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. of Ohio.

The formation of that firm was announced in the September 2, 1920 Oakland Tribune. The new corporation’s officers included Frank R. Fageol, president; Webb Jay, vice-president; Calvin Eib, vice-president of sales; Maj. S.E. Hutton, secretary-treasurer; A.E. Jurs, general manager and I.H. Crow, supt. of the machine shop. Its formation of the 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 Personnel.

“Fageol trucks, which for the past three years have been manufactured in Oakland, Cal., are now to be built in Cleveland. For this purpose a new organization has been formed to take over the Ohio manufacturing project. The Fageol Motors Company (of Ohio) is the name of the new enterprise and its executive personnel is made up of men who were formerly identified with the California company. A plant in the Ohio city, formerly occupied by a motorcycle manufacturer, has just been secured, and additional factory units will be added, according to present plans. Limited production is to start in September, gradually increasing the output until the proposed schedule of 60 trucks a month by January is attained.

“F.R. Fageol, founder of the Oakland company and largely responsible for the truck’s design and its development, is president of the newly formed company, having resigned as president of, although retaining an interest in the California plant. Fageol, for a number of years a car and truck distributor himself, has learned by such experience just what the demands of the truck user are, and also the value of factory cooperation with the dealer. This plus his truck and tractor building experience fits him for his new post.

“Calvin C. Eib, who, as told in these columns last May, left the management of the Denver branch of the Willys-Overland Company to direct the sales of the Ohio plant, although it was not known at that time that a separate company would be formed, assumes the post of vice-president in charge of sales. The other executives Fageol brings with him from California, they being I.H. Crow, who was superintendent of machine shop production for the Oakland Fageol plant.; Major S.E. Hutton, secretary and treasurer of the Ohio company, and A.E. Jurs, general superintendent of production. Webb Jay, whose name is well-known in connection with the vacuum tank, is a director and vice-president.

“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 Coast, and has at its disposal the engineering department of the Oakland outfit, which, incidentally, will carry on all the development work for the two companies. The Ohio company has exclusive rights to all territory east of the Rockies and such export sales as are ordinarily handled from the Atlantic seaboard. The eastern organization will concentrate on but two of the Fageol truck modes, a medium duty, 2 ½ - 3 tons capacity, and a heavy duty, for loads from 3 ½ tons upward. Both of these feature the Fageol seven-speed compound transmission, which has been described previously in Automobile Topics.”

The September 25, 1920 edition of Michigan Manufacturer and Financial Record announced the new firm had leased the former plant of the National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co.:

“Fageol Locates In Cleveland

“It is announced in Cleveland that the Fageol Motors Company, of Oakland, Cal., maker of trucks, has taken a short time lease on the plant formerly occupied by the National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry, and will 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 independent of 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 them being F. C. Chandler, founder and president of the Chandler Motor Car Company. At the Cleveland plant only two Fageol models will be made—a 2 ½ to 3-ton model and a heavy duty model for loads of from 3 ½ tons up. The vehicles will be duplicates to those made on the coast.”

September 15, 1920 issue of the Commercial Car Journal included further details of the new firm as well information about the firm’s new 7-speed transmission:

“Fageol Trucks Now Also Being Built in Cleveland

“The Fageol Compound Truck which for the past three years has been built in Oakland, Calif., is now being manufactured also in Cleveland, Ohio, in order to meet the demand that has been coming to the California plant from truck buyers of the east and middle west. Fageol trucks are built in four sizes 1 ½, 2 ½, 3 ½ - 4, and 5-6 tons capacity. Detailed specifications will found in the specification table in this issue. The Fageol organization has for 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 problem:

“The 7-speed compound transmission which is largely responsible for Fageol success on the Pacific coast, gives the truck a range of power declared by its makers to be 91 per cent greater than is possible with the conventional 4-speed type of transmission, as well as 36 per cent more road speed, without in the least increasing the speed of the engine. The Fageol transmission, used exclusively in this truck, is in appearance quite the same as the 4-speed type, having exactly the same number of gears, shafts, etc. Yet the Fageol transmission provides five speeds forward 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. Fageol, and the engineering department of the Fageol Company. This device, upon which patents are pending, makes it possible to run the countershaft of the ordinary transmission at two speeds instead of one. The fifth forward, or high, is an over-gear which, while not increasing the number of engine revolutions per minute, gives the truck 36 per cent more road speed, thus reducing the gas 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 by this transmission has been found especially desirable by truck owners of the Pacific coast where are found the most exacting traffic conditions in America. There, a successful motor truck must be able to haul a full load up 25 per cent to 30 per cent grades over all kinds of mountain road. It must be capable of withstanding the rapid transition from summer heat to freezing temperature to compensate for lowered efficiency clue to high altitude—25 per cent at 7000 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 driver. The truck is said to steer with unusual ease. All operating levers such as 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 continuously 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 conveniently located in a substantially built tool box. To provide for the driver's comfort 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 of the California company, who is largely responsible for the development of the truck 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 of his 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 of 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 dealer. Associated with Mr. Fageol is Calvin Eib, who will assume the position of vice president in charge of sales for the Fageol Company (of Ohio). Mr Fageol has brought with him from California, I.H. Crow, who has been the superintendent of machine shop production for the Oakland plant, Major S.E. Hutton, secretary and treasurer of the new company, and A.E. Jurs, general superintendent of production. Webb Jay, of Vacuum Tank fame, is a director and vice president of the company.”

The 1925 edition of Walker's manual of Far Western corporations & securities lists the corporate makeup of the firm circa 1924:

“Fageol Motors Company - Authorized $500,000

“Organized under the laws of Cal., Nov. 20, 1916. Manufacturers automobile trucks and coaches at Oakland, Cal. Owns* Fageol Motors Company of California located in Kent, Ohio, which company acts as distributor for Fageol Motors Company in all territory east of the Rock Mountains, and the Fageol Motor Sales Company, a California corporation organized as a selling company located at Seattle., Wash.Officers— L. H. Bill, Pres.; & Treas.; F. R. Fageol, 1st Vice-Pres.; W. B. Fageol, 2nd Vice-Pres.; Webb Jay, 3rd Vice-Pres.; J. H. Fort, Sec; F. J. Wuepper, Asst. Sec. Directors— L. H. Bill, Robt. Dalziel, Jr., F.R. Fageol, W.B. Fageol, J.H. Fort, Arnold Haase, Stuart S. Hawley, Webb Jay, Charles H. Wood. Head Office – 107^th Ave & Hollywood Blvd., Oakland, Cal.”

