with
interlocking
elements, starting well before solid-steel roofs were introduced.
Sorry for interfering these interesting threads with a dull question.

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't they
simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof and weld it
together? Why these individual panels with the accompanying troubles
of
making all those seams? Same for the sides?

Manfred


Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:01 PM, S. Busch wrote:


Some further thoughts about the Murphy and Hutchins roofs on C&O cars -

Now I've had my work cut out for me!

I normally think of Murphy roofs as the type with raised rectangular panels,
as supplied with the Red Caboose / Intermountain / IMWX 1937 boxcars, for
example.

The Hutchins Dry Lading roofs were rather flat paneled, with a thin raised
stiffening ridge running across the the center, parallel to the seams.
Accurail supplies a real nice one with it's 40' outside braced single sheet
box car. Ted Culotta used one of these on his Illinois Central auto car
article in the Nov. 2004 RMC. Anyway, the C&O Diagram for the 4000-4500
series car says they had this roof. I don't know if I have a photo of one
here though.

The 7000 - 7649 series car, according to it's diagram, is reported as having
a Hutchins radial roof, except for 50 cars which were fitted with "S.R.E.
Co." (Standard Railway Equipment) - Murphy - roofs. Looks to me that he
Funaro & Camerlengo 1932 ARA C&O boxcar is a model of the Murphy roof car,
even though the photo on the box shows a C&O Hutchins roof car. The radial
version of this Hutchins design seems two have had two stiffening ridges per
panel. Sunshine released a version of these cars some years back with the
Hutchins roof. Also, the C&O bought 3 of the 5 prototype 1932 ARA cars
after testing . These were built with Murphy roofs. C&O numbered the cars
1900 - 1902, and later renumbered them 2800 -2802. The C&O diagram for
these cars reports them as having "S.R.E. Co." roofs.
Steve:

A shameless plug, but refer to the 1932 ARA box car book (www.speedwitch.com) for more info on these two types of roofs. The Hutchins roof on C&O 4000-4500 is actually a "Murphy" rectangular panel roof manufactured not by Standard Railway Equip. but by Chicago-Cleveland. For our purposes (HO scale), they are same and the differences are quite subtle anyway. These cars did NOT have the Hutchins Dry Lading roof of the 'teens and 20s. They just used the same name on them. The radial roof on the 1932 ARA cars is a Hutchins radial roof.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@speedwitch.com
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912


jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Sep 18, 10:54am, Manfred Lorenz wrote:
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Detail of AAR 1937 boxcar - Murphy and Hutchins
Roof

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't they
simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof and weld it
together? Why these individual panels with the accompanying troubles of
making all those seams? Same for the sides?
Manfred,

Perhaps it was the size of the presses available at the time (?).
Ignoring the sides for a moment, it is easy to note that both the roof
and ends required some kind of stamping to add strength. So perhaps (!)
it was the size of the stamping machines that dictated how large the
pieces could be. [When was the first one-piece stamped-steel end? Were
the "bulls-eye" ends one-piece?]

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


S. Busch <SCSBusch@...>
 

Ted Culotta writes:

The Hutchins roof on C&O 4000-4500 is actually a "Murphy" rectangular panel
roof manufactured not by Standard Railway Equip. but by
Chicago-Cleveland. For our purposes (HO scale), they are same and the
differences are quite subtle anyway.
Gads! This has begun to sound like the riddle of, "When is a dog's tail not a dog's tail?"

