All,
I know this is late in coming .. one might want to Look at 1961-06AALCO_RS-32&RSD-33_OpManual.pdf . Personally I found the ALCO RSD33 as an Updated Low Nose Version of ALCO's RSD12 .
SP4460 Enjoy, and I hope you all like it.
Enjoy, and I hope you all like it.
Where's the "like" button here??
Well I hope this works. After a long time I just went for it. Atlas Rsd 4/5 trucks under a C420. This is the quick fast way to make a C620, and I think it'll do fine. Over all I did not like the idea of it basically being a C6X0, or looking like one of the pug nose big six axle alcos with 2000hp. This makes it seem like it is more for light rail, tight places, and fitting to the low HP of the locomotive.
The trucks go right on, and wireing is plug n play. I did have to play with the fuel tank, and cut it down a vary small amount.
GPDUDE SP4460 I hope this is posted in the right spot. I am a big fan of six axle locomotives, and I have just started getting in to second gen Alco's. I have just picked up a par of Atlas C420's for the module club I am in, and doing some home work I found out about the never ordered C620's. Is what I was wondering is has anyone taken RSD trucks, and tucked them under a C420? I've built an ALCO C620R, starting with an Atlas C424 shell. I used an Athearn SD-9 Frame with a NWSL motor.
SP4460 I hope this is posted in the right spot. I am a big fan of six axle locomotives, and I have just started getting in to second gen Alco's. I have just picked up a par of Atlas C420's for the module club I am in, and doing some home work I found out about the never ordered C620's. Is what I was wondering is has anyone taken RSD trucks, and tucked them under a C420?
I hope this is posted in the right spot.
I am a big fan of six axle locomotives, and I have just started getting in to second gen Alco's. I have just picked up a par of Atlas C420's for the module club I am in, and doing some home work I found out about the never ordered C620's.
Is what I was wondering is has anyone taken RSD trucks, and tucked them under a C420?
I've built an ALCO C620R, starting with an Atlas C424 shell. I used an Athearn SD-9 Frame with a NWSL motor.
We all LOVE pictures of such models. ":-)
Modeling the NYC Webster branch ca. 1963 in S Scale
mandealco While looking for the "modern" Alco on the Diesel Detailer forum, I found this thread: ~ http://dieseldetailer.proboards.com/thread/4577/alco-620 Still can't find the modern day Alco diagram, but it's out there somewhere. CheersSteveNZ http://dieseldetailer.proboards.com/thread/4577/alco-620
While looking for the "modern" Alco on the Diesel Detailer forum, I found this thread: ~
http://dieseldetailer.proboards.com/thread/4577/alco-620
Still can't find the modern day Alco diagram, but it's out there somewhere.
CheersSteveNZ
Link doesn't work for me.
This contains a modeller's version of diagrams for both a C-620 and a C-624. Both are incorrect and have been compiled from other Alco diagrams, and even still have the dynamic brakes in both locations. These are not as Alco proposed but are interesting to see. The thread goes on to note a reasonable starting point for the C-620 as drawn, would be C-420 and 628 parts on an RSD-15 frame.
On this forum there is also a rebuilt RSD-15, called a CRSD-25, which has a C-425 hood and cab on an RSD-15 frame.
DTI406's rules apply to all. I have seen a drawing of what a modern day Alco may look like, hard to argue either way.
After reading all posted, plus some other info, it seems settled that the C620 would have been on the C628 frame and hence much heavier than the RSD-15 or RSD-12. Using bits from a C420 shell on a C628 would be straight forward.
There is still the possibility of a C620L (against the SDL39) on a RSD-12 style frame, or shorter. You. Are. The. Modeler. Here.
Have fun with your trains. (Just nudge reality till it fits)
I'm sorry my posts are coming through out of order with other posts. I am a probationary member, so my posts are put into the thread a day later. At least that's what I think is happening.
Mark R. I'd just be guessing if the Bowser sideframes would fit the Atlas trucks .... Mark.