(* an error, the Ohio firm was corporately unrelated to the California firm although the two firms shared some officers and directors.)

As the sales of interurbans and streetcars started to decline in the early 1920s two major Eastern rail- and street-car manufacturers became interested in acquiring stock in the motor coach manufacturing industry. Officers of the American Car and Foundry 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. and the Fageol companies of California and Ohio in order to obtain an integrated bus manufacturing business.

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 investment in Fageol, purchasing 1,000 shares of Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio common and 1,400 shares of Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio preferred. The purchase was suggested by Day & Zimmermann, a Philadelphia-based engineering consultancy that had also made an investment in the firm - believing their designs superior to competing firms. Brill also purchased a significantly smaller amount of White Motor Co. stock at about the same time as their Kulhman subsidiary already 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 a New York customer and since that time Brill and its subsidiaries (in particular Kulhman) had constructed small numbers of van and bus bodies for their numerous 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 was attracting more favorable comment...than any other at this time.'

In August of 1924 Hall-Scott and Fageol of California had given a bankers' syndicate a one-year option to purchase their assets or a controlling interest in their stock. No action was taken and on August 8, 1925 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 learned that Fageol and Hall-Scott’s shares were about to be available, he developed a complicated scheme to acquire a controlling interest in the two firms.

On May 5, 1925 J.G. Brill Co. acquired a controlling interest in the Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio which put it in a significantly better bargaining position with ACF’s Woodin, who wanted to buy all of Fageol’s operations.

Woodin and Curwen discussed the matter during June of 1925 and a plan was consummated whereby American Car & Foundry and Brill would combine their assets and put a deal together where they would control both Hall-Scott and the California and Ohio branches of Fageol. The complex transaction would result in the end of Brill’s autonomy but Curwen believed the resulting scheme was not only in the Brill Company’s best interest, but was in the best interests of its stockholders as well.

The 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 the Oakland Tribune:

“FAGEOL CO. BIDDING FOR WORLD TRADE:

“Large Oakland Company Reports Sale to Australian Railways 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 extensive plant. A two-story handsome brick administration building is being completed this week, which will give the executives, office force and engineering department much larger and commodious quarters. The present administration wing of the main building will be changed over into a production department, with 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 is increased practically every month, and as compared to last year, is an increase of over 100 per cent.

“The greatly increased production makes it necessary to employ a large crew of men and Fageol is recognized as being one of Oakland's 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 the demands made on the eastern factory, notwithstanding that the production at both the Kent, Ohio, chassis and body plants is being steadily increased.

“AUSTRALIAN DEMAND.

“J.H. Fort, secretary and sales manager of the California company, has just returned from an eight months trip to Australia. Fort reports 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 Australian Railways, a fleet of street car chassis to the Brisbane Tramway Trust, Queensland a number of chassis to independent operators in Sydney and other parts of New South Wales and also a fleet of Frisco double-deck busses to a large independent operator of Sydney. The first long distance bus run with modern equipment, has gone into service between Sydney and the new federal capital, 150 miles distant, with Fageol six-cylinder parlor cars, equipped with Westinghouse airbrakes. This equipment is attracting a great deal of attention throughout the commonwealth and is the beginning of an evolution in motor bus equipment there.

“They have consistently turned out a machine of such efficiency and durability that the last four years has witnessed a steady increase in press business from $1,200,000 to approximately $5,000,000. With the company firmly established in the field and with an increasing demand for 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, leading the field of industrial stock for the past several weeks.

“It is interesting to note that this company, which originated on the Pacific coast, has now assumed International proportion in that its products have been shipped to a number of foreign countries and recently created quite a sensation in London. An English motor Journal of recent issue devoted several pages to a full description of the Fageol debut In London, and it claims it as the acme of the luxurious highway transport.”

As the ink was drying on the aforementioned newspaper article a simple stock transaction resulted in the purchase of a considerable portion of Hall-Scott Motor Car Company stock by Brill and A.C.F., which was 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 reserves 667 shares of stock of Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. Out of a total of 1,000 shares outstanding (worth approximately $4 million), American Car and Foundry purchase 556 shares and J.G. Brill, 111 shares – the remaining 333 shares remained in the hand of third parties which included Hall-Scott’s directors and executives, of which a 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 shares earlier in the month. As the deadline approached an overwhelming majority of the shareholders approved of the swap and on August 29, 1925 A.C.F. and Brill were able to acquire approximately 66% of Hall-Scott’s shares. American Car & Foundry spent approximately $2.5 million J.G. Brill contributed about a half million ($500,000).

Step two occurred on Aug. 31, 1925 when the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio purchased the plant and inventories of the Fageol Motors Company of Cal. located at Kent, Ohio. The Fageol Motors Company of Ohio agreed to pay a minimum royalty of $75,000 per year and a maximum of $300,000 per year for 10 years or until a total of $3,000,000 has been paid to the Fageol Motors Co. of Cal. The Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio also obtained the exclusive rights to the distribution of Fageol products east of the Rocky Mountains.

The September 1, 1925 issue of the Oakland Tribune reported 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 today in the New York stock market which turned its eyes upon Oakland as the focal point for a battle for control of the Fageol Motor Company of Oakland.

“Fageol common stock jumped to $15 per share today.

“The battle for Fageol, following close upon the heels of the purchase of the Hall-Scott Motor Company of Oakland by the American Car & Foundry Company, is asserted to be another move in the formation of a gigantic industry centered in Oakland with millions invested and with future expansion on a large scale.

“HALL-SCOTT DEAL HELD BUT PRELUDE

“The price of the Hall-Scott company at its recent purchase was between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000, half in cash and the other half in stock of the American Car & Foundry company. As the Fageol company used many Hall-Scott motors and had close business connections with that concern and were practically inter-dependent, it is asserted that the control of the Hall-Scott 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 market where it is asserted that both the American Car & Foundry company and the J.G. Brill company of Philadelphia, have clashed in competition for the control of 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 higher.

“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 dispatches intimate that this concern may have gone into the market to gather in the 20,000 loose shares said to be available, thus precipitating the battle.

“Pending final reports, it is admitted that control of the company may have passed in the fluctuations of the buying, but this is denied by many.

“The battle for the control of Fageol, it is admitted, is a logical sequel to the Hall-Scott purchase, and there are rumors that other vehicular industries, outside the biggest auto corporations, may be involved.

“The actual purchase price of Fageol, it is admitted, would be several hundred thousand dollars, and observers assert that possibly a giant merger may be under way, involving more than $10,000,000 in Oakland industries.”

