The early business careers of Frank R. and
William B. Fageol can be found on the Fageol Motors page, this writeup
pertains to the brothers' second major business enterprise, Twin Coach,
which can trace its origins to the Fageol Motors Co.
The formation of that firm was announced in the
September 2, 1920 Oakland Tribune. The new corporation’s
included Frank R. Fageol, president; Webb Jay, vice-president; Calvin
vice-president of sales; Maj. S.E. Hutton, secretary-treasurer; A.E.
general manager and I.H. Crow, supt. of the machine shop. Its formation
firm was announced in the August 28, 1920 issue of Automobile Topics:
“Fageol Trucks Are To Be Made in Ohio
“Fageol Motors Company of Ohio Formed in
Cleveland - A
Separate Company from California Plant -Oakland Men Included in
“Fageol trucks, which for the past three
years have been
manufactured in Oakland, Cal., are now to be built in Cleveland. For
purpose a new organization has been formed to take over the Ohio
project. The Fageol Motors Company (of Ohio) is the name
new enterprise and its executive personnel is made up of men who were
identified with the California company. A plant in the Ohio city,
occupied by a motorcycle manufacturer, has just been secured, and
factory units will be added, according to present plans. Limited
to start in September, gradually increasing the output until the
schedule of 60 trucks a month by January is attained.
“F.R. Fageol, founder of the Oakland company
responsible for the truck’s design and its development, is president of
newly formed company, having resigned as president of, although
interest in the California plant. Fageol, for a number of years a car
distributor himself, has learned by such experience just what the
the truck user are, and also the value of factory cooperation with the
This plus his truck and tractor building experience fits him for his
“Calvin C. Eib, who, as told in these
columns last May, left
the management of the Denver branch of the Willys-Overland Company to
the sales of the Ohio plant, although it was not known at that time
separate company would be formed, assumes the post of vice-president in
of sales. The other executives Fageol brings with him from California,
being I.H. Crow, who was superintendent of machine shop production for
Oakland Fageol plant.; Major S.E. Hutton, secretary and treasurer of
company, and A.E. Jurs, general superintendent of production. Webb Jay,
name is well-known in connection with the vacuum tank, is a director
“The Ohio company, while entirely friendly
to the Oakland
organization, is to be conducted as an independent enterprise.Under the
arrangement consummated, the
Cleveland plant will turn out exactly the same truck as made on the
has at its disposal the engineering department of the Oakland outfit,
incidentally, will carry on all the development work for the two
Ohio company has exclusive rights to all territory east of the Rockies
export sales as are ordinarily handled from the Atlantic seaboard. The
organization will concentrate on but two of the Fageol truck modes, a
duty, 2 ½ - 3 tons capacity, and a heavy duty, for loads from 3 ½ tons
Both of these feature the Fageol seven-speed compound transmission,
been described previously in Automobile Topics.”
The September 25, 1920 edition of Michigan
Financial Record announced the new firm had leased the former plant of
Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co.:
“Fageol Locates In Cleveland
“It is announced in Cleveland that the
Company, of Oakland, Cal., maker of trucks, has taken a short time
lease on the
plant formerly occupied by the National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry,
use the 35,000 square feet of floor space as a branch plant pending the
erection of a factory. The Cleveland business will be entirely
that in California, and for this reason the Fageol Motors Company of
Ohio has been organized, in which men well known in the automobile
industry of Cleveland and elsewhere are financially interested, among
being F. C. Chandler, founder and president of the Chandler Motor Car
At the Cleveland plant only two Fageol models will be made—a 2 ½ to
and a heavy duty model for loads of from 3 ½ tons up. The vehicles will
duplicates to those made on the coast.”
September 15, 1920 issue of the Commercial
included further details of the new firm as well information about the
new 7-speed transmission:
“Fageol Trucks Now Also Being Built in
“The Fageol Compound Truck which for the
past three years
has been built in Oakland, Calif., is now being manufactured also in
Ohio, in order to meet the demand that has been coming to the
from truck buyers of the east and middle west. Fageol trucks are built
sizes 1 ½, 2 ½, 3 ½ - 4, and 5-6 tons capacity. Detailed specifications
found in the specification table in this issue. The Fageol organization
several years been convinced that the truck of the future must be
capable of a
wider range of operation. The following description tells their
solution of the
“The 7-speed compound transmission which is
responsible for Fageol success on the Pacific coast, gives
a range of power declared by its makers to be 91 per cent greater than
possible with the conventional 4-speed type of transmission, as well as
cent more road speed, without in the least increasing the speed of the
The Fageol transmission, used exclusively in this truck, is in
quite the same as the 4-speed type, having exactly the same number of
shafts, etc. Yet the Fageol transmission provides five speeds
and two reverse.
“The extra speeds or gear ratios of
the Fageol are
obtained through a very simple device developed and perfected by F.R.
the engineering department of the Fageol Company. This
which patents are pending, makes it possible to run the countershaft of
ordinary transmission at two speeds instead of one. The fifth forward,
is an over-gear which, while not increasing the number of engine
per minute, gives the truck 36 per cent more road speed, thus reducing
consumption per mile. The first speed forward in
the Fageol is an
extra low gear which gives the truck 91 per cent more pulling power.
“The range of power and speed made possible
transmission has been found especially desirable by truck owners of the
coast where are found the most exacting traffic conditions in America.
successful motor truck must be able to haul a full load up 25 per cent
per cent grades over all kinds of mountain road. It must be capable of
withstanding the rapid transition from summer heat to freezing
compensate for lowered efficiency clue to high altitude—25 per cent at
ft.—it must have a reserve of power far beyond sea level requirements.
“In addition to its compound transmission,
the Fageol embodies also ease of control and comfort for the
The truck is said to steer with unusual ease. All operating levers such
throttle, brake and gear-shaft, are most conveniently located and so
constructed as to insure comfort when being maneuvered.
“The driver is relieved of the necessity of
oiling springs, etc., by the oil reservoir spring hangers which keep
all of the
springs on the truck lubricated. A very complete set of tools is
located in a substantially built tool box. To provide for the driver's
a well upholstered form-fitting seat is furnished.
“The Fageol Motors Company (of
Ohio) as the new
Cleveland company is known, is headed by F.R. Fageol, founder
California company, who is largely responsible for the development of
as well as its success west of the Rockies, where it is one of the
three or four
big leaders in the trucking field. Mr. Fageol attributes much
success as a truck manufacturer to the fact that for a number of years
he was a
distributor of cars and trucks. This experience, he declares, has been
inestimable help in enabling him to build a truck which meets the
demand of the
truck user and consequently is easily handled by the dealer. This same
experience has taught him the value of factory co-operation with the
Associated with Mr. Fageol is Calvin Eib, who will assume the position
president in charge of sales for the Fageol Company (of Ohio). Mr
brought with him from California, I.H. Crow, who has been the
machine shop production for the Oakland plant, Major S.E. Hutton,
treasurer of the new company, and A.E. Jurs, general superintendent of
production. Webb Jay, of Vacuum Tank fame, is a director and vice
The 1925 edition of Walker's manual of Far
corporations & securities lists the corporate makeup of the firm
“Fageol Motors Company - Authorized $500,000
“Organized under the laws of Cal., Nov. 20,
Manufacturers automobile trucks and
coaches at Oakland, Cal. Owns* Fageol Motors Company of California
Kent, Ohio, which company acts as distributor for Fageol Motors Company
territory east of the Rock Mountains, and the Fageol Motor Sales
California corporation organized as a selling company located at
Wash.Officers— L. H. Bill, Pres.; &
Treas.; F. R. Fageol, 1st Vice-Pres.; W. B. Fageol, 2nd Vice-Pres.;
3rd Vice-Pres.; J. H. Fort, Sec; F. J. Wuepper, Asst. Sec. Directors—
Bill, Robt. Dalziel, Jr., F.R. Fageol, W.B. Fageol, J.H. Fort, Arnold
Stuart S. Hawley, Webb Jay, Charles H. Wood. Head Office – 107th
& Hollywood Blvd., Oakland, Cal.”
(* an error, the Ohio firm was corporately
unrelated to the
California firm although the two firms shared some officers and
As the sales of interurbans and streetcars
decline in the early 1920s two major Eastern rail- and street-car
became interested in acquiring stock in the motor coach manufacturing
industry. Officers of the American Car and
Co. of St. Louis, Missouri, and the J.G. Brill Company of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, hoped to acquire control of the Hall-Scott Motor Car Co.
Fageol companies of California and Ohio in order to obtain an
On May 5, 1924 Samuel M. Curwen, president
of the J.G. Brill
Company, convinced its board of directors to commit to a $100,000
Fageol, purchasing 1,000 shares of Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio common and
shares of Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio preferred. The purchase was
Day & Zimmermann, a Philadelphia-based engineering consultancy that
also made an investment in the firm - believing their designs superior
competing firms. Brill also purchased a significantly smaller amount of
Motor Co. stock at about the same time as their Kulhman subsidiary
supplied the firm with motor-bus coachwork.
The investment was not Brill’s first
involvement with the
automobile industry. In 1904 they constructed 10 furniture lorries for
York customer and since that time Brill and its subsidiaries (in
Kulhman) had constructed small numbers of van and bus bodies for their
rail transportation customers.
Curwen stated that he 'had been in touch
with what Mr.
Fageol had been doing for over two years and … felt that the Fageol bus
attracting more favorable comment...than any other at this
In August of 1924 Hall-Scott and Fageol of
given a bankers' syndicate a one-year option to purchase their assets
controlling interest in their stock. No action was taken and on August
the option expired.
William H. Woodin, the president of American
Car & Foundry
Company, had been thinking along the same lines as Curwen and when he
that Fageol and Hall-Scott’s shares were about to be available, he
complicated scheme to acquire a controlling interest in the two firms.
On May 5, 1925 J.G. Brill Co. acquired a
interest in the Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio which put it in a
better bargaining position with ACF’s Woodin, who wanted to buy all of
Woodin and Curwen discussed the matter
during June of 1925 and
a plan was consummated whereby American Car & Foundry and Brill
combine their assets and put a deal together where they would control
Hall-Scott and the California and Ohio branches of Fageol. The complex
transaction would result in the end of Brill’s autonomy but Curwen
resulting scheme was not only in the Brill Company’s best interest, but
the best interests of its stockholders as well.
Ohio branch of Fageol kept out of the headlines for the next few years,
returning in an article that appeared in the August 23, 1925 edition of
FOR WORLD TRADE:
“Large Oakland Company Reports Sale to
of Fleets of Busses, Parlor Cars, Chassis
“The Oakland, California, plant of the
Fageol Motors Company
is completing several additions and improvements to its already
plant. A two-story handsome brick administration building is being
this week, which will give the executives, office force and engineering
department much larger and commodious quarters. The present
of the main building will be changed over into a production department,
offices for the factory superintendent. A recent survey shows that:
“The production of the Fageol Safety
Coaches, both four and
six cylinders, and also Fageol compound motor trucks in five capacities
increased practically every month, and as compared to last year, is an
of over 100 per cent.
“The greatly increased production makes it
employ a large crew of men and Fageol is recognized as being one of
foremost home industries.
“The California plant has produced and
shipped over 150
complete coaches to the Kent, Ohio, plant to far this year to help out
demands made on the eastern factory, notwithstanding that the
both the Kent, Ohio, chassis and body plants is being steadily
“J.H. Fort, secretary and sales manager of
company, has just returned from an eight months trip to Australia. Fort
wonderful possibilities in that commonwealth for modern motor busses,
especially Fageol safety coaches and he succeeded in selling the first
all-American modern motor coach complete with body, ever seen in the
commonwealth, a fleet of six-cylinder parlor cars to the South
Railways, a fleet of street car chassis to the Brisbane Tramway Trust,
Queensland a number of chassis to independent operators in Sydney and
parts of New South Wales and also a fleet of Frisco double-deck busses
large independent operator of Sydney. The first long distance bus run
modern equipment, has gone into service between Sydney and the new
capital, 150 miles distant, with Fageol six-cylinder parlor cars,
Westinghouse airbrakes. This equipment is attracting a great deal of
throughout the commonwealth and is the beginning of an evolution in
“They have consistently turned out a machine
efficiency and durability that the last four years has witnessed a
increase in press business from $1,200,000 to approximately $5,000,000.
the company firmly established in the field and with an increasing
motor busses, the continued growth of the Fageol company seems assured.
“The prosperous financial condition of the
Fageol company is
reflected in its securities listed on the San Francisco Stock Exchange,
the field of industrial stock for the past several weeks.
“It is interesting to note that this
originated on the Pacific coast, has now assumed International
that its products have been shipped to a number of foreign countries
recently created quite a sensation in London. An English motor Journal
recent issue devoted several pages to a full description of the Fageol
London, and it claims it as the acme of the luxurious highway
As the ink was drying on the aforementioned
article a simple stock transaction resulted in the purchase of a
portion of Hall-Scott Motor Car Company stock by Brill and A.C.F.,
the first step in Curwen and Woodin’s four step plan.
