Let me raise this question of disallowed military markings about one specific loco. When tracing BLW diesels for disposition I found that USAF VO-1000 7467 (ex-USATC same number) that had been donated to one of the southern museums by USAF had been repainted and renumbered to an NC&StL identity. So here's the question for someone affiliated with that museum: Was this done in response to any specific order from USAF, or was this a case where the museum members just happened to want an NC&StL loco to display?

I tend to think this is a wive's tale and remain unconvinced that such a regulation exists. I've seen the alleged rule/regulation alluded to in railroad-oriented publications for years, but like many rumors and untruths, they only get reprinted without someone citing to the original source. To date, nobody can cite the actual federal statute or CFR that requires this.

Anecdotally, I know of at least one or two museums that recieved railroad equipment through DRMO and did not remove markings, and one other museum to restored the markings on ex military equipment after it was painted over. However, this is inconclusive.

I'm not saying such a rule does not exist, I just have yet to see it.

I also disagree on the S-160 example. During WWII, the locomotives just had a "U.S.A" on the tender and may or may not have had "Army Transportation Corps" on the side. The TC logo appears to be a post WWII improvement. Like the guy in my neighborhood in St. Louis that had the WWII era jeep with U.S. Army markings or the numerous WWII and other historic military aircraft that fly, I tend to think the "confusion" factor would be limited to non-commercial, historic operations.

David M. Wilkins
Res ipsa loquitur, Utah

The original poster may want to contact the Hawaiian Railroad Society... they have 4 ex-military WW-2 era diesels, while 3 are from the Navy, one, their GE 25 ton is an ex-Army unit. I would not trust photos, but would ask what their research has found. (they are very good researchers)

Randy

Can't help with the stateside colors of diesels during WW2. Hawaii wasn't a state. According to our Historian Emeritus, the Army locomotives were mostly OD green with a few vehicle green, a semi-gloss OD. The first Navy diesels in Hawaii, 1933, were black. The Navy DRTC diesels received during the war were gray bodies, black frames and white lettering. Sometime after 1960 the Navy started painting locomotives yellow starting with locomotives serving in or at ammunition facilities. When we received our three Whitcomb Navy diesels they were yellow, our Army G.E. was black when we received it.

The 65-ton Whitcomb we have restored will be painted gray with lettering in white U S N 65-00174 per her 1960 appearance. We know of no prohibition to painting the locomotive in her military markings nor have we heard of any such prohibition.

Jeff Livingston
Historian
Hawaiian Railway Society

For the record, the specified shade of paint for the 1940-build Raritan Arsenal Brookville is "Olive Drab Shade 22 of the Suppliment to Army Specifications No. 3 - 1" as per the original specification/bid sheet.

I have no thoughts on the lettering question: our builder's photo shows an undecorated unit.

Regarding the question of some sort of military or federal government regulation prohibiting military paint schemes and numbers on formerly military-owned rail equipment, I've heard the rumors/myths but I've never seen anything in writing. I spent many years in active Army and Army Reserve railway units, I'm familiar with how DRMO operates, etc., and never did I come across anything stating that military markings could not exist on ex-military equipment. Rather than getting upset at seeing ex-military equipment wearing military markings, I think the military would be flattered. Worst case, the military wouldn't care what was done with it.

For those of you that are working on paint and lettering on military equipment I have available in PDF the tech manual that came out at the end of the war. If you would like a copy contact me.

John Deck