Step three of the ACF-Brill takeover commenced on September 29, 1925 when J.G. Brill’s board of directors authorized President Samuel M. Curwen to form a holding company with American Car & Foundry Co. whose purpose was to acquire a controlling interest in Hall-Scott, the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio, and the corporately unrelated Fageol Motors Company in Oakland. A maximum amount was set at $1.5 million which included the previous $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 Tribune:

“FAGEOL — in St. Helena, California. October 20, 1925. John J. Fageol, husband of Mary M. Fageol and father of Rollle B.,William B., Frank R., and Claud H. Fageol and Hazel Fageol Martin, and brother of Fred Fageol, Mrs. Mary Jamison, and Mrs. Lena Wilson. A native of Illinois, aged 70 years, 11 months, 5 days.

“Funeral services at the chapel of the California Crematory, 4499 Piedmont avenue, Oakland, Thursday, October 23, 1925, at 2:45 o'clock p. m. Remains at the chapel of Grant D. Miller, 2372 E. 14th street, Oakland, 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 offer by 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 the corporately unrelated, but similarly-named firm in Oakland was another matter entirely. The November 20, 1925 issue of the Oakland Tribune provided details 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. Brill & Company to merge Fageol into a new company which it is reported will yield stockholders $14 a share of the new securities for each share of common stock. The plan approval of two-thirds of the stockholders, but it is believed this will be forthcoming. A new company, Fageol-Hall-Scott Motor Company will be formed. It is planned, with capitalization of 100,000 shares of $100 par value preferred stock and 300,000 shares of no par value common, but which it is 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 will be given an additional amount of approximately $4 a share for the surplus of the 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 preferred for each twenty-five shares of common held. This makes the common worth $14 in 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 Fageol Motor Company of Ohio on each bus the new company manufactures inasmuch as the Fageol of Ohio has ratified the deal, final approval having been given yesterday.”

Although President Louis H. Bill and most officers and directors of the California branch of Fageol supported the deal, many Oakland-based shareholders were reluctant to relinquish control of the firm, and the deal was not accepted by the required two-thirds majority. Consequently, Fageol Motors Co. did not take part in the ACF-Brill merger/takeover and remained unaffected 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 was completed and the American Car and Foundry Motors Company (ACF Motors) was incorporated in the state of Delaware. Although the new firm did not own any property, it controlled, through stock ownership, the Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. 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 and Foundry Motors Company of the entire capital stock of the Hall-Scott Motor Car Company and The Fageol Motors Company from their respective stockholders in exchange for the issuance to the latter of preferred and common stock of the American Car and Foundry Motors Company.

The fourth, and final step of the ACF-Brill takeover took place on January 26, 1926 when a Delaware holding company named the Brill Corporation was formed for the purpose of acquiring the entire stock of the American Car & Foundry Motors Co., and the J.G. Brill Company.

Brill Corp.’s American Car & Foundry Motors Co. subsidiary owned 100% of Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. and 90% of Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio. ItsJ.G. Brill Co. subsidiary owned 100% of the American Car Co.; the Kuhlman Car Co.; the Wason Mfg. Co; and Cie J.G. Brill.

The January 6, 1926 issue of the Oakland Tribune explained the recent transactions to their interested readers:

“Hall and Fageol Made Officials of New Concern

“New York, Jan. 6. — (AP) — The American Car and Foundry Motors Company, which recently was organized to take over control of the Hall-Scott Motor Car Company of Berkeley and the Fageol Motor Companv of Oakland and Fageol Motors Company of Kent, Ohio, today announced that W.H. Woodin has been named chairman of the board of directors and C.S. Hall, president.

“Colonel E.J. Hall, one of the co-designers of the Liberty Aeroplane engine, and head of the Hall-Scott Company, was made a vice-president together with Horace Hager, W.L. Stancliffe, G.R. Scanlon and F.R. Fageol. H.C. Wick is secretary and S.A. Mallette, treasurer.

“The J. G. Brill Company of Philadelphia, builders of municipal railway cars, through its interest in the Hall-Scott and Fageol Companies, is represented on the board of directors by …..”

“F.R. Fageol, noted bus designer and builder, is vice-president in charge of sales, with headquarters in New York.”

The February 10, 1926 issue of the Oakland Tribune announced that:

“Fageol Motors Had Good Year

“Gross sales of Fageol Motors in 1925 were $5,345,688, while profits before charges were $546,214, and net profit was $310,124, according to the report of President L. H. Bill at the annual meeting of stockholders yesterday afternoon. Charges included $111,988 for reserve; $65,848 for federal taxes, and $37,651 for dividends, including checks mailed this month. The surplus as of December 31 last was $511,142. President Bill said that the company's outlook for 1926 on the Pacific coast, Hawaii, Australia and Central America is promising. He reported that during the last year the company had 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. There were no changes in officers or directors.”

On March 22, 1926 the Associated Press announced that American Car & Foundry Motors was consolidating its bus-building operations in Detroit:

“Motor Co. Plant To Be In Detroit

“Huge Combine Will Have Central Factory in Eastern City

“(Associated Press Leased Wire)

“DETROIT, March 22. - The American Car and Foundry Motors Company, combining the resources and staff of the Fageol Motors Company of Kent, Ohio, and the Hall-Scott Motors Company of Berkeley, is a $24,000,000 development, will have its main plant for the manufacture of motor busses and 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 charge of operations. F.R. Fageol will be vice-president in charge of sales with headquarters in New York.

“The J.G. Brill & Co. of Philadelphia, builders of municipal railway cars, through its interest in the Hall-Scott and Fageol companies, is represented in the new organization by its president, S.M. Curwen, who is director and member of the executive committee of the American Car & Foundry Motors Company.”

The news coincided with the placement of a full-page advertisement in the Detroit newspapers announcing the firm was commencing production of Fageol Safety Coaches in Detroit.

Apparently American Car & Foundry Motors continued their efforts to acquire the Oakland-based operations of Fageol Motors Co., the May 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 completion. Directors of Fageol are understood to have approved an offer for exchange of 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 recent offer to sell or combine on a basis of $5.00 for Fageol. This would seem to have concluded the negotiations which have been under way for many months and 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 lawsuit with 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 Ohio Plant

“Sales of Fageol Motors Company for 1926 are reported at $2,693,586 and net profit before dividend at $141,394, according to the annual report of President R. B. Bill.

“Aftermath of the sale of the Ohio Chassis plant at Kentfield, Ohio in 1925 to American Car and Foundry Company is a lawsuit for $120,000 against Fageol Motors Company of Ohio on alleged failure to pay for supplies delivered.A letter to stockholders today contains this account of trouble and of trade prospects generally.