On August 29, 1925 the directors of the
American Car and
Foundry Co. and J.G. Brill Co. agreed to purchase with their own cash
shares of stock of Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. Out of a total of 1,000
(worth approximately $4 million), American Car and Foundry purchase 556
and J.G. Brill, 111 shares – the remaining 333 shares remained in the
third parties which included Hall-Scott’s directors and executives, of
handful were directly connected with the Fageol Motors Co.
The remaining stock was held by various
third parties, who
were offered a substantial amount of money (or stock in ACF) for their
earlier in the month. As the deadline approached an overwhelming
the shareholders approved of the swap and on August 29, 1925 A.C.F. and
were able to acquire approximately 66% of Hall-Scott’s shares. American
& Foundry spent approximately $2.5 million J.G. Brill contributed
half million ($500,000).
Aug. 31, 1925 when the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio purchased the
inventories of the Fageol Motors Company of Cal. located at Kent, Ohio.
Fageol Motors Company of Ohio agreed to pay a minimum royalty of
year and a maximum of $300,000 per year for 10 years or until a total
$3,000,000 has been paid to the Fageol Motors Co. of Cal. The Fageol
of Ohio also obtained the exclusive rights to the distribution of
products east of the Rocky Mountains.
The September 1, 1925 issue of the Oakland
on the transaction as follows:
“Giant Motor Merger To Form Here
“Battle for Control of Fageol Company in
Oakland Has Caused
Jump of $15 Per Share on Wall Street
“Buying of Stock Seen As Move In Formation
of Great Industry
in Eastbay and Expansions on Large Scale
“A merger of giant industries, affecting
millions of dollars
invested in Oakland and foreshadowing future expansions was forecast
the New York stock market which turned its eyes upon Oakland as the
for a battle for control of the Fageol Motor Company of Oakland.
“Fageol common stock jumped to $15 per share
“The battle for Fageol, following close upon
the heels of
the purchase of the Hall-Scott Motor Company of Oakland by the American
& Foundry Company, is asserted to be another move in the formation
gigantic industry centered in Oakland with millions invested and with
expansion on a large scale.
“HALL-SCOTT DEAL HELD BUT PRELUDE
“The price of the Hall-Scott company at its
was between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000, half in cash and the other half
of the American Car & Foundry company. As the Fageol company used
Hall-Scott motors and had close business connections with that concern
practically inter-dependent, it is asserted that the control of the
was but a prelude to the control of the other, making one great concern.
“That there is intense rivalry for
participation in Oakland
industry is shown in the feverish movements in the New York stock
it is asserted that both the American Car & Foundry company and the
Brill company of Philadelphia, have clashed in competition for the
Oakland’s motor bus plant.
“The entrance of the Brill company into the
field, it is
prophesized, may boost the securities of the Oakland concern even
“SEEKING OF LOOSE SHARE PRECIPITATES BATTLE
“The Brill company is known to have made an
offer for the
Fageol holdings about eight days ago, but was refused. New York
intimate that this concern may have gone into the market to gather in
20,000 loose shares said to be available, thus precipitating the
“Pending final reports, it is admitted that
control of the
company may have passed in the fluctuations of the buying, but this is
“The battle for the control of Fageol, it is
admitted, is a
logical sequel to the Hall-Scott purchase, and there are rumors that
vehicular industries, outside the biggest auto corporations, may be
“The actual purchase price of Fageol, it is
be several hundred thousand dollars, and observers assert that possibly
merger may be under way, involving more than $10,000,000 in Oakland
Step three of the ACF-Brill takeover
commenced on September
29, 1925 when J.G. Brill’s board of directors authorized President
Curwen to form a holding company with American Car & Foundry Co.
purpose was to acquire a controlling interest in Hall-Scott, the Fageol
Company of Ohio, and the corporately unrelated Fageol Motors Company in
Oakland. A maximum amount was set at $1.5 million which included the
$500,000 already spent on Hall-Scott shares one month earlier.
In the midst of the ongoing corporate
negotiations with ACF
and Brill, the Fageol brothers lost their beloved father, John. A small
obituary was included in the October 21, 1925 issue of the Oakland
“FAGEOL — in St. Helena, California. October
20, 1925. John
J. Fageol, husband of Mary M. Fageol and father of Rollle B.,William
R., and Claud H. Fageol and Hazel Fageol Martin, and brother of Fred
Mrs. Mary Jamison, and Mrs. Lena Wilson. A native of Illinois, aged 70
11 months, 5 days.
“Funeral services at the chapel of the
4499 Piedmont avenue, Oakland, Thursday, October 23, 1925, at 2:45
m. Remains at the chapel of Grant D. Miller, 2372 E. 14th street,
until 1:30 o'clock p. m., Thursday."
On October 15, 1925 a majority of
outstanding preferred and
common stockholders of The Fageol Motors Company, of Ohio, accepted an
J.G. Brill Co. to exchange their holdings for stock in a new
corporation to be
organized at a later date. However the sale or exchange of the stock of
corporately unrelated, but similarly-named firm in Oakland was another
entirely. The November 20, 1925 issue of the Oakland Tribune provided
of the proposed takeover of the Fageol’s Oakland operation:
“FAGEOL STOCK EXCHANGE
“Stockholders of Fageol Motors will receive
in a day or so
details of the plan worked out by American Car and Foundry and J.G.
Company to merge Fageol into a new company which it is reported will
stockholders $14 a share of the new securities for each share of common
The plan approval of two-thirds of the stockholders, but it is believed
will be forthcoming. A new company, Fageol-Hall-Scott Motor Company
formed. It is planned, with capitalization of 100,000 shares of $100
preferred stock and 300,000 shares of no par value common, but which it
expected will have a market value of $50 a share.
“Stockholders of the present Fageol Company
will receive, it
is understood, the full par value of $10 on the common and in addition
given an additional amount of approximately $4 a share for the surplus
company, which is being determined by an auditor at present.
“The stockholders will receive one new share
of $50 common
for each five shares of $10 common now held and one new share of $100
for each twenty-five shares of common held. This makes the common worth
the exchange. The preferred stockholders will receive one new share of
preferred for each ten shares now held at the closing. In the event the
proposal is not ratified, the company will receive a royalty from the
Motor Company of Ohio on each bus the new company manufactures inasmuch
Fageol of Ohio has ratified the deal, final approval having been given
Although President Louis H. Bill and most
officers and directors
of the California branch of Fageol supported the deal, many
shareholders were reluctant to relinquish control of the firm, and the
not accepted by the required two-thirds majority. Consequently, Fageol
Co. did not take part in the ACF-Brill merger/takeover and remained
by the goings-on of the similarly-named firm in the east as did its
wholly-owned subsidiary, the Fageol Motor Sales Co.
However ACF & Brill were able to acquire
90% of the
Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio’s shares and on December 23, 1925 step three
completed and the American Car and Foundry Motors Company (ACF
incorporated in the state of Delaware. Although the new firm did not
property, it controlled, through stock ownership, the Hall-Scott Motor
and the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio.
At a meeting of its board of directors on
December 31, 1925
resolutions were passed approving the acquisition by the American Car
Foundry Motors Company of the entire capital stock of the Hall-Scott
Company and The Fageol Motors Company from their respective
exchange for the issuance to the latter of preferred and common stock
American Car and Foundry Motors Company.
The fourth, and final step of the ACF-Brill
place on January 26, 1926 when a Delaware holding company named the
Corporation was formed for the purpose of acquiring the entire stock of
American Car & Foundry Motors Co., and the J.G. Brill Company.
Brill Corp.’s American Car & Foundry
subsidiary owned 100% of Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. and 90% of Fageol
of Ohio. ItsJ.G. Brill Co. subsidiary
owned 100% of the American Car Co.; the Kuhlman Car Co.; the Wason Mfg.
Cie J.G. Brill.
The January 6, 1926 issue of the Oakland
the recent transactions to their interested readers:
“Hall and Fageol Made Officials of New
“New York, Jan. 6. — (AP) — The American Car
Motors Company, which recently was organized to take over control of
Hall-Scott Motor Car Company of Berkeley and the Fageol Motor Companv
Oakland and Fageol Motors Company of Kent, Ohio, today announced that
Woodin has been named chairman of the board of directors and C.S. Hall,
“Colonel E.J. Hall, one of the co-designers
of the Liberty
Aeroplane engine, and head of the Hall-Scott Company, was made a
together with Horace Hager, W.L. Stancliffe, G.R. Scanlon and F.R.
Wick is secretary and S.A. Mallette, treasurer.
“The J. G. Brill Company of Philadelphia,
municipal railway cars, through its interest in the Hall-Scott and
Companies, is represented on the board of directors by …..”
“F.R. Fageol, noted bus designer and
vice-president in charge of sales, with headquarters in New York.”
The February 10, 1926 issue of the Oakland
“Fageol Motors Had Good Year
“Gross sales of Fageol Motors in 1925 were
profits before charges were $546,214, and net profit was $310,124,
the report of President L. H. Bill at the annual meeting of
yesterday afternoon. Charges included $111,988 for reserve; $65,848 for
taxes, and $37,651 for dividends, including checks mailed this month.
surplus as of December 31 last was $511,142. President Bill said that
company's outlook for 1926 on the Pacific coast, Hawaii, Australia and
America is promising. He reported that during the last year the company
placed three new models on the market.
“In its contract with American Car &
Foundry Fageol will
receive a minimum royalty amounting to $75,000 in 1926, it is reported.
were no changes in officers or directors.”
On March 22, 1926 the Associated Press
American Car & Foundry Motors was consolidating its bus-building
“Motor Co. Plant To Be In Detroit
“Huge Combine Will Have Central Factory in
“(Associated Press Leased Wire)
“DETROIT, March 22. - The American Car and
Company, combining the resources and staff of the Fageol Motors Company
Kent, Ohio, and the Hall-Scott Motors Company of Berkeley, is a
development, will have its main plant for the manufacture of motor
motor coaches here, S.C. Sale, president, announced today.
“The American Car and Foundry plant,
occupying 45 acres
here, will begin operations at once, building up in 60 days to a
schedule of 15
completed units dally.
“Col. E. J. Hall, collaborator with Col.
Jesse G. Vincent in
designing the Liberty motor, will be vice-president of engineering in
operations. F.R. Fageol will be vice-president in charge of sales with
headquarters in New York.
“The J.G. Brill & Co. of Philadelphia,
municipal railway cars, through its interest in the Hall-Scott and
companies, is represented in the new organization by its president,
Curwen, who is director and member of the executive committee of the
Car & Foundry Motors Company.”
The news coincided with the placement of a
advertisement in the Detroit newspapers announcing the firm was
production of Fageol Safety Coaches in Detroit.
Apparently American Car & Foundry Motors
efforts to acquire the Oakland-based operations of Fageol Motors Co.,
7, 1926 Associated Press newswire reporting:
“American Car Buys Fageol Motors, Said
“(Associated Press Leased Wire)
“New York, May 7.— Private dispatches
received in Wall
street from San Francisco state the sale of the Fageol Motor Company of
California to American Car and Foundry again is reported as near
Directors of Fageol are understood to have approved an offer for
stock, a decision on which is expected not later than May 10.”
Once again their efforts failed, the May 13,
1926 issue of
the Oakland Tribune reporting:
“Fageol Motors common sold off 50 cents to
$5.50 on strength
of New York reports that American Car and Foundry had turned down its
offer to sell or combine on a basis of $5.00 for Fageol. This would
have concluded the negotiations which have been under way for many
which resulted in Fageol going from $3 to $15 a share during some
exciting days last fall.”
Fageol’s balance sheet for 1926 appeared in
the March 21,
1927 issue of the Oakland Tribune which also announced a pending
the Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio:
“Fageol Sales in 1926 Reported at $2,693,586
“Lawsuit to Collect $120,000 for Supplies
Follows Sale of
“Sales of Fageol Motors Company for 1926 are
$2,693,586 and net profit before dividend at $141,394, according to the
report of President R. B. Bill.
“Aftermath of the sale of the Ohio Chassis
Kentfield, Ohio in 1925 to American Car and Foundry Company is a
$120,000 against Fageol Motors Company of Ohio on alleged failure to
supplies delivered.A letter to
today contains this account of trouble and of trade prospects generally.
“Our balance sheet shows that after paying
dividends we have added to our surplus some $25,000. We have also set
reserve of $50,000 for lawsuit. This $50.000 was really additional
earningand should rightfully appear in…..
been fortunate in our dealings with American Car and Foundry Motors
have refused to pay us for merchandise sold to the Fageol Motors
Ohio, to the amount of $120.000. We have been compelled to file a
against the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio to collect this amount, and
purpose of prosecuting this suit we lm e set up this reserve of $50,000.
“The year 1925 was a difficult one for this
the Ohio bus plant left us with an overstock of merchandise, which has
reduced since then by nearly $500,000. However, there was some
also we had to pay interest to carry this merchandise.