- Steve Bush
Duncan, SC


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Ted Culotta wrote:
The Hutchins roof on C&O 4000-4500 is actually a "Murphy" rectangular panel
roof manufactured not by Standard Railway Equip. but by
Chicago-Cleveland. For our purposes (HO scale), they are same and the
differences are quite subtle anyway.
Steve Busch replied
Gads! This has begun to sound like the riddle of, "When is a dog's tail not
a dog's tail?"
There was clearly cross-licensing, as Chicago-Cleveland also made a "Dreadnaught" end which was extremely similar to the SRE end. The same was true in spades for the truck business. Whether one wishes to reproduce these differences in model form is an individual matter, but let's at least recognize the prototype situation for what it is/was. Cyclopedias and the literature such as Railway Age provide ample evidence of the latter.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jeff Aley wrote:
Perhaps it was the size of the presses available at the time (?).
Ignoring the sides for a moment, it is easy to note that both the roof
and ends required some kind of stamping to add strength. So perhaps (!)
it was the size of the stamping machines that dictated how large the
pieces could be. [When was the first one-piece stamped-steel end? Were
the "bulls-eye" ends one-piece?]
Photos of the Van Dorn (bulls-eye) end do not show any seams that I can see. It appears to be a one-piece stamping; and it dates from 1912.
The important thing to remember about roofs is that they were structural (when outside metal roofs were superseded) and that they had to resist bending and twisting forces. A single sheet, as Manfred Lorenz suggested, wouldn't do that very well; and in fact one of the weaknesses of the PRR "flat roof" design was that its internal carlines weren't stiff enough to prevent "working" of the roof parts, thus generating leaks. The other weakness of that design is that it lacked the interlocking seams of the Murphy roof, which resisted leaks very well. There is ample evidence in the railway literature about leaks in the PRR roof, but essentially zero leaking problems reported for the later solid-steel roofs, such as the Murphy.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Sep 18, 10:53am, Anthony Thompson wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Detail of AAR 1937 boxcar - Murphy and
Hutchins
Jeff Aley wrote:
Perhaps it was the size of the presses available at the time (?).
Ignoring the sides for a moment, it is easy to note that both the
roof
and ends required some kind of stamping to add strength. So perhaps
(!)
it was the size of the stamping machines that dictated how large the
pieces could be. [When was the first one-piece stamped-steel end?
Were
the "bulls-eye" ends one-piece?]
Photos of the Van Dorn (bulls-eye) end do not show any seams that
I can see. It appears to be a one-piece stamping; and it dates from
1912.
Hmm. As they say on TV, "Myth busted!"

The important thing to remember about roofs is that they were
structural (when outside metal roofs were superseded) and that they had
to resist bending and twisting forces. A single sheet, as Manfred
Lorenz suggested, wouldn't do that very well;
Not even if you stamped in some Murphy-shaped panels and a raised
"seam-like" area between them?

Thx,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jeff Aley wrote:
Not even if you stamped in some Murphy-shaped panels and a raised
"seam-like" area between them?
Of course the rectangular panels would help; and those are mostly "rib-like," with their seam character at best a detraction from their structural role. Remember, those "seams" play the role of the internal carlines in earlier designs.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, jaley <jaley@p...> wrote:

Not even if you stamped in some Murphy-shaped panels and a
raised
"seam-like" area between them?
Wasn't this the Milwaukee rib approach?

Manfred


Schuyler Larrabee
 

Manfred Lorenz:

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't
they simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof
and weld it together? Why these individual panels with the
accompanying troubles of making all those seams? Same for the sides?
Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints help deal with it.

SGL


dehusman <dehusman@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:
Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car,
is absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints
help deal with it.
=======================
Aren't 86' boxcars welded though?

I would think that the reason was stamping a small piece of metal would
be much easier than trying to stamp an entire car roof as one piece.
They needed to be stamped as the corrugations give the panels strength.
By using smaller pieces you could sub contract the stamping out and
ship the roof sections to the car shop or rip track, with a one piece
roof that would be very cumbersome to ship. In addition if a roof was
damaged, you could replace one section as opposed to having to replace
and entire one piece roof.

Dave H.


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints help deal with it.
Schuyler is right, and the idea doesn't require separated panels; the segments and their ribs can all contribute to local expansion, even if the roof is welded. OTOH, stamping an entire roof is a pretty big die and a pretty big press, for no real gain that I can see.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:

Manfred Lorenz:

Why did the manufacturers use small panels anyway? Why didn't
they simply cut a sheet of steel the length of the car roof
and weld it together? Why these individual panels with the
accompanying troubles of making all those seams? Same for the sides?
Expansion and contraction, a significant dimension over a 40' car, is
absorbed by the individual
panels. Yes, the entire car expands and contracts, but the joints
help deal with it.

SGL
Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems. That is, if
they are not named Fitz.

As long as the materials have the same properties there should be not a
problem with temperatures I think.

Manfred


Schuyler Larrabee
 

Manfred Lorenz:


Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems.
That is, if they are not named Fitz.
Except that ships' hulls are made of steel plate probably a minimum of 1" thick, probably more.
Warships use plate 7-12" thick. Rail cars are built of steel sheet, often 3/32" thick.