“Our balance sheet shows that after paying our preferred dividends we have added to our surplus some $25,000. We have also set up a reserve of $50,000 for lawsuit. This $50.000 was really additional earningand should rightfully appear in….. We have been fortunate in our dealings with American Car and Foundry Motors Company who have refused to pay us for merchandise sold to the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio, to the amount of $120.000. We have been compelled to file a lawsuit against the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio to collect this amount, and for the purpose of prosecuting this suit we lm e set up this reserve of $50,000.

“The year 1925 was a difficult one for this company. Selling the Ohio bus plant left us with an overstock of merchandise, which has been reduced since then by nearly $500,000. However, there was some shrinkage and 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 cylinders, and this has necessitated a new layout for each model of truck. Also, there is a decided demand here for six-wheel trucks for heavy duty service and we have developed a six-wheel truck of a ten-ton capacity. We have also added to our line of trucks a ton and a half model. We expect to resort at the next annual meeting that we have increased our sales of trucks from 322 in 1326 to 730 during 1927.”

ACF’s move to Detroit, announced earlier in the year coincided with Frank R. Fageol’s resignation as vice-president of sales at American Car & Foundry Motors Co., a move that was prompted by the firm’s refusal to build his latest coach, a twin-engine flat-floored transit coach he christened the ‘Twin Coach’. Construction of the 43-seat prototype ‘Twin Coach’ commenced in the Fageol Motors Co. plant in Oakland and Frank and William Fageol set about arranging for the purchase of the now-vacant Fageol Motors Co. of Ohio factory 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; William B. Fageol, vice-president and Paul H. Brehm, secretary-treasurer. Brehm’s father was a well-known Minneapolis truck distributor (Brehm-McMullen Co.) and Paul had served as manager of the Minneapolis Fageol Safety Coach office. Twin Coach’s formation was announced on April 14, 1927 via the Associated Press Newswire:

“Plans Kent Bus Concern

“Cleveland, O., April 14—(AP) Frank. R. Fageol, who established the Fageol Company in Kent, O., several years ago, which later was 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 had been settled out of court:

“FAGEOL SUIT SETTLED; Action Against Ohio Company and American Car Canceled.

“The suit instituted by the Fageol Motors Company against the Fageol Motors Company of Ohio and the American Car and Foundry Motors Company has been cancelled and an amicable settlement has been effected by L.H. Bill, President of the Fageol Motors Company, it was announced yesterday. The statement adds that the amounts due the Fageol Motors Company, as well as past due royalties, are being paid, and that the company has allowed a satisfactory 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 maximum of $300,000, until such time as $3,000,000 in royalties had been paid to the parent company.

“For the last eight months negotiations have been underway with the American Car and Foundry Motors Company, which has acquired all the stock of the Ohio Company. The proposal of the purchasing company contemplated the exchange of the securities of the parent company for the securities of the American Car and Foundry Motors Company, no cash consideration being involved.”

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 old 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 edition of the Electric Railway Journal:

“TWIN COACHES

“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 effective 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 through unwieldy wheel base; not through a freak and uncomfortable seating arrangement and not by adding weight to the vehicle.

“Street car capacity is achieved with riding qualities which 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 line from 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 asking.

“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 by Frank R. Fageol, father of most of the forward steps in the bus industry, they strike a note of caution to every prospective buyer of the present conventional coach design. What Frank R. Fageol's famous Safety Coach did to revolutionize coach travel the Twin Coach bids fair outdo. idled the latest advance in coach equipment by Frank R. Fageol.

“EVERY automotive superintendent should be keenly interested in reporting to his superiors on this newest development.

“Note the load arrangement and balance, here-to-fore unknown in a motor coach because of longtime habit in locating the power plant; order the complete inter changeability of parts; that rear axle without a differential and weighing a quarter of a ton less; brakes which can be relined without disturbing the wheel bearings; that amazing body idea; and the twin cylinder engines giving a maximum of power but thereby reducing the strain and cost of its application throughout the entire vehicle — lessening upkeep in a truly practical manner.

“The superintendents of coach traffic know the public already is looking for greater lounging room. It wants leg room, elbow room, 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 ft. 5 in. That is what is meant by rider appeal. Peculiar way to say it, but can you 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 district. 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 and most 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 not going to the convention possibly a demonstration is scheduled for your district. 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 five years previous. ACF continued to market and produce the Fageol bus under that name until 1929, although a slightly heavier and more powerful chassis debuted 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 Motors Co. 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 manufacture Fageol-style coaches into the early 30s. More modern buses appeared in 1930 and their fist under-floor engine transit coach in 1935, fully 7 years after the debut of the Twin Coach.

The September 3, 1927 issue of the Electric Railway Journal mentioned that Twin Coach was using composite wood and metal panels supplied by the Haskelite Mfg. Co of Chicago:

“Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, Chicago, announces that in the new Twin Coach designed by F. R. Fageol, Plymetyl is used for 75 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. Fageol, Kent, O., was causing comment today from passersby on the streets of Waterloo.

“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 men from the factory at Kent are in charge of the bus and are demonstrating it at various cities on their route. They demonstrated the bus to officials of the 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. Either engine may be operated alone. There is one clutch pedal and one throttle for the two engines. The engines are placed, one on each side, in the center of the car and beneath the seats. Air brakes are on all four wheels.”

In 1928 Charles C. Pyle, the legendary sports promoter, agent and huckster, sponsored a coast-to-coast foot race with $48,500 in prizes to be awarded the top finishers, with the winner getting $25,000 of the total. Accompanying the 275 entrants was Pyle’s travelling P.T. Barnum-style sideshow from which Pyle hoped to make his profit. Pyle outlined his business plan as follows:

“It will be the greatest free show ever offered the American public. The runners will go through hundreds of towns, each of which will be assessed for advertising. Thousands will flock to these towns to see the runners. We'll sell them programs and tickets to our traveling side show.”

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 contestants. The coach was outfitted with reclining blue mohair chairs that converted into beds, a lavatory and shower, a kitchen with a sink, stove and refrigerator, and a mobile office with a collapsible table, writing desk, phonograph and radio set. The rear sleeping compartment was fitted with two double Pullman-style convertible seats that slept four. The open second-floor observation platform was fitted with a windscreen and transformable awning with seating for six as well and compartments that held the water and propane tank that fueled the on-board stove, refrigerator and water heater.