“In the meantime the truck business has
undergone a change,
in that the trade demands six-cylinder motors instead of four
this has necessitated a new layout for each model of truck. Also, there
decided demand here for six-wheel trucks for heavy duty service and we
developed a six-wheel truck of a ten-ton capacity. We have also added
line of trucks a ton and a half model. We expect to resort at the next
meeting that we have increased our sales of trucks from 322 in 1326 to
ACF’s move to Detroit, announced earlier in
coincided with Frank R. Fageol’s resignation as vice-president of sales
Car & Foundry Motors Co., a move that was prompted by the firm’s
build his latest coach, a twin-engine flat-floored transit coach he
the ‘Twin Coach’. Construction of the 43-seat prototype ‘Twin Coach’
in the Fageol Motors Co. plant in Oakland and Frank and William Fageol
about arranging for the purchase of the now-vacant Fageol Motors Co. of
located at 789 Stow St., Kent, Ohio from ACF Motors.
In collaboration with Paul H. Brehm, the
Fageols formed the
Twin Coach Co. in January of 1927 with Frank R. Fageol, president;
Fageol, vice-president and Paul H. Brehm, secretary-treasurer. Brehm’s
was a well-known Minneapolis truck distributor (Brehm-McMullen Co.) and
had served as manager of the Minneapolis Fageol Safety Coach office.
formation was announced on April 14, 1927 via the Associated Press
“Plans Kent Bus Concern
“Cleveland, O., April 14—(AP) Frank. R.
established the Fageol Company in Kent, O., several years ago, which
sold to the American Car and Foundry Company and moved to Detroit,
plans to re-establish
a bus company In Kent.”
The June 30, 1927 issue of the New York
Times reported that
lawsuit between the Oakland, Calif. and Kent, Ohio Fageol operations
settled out of court:
“FAGEOL SUIT SETTLED; Action Against Ohio
American Car Canceled.
“The suit instituted by the Fageol Motors
the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio and the American Car and Foundry
Company has been cancelled and an amicable settlement has been effected
Bill, President of the Fageol Motors Company, it was announced
statement adds that the amounts due the Fageol Motors Company, as well
due royalties, are being paid, and that the company has allowed a
amount to take care of field service.
“The agreement between the Fageol Motors
Company and the
Ohio Company called for a minimum annual royalty of $75,000 and a
$300,000, until such time as $3,000,000 in royalties had been paid to
“For the last eight months negotiations have
with the American Car and Foundry Motors Company, which has acquired
stock of the Ohio Company. The proposal of the purchasing company
the exchange of the securities of the parent company for the securities
American Car and Foundry Motors Company, no cash consideration being
On July 31, 1927, a little more than six
months after the
formation of the firm, the first prototype Twin Coach rolled out of the
Fageol Motors Co. factory in Oakland.Twenty-five orders were received
in a short time and
within the year the
firm had delivered several hundred of the new vehicles.
Advertisements were placed in the trades
during the Fall
including an 8-page spread in the September 17, 1927 special AERA show
of the Electric Railway Journal:
“HERE is the answer to the automobile's
challenge to street
cars. It is built by Frank R. Fageol
with the single thought of furnishing the traction operator an
business weapon with which to meet automobile competition.
“Capacity — the long sought for
characteristic in motor
coach design is here — not through impractical double-decking; not
unwieldy wheel base; not through a freak and uncomfortable seating
and not by adding weight to the vehicle.
“Street car capacity is achieved with riding
bring ejaculations of surprise from every new load of patrons. This is
not mere sales enthusiasm: The Chicago
Surface Lines' Twin Coaches are carrying on a Diversey Avenue feeder
90 to 100 passengers at a time.
“The Milwaukee Electric Railway's experience
is available to
everyone — the photographic proof from Milwaukee newspapers is to be
had for the
“One of the best known men in the railway
field who drives
the most expensive motor cars, he ordered a Twin Coach especially
equipped for long
distance touring. That is rider appeal!
“Rider appeal and street car capacity in a
motor coach with
30% less weight per seat and depreciation - defying body, built
integral with the
frame, calls for immediate investigation.
“Every wide-awake traction or steam operator
owes it to his
property to know whether the statements made here are legitimate. Made
R. Fageol, father of most of the forward steps in the bus industry,
a note of caution to every prospective buyer of the present
design. What Frank R. Fageol's famous Safety Coach did to revolutionize
travel the Twin Coach bids fair outdo. idled the latest advance in
equipment by Frank R. Fageol.
“EVERY automotive superintendent should be
in reporting to his superiors on this newest development.
“Note the load arrangement and balance,
in a motor coach because of longtime habit in locating the power plant;
the complete inter changeability of parts; that rear axle without a
differential and weighing a quarter of a ton less; brakes which can be
without disturbing the wheel bearings; that amazing body idea; and the
engines giving a maximum of power but thereby reducing the strain and
its application throughout the entire vehicle — lessening upkeep in a
“The superintendents of coach traffic know
already is looking for greater lounging room. It wants leg room, elbow
head room, parcel room, greater cubic air space and the mechanical
quiet of the
private enclosed car.
“You can read with perfect ease in the back
seat of a Twin
Coach. You can get in and out without a dent in your hat. Head room: 6
in. That is what is meant by rider appeal. Peculiar way to say it, but
think of a more expressive one?
“The Twin Coach removes the last alibi a
street car man has
for letting somebody else sell over his counters — the streets of his
Here is the capacity and the answer to the automobile.
“This new tool can be put into regular peak
hour service, or
with the addition of deluxe interior equipment it makes the roomiest
extraordinary parlor car job on the road.
“At the Cleveland AERA convention space
468-472. The factory
is only 25 miles south of the convention hall. Come over! If you are
to the convention possibly a demonstration is scheduled for your
Write us about this today.”
The same issue included pictures of the new
ACF Fageol Motor
Coach, essentially the same vehicle the Fageol brothers had introduced
years previous. ACF continued to market and produce the Fageol bus
name until 1929, although a slightly heavier and more powerful chassis
in 1927 that was marketed as an ACF with no mention of Fageol.
Cleveland’s Lang Body Co. produced much of
the coachwork for
ACF’s motor coaches and it is believed they also supplied the Fageol
of Ohio with bodies prior to that firm’s takeover by ACF.
The Fageol name disappeared from all
American Car &
Foundry Motors Co. advertising in 1930 although they continued to
Fageol-style coaches into the early 30s. More modern buses appeared in
their fist under-floor engine transit coach in 1935, fully 7 years
debut of the Twin Coach.
The September 3, 1927 issue of the Electric
mentioned that Twin Coach was using composite wood and metal panels
the Haskelite Mfg. Co of Chicago:
“Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation,
that in the new Twin Coach designed by F. R. Fageol, Plymetyl is used
per cent of the surfaces, while Haskelite is used for the floor.”
The revolutionary Twin Coach attracted
attention wherever it
went, the October 29, 1927 issue of the Waterloo Evening Courier
(Iowa)describing the arrival of a ‘brilliant yellow’ demonstrator:
“‘Twin Coach’ Flashes Thru Waterloo Streets
“En route to Los Angeles, Cal., where it
will be placed in
passenger service, a brilliant yellow ‘Twin Coach’ manufactured by F.R.
Kent, O., was causing comment today from passersby on the streets of
“Nearly as large as a street car and similar
to one in
appearance, the Twin Coach is a new departure in the bus line. Three
the factory at Kent are in charge of the bus and are demonstrating it
various cities on their route. They demonstrated the bus to officials
W.C.F. &N. today. It accommodates 40 passengers.
“The bus is powered by two six-cylinder
motors that are
synchronized so that both pull evenly while the bus is operating.
may be operated alone. There is one clutch pedal and one throttle for
engines. The engines are placed, one on each side, in the center of the
beneath the seats. Air brakes are on all four wheels.”
In 1928 Charles C. Pyle, the legendary
agent and huckster, sponsored a coast-to-coast foot race with $48,500
to be awarded the top finishers, with the winner getting $25,000 of the
Accompanying the 275 entrants was Pyle’s travelling P.T. Barnum-style
from which Pyle hoped to make his profit. Pyle outlined his business
“It will be the greatest free show ever
offered the American
public. The runners will go through hundreds of towns, each of which
assessed for advertising. Thousands will flock to these towns to see
runners. We'll sell them programs and tickets to our traveling side
Pyle chose a luxuriously appointed
double-deck Fageol Safety
Coach for his travelling headquarters which was outfitted with a mobile
broadcast studio to keep the public abreast of progress of the
coach was outfitted with reclining blue mohair chairs that converted
a lavatory and shower, a kitchen with a sink, stove and refrigerator,
mobile office with a collapsible table, writing desk, phonograph and
The rear sleeping compartment was fitted with two double Pullman-style
convertible seats that slept four. The open second-floor observation
was fitted with a windscreen and transformable awning with seating for
well and compartments that held the water and propane tank that fueled
on-board stove, refrigerator and water heater.
The March 1928 issue of Bus Age described
$25,000 coach, which was christened ‘America’ as a: “De Luxe Traveling
with “complete transportation, sleeping, bathing, eating, and toilet
for fourteen people.” A second Twin Coach motor coach
the first, upon which rode the numerous ‘race officials’ and
accompanied the runners who spent each night in a travelling tent city
accompanied the side-show caravan.
The side show component of Pyle’s ‘Bunion
Derby’ failed to
turn a profit and the ‘Most Stupendous Athletic Accomplishment in All
lost a reported $150,000.
Early production Model 40 Twin Coaches used
Waukesha engines and in 1928 the firm introduced a new Fageol-designed
supplied by the Hercules Engine Company of Canton, Ohio. The September
issue of the Oakland Tribune reported that Twin Coach had constructed
coaches in its first 14 months of operation:
“F.R. Fageol, president of the Twin Coach
Co., of Kent,
Ohio, makers of the 40-passenger Twin Coach, a new type of street car
bus, reports sales exceeding $2,000,000 for the first eight months of
and profit of $255,000 before Federal taxes. More than 300 Twin Coaches
in operation on leading electrical railway properties in the United
The September 20, 1928 issue of the Montana
that like two of his brothers, Claud Fageol was also associated with
“Motor Coach Builder Is Visitor In Butte
“Claude Fageol, Seattle distributor for the
Twin Coach Manufacturing
Company of Kent, Ohio, and J.E. Hawley, Spokane, manager of the
Motor company, stopped in Butte yesterday to visit Emil Torgerson. The
on their way to Cleveland, where they will attend the American Electric
association's national convention.
“Mr. Fageol, who is one of the foremost
figures in motor
coach building, was formerly associated with his brother In the Fageol
Coach Manufacturing company, the largest builders of wide-tread safety
“The business was recently sold to the
American Car and
Foundry company. A twin motor coach, very similar to a street car,
run on tracks or without, is now being sold by Mr. Fageol. It is an
of his brother and has a seating capacity of 40. The car is a light
the luxury of a Pullman car, Chicago and other cities are equipped with
Shortly after the firm’s two-year
anniversary, Frank R.
Fageol announced sale for its first full year of production totaled $4
“KENT, O., Feb. 22.—The coaches of the Twin
organized in 1927, are in use by fifty-eight transportation and utility
companies according to President F. R. Fageol, he announces sales in
year total $4,300,000.”
A smaller 21-seat Twin Coach debuted in 1929
powered by a single 6-cylinder as did a combination rail- and
the Ruston Daily Leader of September 7, 1932 reporting:
“Motor Bus Now Runs On Tracks
“CHICAGO, (U.P.) — An ordinary motor bus, or
with an attachment by which it can run on railroad tracks as well as
was demonstrated here to a group of railroad men as the answer to their
“The equipment that permits the bus to
travel on rails
consists of four sets of guide wheels with wide flanges which hinge the
They are placed in front and in back of the rubber tired wheels, and
or lowered for operating by a lever at the driver's seat.
“F.L. Wilson, president of the Wilson
Corporation who demonstrated the machine, said that it would be a
for a shipper to send his merchandise to the dealer, no matter where he
located, without changing busses.
“Outlining the new transportation plan,
Wilson said that the
trucks would be loaded at the factory, and would proceed to a railroad
station, where they would be coupled to any number of other trucks, and
on railroad tracks.
“The device is the invention of Frank R.
of the Twin Coach Corporation of Kent, O., and developer of the Fageol
coach, first of the modern busses now used for cross country trips.”
Between 1927 and 1934 Twin Coach built more
than 1,100 motor
buses, including 21 with gas-electric drive. During the early thirties
branched out into the route delivery business with a popular line of
bakery delivery trucks with modular power units. Trolley buses were
manufactured as were units powered by diesel and liquid propane.
Originally equipped with 4-cylinder Waukesha
motors, Twin Coach changed quite early to Hercules engines when
re-engineer the engine to meet Fageol’s demands. Hercules was more
accommodating and the resulting Fageol-Hercules engine was used from
As the Depression wore on Twin Coach
introduced a series of
diminutive transit coaches, the 26-passenger Model 30, Model 20 and
15-passenger Model 15, all of which were available as a single door
or in transit configuration with a second door just behind the rear
wheels. They shared the front-engine architecture, chassis and
of the firm’s forward-control delivery trucks and were powered by a
six-cylinder Fageol-Hercules engine located above the front axle. Its
price and lower gasoline consumption made it a favorite of
surface transport operators and between 1931 and 1935 over 900 Model
100 Model 20s were delivered.
Small numbers of custom-built rail-going
vehicles were constructed
during the early thirties ranging from streetcars to rail buses and
maintenance trucks. A few non-standard delivery trucks were also
some with front-wheel-drive and others with hybrid gas-electric and
The firm’s original transit coach, the
40, was discontinued in 1934 and replaced by the all-new Model 37R.
a single transversely-mounted 126 hp. Fageol-Hercules engine at the
became the firm’s most popular model. Smaller pusher Twin Coaches
23- and 30-passenger configurations as did the option of diesel-power.
