Federal 604

phoenix · #1 09-06-06, 04:00

I've got a mate who is doing up a Federal 604 tank transporter and looking at the military trailers thread made me think about what kind of trailer it would have towed.

So I thought i'd ask here and see what pictures people have of 604's. His was used by australia, but pics of any would be of interest.

Keith Webb · #2 09-06-06, 05:16

That's one on the right with a Rogers trailer, isn't it?

phoenix · #3 09-06-06, 05:42

The one on the right isn't a 604, it looks like a 692. One on the left looks to be a 604.

Keith Webb · #4 09-06-06, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by phoenix
The one on the right isn't a 604, it looks like a 692. One on the left looks to be a 604.

OK, I admit I don't know the Federals too well. The trailer on the Holmes wrecker is a carrier trailer which I would imagine would normally be found behind a 3-tonner such as a CMP or MCP vehicle, and a pretty scary thing that would be too!

phoenix · #5 09-06-06, 07:09

You aren't the only one, I don't know a lot about them either, and it sounds like any information is pretty hard to come by.

These 2 photos are the best that i've found, and provide some insight, but more detail is always a good thing.

Brent Delaney · #6 09-06-06, 07:51

Hi Guy's

The top photo shows a Diamond T 969A 4 ton wrecker on the left, and a Diamond T 980 with Rodgers 40 ton trailer.

The next two photo's are both Federal 604's.

We have two 604's in our collection, one is driveable but has been repowered with a slightly later model cummins (bought it that way).

If you use the search engine on this sight under the heading federal you should see a older thread with lots of pictures etc.

I have both manuals on truck and trailer (not for sale) but can help with any information needed on these free of charge

Here is the trailer, a Trailmobile 22 1/2 ton 4 wheel 4DT (single row of 8)
Made by the Trailer Company of America in Cincinnati Ohio.

Brent Delaney · #7 09-06-06, 09:08

Having trouble uploading picture

phoenix · #8 09-06-06, 09:16

e-mail it to me if you like and i'll put it up.

greeny@vision.net.au

Keith Webb · #9 09-06-06, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by phoenix
e-mail it to me if you like and i'll put it up.

Inter-island communication!

Lynn Eades · #10 09-06-06, 11:53

We had an inter Island thingy. Carmen I think. Should be in that other thread where you were in trouble, Keith, is that what you meant?

Keith Webb · #11 09-06-06, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Lynn Eades
We had an inter Island thingy. Carmen I think. Should be in that other thread where you were in trouble, Keith, is that what you meant?

Trouble seems to follow me around sometimes!

phoenix · #12 13-06-06, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Trouble seems to follow me around sometimes!

Seems to be at the moment

Pic1

phoenix · #13 13-06-06, 01:28

Pic2

zemsi · #14 17-06-06, 16:12

... I just found a nice pic of a Federal 604 and a 20 ton trailer, made by Trailmobile. The image comes from the French Book "Les Véhicules du Débarquement" by Boniface & Jeudy, published in 1994.

gordon · #15 17-06-06, 21:26

|Those last couple of images are of the later versions of the truck - note that the lower section of the radiator grille is blanked off which is the main visual clue.

I don't really think of the Federals as tank transporters at all. ther were / are big trucks, but most of them seem to have been pulling fuel for the Army Air Corps / Army Air Force, or the wrecker version which pulled a semitrailer and was used for aircraft recovery.

Gordon

phantom16 · #16 17-06-06, 22:01

Was this truck also used by the British in WW2?
Thanks.

regards,

Dennis

gordon · #17 17-06-06, 22:20

I've never seen any evidence of it being used by the British, in fact I've only ever seen it in Army Air Force service - not even regular army stuff.

Not sure though.

Gordon

Alex Blair (RIP) · #18 17-06-06, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by phantom16
Was this truck also used by the British in WW2?
Thanks.

regards,

Dennis

Hi Dennis..
Canada used them in WW2 ..They were supplyed under contract Number Canadian,C.D.L.V. 332...
We used them after the war,but they were gone by 1960...
They were a massive truck with a 672 Cubic inch 6 cylinder Cummins diesel rated at 57 SAE Horse power....
They weighed,less trailer, in at 19,900 pounds....
Those 57 horses were a hell of a lot bigger than the horses they make today...

phantom16 · #19 17-06-06, 22:47

when I saw the H number on the last picture I thought they could have been used by the British but now it's cleared up.

regards,

Dennis

cliff · #20 17-06-06, 23:31

The photo below is from the AWM and is captioned as a Diamond T trank transporter & trailer. I believe it is a Federal tractor unit.

This is one of 4 photos showing 4 identical trucks traveling up the North/South Road (Stuart Highway) to Darwin during WW2.