The March 1928 issue of Bus Age described the reportedly $25,000 coach, which was christened ‘America’ as a: “De Luxe Traveling Coach” with “complete transportation, sleeping, bathing, eating, and toilet facilities for fourteen people.” A second Twin Coach motor coach accompanied the first, upon which rode the numerous ‘race officials’ and ‘reporters’ that accompanied the runners who spent each night in a travelling tent city that 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 History’ lost a reported $150,000.

Early production Model 40 Twin Coaches used 6-cylinder Waukesha engines and in 1928 the firm introduced a new Fageol-designed power-plant supplied by the Hercules Engine Company of Canton, Ohio. The September 20, 1928 issue of the Oakland Tribune reported that Twin Coach had constructed 300 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 motor bus, reports sales exceeding $2,000,000 for the first eight months of this year and profit of $255,000 before Federal taxes. More than 300 Twin Coaches are now in operation on leading electrical railway properties in the United States.”

The September 20, 1928 issue of the Montana Standard reported that like two of his brothers, Claud Fageol was also associated with Twin Coach:

“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 Interurban Motor company, stopped in Butte yesterday to visit Emil Torgerson. The pair are on their way to Cleveland, where they will attend the American Electric Railway 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 Safety Coach Manufacturing company, the largest builders of wide-tread safety coaches.

“The business was recently sold to the American Car and Foundry company. A twin motor coach, very similar to a street car, which will run on tracks or without, is now being sold by Mr. Fageol. It is an invention of his brother and has a seating capacity of 40. The car is a light weight with the luxury of a Pullman car, Chicago and other cities are equipped with such coaches.”

Shortly after the firm’s two-year anniversary, Frank R. Fageol announced sale for its first full year of production totaled $4 million:

“KENT, O., Feb. 22.—The coaches of the Twin Coach company, organized in 1927, are in use by fifty-eight transportation and utility companies according to President F. R. Fageol, he announces sales in the last year total $4,300,000.”

A smaller 21-seat Twin Coach debuted in 1929 that was powered by a single 6-cylinder as did a combination rail- and road-going car, the Ruston Daily Leader of September 7, 1932 reporting:

“Motor Bus Now Runs On Tracks

“CHICAGO, (U.P.) — An ordinary motor bus, or trucks, fitted with an attachment by which it can run on railroad tracks as well as highways, was demonstrated here to a group of railroad men as the answer to their transportation problems.

“The equipment that permits the bus to travel on rails consists of four sets of guide wheels with wide flanges which hinge the rails. They are placed in front and in back of the rubber tired wheels, and are raised or lowered for operating by a lever at the driver's seat.

“F.L. Wilson, president of the Wilson Engineering Corporation who demonstrated the machine, said that it would be a simple matter for a shipper to send his merchandise to the dealer, no matter where he was 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 freight station, where they would be coupled to any number of other trucks, and placed on railroad tracks.

“The device is the invention of Frank R. Fageol, president of the Twin Coach Corporation of Kent, O., and developer of the Fageol safety 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 they branched out into the route delivery business with a popular line of dairy and bakery delivery trucks with modular power units. Trolley buses were also 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 Waukesha declined to re-engineer the engine to meet Fageol’s demands. Hercules was more accommodating and the resulting Fageol-Hercules engine was used from 1928 to 1943.

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 parlor car or in transit configuration with a second door just behind the rear wheels. They shared the front-engine architecture, chassis and sheet-metal of the firm’s forward-control delivery trucks and were powered by a single six-cylinder Fageol-Hercules engine located above the front axle. Its lower price and lower gasoline consumption made it a favorite of cash-strapped surface transport operators and between 1931 and 1935 over 900 Model 30s and 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 track maintenance trucks. A few non-standard delivery trucks were also constructed some with front-wheel-drive and others with hybrid gas-electric and full electric power.

The firm’s original transit coach, the twin-engined Model 40, was discontinued in 1934 and replaced by the all-new Model 37R. Powered by a single transversely-mounted 126 hp. Fageol-Hercules engine at the rear, it became the firm’s most popular model. Smaller pusher Twin Coaches followed in 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 Gasoline Plants

“In the illustration is shown a new type Twin Coach that attracted a great deal of attention at the recent Cleveland exhibit of the 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 low weight with great strength is obtained by the liberal use of nickel and aluminum alloys.

“Of most interest, however, is the location of the engine which is transversally mounted across the rear end. A point of further interest is that the bus has been designed so that whenever it is desired, a Diesel motor may be submitted for the gasoline motor. Placing the motor in this position make it easily accessible for any servicing necessary or for inspection.

“Another feature of this new bus is that the air for ventilation is taken in through a duct in center of the roof instead of from the dusty area at the rear of the vehicle.

“The main body frame comprises two full-length longitudinal, specially shaped pressed-steel channels reinforced with ample cross members and special Nickel ‘Z’ shaped cross sills for supporting floor and outside lower 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. opening.

“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 torque is 350 ft. lbs. at 1,200 r.p.m., with a brake horse power of 126 at 2,000 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 Westinghouse equipment.

“A unique system of ventilating the motor is provided. The radiator is a special Young tubular type, mounted directly above motor in rear of motor compartment. All air for radiator is drawn from the roof and exhausted at each side of the motor housing, the motor being contained in a dust-proof sealed compartment which eliminates all roads dust, as the only air entering the compartment must come from the roof where the air is clean. Air is thrown out of the motor compartment by a shrouded fan on each end of the power plant which forces air out through the body sides adjacent to the rear corners. Fans are driven direct on the engine crankshaft and transmission main shaft.”

Five convertible Model 23R coaches were constructed for Motor Stage Inland Motor Tours of Catalina Island, California in 1936. The coaches included a canvas top that rolled rearwards giving its passenger a mostly uninterrupted view of Catalina’s magnificent palms trees, hilly terrain and beautiful blue skies.

The first diesels were delivered in 1935 and the firm’s hybrid diesel-electrics were popular with numerous metropolitan New York City operators, who acquired 300 of the units prior to the Second World War.

The Fageol brothers (Frank R. and William B. Fageol) also spearheaded the 1936 purchase and reorganization of the Continental-Divco Co. from its parent, Continental Motors Corp.At the time Continental-Divco manufactured route delivery vehicles under the ‘Divco’ brand name, and the Fageol brothers hoped to strengthen their position in the field through the purchase of their chief competitor.