Twin Coach’s first diesel-equipped bus was
introduced in the
October, 1934 issue of Transit Bus:
“Time and Money Saver – Rear Engined Bus
Using Diesel or
“In the illustration is shown a new type
Twin Coach that
attracted a great deal of attention at the recent Cleveland exhibit of
American Transit Association. It is known as the model 37-RM, seats
37-passengers with a large standee capacity, and weighs 13,500 lbs. The
weight with great strength is obtained by the liberal use of nickel and
“Of most interest, however, is the location
of the engine
which is transversally mounted across the rear end. A point of further
is that the bus has been designed so that whenever it is desired, a
motor may be submitted for the gasoline motor. Placing the motor in
position make it easily accessible for any servicing necessary or for
“Another feature of this new bus is that the
ventilation is taken in through a duct in center of the roof instead of
the dusty area at the rear of the vehicle.
“The main body frame comprises two
specially shaped pressed-steel channels reinforced with ample cross
special Nickel ‘Z’ shaped cross sills for supporting floor and outside
body rail comprising rigid bridge-type truss frame construction.
“Doors are of the four leaf type, folding
out, with National
Pneumatic control, entrance door 30 in. opening, exit door 27 in.
“The six cylinder engine has a 4 ½ in. bore,
5 ¼ in. stroke,
and 529 cu. In. in displacement. The compression ratio is 5.4 : 1, the
is 350 ft. lbs. at 1,200 r.p.m., with a brake horse power of 126 at
r.p.m.When a diesel engine is desired,
the new Hercules DXR Series type is used.
“Braking equipment includes a Bendix
Westinghouse 6 cu. Ft.
compressor. Brakes are standard Twin Coach large size, 16 ½ by 4, with
“A unique system of ventilating the motor is
radiator is a special Young tubular type, mounted directly above motor
of motor compartment. All air for radiator is drawn from the roof and
at each side of the motor housing, the motor being contained in a
sealed compartment which eliminates all roads dust, as the only air
the compartment must come from the roof where the air is clean. Air is
out of the motor compartment by a shrouded fan on each end of the power
which forces air out through the body sides adjacent to the rear
are driven direct on the engine crankshaft and transmission main
Five convertible Model 23R coaches were
Motor Stage Inland Motor Tours of Catalina Island, California in 1936.
coaches included a canvas top that rolled rearwards giving its
mostly uninterrupted view of Catalina’s magnificent palms trees, hilly
and beautiful blue skies.
The first diesels were delivered in 1935 and
hybrid diesel-electrics were popular with numerous metropolitan New
operators, who acquired 300 of the units prior to the Second World War.
The Fageol brothers (Frank R. and William B.
spearheaded the 1936 purchase and reorganization of the
from its parent, Continental Motors Corp.At the
time Continental-Divco manufactured route
vehicles under the ‘Divco’ brand name, and the Fageol brothers hoped to
strengthen their position in the field through the purchase of their
The Divco dated to the early 1920s when
George Bacon, chief
engineer of Detroit Electric Car Co., constructed a prototype electric
delivery vehicle that could be operated from four points; the front,
left- or right- hand side. Testing revealed the limits of its storage
and in 1926 a gasoline-powered version was tested, and Bacon and a
investors formed the Detroit Industrial Vehicle Company who christened
‘Divco’ and commenced manufacture at a small factory on Fort Street
Detroit. The prototype used a 4-cylinder LeRoi engine, but production
were fitted with Continental 4-cylinders mated to Warner 4-speed
In 1927 the firm was reorganized as the Divco-Detroit Corp. and
to 2435 Merrick Ave., Detroit. Sales of the diminutive delivery truck
amongst dairies looking to replace their horse-drawn milk wagons with
equipment and substantial numbers of Divcos were delivered to regional
into the early days of the Depression when the firm entered into
In September of 1930 Divco-Detroit purchased
Step-N-Drive Corp. of Buffalo, New York in order to obtain the firm’s
but the firm was already hopelessly insolvent, and the purchase helped
firm into receivership. A creditor’s committee auctioned off the firm’s
in April of 1932 and the winning bidder, Continental Motors Corp., won
bidding with a $90,000 offer.
Continental created a new subsidiary,
- headed by W. R. Angell, and relocated Divco’s assets to Continental’s
12801 East Jefferson Ave.
relocated the Step-N-Drive operations to Detroit. Continental-Divco
a loss until 1935 when a 300-unit sale to the Borden Company put it
black for the first time.
Twin Coach’s involvement with Divco dated to
a 1933 patent
dispute between Continental-Divco and Twin Coach that was resolved via
licensing agreement. In 1936 a complicated series of transactions
Manhattan investment bankers and the two firms resulted in the
a new firm, Divco-Twin Corp., which combined the assets of Twin Coach’s
delivery truck division with that of Continental-Divco’s. Twin Coach
17% share of Divco-Twin stock, the remainder being controlled by
representatives of Reynolds & Co. and Laurence M. Marks & Co.
Production remained at Continental’s East
plant until July, 1939 when the firm moved into a new factory located
Hoover Rd., in the Detroit suburb of Warren, Michigan.During the
interim an all-new Divco had been
designed, and the factory was purpose-built to construct the snub-nosed
truck that remains popular to this day.
The new design proved popular and continued
through 1986. In January 1944 the ‘Twin’ was dropped and the firm
Divco Corporation. Although the Fageol brothers sat on Divco-Twin’s
had little to do with the firm’s day to day operations.
In 1957 Divco Corporation bought Wayne
Works, a school bus
builder in Richmond, Indiana, and renamed itself Divco-Wayne
for a number of years Frank R. Fageol served as president of
In 1938 Twin Coach introduced an unusual
coach/trolley coach that was christened the ‘Super Twin’, the June 18,
Daily Princetonian (Princeton, N.J.) reported:
“Twin Coach Company, Kent, Ohio
“Kent, Ohio, June 15—The largest, capacity
for public carrier service, without the use of tracks, has been
month by Frank R. and William B. Fageol, President and Vice President,
respectively, of the Twin Coach Company of this city. The vehicle seats
passengers on a single deck, and will transport readily, a passenger
120, including standees. The unit is designed to operate as an electric
coach or by Diesel-electric propulsion. The vehicle has four axles,
wheels and bears its lead on 12 tires, the four center wheels taking
rubber equipment. It weighs 27,500 pounds and is known as the
“This unit will be capable of 50 miles per
hour top speed,
and, therefore, in regular schedule traffic, should have no difficulty
maintaining average schedule speed of 13 to 14 miles per hour, which is
one or two miles per hour of the average speed on principal subway
“The new vehicle, on the fiftieth
anniversary of the
operation of electric trolley cars operating upon steel rails in the
immediately becomes a threat to continued large city street car
because it is the first seemingly practical unit created as a rubber
public carrier capable of equaling the capacity of the largest city
cars, and at the same time, being able to turn on a radius no greater
many 35-passenger gasoline coaches already in service in great numbers
country. This is done by means of the synchronous steering of the front
rear wheels. The four wheels at the center of the job operate on the
adapted to the many six-wheel vehicles already in use.
“Because of its 47 foot length, the body is
perpendicularly at the center, and the space covered by a newly
flexible rubber hood, the perpendicular articulation allowing it to
ease, bridge, viaduct and other sharp grades oftentimes found within
confines of the metropolitan area. There is no horizontal articulation
width of the vehicle may be made to equal that of the large capacity
cars. The floor has no obstructions of any kind.
“As in a trackless trolley coach, the
propulsion is through
two 125-horse-power electrical motors placed under the floor of each
and driving into the two center axles. The first vehicle for practical
demonstrating purposes is a Diesel-Electric vehicle with 175-horsepower
Hercules Diesel motor with electric generator in the rear compartment,
supplying current to the two electric motors located under the floor
to the two center axles. The electrical equipment has been supplied by
“The oil-electric propulsion equipment is
generally the same
as that used to run the Diesel-Electric Zephyr and other crack high
transcontinental trains. It is much easier for the operator to handle
ordinary bus on account of the simplicity of controls which consist of
reversing lever to get forward and reverse directions and a foot
pedal which operates the same as your automobile. As you press the
it adds more fuel to the Diesel motor, thereby causing the motor to
higher speed and it being connected to the electric generator, there is
immediate increase of motive power from the generator to the motor. In
words, the action on the propulsion motor, when the fuel accelerator is
down, is similar to the result when the motorman on a street car turns
controller around. The further he goes with the handle, the more
put in the motors and thus the increase in speed.
“The Diesel motor differs from the gas motor
in that it has
no spark plugs, therefore, no electric ignition. The fuel used is what
as distillate or oil similar to that used in oil furnaces.
“The ignition of the fuel is brought about
compression temperatures and through properly governed and timed oil
into the cylinders.
“The springing of the job is taken care of
by a newly
designed type of cantilever spring giving the rider the impression of
that of a
boat rather than the short, quick impacts of urban rail transportation.
“Control of the new vehicle by the operator
is exactly the
same as on a conventional motor coach or trolley coach. The steering of
front and rear wheels is accomplished through linkage and the use of
automatically supplements the manual effort on the driver's wheel, and
buses are in use on urban operating systems, a complete transition to
tired vehicles has been held back by the lack of a tired unit capable
carrying as many as a large trolley car. This has been due to inability
produce a trackless vehicle of that size capable of making the
“It will be recalled it was the Fageol
Brothers, who, in
1927, introduced the first transit or metropolitan type gas coach,
box type body with motors inside instead of under the hood as in the
vehicle. That style of design, in the past ten years, has become
adopted on major operations.
“Some idea of the significance of this new
development may be gained by such economic facts as the following,
by Ross Schram, Sales Manager for the manufacturer:
1. According to
statistical record of TRANSIT JOURNAL, there were 75,777 urban public
vehicles in use December 31st, 1937, and 34,190 of these were street
mostly of the large capacity size, while many of the 25,614 motor
have been purchased in larger capacity had there been an available
2. Modern trolley car road bed and track
cost per mile is
$100,000 for double tracks.
3. The average expenditure per mile for
trolley car road-way
maintenance in American cities during normal times is 3½ cents per mile.
4. The reduction of fuel cost over gasoline,
Diesel-Electric power plant is adopted.
5. Tremendous sums and engineering efforts
have been focused
on the development of a new automatic transmission for large trackless
units with questionable results thus far. In this new unit, as in other
coaches and Diesel Electric vehicles, there is immediately available
perfect answer to this quest.
6. The large capacity rubber tired trackless
‘street car’ of
this type is no longer tied to a strip in the center of the street, and
traffic weaving, the greatest of all street hazards, should be reduced
minimum. Recent studies reported by the Director of the American
Association show that considering the full capacity of a single traffic
100%, a second lane, where channelized traffic is not enforced is
78% efficient; that in the third lane without channelized enforcement
efficiency is only 56% compared with the first lane. Thus is
illustrated the waste of street space caused in traffic in our large
where automotive traffic is weaving in and out between street cars. Of
it is impossible to furnish accurate figures on the increased safety if
public carrier passengers were enabled to load and unload from a large
public carrier operating adjacent to the curb, but such protection
tremendously reduce deaths and injuries in the street.”
Unlike most articulated buses that followed,
between the ‘Super Twin’s front and rear compartments only allowed for
vertical movement of the two attached coaches, no horizontal action was
with the turning being accomplished via coordinated action between the
steerable axles – one located at the front, the second at the rear.
Twin Coach was not the first articulated
bus, the Italian Stanga-Stanga-BBC, Type Isotta-Fraschini TS40 of 1940
it, although it was articulated horizontally and steered by the front
only. Unfortunately no orders resulted for the lengthy vehicle and it
to a Cleveland operator who used it as an electric-powered trolley-bus.
Although the articulated trolleybus was not
successful,Twin Coach manufactured fully
all the trolley buses manufactured in North America, manufacturing 670
coaches during its 25 years in business.
An anonymous posting on the bustalk forum
(bustalk.info) by user
‘Q65A aka Bob’ provides a detailed account of the numerous firms who
Twin Coach transit buses in and around New York City in the 1930s and
“These operators included Brooklyn Bus
Corp., North Shore
Bus Co., Surface Transportation System, Jamaica Buses Inc., Steinway
Corp., and Queens-Nassau Transit Lines. Except for ST, who purchased a
diesel powered Model 35-D in 1954 (STS #6000) none of these operators
pre-war Twins bought postwar Twins. The all-time rosters of Green Bus
Triboro Coach Corp. indicate that these operators did not own any
surprisingly, no postwar Twins were bought by FACCO and NYCO (both
Coach/GM customers) or Avenue B & East Broadway Transit (a
“Unquestionably, the largest operator of
Twin Coaches in the
NYC area was the NYC Board of Transportation. When the BOT was formed
it acquired 212 used Twins from Brooklyn Bus Corp. The following year,
purchased 250 new Twins, of which 60 units (BOT #’s 1300-1359) were
Regardless of engine type, these units used electric transmissions and
assigned to routes in Brooklyn. All 190 gas-electric Twins were
Hercules diesel engines in 1945. They only lasted a few more years and
retired in 1948.
