WW II Era US Army Caboose

T4TT,

     We will furnish all of the decals for any of your U.S. ARMY rolling stock projects if you like.

Dave, LBR

I could be wrong but, that sure looks like some sort of European Carriage, modified into a "caboose". 

Definitely European.  Here's another view, Germany, I believe:

Rusty

Hi Dave,

In fact I saw the decals you offer and the primary reason I posted this inquiry is to find out what kind of caboose to use in this project, what color to paint it and which decals to use. I plan on ordering decals from you very soon.

thanks

Gentlemen,

   I am not real sure the US Army ever had a WWII Caboose painted OD Green, the US Army Troup Transport Train shown in the Special Service Force movie, shows the Military Transport train, with no Caboose and Passenger Cars only.  I know when were were drafted for the Viet Nam war, the GG1 Engine pulled all passenger cars also, no Caboose at all on the end of that Military Transport Train.

PCRR/Dave

It's been written that the army did not use the Transportation Corps logo til well after WWII.  What is the origin of the original image of the caboose of the OP?

Hot Water, Rusty Traque's image of the 3 car sure looks real.

It would appear that if a caboose was used, the railroad would supply them:

Rusty

My bad. Since you referred to the OP (original poster) I thought you were asking about the photos of the two model cabooses, which are indeed fantasy.

IIRC, most Army rolling stock was not built for use here in the states during the war but overseas to replace the rail systems we systematically destroyed in preparation for the invasion.  Not at all long after D-Day, our ships were delivering locos, rolling stock, and brigades of RR men in uniform to set up and provide the logicistics we needed once off the beaches.   The RRing in the states could be provided by the RRs:   it was overseas that the Army had to provide its own.

Great prototype photos!

If you want to use the word fantasy in that context then everything we run and run on in this 3 rail O gauge hobby is fantasy.  We run on fantasy 3 rail track with engines with little electric motors, horn, whistle, bell and other sounds from an electronic circuit board, cars and scenery with little fantasy plastic or metal figures and the list goes on.  It's called "fun" and it is diversified over all whole hobby.

I would love to have a model of this caboose on my new Army layout.

Steve and Lady

But, the question was if the paint schemes used on the RMT and Weaver models shown in the OP.  Are they fantasy or not?

There has yet to be conclusive proof presented that they are not fantasy, save for some decidedly European examples. 

An individuals preferences for fantasy paint is not the issue.  I understand that even folks who try to adhere as close as they can to the prototype railroads also have "fun" in the hobby.

Rusty

I took an old Atlas caboose, sprayed it olive drab and put new trucks on it.

I did not use the term fantasy to be derogatory or insulting.  I am sorry if you took it that way Steve.  I just wanted to know if the army ever painted cabooses like the two pics of the toys I posted.  

Don,

I like your army caboose.

DMASSO, where did you get the trucks?

 I have to disagree. While the transportation logo was very uncommon during WW2, there's plenty of evidence that it was indeed used. Army RRs were often split between the Transportation and Quartermaster branches (with some being used by Ordnance, in places where heavy maintenance or munitions storage required railroad tracks). The Trans insignia is quite complex, so if you didn't have the stencils, it didn't get painted. But yeah, there are several photos of the Transport insignia painted on rolling stock.

That said, I will agree it was FAR more common into the 1950s and 60s to see it on rolling stock.

And yeah, very little rolling stock was painted OD green. All steam locos were black, diesels were usually yellow, grey or black and cars were usually grey or black as well.

The problem with Army RR equipment is that many reference books have shots of equipment taken in the 60s, when the railfan community discovered Ft Eustis and their steam locomotives. The writers, I can only assume, never check on if those 1950s-60s paint and marking jobs were actually being used during WW2, which was very rarely the case. If you're like me and know old uniforms really well (even more than any train subject, as that's my primary hobby, something I've written about in magazines and helped out with book, TV and Movie projects), it's obvious to tell a photo from the 60s as opposed to one from the 40s as the uniforms look totally different. But most train buffs probably would never know the differences.

Nope, not until way after WW2 was over and even then, not very often.

This forum has become quite maddening to me in this regard, in that people will either ask if something is right, or declare it is, to have paint and markings on military WW2-era cars and loads which never happened, then when myself (or anyone else) points out the inaccuracy, it never fails that someone will throw down the tired old, "It's supposed to be fun" phrase, which I feel is incomplete as they really should be honest and add, "-so why bother trying to get anything right?" as that's what they really mean.

So, why does anyone bother to ask, or make the declaration that it's 'accurate' when it clearly isn't? Obviously some people want it to look as correct as they can, and they should be able to make an informed decision on how to go with it, either way (accurate or toy-like) they want to go. I'm getting quite sick of those here who really don't want that info to get out there and want everything to look as toy-like as humanly possible and get really offended somehow when anyone dares to point out what is historically correct.