The Divco dated to the early 1920s when George Bacon, chief engineer of Detroit Electric Car Co., constructed a prototype electric route delivery vehicle that could be operated from four points; the front, rear, left- or right- hand side. Testing revealed the limits of its storage batteries and in 1926 a gasoline-powered version was tested, and Bacon and a group of investors formed the Detroit Industrial Vehicle Company who christened it the ‘Divco’ and commenced manufacture at a small factory on Fort Street West, Detroit. The prototype used a 4-cylinder LeRoi engine, but production Divcos were fitted with Continental 4-cylinders mated to Warner 4-speed transmissions. In 1927 the firm was reorganized as the Divco-Detroit Corp. and production relocated to 2435 Merrick Ave., Detroit. Sales of the diminutive delivery truck grew amongst dairies looking to replace their horse-drawn milk wagons with more modern equipment and substantial numbers of Divcos were delivered to regional dairies into the early days of the Depression when the firm entered into receivership.

In September of 1930 Divco-Detroit purchased the Step-N-Drive Corp. of Buffalo, New York in order to obtain the firm’s patents, but the firm was already hopelessly insolvent, and the purchase helped put the firm into receivership. A creditor’s committee auctioned off the firm’s assets in April of 1932 and the winning bidder, Continental Motors Corp., won the bidding with a $90,000 offer.

Continental created a new subsidiary, Continental-Divco Co. - headed by W. R. Angell, and relocated Divco’s assets to Continental’s 12801 East Jefferson Ave. plant and relocated the Step-N-Drive operations to Detroit. Continental-Divco operated at a loss until 1935 when a 300-unit sale to the Borden Company put it into the 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 a dual licensing agreement. In 1936 a complicated series of transactions between two Manhattan investment bankers and the two firms resulted in the establishment of a new firm, Divco-Twin Corp., which combined the assets of Twin Coach’s route delivery truck division with that of Continental-Divco’s. Twin Coach owned a 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 Jefferson Ave. plant until July, 1939 when the firm moved into a new factory located at 22000 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 milk truck that remains popular to this day.

The new design proved popular and continued in production through 1986. In January 1944 the ‘Twin’ was dropped and the firm became the Divco Corporation. Although the Fageol brothers sat on Divco-Twin’s board, they 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 Corporation and for a number of years Frank R. Fageol served as president of Divco-Wayne.

In 1938 Twin Coach introduced an unusual four-axle motor coach/trolley coach that was christened the ‘Super Twin’, the June 18, 1938 Daily Princetonian (Princeton, N.J.) reported:

“Twin Coach Company, Kent, Ohio

“Kent, Ohio, June 15—The largest, capacity passenger vehicle for public carrier service, without the use of tracks, has been announced this month by Frank R. and William B. Fageol, President and Vice President, respectively, of the Twin Coach Company of this city. The vehicle seats 58 passengers on a single deck, and will transport readily, a passenger load of 120, including standees. The unit is designed to operate as an electric trolley coach or by Diesel-electric propulsion. The vehicle has four axles, eight wheels and bears its lead on 12 tires, the four center wheels taking dual rubber equipment. It weighs 27,500 pounds and is known as the Super-Twin.

“This unit will be capable of 50 miles per hour top speed, and, therefore, in regular schedule traffic, should have no difficulty in maintaining average schedule speed of 13 to 14 miles per hour, which is within one or two miles per hour of the average speed on principal subway lines.

“The new vehicle, on the fiftieth anniversary of the operation of electric trolley cars operating upon steel rails in the United States, immediately becomes a threat to continued large city street car operation, because it is the first seemingly practical unit created as a rubber tired public carrier capable of equaling the capacity of the largest city street cars, and at the same time, being able to turn on a radius no greater than the many 35-passenger gasoline coaches already in service in great numbers in this country. This is done by means of the synchronous steering of the front and rear wheels. The four wheels at the center of the job operate on the principle adapted to the many six-wheel vehicles already in use.

“Because of its 47 foot length, the body is hinged perpendicularly at the center, and the space covered by a newly developed flexible rubber hood, the perpendicular articulation allowing it to take with ease, bridge, viaduct and other sharp grades oftentimes found within the confines of the metropolitan area. There is no horizontal articulation and the width of the vehicle may be made to equal that of the large capacity trolley 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 body unit 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 adjacent to the two center axles. The electrical equipment has been supplied by General Electric Company.

“The oil-electric propulsion equipment is generally the same as that used to run the Diesel-Electric Zephyr and other crack high speed transcontinental trains. It is much easier for the operator to handle than the ordinary bus on account of the simplicity of controls which consist of a reversing lever to get forward and reverse directions and a foot accelerating pedal which operates the same as your automobile. As you press the pedal down it adds more fuel to the Diesel motor, thereby causing the motor to revolve at higher speed and it being connected to the electric generator, there is an immediate increase of motive power from the generator to the motor. In other words, the action on the propulsion motor, when the fuel accelerator is pushed down, is similar to the result when the motorman on a street car turns his controller around. The further he goes with the handle, the more electricity is 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 is known as distillate or oil similar to that used in oil furnaces.

“The ignition of the fuel is brought about by high compression temperatures and through properly governed and timed oil injection 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 the front and rear wheels is accomplished through linkage and the use of air which automatically supplements the manual effort on the driver's wheel, and trolley buses are in use on urban operating systems, a complete transition to rubber tired vehicles has been held back by the lack of a tired unit capable of carrying as many as a large trolley car. This has been due to inability to produce a trackless vehicle of that size capable of making the necessary street intersection turns.

“It will be recalled it was the Fageol Brothers, who, in 1927, introduced the first transit or metropolitan type gas coach, namely, the box type body with motors inside instead of under the hood as in the old type vehicle. That style of design, in the past ten years, has become universally adopted on major operations.

“Some idea of the significance of this new Fageol development may be gained by such economic facts as the following, pointed out by Ross Schram, Sales Manager for the manufacturer:

1. According to the statistical record of TRANSIT JOURNAL, there were 75,777 urban public carrier vehicles in use December 31st, 1937, and 34,190 of these were street cars, mostly of the large capacity size, while many of the 25,614 motor coaches would have been purchased in larger capacity had there been an available unit.

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, if 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 gasoline units with questionable results thus far. In this new unit, as in other trolley coaches and Diesel Electric vehicles, there is immediately available the 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 thus traffic weaving, the greatest of all street hazards, should be reduced to a minimum. Recent studies reported by the Director of the American Transit Association show that considering the full capacity of a single traffic lane as 100%, a second lane, where channelized traffic is not enforced is actually only 78% efficient; that in the third lane without channelized enforcement the efficiency is only 56% compared with the first lane. Thus is statistically illustrated the waste of street space caused in traffic in our large cities where automotive traffic is weaving in and out between street cars. Of course, it is impossible to furnish accurate figures on the increased safety if all public carrier passengers were enabled to load and unload from a large capacity public carrier operating adjacent to the curb, but such protection would tremendously reduce deaths and injuries in the street.”