“Like their Brooklyn neighbors, North Shore
Bus Co. in
Queens owned a large 219-unit fleet of Twin Coaches built between 1930
1946. When the City of New York acquired North Shore In March 1947, the
took in the entire fleet of North Shore Twins. In the same year, the
purchased 125 Twin Coach Model 41-S transit buses (BOT #’s 1400-1524).
also placed an additional order for 180 larger Twin Coach Model 44-S’s
1947 to 1948 (BOT #’s1525-1575; 1700-1829). All 305 postwar Twins were
with underfloor-mounted gas engines and Spicer torque converters.
”They were not especially large or heavy
buses: the Model
41-S was 32’11.5” long and weighed 14,850 pounds, while the Model 44-S
34’10” long and weighed 15,570 pounds. They used a B.F. Goodrich
torsion bar suspension, which also was used on postwar Flxible parlor
on all Eagle buses. All BOT Twins were 96” wide. They used 6-hole
steel disc wheels and were delivered in the standard grey-over-green
“Postwar Twins had several distinctive
styling features that
set them apart at a glance from contemporary GM’s and Macks. Two-panel
doors were used front and rear (as compared to 4-panel jackknife doors
most transit buses of that period). The Model 41-S used a small side
destination sign positioned directly over the entrance door header; BOT
1400-1499 also had a small circular ‘Next Bus’ lamp mounted below the
edge of the right-hand windshield. Later Model 41-S’s and all Model
lacked this lamp, and used side signs mounted more conventionally at
the top of
the first curbside passenger window.
“As with Mack C-50DT’s, postwar Twins had a
horizontal aluminum trim panel that encircled nearly the entire bus.
windows were not used; large side window sashes dropped vertically into
“Perhaps no feature is more associated with
than the unique 6-panel front windshield assembly. Consisting of two
upper main windshield panel, two smaller lower windshield panels, and
triangular side window panels, this design later was used on all
transit buses until 1978. BOT’s postwar Twins used dual wipers mounted
windshield header, a feature sometimes used on certain models of school
but rarely seen on modern transit buses. Such wipers were not used on
postwar BOT/NYCTA buses.
“The BOT Twins initially were assigned both
to Queens and
Brooklyn depots, but Queens buses (#’s 1525-1575) were moved to
1949. Gas-powered buses were considered undesirable in the mid 1950’s,
BOT/NYCTA Twins were scrapped beginning in 1956. No examples were
“Twin seemed to be ahead of its time, and
was an innovator
in many ways. Curiously, a Twin Coach Model 58-DW “Super Twin” artic
demonstrator was tested by BOT on certain Brooklyn routes in late 1947.
60-foot unit also had dual engines. The BOT elected not to purchase the
bus, and it was returned to Twin unsold.”
Frank R. Fageol did no limit his investments
automobile field and in 1937 acquired a controlling interest in a
Texas tobacco warehouse, the September 24, 1937 issue of the
“Fageol Invests In Lower Valley
“Twin Coach President Heads Compress Company
“BROWNSVILLE—Frank R. Fageol, Ravenna, Ohio,
is president of
the Brownsville Port and Compress and Bonded Warehouses, Inc. Fageol
Brownsville in April and again during August. His findings resulted la
purchase of the 850-acre tract formerly known as the Piper Plantation.
president of the Twin Coach Company, Kent, Ohio, one of the largest bus
manufacturing companies In the United States, is considered a leader in
mass transportation field and is one of the foremost authorities on the
in the nation.”
A face-lifted Twin Coach debuted in 1939
that included a
substantially larger windscreen for the driver.
1940 Model 41-GE (Gas Electric) Twin
The August 28, 1943 Massillon Evening
the sudden passing of Frank R. Fageol’s son, Oren :
COACH COMPANY MANAGER DIES
AKRON, Aug. 28—Oren B. Fageol, 39, son of
Frank R. Fageol,
president of the Twin Coach Co. of Kent, in neighboring Portage county,
suddenly Friday at his home in near-by Silver lake. Formerly west coast
manager for Twin Coach he had been general manager for the company the
Bus production was put on hiatus during the
War, and the firm was awarded contracts to build pontoon boats and
served as a Goodyear
subcontractor for whom they constructed control cabins for Goodyear’s
airships. Over 134 K-type blimps were constructed between 1938 and 1944
purpose of anti-submarine patrol and convoy export duty. A surviving
gondola can be seen at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida.
They also established a satellite plant at
Curtiss-Wright complex in Cheektowaga, New York in which they
sections for P-40 pursuit fighters and C-46 cargo planes. When
closed the facility Twin Coach leased the plant and in August 1946
production of the firm’s post war transit coaches for customer located
Twin Coach announced an entirely new
post-war lineup of
single- (Model 34-S, 38-S, 41-S) and double-(Model 44-D) engined
designed by Dwight Austin. The design included a 6-paned windshield
of flat safety glass that provided the operator with a remarkable field
A 1944 advertisement heralded its
“Bomber Nose! … For Transit Buses
“When the new Twin Coach models appear,
compartments may startle you because of a marked similarity to the nose
compartment on certain of our aircraft. The visibility and position of
required for an operator of a large transit bus more nearly approach
air pilots and bombardiers than any other individuals.”
The Post-War coaches utilized B.F.
‘torsilastic’ rubber spring suspension (used on the Tucker automobile)
included an all-new 168 hp. Fageol-branded 6-cylinder engine that
rested on its
side beneath the floor to conserve space and provide optimal weight
Sales of the post-war dual-engine Model 44D
disappointing and the coach was discontinued in favor of a
44-passenger transit coach, the Model 44S.
Small number of dedicated rail coaches, such
as the Model 41
SRC (S=single engine; RC= rail coach) were constructed after the War,
SRC users were the Missouri Pacific Railroad and the Beaumont, Sour
Western Railway who utilized them to transport passenger and
to and from work sites and remote spur lines. Number 701 (one of six
numbered 701 to 706) is not convertible as it
operates on rails and is gasoline powered coupled with a mechanical
transmission. These buses were generally used to ferry company
maintenance crews to
sites and, in some cases, to transport passengers from remote spurs to
At the height of the post-war boom, three
constructing postwar Twin Coaches: the original factory in Kent, Ohio;
satellite plant in Cheektowaga, New York; and a third facility located
Erie, Ontario, Canada. The latter plant was owned by Fleet
Aircraft, Ltd., who constructed US-designed coaches for Twin Coach of
Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary that marketed the firm’s coaches from
Twin Coach sold 700 buses in 1946 and 2,200
in 1947 with
sales increasing from $11.7 million to $34.6 million. But, in 1948,
slipped to 1,050 or $21.8 million.
The January 30, 1948 Massillon Evening
“Twin Coach Will Lay Off 203 Men
“KENT—The output of the Kent Twin Coach Co.
plant here will
be reduced by a coach a day and 203 workers with seniority of 10 months
will be laid off Feb. 1, company officials Thursday said.
“Action is to be taken at this time in order
to mulch output
with incoming orders, L. J. Fageol, president, declared.
“He also announced that a comparative
reduction will be made
in the personnel and output of the company's Buffalo plant. Officials'
that the supply of busses has met the demand for the first time since
World War II.”
The April 15, 1948 Massillon Evening
“Twin Coach Calls 500 Back To Work
“KENT. O.— The Twin Coach Co. will call back
within the next few weeks company officials announced Wednesday. As the
gets materials the men will be called back for opening of the
“With the reported employment of 700 at Twin
department and Fageol Products now the addition of 500 would total
less than the 2,000 employed last January.
“First bus is to come off the assembly line
at the end of
April, with two or three busses a day expected to be produced after
Convinced that the pre-war articulated
concept was a good
one, a second perpendicularly articulated prototype was constructed
War. Originally outfitted with a gasoline engine, it was converted for
coach use in 1948 and leased to the Chicago Transit Authority in 1948.
Remarkably the 1946 ‘Super Twin’ survives, unrestored, at the Illinois
Museum in Union, Illinois.
A 1949 advertisement for the post-war
“Greater Carrying capacity per man-hour is
one of the
reasons why the U.S. Post Office Department ordered a Super Twin
Office for service between Baltimore and Washington D.C. Omaha’s Super
motor coaches have been in regular service now for six months. The new
Twin Trolley Coach has been leased to the Chicago Transit Authority.”
Dover (Ohio) Daily Reporter March 7, 1950
“Bus Plant May Be Lost By Kent: Removal To
“KENT— (AP)— The head of Twin Coach Co..
city's largest industry, is thinking about consolidating the firm's bus
manufacturing operations in Buffalo.
“In a 10-page memorandum to company
representatives of the CIO United Automobile Workers local, F. B.
chairman of the Twin Coach Co. board, said the firm could save $150,000
by the move.
“‘Closing of the bus plant here would mean
withdrawal of a
payroll of about 500 from the community. Fageol said output of motor
trolley conches last year totaled only 350. There is little hope for
bus demand this year’, Fageol said.
“‘If we are going to save the Kent bus
added,’ increased production efficiency is necessary.’ He proposed a
‘cooperative arrangement with the union in establishing a fair and
number of hours required to build each coach.’”
April 7, 1950:
“Omaha. Council Bluffs St. Ry. Get 10 More
“Omaha – The Omaha and Council Bluffs Street
recently received ten more 58-passenger Twin Coach ’Supertwins.’
“Last year the company tested five of the
Experience proved that more people could be moved in less time at lower
Traffic congestion was also reduced, one ‘super’ bus replacing two
units. Omaha people liked the big buses too.
“The new vehicles, representing an
investment of $250,000,
were immediately put into rush-hour service on the company’s principle
“They were announced to the public with a
advertisement in the ‘Omaha World-Herald’ and smaller ads in all of the
weekly and foreign language papers. Take-one folders describing them
placed in all busses and streetcars.
“Relive Traffic Problem
“The advertising program not only stressed
that the new
buses would give Omaha riders faster and more convenient to-and-from
transportation, but also pointed out the relief ‘super’ buses provided
city’s difficult traffic and parking problems.
“The ads emphasized that each ‘super’ bus
carried as many
passengers as 20 to 35 private cars, yet took the street space of only
“The company plans a series of ‘student
tours’ to acquaint
Omaha’s future citizens with ‘super’ buses and the company’s
operation. Mechanical classes from the city high schools will be
make an inspection trip through the company’s garage and shops.”
Frank Fageol’s son, Lou, became a famous
during the 1940s and ’50s, winning the 1951 Gold Cup in Slo-Mo-Shun V
by a Rolls-Royce engine). He also was interested in racecars and
twin-engine, 4-wheel drive Indy cars. The big hit of the 1949
was the Fageol Super Sonic, a wildly futuristic concept car built by
and his son Ray. Powered by a 404-cubic inch, 6-cylinder Fageol engine
turned 275 hp, the sleek coupe was test driven by Indy president Wilbur
who made several laps around the Brickyard at an average speed of 93
slightly slower than the eventual winner of the race. The build was
started by Joel Thorne and Art
Sparks at Thorne
Engineering Racing Shop in Burbank, California in 1938 as a Land Speed
car. They abandoned the project, and sold the uncompleted build to
Olean (NY) Times Herald May 6, 1950
“THIS ‘CAR OF TOMORROW’ was built by L. J.
Fageol of Kent,
Ohio, to test the efficiency of 125 octane propane as a motor fuel.
‘Supersonic Special’ by its designer—president of the Twin Coach
motor develops 275 h.p. on propane against 180 on commercial gasoline.
machine has been clocked at 135 m.p.h. and saves up to 30 per-cent on
costs. Twin Coach has just announced a complete line of urban and city
operate on propane.
“New Propane Fuel Will Power Busses
“KENT. O. — A complete line of standard
motor vehicles for
operation with 125 octane propane fuel has been announced by Twin Coach
“Propane is said by the company to be the
lowest-priced motor fuel. It is anticipated by them that its use will
reduce operating costs of the nation's bus transportation systems.
“The new Twin Coach propane-powered line
consists of seven
standard bus models of thirty-four to fifty-eight passenger capacity.
will be driven by Fageol Twin Coach engines with a ten to one
ratio, according to Chairman F.R. Fageol.
“The Fageol engine was designed six years
ago by L. J.
Fageol, company president. It is capable of operating at a fourteen to
ratio it desired. Its conversion to propane operation requires only a
accessory changes, he says.
“Average savings of up to two cents per mile
on fuel alone,
as compared with diesel or gasoline coaches, we reported by the
Another advantage claimed for propane is the doubling of time between
“The supply of propane, otherwise known as
petroleum gas), far exceeds the foreseeable demand, according to
Delivered fuel costs (before taxes) average from twenty five to fifty
less than gasoline and from ten to forty per cent less than diesel fuel
mid-continent sections of the country, he said.
“Leading refiners are said to have indicated
supply propane, once a waste product of the refining industry, at
two and one-half cent per gallon at the refinery on long term
General Motors diesel coaches had begun to
take over the
industry in the late 1930s and the onslaught intensified after the War.