I'd just be guessing if the Bowser sideframes would fit the Atlas trucks ....
Mark.
Cutting trucks down I wont feel bad about doing. Shaving the outside ofthe Atlas ones down, and then shaving the inside of the bowser ones... then lay the bowser set over the atlas set.
A C-620 would have utilised the larger fuel tank of the C-624/628, and with the longer Tri-mount trucks, a C-620 frame would have been considerably longer than a C-420. It is extremely unlikely that Alco would have made another frame length option, with all 6-axles Centuries having the same 69'-6" frame.
Alco had enough different frame lengths in the 4-axle model range, with only the C-424 and C-425 sharing the same frame. The C-415, 420 and 430 all had different frame lengths. My take on this is because the C-420 was intended as a dual service model, whereas the C-424 was not. When the C-430 came along, it had significant internal changes that required a longer frame than the 424.
Although at first glance a C-620 would look like a C-628, it would still be worth building as Alco intended, due to the radiator changes, hood door and intake differences, plus the extended compartment behind the cab for both d'brakes and a steam generator.
Another factor that requires a longer frame is the size of the electrical cabinet in a 6-axle unit. This is why an RSD-12 is a couple of feet longer than an RS-11/36.
I've kitbashed several rare and one never built Alcos in N-scale, and I could be tempted to have a go at this one in N, if I didn't have a lot of unfinished models already. Without drawing a diagram based on actual Alco plan components (this is what I do for my kitbashes), I would start with an Altas C-628 to get the frame, cab, short hood and part of the compartment that would house the steam generator. I would use an Atlas C-420 Ph I (non d/b) hood for the bulk of the long hood. I would add the dynamic brake section from an Atlas C-630 to fill the gap between the engine hood and the steam gen. I would use the 630 d'brakes because the intakes and exhausts are across the hood and not along the hood, making the dyanmic brake section shorter, thus making enough room for the steam generator. A dual service C-620 would also need a sectioned fuel and water tank, and of course steam generator intake and exhaust on the hood roof. I think the overall model would be different enough from a C-628, to make it stand out from the pack.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
mandealcoI don't see the 620 having the same long short hood as the 420. The C-420 had the longer frame and the longer short hood purely to accommodate a steam generator, as on the Long Island and Monon units. Once you build a 620 on the 69' frame, the steam generator and dynamic brakes could both be placed behind the cab, as they were on a C-628. The C-620 could probably have had both d/brakes and steam gen in this position, unlike the C-628, which could have either, but not both in that position. Steam generator equipped C-628's had the hood top mounted resister grids of their 4 axle cousins. So to build a C-620, the changes have already been mentioned earlier. Use the C-420 radiator section, and shorten the engine bay while lengthening the hood behind the cab.
So to build a C-620, the changes have already been mentioned earlier. Use the C-420 radiator section, and shorten the engine bay while lengthening the hood behind the cab.
I don't see Alco changing the C420 that much to make the C620. That just seem like its far to much of a revamp of the product. If the steam generator had already been accommodate with the longer short hood I don't see why they would move it back.
Unless I am misunderstanding said. I am basically picturing a 628 with 420 radiators. At that point why make it if you lose that long nose, and the over all looks that make it a 420?
Mark R.The RSD trucks have a different looking side frame than the C628 - they don't look as bulky. IF the C620 were produced, I would tend to think they would have had the same bulkier trucks that the C628 had. The trucks under the RSD series were designed for a lighter RS (road switcher) chassis for better weight distribution. The trucks under the Century engines were of a heavier design due mostly in part to the physical size of the engine itself. The RSD trucks wouldn't be capable of handling that much weight.
The trucks under the RSD series were designed for a lighter RS (road switcher) chassis for better weight distribution. The trucks under the Century engines were of a heavier design due mostly in part to the physical size of the engine itself. The RSD trucks wouldn't be capable of handling that much weight.
M636CThe visible differences were mainly the heavier (physically bigger) equalising beams. The truck dimensions were the same. There is a preserved RSC-3 now fitted with equalising beams from two scrapped C-628s and the trucks look heavier as a result although the frames are original. The C628 truck frames may have been heavier but the visible difference was the heavier equalising beams.