Unlike most articulated buses that followed, the joint between the ‘Super Twin’s front and rear compartments only allowed for the vertical movement of the two attached coaches, no horizontal action was allowed with the turning being accomplished via coordinated action between the two steerable axles – one located at the front, the second at the rear.

Twin Coach was not the first articulated motor coach/trolley bus, the Italian Stanga-Stanga-BBC, Type Isotta-Fraschini TS40 of 1940 preceded it, although it was articulated horizontally and steered by the front wheels only. Unfortunately no orders resulted for the lengthy vehicle and it was sold to a Cleveland operator who used it as an electric-powered trolley-bus.

Although the articulated trolleybus was not successful,Twin Coach manufactured fully one-third of all the trolley buses manufactured in North America, manufacturing 670 trolley 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 utilized Twin Coach transit buses in and around New York City in the 1930s and early 1940s:

“These operators included Brooklyn Bus Corp., North Shore Bus Co., Surface Transportation System, Jamaica Buses Inc., Steinway Omnibus Corp., and Queens-Nassau Transit Lines. Except for ST, who purchased a single diesel powered Model 35-D in 1954 (STS #6000) none of these operators of pre-war Twins bought postwar Twins. The all-time rosters of Green Bus Lines and Triboro Coach Corp. indicate that these operators did not own any Twins. Not surprisingly, no postwar Twins were bought by FACCO and NYCO (both loyal Yellow Coach/GM customers) or Avenue B & East Broadway Transit (a perennial Mack devotee).

“Unquestionably, the largest operator of Twin Coaches in the NYC area was the NYC Board of Transportation. When the BOT was formed in 1940, it acquired 212 used Twins from Brooklyn Bus Corp. The following year, the BOT purchased 250 new Twins, of which 60 units (BOT #’s 1300-1359) were diesels. Regardless of engine type, these units used electric transmissions and were assigned to routes in Brooklyn. All 190 gas-electric Twins were repowered with Hercules diesel engines in 1945. They only lasted a few more years and were 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 and 1946. When the City of New York acquired North Shore In March 1947, the BOT took in the entire fleet of North Shore Twins. In the same year, the BOT purchased 125 Twin Coach Model 41-S transit buses (BOT #’s 1400-1524). They also placed an additional order for 180 larger Twin Coach Model 44-S’s from 1947 to 1948 (BOT #’s1525-1575; 1700-1829). All 305 postwar Twins were equipped 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 was 34’10” long and weighed 15,570 pounds. They used a B.F. Goodrich “Torsilastic” torsion bar suspension, which also was used on postwar Flxible parlor buses and on all Eagle buses. All BOT Twins were 96” wide. They used 6-hole 10-stud cast steel disc wheels and were delivered in the standard grey-over-green BOT livery.

“Postwar Twins had several distinctive styling features that set them apart at a glance from contemporary GM’s and Macks. Two-panel sliding doors were used front and rear (as compared to 4-panel jackknife doors used on most transit buses of that period). The Model 41-S used a small side destination sign positioned directly over the entrance door header; BOT #’s 1400-1499 also had a small circular ‘Next Bus’ lamp mounted below the lower edge of the right-hand windshield. Later Model 41-S’s and all Model 44-S’s 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 fluted horizontal aluminum trim panel that encircled nearly the entire bus. Standee windows were not used; large side window sashes dropped vertically into bodyside pockets.

“Perhaps no feature is more associated with postwar Twins than the unique 6-panel front windshield assembly. Consisting of two large upper main windshield panel, two smaller lower windshield panels, and two triangular side window panels, this design later was used on all Flxible transit buses until 1978. BOT’s postwar Twins used dual wipers mounted on the windshield header, a feature sometimes used on certain models of school buses but rarely seen on modern transit buses. Such wipers were not used on any other 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 Brooklyn by 1949. Gas-powered buses were considered undesirable in the mid 1950’s, and the BOT/NYCTA Twins were scrapped beginning in 1956. No examples were preserved.

“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. The 60-foot unit also had dual engines. The BOT elected not to purchase the big bus, and it was returned to Twin unsold.”

Frank R. Fageol did no limit his investments to the automobile field and in 1937 acquired a controlling interest in a Brownsville, Texas tobacco warehouse, the September 24, 1937 issue of the Brownsville Herald reporting:

“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 came to Brownsville in April and again during August. His findings resulted la the purchase of the 850-acre tract formerly known as the Piper Plantation. Fageol, president of the Twin Coach Company, Kent, Ohio, one of the largest bus manufacturing companies In the United States, is considered a leader in the mass transportation field and is one of the foremost authorities on the subject 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 Coach

The August 28, 1943 Massillon Evening Independent announced 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, died suddenly Friday at his home in near-by Silver lake. Formerly west coast sales manager for Twin Coach he had been general manager for the company the last five years.”

Bus production was put on hiatus during the Second World 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 K-class airships. Over 134 K-type blimps were constructed between 1938 and 1944 for the purpose of anti-submarine patrol and convoy export duty. A surviving K-type gondola can be seen at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida.

They also established a satellite plant at the massive Curtiss-Wright complex in Cheektowaga, New York in which they constructed tail sections for P-40 pursuit fighters and C-46 cargo planes. When Curtis-Wright closed the facility Twin Coach leased the plant and in August 1946 commenced limited production of the firm’s post war transit coaches for customer located in the northeast.

Twin Coach announced an entirely new post-war lineup of single- (Model 34-S, 38-S, 41-S) and double-(Model 44-D) engined coaches designed by Dwight Austin. The design included a 6-paned windshield constructed of flat safety glass that provided the operator with a remarkable field of vision.

A 1944 advertisement heralded its introduction:

“Bomber Nose! … For Transit Buses

“When the new Twin Coach models appear, their driver compartments may startle you because of a marked similarity to the nose compartment on certain of our aircraft. The visibility and position of quarters required for an operator of a large transit bus more nearly approach that of air pilots and bombardiers than any other individuals.”

The Post-War coaches utilized B.F. Goodrich’s new ‘torsilastic’ rubber spring suspension (used on the Tucker automobile) and 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 distribution.