Although sales were good for all interested players from 1946-1948, by
firms could compete with GM’s one-two punch of a good product and
(some say nefarious) marketing. Numerous small-to mid-sized motor coach
manufacturers either went out of business or entered another line of
Coach opted for the latter.
Twin Coach sold only 420 coaches in 1949 and
year’s sales were abysmal (only 30 reported deliveries).Creative minds
at the firm decided to
introduce a new tractor-less trailer, the October 4, 1950 Massillon
“Bus Firm Plans To Make Trailers Without
KENT, Oct. 5—(AP)—The Twin Coach Co., one of
leading bus manufacturers, announced today that it has entered the
industry with production of a new line known as Fageol super freighters.
“The freighters actually are self-propelled
Through a pancake design originally developed for buses, the engine is
under the floor and the conventional tractor unit is eliminated.
“L. J. Fageol, company president, said the
provide more payload space than any standard motor truck and have the
same-load-carrying capacity as tractor-trailers.
“Because the tractor unit is eliminated,
however, they weigh
from 5,000 to 3,000 pounds less than tractor-trailers and are from
eight to 10
feet shorter, he added.”
Zanesville Times Recorder January 27, 1951
“Bus Manufacturer gets Army Order
“Akron, O. Jan. 26 – (AP) Twin Coach Co.
declared today it
had received the biggest single bus order ever placed with one company.
“The $21,450,000 contract is for
construction of 1,650 Army
vehicles which can be used as buses, trucks or ambulance.
“The firm at nearby Kent, O., said delivery
would be made to
the Highway Transport Corps., the Air Force, and the Surgeon General’s
“L.J. Fageol, Twin Coach president, said his
firm had developed
designs for the vehicle in cooperation with technical men from the
Massillon Evening Independent May 26, 1951:
“Stockholder Files Suit
“Ravenna, O. (AP)— A stock holder has
accused officers of
the Twin Coach Co. of Kent of forming a new company in order to ‘divert
from Twin Coach Stockholders.’
"Frank Benjamin of New York said Twin Coach
J. Fageol ‘conceived the plan to enrich himself at the expense of the
company’ (Twin Coach).
“In a petition filed in common pleas court
Benjamin said Twin Coach passed up a chance to make a new type of
“The Twin Coach officers organized the Super
Development Co. which got a government contract for 1,509 convertible
Benjamin said. The convertible coach was tested and developed with Twin
funds, facilities and personnel, the suit charged, and Twin Coach
manufacture the new coaches and pay the new firm a percentage of the
“Beside the president, Twin Coach officers
defendants were Board Chairman F.J. Fageol, executive vice-president,
Fageol; and directors C. W. Enyart, Alfred G. Wilson, H.L.F. Kreger and
“F.J. Fageol said ‘I don’t think there is
anything to it. I
don’t know what Benjamin is trying to do.”
Coshocton (Ohio) Tribune June 3, 1951:
“Flxible Company to Turn Out Buses for
“More information on the convertible bus
that was awarded jointly to the Twin Coach Co at Kent and the Flxible
of Loudonville by the U.S. Army was released by officials of Flxible.
“Flxible will produce several hundred of the
placed by the Army with the Twin Coach firm and will make most of the
seats included in the order.
“The new unit will be powered with a
engine. The bus will be built to seat 37 passengers and can be
quickly from a passenger bus to an ambulance, a cargo truck or a
“Seats of the convertible bus can be removed
in about 20
minutes. The backs fold down and legs fold so that all seat units may
carried in the forward part of the bus when it is used for cargo.
“Designed by the Army’s ordinance department
the bus will
carry 27 litter patients on the Army-type litters when all the seats
removed. When the coach is set up to carry seated soldiers, it will
luggage racks and there will be a four-foot space behind the rear seats
extra equipment or rations.
“The convertible’s basic under-structure is
being made by
the Fruehauf Trailer Co. and the body under framing is basically of
“Officials of Flxible announced that every
effort is being
made toward the production and delivery of as many regular domestic
possible before the army production is begun. The company also intends
continue building as many intercity buses as material allocations
A propane-powered coach was rushed to market
and 1951 sales
increased to 751 units, albeit 500 were a fleet of propane coaches for
Chicago Transit Authority. The propane coaches were followed up by
Fageoliner, a new coach based on the Model F-32 convertible coaches
constructed for the US Army.
Founded in Loudonville, Ohio in 1913 as a
motorcycle sidecars, Flxible had made a name for itself through the
of ambulances, funeral cars, and intercity coaches, yet had never been
in the transit coach field. That changed in September of 1952 when
Twin Coach joined forces to build a small run of transit coaches for a
Brazilian operator, the September 5, 1952 issue of Passenger Transport
“Twin Coach, Flxible Team Up On Production –
Engineering and Manufacturing Facilities To Speed Output
“Kent, O. – Two of the nation’s leading
motor bus builders
this week announced a cooperative manufacturing program designed to
deliveries, cut production costs and assure more uniform production
“Principals in the plan, which will pool
manufacturing facilities on some types of transit vehicles, are the
Co., Kent, O., and the Flxible Co., Loudonville, O.
“Under the plan, each company makes
constantly available to
the other certain portions of its manufacturing capacity so that this
utilized in the filling of large orders or in the meeting of urgent
dates. The result is that the potential production of each company is
substantially increased without additional capital investment for new
or the employment of additional workers. Furthermore, many of the
peaks and valleys, common to the bus manufacturing industry, are
each company by this pooling of available work.
“The plan, according to L.J. Fageol, Twin
was inaugurated early in 1951 when that company received a U.S. Army
1509 ‘convertible’ bus-trucks. In order to facilitate deliveries on the
urgently-needed vehicles, the Twin Coach Co. approached the Flxible Co.
request that the latter take over the production of certain parts of
vehicle. As a result of arrangements effected with T.P. Butler, Flxible
vice-president, a smooth-working cooperative production plan was
permitted the building and delivery of the ‘convertibles’ in record
“Based on the success of the ‘convertible’
companies again recently joined forces to build 22 deluxe intercity
Vicao Cometa S/A, Sao Paolo, Brazil. On this order, work was carefully
so that each company performed those production tasks for which it
the best facilities and most open production capacity.
“The result was rapid, efficient production
combining the outstanding features of both Twin Coach and Flxible. In
production of these vehicles, Twin Coach built the chassis and body
These included Twin Coach windshield and front end design. Buses were
by Fageol 210 h.p. gasoline engines which had been previously employed
other Twin Coaches owned by Cometa. The latter operate between the
Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo, Brazil, covering 246 miles in less than
“In the new coaches, The Flexible Co.
streamlined side paneling, its 72-inch sliding windows and 36 of its
recliner seats. All interior trim was handles by Flexible.
“Representatives of Cometa and Twin Coach
officials are quoted as being delighted with the appearance and
the new vehicles.”
Frank R. Fageol even testified before a
subcommittee in regards to General Motors’ aggressive marketing and
business practices, but the investigation came too late and in 1953
literally gave away their transit coach business to Flxible, who at the
were still major players in the intercity coach business.
In 1952 Twin Coach’s 49-passenger Model
FS-40 (gas) and
FL-40 (Liquid Propane) Fageoliners debuted using the same architecture
the firm’s 1951 Military order. Leaf springs replaced the Torsialastic
suspension on the first post-war Twins and the coaches were made
a choice of under-floor Diesel engines from Cummins, Fageol-Leyland or
in lesser capacities, the FS/FL-series was a commercial failure and
Fageoliners were delivered.
Eventually 1,034 'Flxible Twin Coach'
transit buses were
built between 1953 and 1960. These units had traditional Twin Coach
features (most notably a unique 6-piece windshield assembly) mated with
“Old Look” body styling, but most were delivered to the Chicago Transit
Authority (CTA), and none were sold to NYC bus operators.
Flxible was experiencing serious competition
Motors’ intercity coaches and believed a more robust offering would
help it to
compete. They felt the move to transit coach production was so
that they temporarily discontinued construction of their popular line
Buick-chassised funeral cars and ambulances, re-entering the
field in 1959 with a totally new series of coaches designed around
Between 1952 and 1959 Flxible/Twin Coach
delivered a total
of 900 liquid propane-fueled coaches to the Chicago Transit Authority.
were the Model FT2P-40, a slightly modified version of the Twin Coach
FL-40 Fageoliner introduced in 1952. Total production of all ‘Flxible
Coach’ transit buses reached 1,034. All coaches constructed ruing the
bore a Flxible/Twin Coach badge under the distinctive 6-paned Twin
According to the Motor Bus Society: “Total
Twin Coach bus
production was approximately 14,700 vehicles (plus trucks of an unknown
quantity in the 1930's), divided as follows: dual-motor and
designs of 1927 to 1936, about 2,700; rear-engine buses of 1934 to
6,200; and postwar buses, about 5,800.”
Under Louis J. Fageol, the Fageol Products
Co. remained in
the engine business producing Fageol gasoline and propane engines for
party truck and bus manufacturers. In 1950 the firm commenced the
Fageol-Leyland Diesel engines under a reciprocal licensing agreement
Motors of Canada Ltd. who commenced the manufacture of Twin Coach buses
trolley coaches at its Longueuil Quebec, Canada facility. The
later the home of Canadian Car, and Hawker Siddeley of Canada.
Elyria Chronicle Telegram March 25, 1954:
“Experimental Van On Display Here
“A new type of truck van, which will
transport a greater
payload in comparison with the size of the vehicle, is now on
exhibition at the
Elyria Truck & Implement Co., Oberlin Rd.
“Developed by L. J. Fageol, president of the
Twin Coach Co.
of Kent, the new van is the only one of its type. It is the result of
experimentation by the Fageol Co. Among its many outstanding features,
31-foot van with a four foot cabin will carry a gross payload of 30,000
or 15 tons.
“Normally, it'd take a conventional van 45
feet long to
transport the same load. This is the principal advantage of the Fageol
which was designed for economy, although it will probably retail for
approximately $15,000 when commercially available.
“Power Steering, Brakes
“Another noted feature is the use of air
power steering and
brakes, which makes operation both easy and safe. All air equipment for
was developed by Bendix-Westinghouse Corp.
“The van has 12 wheels — eight in back and
four in front.
The basic body structure, chassis and driver's compartment are all
a single, strong, lightweight truck. Extensive use is made of high
steel, die-formed members and tubular shapes to provide maximum
minimum weight. It carries a gasoline tank that will hold 200 gallons.
“It has an International engine of 450 cubic
displacement and has an International tandem drive. The van part of the
was built by Fruehauf Trailer Co. of nearby Avon Lake. It win be on
for another week and the public is invited to study the experimental
The first 'sit or stand' vans used by the
Post Office Department
were built by the Twin Coach Company of Kent, Ohio. The design gave
the option of standing up while driving short distances or sitting down
longer distances. The sliding side panel doors allowed carriers easy
mailboxes along the route. By 1955, 3,791 sit or stand vans were being
carriers across the country.
Lima News October 25, 1955
“Kent Executive Dies
“KENT, Ohio (AP) — William B. Fageol, 75,
co-founder of the
Twin Coach Co., died at his home here last night after a long illness.”
Lima News April 5, 1956:
“Engine Firm Buys Company In Akron
KENT, Ohio (AP) - Fageol Products Co. here
announced the purchase of the Progressive Engine Products Co. of Akron.
Akron firm makes superchargers for boats and automobiles. Its personnel
facilities will be moved to Kent within the next two weeks. Fageol
a subsidiary of Twin Coach Co., manufacturer of bus, truck and marine
Progressive Products was acquired to provide
Fageol with a
supercharger for his soon-to-be released VIP 44 4-cycle marine engine.
recovering from a competition boating accident in 1955 Fageol came up
engine that bridged the gap between currently available inboard and
marine engines, the V.I.P. or ‘vertical inboard power’.
Up until that time Fageol Products had been
200- and 225-h.p. gasoline marine engines based on Twin Coach’s transit
6-cylinder bus engines with limited sales success.
He acquired the rights to manufacture the 44
Cobra 4-cylinder automobile engine from General Tire, and by equipping
vertically-oriented block with an outboard motor-type lower unit which
as one complete unit, created a lightweight 35 hp. 4-cycle marine
engine at a
popular price – only $818 at the time of its August 1956 introduction.
The VIP 44 was the U.S.’s first large
4-cycle outboard made available
to recreational boaters and within a year of its introduction over 30
craft manufacturers offered it as a factory option.
In 1958, Louis J. Fageol retired, selling
Fageol Products marine
engine division to the Crofton Mfg. Co. of Los Angeles. Twin Coach kept
successful Cheektowaga aircraft plant which was kept busy constructing
fuselage assemblies for Boeing, (B-52), Grumann, North American and
1962, stockholders approved a name change for the company, and the Twin
the Twin Industries Corp.
Back in Ohio small numbers of the firm’s
Fageol gasoline and
Fageol-Leland Diesels were constructed, and the firm eeked out an
building delivery van bodies and bidding on government contracts for
vehicles and the like.