Cheers
Cliff

cliff · #21 17-06-06, 23:38

going off topic a little this is another interesting (to me anyway) American made tractor unit in service with the Australian Forces.

It is a Reo tractor unit towing an oxygen generating plant and was in use by the RAAF. Note the unusual cammo.

This is one of a series of close up walk around photos of this Reo taken in Sydney during WW2 although I do have 1 or 2 other pictures showing it in Darwin.

Photo is from the AWM.

Cheers
Cliff

Alex Blair (RIP) · #22 18-06-06, 06:00

Cliff..
I have both original manuals of the Federal 604 and the Reo 28XS....
The 3/4 front pictures in the manuals are identical...
The first picture is definately a Federal 604 but the other camo truck looks different..
Could both chassis and cabs be built by the same manufacturer identical but badged different,one Reo..one Federal..??

cliff · #23 18-06-06, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex Blair
Cliff..
I have both original manuals of the Federal 604 and the Reo 28XS....
The 3/4 front pictures in the manuals are identical...
The first picture is definately a Federal 604 but the other camo truck looks different..
Could both chassis and cabs be built by the same manufacturer identical but badged different,one Reo..one Federal..??

Alex a lot of these trucks were built by different companies but to the same specs. I do not know if one company made the cabs for both but it is possible that a body builder sub contracted to both companies made the bodywork. I however don't believe that one company built the trucks and badged them as different makes, at least not in those days anyway but having said that anything is possible.

Below is another AWM photo from the series on the Reo proving that it is badged as a Reo.

Cheers
Cliff

#24 18-06-06, 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex Blair
They were a massive truck with a 672 Cubic inch 6 cylinder Cummins diesel rated at 57 SAE Horse power....

Ah, I think you have become confused with the generally misunderstood RAC HP rating, this engine is SAE rated at 150HP and probably enough torque to put a knot in the propshaft.

I think we've been here before in another thread, but here goes. . . . . .

The RAC rating is meaningless in engineering terms and is just a hypothetical sum to arrive at a figure for British govt annual vehicle taxation, it was dropped after WWII but because you paid a pound a year road tax per RAC HP this, together with highly taxed fuel, led to the British propensity for small engined cars and the number in the names which referred to the HP rating, eg. Morris 8, Austin 7, Standard 10 etc.

Before WWII the military had to register and pay tax on their vehicles and the RAC rating, for vehicles supplied to the British, was therefore included in the documentation. Even so the RAC rating was fixed in the Brirish minds as an indication of engine size and continued to be used as a descriptive term, there was always a possibility the "Old Ways" would return after WWII of course.

The RAC rating was derived for the Road Traffic Act of 1921 as a tax yardstick and made three fixed assumptions which were accurate at the time but were being well exceeded by the mid 30's:

Mechanical efficiency at 75%.
Mean Effective Pressure at 90psi.
Mean Piston Speed at 1000ft/min.

Assuming these fixed figures you then apply the following formula to get the RAC Rating:

HP = (D² x n) ÷ 2.5

Where D is the bore in inches and n is the number of cylinders.

No account is taken of the stroke as the piston speed is fixed.

Working backwards from your figures then, the Cummins HB600 engine will have a bore of 4.87" to give a RAC Rating of 57HP.

Incidentally having the total capacity stated, a stroke of 6.013" can be calculated.

R.

Alex Blair (RIP) · #25 18-06-06, 12:20

Hi Richard...
I should have given the other specs listed in the manual..
The Cummins was rated at 57 S.A.E. HP @1800 RPM,672 Cubic inch,4 7/8" Bore with a 6" stroke...
That calculates using your wizzardly math...

phoenix · #26 19-06-06, 02:32

Interesting comment about them not being used much as tank transporters. In australia they certainly were, and i've got photographs of them as late as teh vietnam conflict doing just that in australian service.

Brent Delaney · #27 19-06-06, 08:04

I agree with you phoenix,

Both our's were used in the New Zealand Army as Tank Transporters, they were replaced approx 1960 when the International F230D came into service.

phoenix · #28 19-06-06, 08:07

Well that's ANZAC service sorted, but by what others have posted that's not neccecarily the case elsewhere in the world.

That said i've also got pics of 604's carrying boats, ovens and water containers on their trailers.

phoenix · #29 19-06-06, 08:10

And for interests sake, here is a couple of pics of some in service during the vietnam conflict.

gordon · #30 19-06-06, 08:16

.... down your way?

Obviously the Federal / Reo is a big truck and a good hauler, but I don't think it would match the heavy Diamond T, otherwise we'd all have been using it? :dh:

Maybe it is as heavily rated and it was a supply quantity thing, but the last couple of 604s I looked at didn't look as heavily built or low geared as the 'T' Maybe the limitation was the direct loading on the rear bogie.

So, picture of a Federal 604 hauling a Sherman or something of the same weight then?

Gordon