So would it be passable if I went, and got some RSD trucks an then found some C628 side frames?
Just another comment on phase detail. As the C-620 would have been offered early on in Century production, it may well have had some phase I features. Early C-420's had a different engine air intake arrangement (hood side below engine exhaust hatch), and they had handrail mounting bolt holes in the outside of the walkways. With this in mind, it would be worth checking out a C-420 long hood for the rear 2/3's of the C-620 long hood. It would give the correct radiator, engine air intake, and door arrangement. The remainder of the long hood could be made from sections of C-628 hood, keeping the dynamic brake section closer to the engine section and the section where a steam generator would go would be directly behind the cab. The chassis and frame would largely be standard C-628 components with added access holes.
Mark R. LensCapOn ^ Unless they were using trucks from a traded in loco. A not unreasonable assumption for a modeler to make. Anyone willing to make a C620, I'm cutting them some slack. The trucks under the RSD series were designed for a lighter RS (road switcher) chassis for better weight distribution. The trucks under the Century engines were of a heavier design due mostly in part to the physical size of the engine itself. The RSD trucks wouldn't be capable of handling that much weight. Mark.
LensCapOn ^ Unless they were using trucks from a traded in loco. A not unreasonable assumption for a modeler to make. Anyone willing to make a C620, I'm cutting them some slack.
^ Unless they were using trucks from a traded in loco. A not unreasonable assumption for a modeler to make.
Anyone willing to make a C620, I'm cutting them some slack.
The visible differences were mainly the heavier (physically bigger) equalising beams. The truck dimensions were the same. There is a preserved RSC-3 now fitted with equalising beams from two scrapped C-628s and the trucks look heavier as a result although the frames are original. The C628 truck frames may have been heavier but the visible difference was the heavier equalising beams.
M636C
In Steinbrenner's Alco book, he implies the C-620 would have had the same basic dimensions as the C-628. The most noticeable difference being the smaller radiator area as suggested above.
I don't see the 620 having the same long short hood as the 420. The C-420 had the longer frame and the longer short hood purely to accommodate a steam generator, as on the Long Island and Monon units. Once you build a 620 on the 69' frame, the steam generator and dynamic brakes could both be placed behind the cab, as they were on a C-628. The C-620 could probably have had both d/brakes and steam gen in this position, unlike the C-628, which could have either, but not both in that position. Steam generator equipped C-628's had the hood top mounted resister grids of their 4 axle cousins.
So to build a C-620, the changes have already been mentioned earlier. Use the C-420 radiator section, and shorten the engine bay while lengthening the hood behind the cab. Job done.
CheersSteve
NZ
The RSD trucks have a different looking side frame than the C628 - they don't look as bulky. IF the C620 were produced, I would tend to think they would have had the same bulkier trucks that the C628 had.
There's some pretty good pics of Monon C-420s out there that may be useful. Here's a link to some of them:
https://www.google.com/search?q=monon+railroad+locomotives+C-420&biw=1060&bih=687&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCOTw5uqo88cCFQNXkgodITcADg
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Well this check was went faster then I thought! I wanted to try and get a RDS to see if I could make the C420. Oh well maybe in two weeks.
I am just about done with painting my second C420 though! Anyone have some photo's, or find some photos of light to mildly wethered C420s? Its always fun seeing what others can find
That would make sense.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Only that picture was taken 3 years before Conrail. Maybe PBNE was using them. Or just a runthrough of some sort. --Randy
Only that picture was taken 3 years before Conrail. Maybe PBNE was using them. Or just a runthrough of some sort.
Then the P&S loco was likely leased by the LV to help with the takeover of the CNJ trackage in Pennsylvania. The timing is correct.
rrinkerNot sure why there's a Pittsburg & Shawmut loco there, in Bethlehem PA - opposite side of the state!
Conrail leased some P&S switchers for a while along with a lot of other locomotives.