In 1960 Joseph T. Myers, a Kent, Ohio
of Davey Tree Experts) and Twin Coach director, saw an opportunity, and
a portion of the factory for his own firm, the Highway Products Co.,
formed to construct small-to-medium sized vehicles for the U.S. Post
other agencies. Myers constructed delivery trucks, Parcel delivery
post offices, small boats, missile launchers, etc., bidding on whatever
government contracts were appropriate and in 1962 purchased a portion
former bus plant from Twin Coach/Twin Industries.
In addition Cummins and
Fageol-Leyland-powered 40 ft.
Highway Post Offices, the firm produced the Compac-Van, a medium-sized
forward-control 18,000-26,000lb. G.V.W. van produced under a contract
Cleveland, Ohio’s White Motors Co.Highway Products assumed the sales
and marketing of the
1965 and in 1968 introduced a 25-passenger Chrysler V-8 powered pusher
they marketed as the Twin Coach in order to capitalize on a new series
mass-transit grants recently made available to small cities by the
government. A 29-passenger Twin Coach joined the Highway Products
1969 and in 1970 Joseph T. Myers sold his interest in the firm to Alco
Co., who subsequently used the facility to construct Class-A motor
the Cortez Motor Home brand name. Highway Products went bankrupt in
approximately 900 Twin Coach buses were constructed.
Frank R. Fageol’s son Lou was a well-known
speedboat owner and racer, who sponsored two Post-War Indianapolis 500
Fageol/Twin Coach Specials in 1946, 1948 and 1949. He also constructed
stable of sports cars for his own use that included a former land-speed
and two twin-engine Porsches. However Lou Fageol’s main claim to fame
was as an
unlimited powerboat racer. Pictures of his motor boats and racecars can
be found on the Fageol Brothers page.
Louis J. Fageol retired from business after the
in 1958 and passed away on January 18, 1961, the Associated Press wire
announcing his death as follows:
“Race Driver Dies
“SAN DIEGO, Calif. (AP)-Louis J. Fageol, 54,
hydroplane race driver and retired bus manufacturer, died Monday of a
condition, and other ailments. He retired in 1958 as chairman of the
Bus Co. of Kent, Ohio. He was born in Oakland, California.”
After 1927 the Fageol family had no
corporate or personal
relationship with American Car & Foundry Motors Co. A short history
ACF/Brill activities follows.
Although for all intents and purposes
American Car &
Foundry and Brill had been operating as a cohesive unit for well over a
the collapse of the firm’s rail and interurban business prompted rumors
consolidation in late 1940, the December 8, 1940 edition of the Oakland
“Amer. Car-Brill Merger Proposed
“NEW YORK, Dec. 7.—Stockholders of Brill
Corporation and American
Car & Foundry Motors Company have been called to a special meeting
8 to act on a merger plan recommended by directors. Charles J. Hardy,
of each company, announced today. Brill Corporation will be the
concern, according to the plan.
“The proposal contemplates that Brill
become an operating company with manufacturing activities centered in
Pennsylvania and, through its holding of Hall-Scott Motor Car Company
also a holding company.
“At present American Car & Foundry
controls Hall-Scott Motor and is in turn controlled by the Brill
American Car & Foundry Company owns about 65 per cent of the class
stock of the Brill Corporation.”
The merger wasn’t accomplished until 1944,
the July 16, 1944
Oakland Tribune reporting:
“A.C.F.-Brill Offer Stock
“Philadelphia, July 15. – (AP) – The
Company, N.Y., registered today with the Securities and Exchange
280,138 shares of $2.50 par value common stock to be offered at $12.50
share to warrant holders prior to 1950 and at $15 between 1950 and
“Warrants are to be issued to holders of ‘B’
stock of the
Brill Corporation and to common stockholders of American Car and
“The new company formed under a June 19
American Car & Foundry Motors Company and the Brill Corporation,
physical properties but is the sole stockholder of its operating
the F.G. Brill Company, Philadelphia; the A.C.F. Motors Company;
Motor Car Company, Berkeley, Calif., and the Fageol Motors Company,
manufacturers of trolley coaches, steel metal pressings and engines.
“American Car and Foundry Company and a
Car and Foundry Investment Corporation, will own about 45 per cent of
common stock under the merger agreement, exclusive of the 280,138
registered for purchase on the exercise of warrants. American car and
Investment will also he issued warrants for 178,072 shares of common
under the merger agreement. A total of 1,250,000 shares are authorized
Officers of the Firm:
“Officers of the company are Charles J.
Hardy, New York,
chairman of the board; Ronald L. Monroe, Philadelphia, president;
Blackford, New York, vice-president, and K. L. Oerter, Philadelphia,
Ripe with cash from massive wartime
Vultee Aircraft Corp. purchased a controlling interest in A.C.F.-Brill
1946, the February 1, 1946 of the Altoona Mirror announcing:
“Consolidated Purchases Brill And Subsidiary
“NEW YORK, Feb. 1.—Consolidated Vultee
announced today it has purchased controlling interest in A.C.F.-Brill
company, Philadelphia, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hall-Scott
company, Berkeley, Calif., from the American Car and Foundry company
“Irving E. Babcock, chairman of
Consolidated, said the
purchase is part of a post-war diversification move by the company, one
nation's largest producers of Aircraft.
“Consolidated will acquire from American Car
445,139 of the
962,378 common shares outstanding of A.C.F.-Brill, and 160,464 warrants
280,044, outstanding. Each warrant carries the right to purchase one
share at $12.50 to Jan. 1, 1960, and $15 to Jan. 1, 1955.
“Babcock, who is expected to become chairman
of Brill, has
been engaged in motor truck and bus production for more than
Until a year ago, he was president of Yellow Truck and Coach
company and a vice president of General Motors corporation.
“Ronald R. Monroe, president of Brill, will
continue in that
capacity, Babcock said.
“Brill is currently building two models of
buses, one for
city – and the other for inter-city operation.
“The company's backlog of unfilled orders is
said to be more
than $50,000,000. Plant facilities include 804,000 square feet of space
acres of ground in Philadelphia.
“Brill has a license agreement with Canadian
Car and Foundry
company, whereby the latter produces Brill designs for the Canadian
American Car and Foundry, in divesting itself of all interest in Brill,
not manufacture buses or trolley coaches for city operation, or buses,
inter-city operation, Babcock said.
“The Hall-Scott, company, at Berkeley,
Calif., produces bus,
marine and industrial engines. Babcock said surplus plant capacity of
aircraft company may be used to augment Brill's facilities.”
The February 2, 1946 issue of the Oakland
of the acquisition which directly affected the operations of the
Motor Car Co. in nearby Berkeley, Calif.:
“Hall-Scott Motor Car Company out in
Berkeley which has
built truck and marine engines for a good any years was sold to
Vultee Aircraft Corporation the other day for $7,500,000. The purchase
includes the controlling interest in the A.C.F.-Brill Motors Company of
Philadelphia of which Hall-Scott is a subsidiary.
“Both the Berkeley and the Philadelphia
companies were owned
by the American Car and Foundry Company. A.C.F.-Brill is one of the
United States manufacturers of motor busses, trolley coaches, and
“The purchase marks the first entrance by a
company into the field of automotive surface transportation.
so many of you guys know, built the now famous PBY ‘Cats’ which did
duty during the war. Consolidated-Vultee also built many other types of
aircraft for such duties as anti-sub patrol, training and
Army and Navy bombardment craft. Somewhere in the group are the famous
“It is expected that Vultee will begin
producing buses along
with other types of heavy equipment shortly.”
© 2013 Mark Theobald for coachbuilt.com
Appendix - Fageol brothers patents:
Automobile - US675379 - Grant - Filed Sep
11, 1900 - Issued
June 4, 1901 – Rollie B. Fageol
Crude Petroleum Burner - US719573 Grant -
Filed Apr 18, 1902
- Issued Feb 3, 1903 - R.B. Fageol
Inclined Suspended Railway - US817699 Grant
- Filed Nov 28,
1903 - Issued Apr 10, 1906 - R.B. Fageol
Pleasure Railway - US927517 Grant - Filed
Feb 10, 1908 -
Issued Jul 13, 1909 – Frank R. Fageol
Manufactured of Filled Bumpers - US1189675
Grant - Filed Sep
5, 1911 - Issued Jul 4, 1916 – R.B. Fageol
Vehicle - US1160499 - Grant - Filed Jan 5,
1915 - Issued Nov
16, 1915 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle Body - USD47287 - Grant - Filed Jan
5, 1915 - Issued
May 4, 1915 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle - US1212616 - Grant - Filed Jul 26,
1915 - Issued
Jan 16, 1917 - R.B. Fageol
Transportation System - US1219276 - Grant -
Filed Jul 26,
1915 - Issued Mar 13, 1917 - R.B. Fageol
Amusement device for bathers - US1190743 -
Grant - Filed Aug
17, 1915 - Issued Jul 11, 1916 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle Body - USD48778 - Grant - Filed Dec
28, 1915 -
Issued Mar 28, 1916 - R.B. Fageol
Flexible Vehicle - US1226958 - Grant - Filed
Jan 3, 1916 -
Issued May 22, 1917 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle Body - USD48968 - Grant - Filed Feb
15, 1916 -
Issued May 2, 1916 - R.B. Fageol
Flexible Road Train - US1226962 - Grant -
Filed Jul 25, 1916
- Issued May 22, 1917 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle Body - USD49959 - Grant - Filed Sep
12, 1916 -
Issued Nov 28, 1916 - R.B. Fageol
Tread for Tractor Wheels - US1268445 - Grant
- Filed Apr 16,
1917 - Issued Jun 4, 1918 – R.B. Fageol & Charles A. Smith
Automobile Radiator - USD50270 - Grant -
Filed Sep 21, 1916
- Issued Feb 6, 1917 – Frank R. Fageol
Automobile Hood - USD51492 - Grant - Filed
Jun 20, 1917 -
Issued Nov 20, 1917 - Frank R. Fageol
Bumper for Motor Vehicles - US1329517 -
Grant - Filed Nov 9,
1917 - Issued Feb 3, 1920 – R.B. Fageol
Coupling for Vehicles - US1407019 - Grant -
Filed May 26,
1919 - Issued Feb 21, 1922 - R.B. Fageol
Power Transmission Gear Mechanism - -
US1463389 - Grant -
Filed Dec 15, 1920 - Issued Jul 31, 1923 – William B. Fageol
Automobile Bumper - US1427275 - Grant -
Filed Mar 31, 1921 -
Issued Aug 29, 1922 - R.B. Fageol
Motor Vehicle - US1660189 - Grant - Filed
May 18, 1921 -
Issued Feb 21, 1928 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Eight-Wheel Motor Vehicle
Motor Vehicle & Fender Assembly -
USD59728 - Grant -
Filed May 26, 1921 - Issued Nov 22, 1921- R.B. Fageol
Torqueing Arrangement for Tandem-axle
Vehicles - US1739355 -
Grant - Filed Nov 2, 1921 - Issued Dec 10, 1929 - R.B. Fageol assigned
Eight-Wheel Motor Vehicle Co.
Road Vehicle - US1660188 - Grant - Filed Nov
2, 1921 -
Issued Feb 21, 1928 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle - US1763767 - Grant - Filed Jan 20,
1922 - Issued
Jun 17, 1930 - R.B. Fageol
Automobile Body - US1452369 - Grant - Filed
Feb 16, 1922 -
Issued Apr 17, 1923 – Frank R. Fageol
Bumper Mounting - US1500380 - Grant - Filed
Jan 31, 1923 -
Issued Jul 8, 1924 - R.B. Fageol
Bumper For Automobiles - US1482226 - Grant -
Filed Jan 31,
1923 - Issued Jan 29, 1924 - R.B. Fageol
Clamping Device for Automobile Bumpers -
US1519399 - Grant -
Filed Apr 10, 1923 - Issued Dec 16, 1924 - R.B. Fageol assigned to
Road Vehicle - USRE17889 - Grant - Filed Apr
23, 1923 -
Issued Dec 2, 1930 - R.B. Fageol - assigned to Eight-Wheel Motor
Automobile Brake - US1633776 - Grant - Filed
Jun 18, 1923 -
Issued Jun 28, 1927 – William B. Fageol assigned to Rollie B. Fageol
Tandem Drive Axle - US1933667 - Grant -
Filed Sep 25, 1923 -
Issued Nov 7, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Eight-Wheel Motor Vehicle
Resilient Radiator Shield - US1628131 -
Grant - Filed Oct
15, 1923 - Issued May 10, 1927 - R.B. Fageol
Motor Vehicle - US1947337 - Grant - Filed
Feb 11, 1925 -
Issued Feb 13, 1934 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering
Automobile End Fender - US1581432 - Grant -
Filed Feb 18,
1925 - Issued Apr 20, 1926 – R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Combined Fender Guard and Bumper - US1595390
- Grant - Filed
Feb 18, 1925 - Issued Aug. 10, 1926 – R.B. Fageol assigned to American
Bumper for Automobiles - US1595391 - Grant -
Filed Feb 18,
1925 - Issued Aug 10, 1926 – R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Fender Guard - US1637770 - Grant - Filed Feb
18, 1925 -
Issued Aug 2, 1927 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Design For A scooter - USD71011 Grant -
Filed Mar 3, 1925 -
Issued Sep 7, 1926 - R.B. Fageol
Parallel Bar Bumper - US1623583 - Grant -
Filed Jun 3, 1925
- Issued Apr 5, 1927 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Vehicle Bumper - USD67952 - Grant - Filed
Jun 3, 1925 -
Issued Aug 11, 1925 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Bumper Tip - US1678853 - Grant - Filed Jun
10, 1925 - Issued
Jul 31, 1928 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Multibar Bumper - US1620334 - Grant - Filed
Jun 10, 1925 -
Issued Mar 8, 1927 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Multiple Wheel Road Vehicle - US1871432 -
Grant - Filed Jun
11, 1925 - Issued Aug 9, 1932 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Vehicle Body - USD74261 - Grant - Filed Jul
22, 1925 -
Issued Jan 17, 1928 - R.B. Fageol
Spring Vehicle - US1727759 - Grant - Filed
Mar 8, 1926 -
Issued Sep 10, 1929 - R.B. Fageol
Toy Vehicle - US1679819 - Grant - Filed Mar
17, 1926 -
Issued Aug 7, 1928 - R.B. Fageol
Convertible Wagon and Sled - US1654284 -
Grant - Filed Aug
9, 1926 - Issued Dec 27, 1927 - R.B. Fageol
Child’s Spring Vehicle - US1704315 - Grant -
Filed Aug 9,
1926 - Issued Mar 5, 1929 - R.B. Fageol
Bumper - US1723774 - Grant - Filed Apr 27,
1927 - Issued Aug
6, 1929 - R.B. Fageol assigned to American Chain Co.