There is a difference.

SGL


buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

Ted,
The MM article which covered the Milwaukee Road rib side cars
had a table which showed the various doors, ends, and roofs used on
each series. Several series were listed as having Hutchins roofs.
Photos show these to be single rectangular raised panels like the
Murphy. Just trying to get it straight in my head: there were
rectangular panel roofs which were marketed under the
name "Hutchins"? This would make sense out of the table in that
article.
Also, along with the discussion about single sheet vs multi-
panel roofs: The Milwaukee cars' roofs were welded at the seam caps,
which effectively made them one piece roofs. But the West Milwaukee
Shops were huge, very modern facilities (for the 1930s, at least!)
which could handle picking up a 40' x 9' piece of sheet metal. Were
other railroads' repair and construction forces geared to handle
this big chunk of steel? Take a look at the D&H chapter in the 1932
car book and there's a good picture of a roof being assembled by
hand. Let's assume that the roof would be built up out of two
halves, with the seam running longitudinally under the roof walk.
For a 1/4" thick sheet metal roof, that's roughly a 40' x 4.5' sheet
of steel. My Ryerson book says that 1/4" sheet weighs 10.21 pounds
per square foot. So that half-roof weighs 1840 pounds. That gets
kind of hard for two men to handle! On the other hand, a single
panel of a Murphy roof (12 panels) weighs about 150 pounds, which is
starting to sound like a two man job.
My money is on several of the theories already presented in
this string: Transportability, and repairability. Repairability
includes both the ability to have one damaged panel replaced, as
well as being able to handle the panels with reasonable size crews.
(I'm lumping railroad built or upgraded cars into the "repair"
category, since they would use the same facilities and crews.)
Now, to consider the reasons for making stamped car ends in
two or more pieces. If it was a matter of having large enough
presses to make the end in one piece, then how come there is a
horizontal seam in flat panel ends, such as those on the X29 cars?
The answer lies in the gage of the sheet used for the panels. On
both flat panel and the various corrugated ends, the bottom panel is
thicker than the top panel to resist the loads from shifting lading.
Going from 1/4" to 3/16" sheet on, say, a 9'x 5' upper end panel
saves 115 pounds. Hey, everything adds up. On refrigerator cars such
as the Phaudler cars which we've been discussing, the seams run
vertically. Because the lading is in tanks, there is no shifting
freight hitting the ends, so the lower portion of the ends does not
have to be thicker.

Sorry for drifting here... I find this structural stuff
fascinating!
Regards!
Phil Buchwald
>
Steve:

A shameless plug, but refer to the 1932 ARA box car book
(www.speedwitch.com) for more info on these two types of roofs.
The
Hutchins roof on C&O 4000-4500 is actually a "Murphy" rectangular
panel
roof manufactured not by Standard Railway Equip. but by
Chicago-Cleveland. For our purposes (HO scale), they are same and
the
differences are quite subtle anyway. These cars did NOT have the
Hutchins Dry Lading roof of the 'teens and 20s. They just used
the
same name on them. The radial roof on the 1932 ARA cars is a
Hutchins
radial roof.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@s...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912


Tom Houle <thoule@...>
 

Hutchins dry lading roof - I have four neat drawings that illustrate construction of the Hutchins sheet steel roof system. Ted Culotta, did you send these to me? Contact me off list for a digital set.
Tom Houle





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:

Manfred Lorenz:


Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems.
That is, if they are not named Fitz.
Except that ships' hulls are made of steel plate probably a minimum
of 1" thick, probably more.
Warships use plate 7-12" thick. Rail cars are built of steel
sheet, often 3/32" thick.

There is a difference.

SGL
Not that this has much to do with freight cars but ships are made of
individual plates welded to a steel frame, primarily for ease of
handling during construction, expansion, and contraction, and ease of
repair. It's a lot easier to replace several steel panels than an
entire hull, especially if the ship is afloat.

I would venture that freight cars are easier and cheaper to build
with several smaller standard components than one single metal side,
for example.

And warships haven't had hulls 7"-10" thick since the big gun
battleships, and even their hulls weren't that thick throughout. The
hulls on most modern ships -- not all, but most -- are steel ~1-3/4"
thick -- the upper works are made primarily from aluminum.

Marty McGuirk