Snubber For Vehicle Springs - US1771560 -
Grant - Filed Sep
14, 1927 - Issued Jul 29, 1930 - R.B. Fageol
Vehicle Snubber and Spring Suspension -
US1781631 - Grant -
Filed Oct 11, 1927 - Issued Nov 11, 1930 - R.B. Fageol
Rail Car - US1883357 - Grant - Filed May 29,
1928 - Issued
Oct 18, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Multi-wheel Road Vehicle - US1913799 - Grant
- Filed Sep 27,
1928 - Issued Jun 13, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Rail Car Construction - US1880953 - Grant -
Filed Feb 13,
1929 - Issued Oct 4, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Multi-wheel Road Vehicle - US1981449 - Grant
- Filed Mar 18,
1929 - Issued Nov 20, 1934 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Multi-wheel Road Vehicle - US1981593 - Grant
- Filed Jun 3,
1929 - Issued Nov 20, 1934 - R.B. Fageol
Multiwheel Twin-Motor Road Vehicle -
US1973144 - Grant -
Filed Jul 18, 1929 - Issued Sep 11, 1934 – William B. Fageol assigned
Dual Drive Road Vehicle - US1992365 - Grant
- Filed Aug 3,
1929 - Issued Feb 26, 1935 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Multi-wheel Road Vehicle - US2006800 - Grant
- Filed Aug 3,
1929 - Issued Jul 2, 1935 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Low Bed Delivery Truck - US2018443 - Grant -
Filed Aug 28,
1929 - Issued Oct 22, 1935 – William B. Fageol
Motor Coach - US1861001 - Grant - Filed Oct
18, 1929 -
Issued May 31, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Internal Combustion Engine - US1887998 -
Grant - Filed Oct
21, 1929 - Issued Nov 15, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin
Universal Joint - US1932400 - Grant - Filed
Nov 7, 1929 -
Issued Oct 31, 1933 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Device for Interconnecting Axles - US1936834
- Grant - Filed
Dec 3, 1929 - Issued Nov 28, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Dual Drive Multiwheel Road Vehicle -
US1949830 - Grant -
Filed Dec 5, 1929 - Issued Mar 6, 1934 - R.B. Fageol assigned to
Traction Regulating Means for Multiwheel
Road Vehicles -
US1926273 - Grant - Filed Dec 7, 1929 - Issued Sep 12, 1933 - R.B.
assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.
Multiwheel Road Vehicle - US1924984 - Grant
- Filed Dec 12,
1929 - Issued Aug 29, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive
Multiwheel Vehicle of the Tandem Axle Type -
Grant - Filed Apr 26, 1930 - Issued Sep 12, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned
Automotive Engineering Corp.
Cooling System For Self-Propelled Vehicles -
Grant - Filed Sep 6, 1930 - Issued Aug 7, 1934 – Frank R. Fageol
Twin Coach Co.
Sealing Device - US1931724 - Grant - Filed
Sep 23, 1930 -
Issued Oct 24, 1933 - R.B. Fageol & William E. Leibing
Electrically Driven Road Vehicle and Method
Same - US1972333 - Grant - Filed Oct 16, 1930 - Issued Sep 4, 1934 –
Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Railway Rolling Stock - US1916470 - Grant -
Filed Oct 20,
1930 - Issued Jul 4, 1933 – Frank R. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Passenger Carrying Motor Vehicle - US1861002
- Grant - Filed
Nov 8, 1930 - Issued May 31, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin
Fuel Control Apparatus - US1982049 - Grant -
Filed Mar 20,
1931 - Issued Nov 27, 1934 – Robley D. Fageol assigned to Leibing
Flexible Guard for Road Vehicles - US1825344
- Grant - Filed
Apr 1, 1931 - Issued Sep 29, 1931 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin
Motor Vehicle - USD84576 - Grant - Filed May
7, 1931 -
Issued Jul 7, 1931 – Frank R. Fageol & William B. Fageol assigned
Fruit Juice Extracting Press - US2010629 -
Grant - Filed Jun
15, 1931 - Issued Aug 6, 1935 – R.B. Fageol & Huston Taylor
Motor Vehicle Control - US2003431 - Grant -
Filed Aug 21,
1931 - Issued Jun 4, 1935 - William B. Fageol
Headlight Mounting For Motor Vehicles -
US2007599 - Grant -
Filed Sep 22, 1931 - Issued Jul 9, 1935 - William B. Fageol assigned to
Trackless Trolley Vehicle - US1988073 -
Grant - Filed Oct
23, 1931 - Issued Jan 15, 1935 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin
Motor Vehicle - USD87875 - Grant - Filed Nov
3, 1931 -
Issued Oct 4, 1932 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Vehicle Drive and Control Mechanism -
US2097391 - Grant -
Filed Dec 16, 1931 - Issued Oct 26, 1937 - William B. Fageol assigned
Divco-Twin Truck Co.
Dumping Vehicle - US1996540 - Grant - Filed
Apr 15, 1932 -
Issued Apr 2, 1935 - William B. Fageol & Frank R. Fageol assigned
Road Vehicle Body Frame - US2039215 - Grant
- Filed May 3,
1932 - Issued Apr 28, 1936 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach
Pneumatic Tire Combination Rail and Highway
Unit - US2027684
- Grant - Filed May 26, 1932 - Issued Jan 14, 1936 – William B. Fageol
to Twin Coach Co.
Carburetor - US2034048 - Grant - Filed Sep
28, 1932 - Issued
Mar 17, 1936 – William E. Leibing & Robley D. Fageol assigned to
Automotive Devices Inc.
Pneumatic-Tired Highway and Rail Vehicle -
US2140421 - Grant
- Filed Nov 14, 1933 - Issued Dec 13, 1938 – William B. Fageol assigned
Motor Vehicle - USD91556 - Grant - Filed Dec
20, 1933 -
Issued Feb 20, 1934 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Universal Joint Construction - US2025502 -
Grant - Filed Jan
29, 1934 - Issued Dec 24, 1935 - William B. Fageol assigned to
Unit Section Automotive Vehicle - US2128930
- Grant - Filed
May 18, 1934 - Issued Sep 6, 1938 - Frank R. Fageol & William B.
one-fifth assigned to Strauch & Hoffman (William A. Strauch &
Motor Vehicle and Vehicle Power and Drive
US2083059 - Grant - Filed Jun 5, 1934 - Issued Jun 8, 1937 - William B.
assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Motor Vehicle and Vehicle Driving Mechanism
- US2118810 -
Grant - Filed Apr 6, 1935 - Issued May 31, 1938 - William B. Fageol
Twin Coach Co.
Driving Mechanism - US2118811 - Grant -
Filed Apr 9, 1935 -
Issued May 31, 1938 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Driving Mechanism - US2118812 - Grant -
Filed Apr 9, 1935 -
Issued May 31, 1938 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Cooling Apparatus for Automotive Vehicles -
Grant - Filed Jan 14, 1936 - Issued Jul 19, 1938 - William B. Fageol
to Twin Coach Co.
Vehicle Driving Construction and Arrangement
- US2232105 -
Grant - Filed Jun 4, 1936 - Issued Feb 18, 1941 - William B. Fageol
Twin Coach Co.
Panel Mounting - US2173435 - Grant - Filed
Mar 8, 1937 -
Issued Sep 19, 1939 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Smoker’s Accessory - US2183425 - Grant -
Filed May 10, 1937
- Issued Dec 12, 1939 – R.B. Fageol
Non-hook, Non-skid Bumper Construction -
US2173642 - Grant -
Filed Sep 20, 1937 - Issued Sep 19, 1939 - R.B. Fageol
Passenger Vehicle - US2251584 - Grant -
Filed May 25, 1938 -
Issued Aug 5, 1941 - Frank R. Fageol & William B. Fageol assigned
Reinforced Vehicle Body Construction -
US2239089 - Grant -
Filed Dec 29, 1938 - Issued Apr 22, 1941 - William B. Fageol assigned
Toy Vehicle - USD115668 - Grant - Filed Jan
5, 1939 - Issued
Jul 11, 1939 – R.B. Fageol
Shock Absorbing Element - US2243462 - Grant
- Filed Jun 19,
1939 - Issued May 27, 1941 – R.B. Fageol
Automobile Buffer - US2257495 - Grant -
Filed Sep 18, 1939 -
Issued Sep 30, 1941 – R.B. Fageol
Automobile Bumper Guard - US2259440 - Grant
- Filed Sep 18,
1939 - Issued Oct 21, 1941 – R.B. Fageol
Governor - US2300378 - Grant - Filed Nov 24,
1939 - Issued
Oct 27, 1942 – Robley D. Fageol & William E Leibing assigned
Vehicle Spring Suspension - US2344983 -
Grant - Filed Dec
28, 1940 - Issued Mar 28, 1944 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin
Vehicle Spring Suspension - US2330482 -
Grant - Filed Mar
26, 1941 - Issued Sep 28, 1943 - Issued Mar 28, 1944 - William B.
assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Carburetor - US2443464 - Grant - Filed Jun
7, 1943 - Issued
Jun 15, 1948 - William E. Leibing & Robley D. Fageol assigned to
Vehicle Suspension - US2404794 - Grant -
Filed Aug 7, 1943 -
Issued Jul 30, 1946 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Oscillating Van Rotary Pump - US2526621 -
Grant - Filed Dec
23, 1944 - Issued Oct 24, 1950 - William E. Leibing & Robley D.
assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.
Fageol Child’s Vehicle - USD144703 - Grant -
Filed Aug 8,
1945 - Issued May 14, 1946 - William B. Fageol
Flexible Drive - US2491820 - Grant - Filed
Sep 17, 1945 -
Issued Dec 20, 1949 - William E. Leibing & Robley D. Fageol
R.D. Fageol Co.
Wheeled Vehicle for Children - US2423590 -
Grant - Filed Oct
1, 1945 - Issued Jul 8, 1947 - William B. Fageol
Engine Attachment - US2466090 - Grant -
Filed Mar 1, 1946 -
Issued Apr 5, 1949 - Robley D. Fageol assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.
Pressure Actuated Transmission - US2634709 -
Grant - Filed
Feb 2, 1949 - Issued Apr 14, 1953 - Robley D. Fageol assigned to R.D.
Speed Response Governor for Internal
Combustion Engines -
US2651316 - Grant - Filed Apr 12, 1949 - Issued Sep 8, 1953 - Robley D.
assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.
Pressure Actuated Transmission Control Unit
- US2584995 -
Grant - Filed Apr 12, 1949 - Issued Feb 12, 1952 - Robley D. Fageol
R.D. Fageol Co.
Method for the Production of Vehicles -
US2773304 - Grant -
Filed May 5, 1953 - Issued Dec 11, 1956 – Louis J. Fageol assigned
Method for Construction of Self-Propelled
Vehicles - US2791826
- Grant - Filed May 19, 1953 - Issued May 14, 1957 – Louis J. Fageol
to Twin Coach Co.
Single Lever Control for Power Plant
Transmission - US2808733 - Grant - Filed May 24, 1956 - Issued Oct 8,
Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.
Vertical Shaft Inboard Marine Power Plant
US2976836 - Grant - Filed May 24, 1956 - Issued Mar 28, 1961 – Louis J.
Internal Combustion Engines and Methods of
Such Engines- US2852837 - Grant - Filed
Dec 4, 1956 - Issued Sep 23, 1958 – Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin
Marine Power Propulsion Assemblies -
US3164122 - Grant -
Filed Feb 26, 1962 - Issued Jan 5, 1965 – Louis J. Fageol deceased by
Fageol assigned to Textron Inc.