Sales of the post-war dual-engine Model 44D were disappointing and the coach was discontinued in favor of a single-engined 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, two known SRC users were the Missouri Pacific Railroad and the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway who utilized them to transport passenger and maintenance crews to and from work sites and remote spur lines. Number 701 (one of six numbered 701 to 706) is not convertible as it only operates on rails and is gasoline powered coupled with a mechanical transmission. These buses were generally used to ferry company maintenance crews to work sites and, in some cases, to transport passengers from remote spurs to main line stations.

At the height of the post-war boom, three factories were constructing postwar Twin Coaches: the original factory in Kent, Ohio; the satellite plant in Cheektowaga, New York; and a third facility located in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada. The latter plant was owned by Fleet Manufacturing & Aircraft, Ltd., who constructed US-designed coaches for Twin Coach of Canada, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary that marketed the firm’s coaches from 1948-1951.

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, sales slipped to 1,050 or $21.8 million.

The January 30, 1948 Massillon Evening Independent:

“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 or less 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' asserted that the supply of busses has met the demand for the first time since World War II.”

The April 15, 1948 Massillon Evening Independent:

“Twin Coach Calls 500 Back To Work

“KENT. O.— The Twin Coach Co. will call back 500 employees within the next few weeks company officials announced Wednesday. As the company gets materials the men will be called back for opening of the production line.

“With the reported employment of 700 at Twin Coach service department and Fageol Products now the addition of 500 would total 1,200, 800 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 April.”

Convinced that the pre-war articulated concept was a good one, a second perpendicularly articulated prototype was constructed after the War. Originally outfitted with a gasoline engine, it was converted for trolley coach use in 1948 and leased to the Chicago Transit Authority in 1948. Remarkably the 1946 ‘Super Twin’ survives, unrestored, at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, Illinois.

A 1949 advertisement for the post-war Super-Twin claimed:

“Greater Carrying capacity per man-hour is one of the reasons why the U.S. Post Office Department ordered a Super Twin Highway Post Office for service between Baltimore and Washington D.C. Omaha’s Super Twin motor coaches have been in regular service now for six months. The new Super 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 Buffalo Under Consideration

“KENT— (AP)— The head of Twin Coach Co.. this Portage-co city's largest industry, is thinking about consolidating the firm's bus manufacturing operations in Buffalo.

“In a 10-page memorandum to company officials and representatives of the CIO United Automobile Workers local, F. B. Fageol, chairman of the Twin Coach Co. board, said the firm could save $150,000 a year 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 buses and trolley conches last year totaled only 350. There is little hope for increasing bus demand this year’, Fageol said.

“‘If we are going to save the Kent bus plant,’ Fageol added,’ increased production efficiency is necessary.’ He proposed a ‘cooperative arrangement with the union in establishing a fair and reasonable number of hours required to build each coach.’”

April 7, 1950:

“Omaha. Council Bluffs St. Ry. Get 10 More ‘Supertwins’

“Omaha – The Omaha and Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. recently received ten more 58-passenger Twin Coach ’Supertwins.’

“Last year the company tested five of the vehicles. Experience proved that more people could be moved in less time at lower cost. Traffic congestion was also reduced, one ‘super’ bus replacing two smaller units. Omaha people liked the big buses too.

“Cost $250,000

“The new vehicles, representing an investment of $250,000, were immediately put into rush-hour service on the company’s principle routes.

“They were announced to the public with a 1,078-line advertisement in the ‘Omaha World-Herald’ and smaller ads in all of the city’s weekly and foreign language papers. Take-one folders describing them were 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 work transportation, but also pointed out the relief ‘super’ buses provided for the 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 three automobiles.

“The company plans a series of ‘student tours’ to acquaint Omaha’s future citizens with ‘super’ buses and the company’s maintenance operation. Mechanical classes from the city high schools will be invited to make an inspection trip through the company’s garage and shops.”

Frank Fageol’s son, Lou, became a famous speedboat racer during the 1940s and ’50s, winning the 1951 Gold Cup in Slo-Mo-Shun V (powered by a Rolls-Royce engine). He also was interested in racecars and developed twin-engine, 4-wheel drive Indy cars. The big hit of the 1949 Indianapolis 500 was the Fageol Super Sonic, a wildly futuristic concept car built by Lou Fageol and his son Ray. Powered by a 404-cubic inch, 6-cylinder Fageol engine that turned 275 hp, the sleek coupe was test driven by Indy president Wilbur Shaw, who made several laps around the Brickyard at an average speed of 93 mph, only slightly slower than the eventual winner of the race. The build was originally started by Joel Thorne and Art Sparks at Thorne Engineering Racing Shop in Burbank, California in 1938 as a Land Speed racing car. They abandoned the project, and sold the uncompleted build to Fageol.

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. Named the ‘Supersonic Special’ by its designer—president of the Twin Coach Company—the motor develops 275 h.p. on propane against 180 on commercial gasoline. The machine has been clocked at 135 m.p.h. and saves up to 30 per-cent on fuel costs. Twin Coach has just announced a complete line of urban and city buses to 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 Company.

“Propane is said by the company to be the world's lowest-priced motor fuel. It is anticipated by them that its use will greatly 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. These will be driven by Fageol Twin Coach engines with a ten to one compression 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 one ratio it desired. Its conversion to propane operation requires only a few minor 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 manufacturer. Another advantage claimed for propane is the doubling of time between engine overhauls.

“The supply of propane, otherwise known as L.P.G. (liquid petroleum gas), far exceeds the foreseeable demand, according to Fageol. Delivered fuel costs (before taxes) average from twenty five to fifty per cent less than gasoline and from ten to forty per cent less than diesel fuel in mid-continent sections of the country, he said.

“Leading refiners are said to have indicated willingness to supply propane, once a waste product of the refining industry, at approximately two and one-half cent per gallon at the refinery on long term contracts.”

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 1950 few firms could compete with GM’s one-two punch of a good product and aggressive (some say nefarious) marketing. Numerous small-to mid-sized motor coach manufacturers either went out of business or entered another line of work. Twin Coach opted for the latter.

Twin Coach sold only 420 coaches in 1949 and the following 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 Evening Independent reporting:

“Bus Firm Plans To Make Trailers Without Tractors

KENT, Oct. 5—(AP)—The Twin Coach Co., one of the nation's leading bus manufacturers, announced today that it has entered the motor truck industry with production of a new line known as Fageol super freighters.

“The freighters actually are self-propelled trailers. Through a pancake design originally developed for buses, the engine is located under the floor and the conventional tractor unit is eliminated.

“L. J. Fageol, company president, said the new trucks 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 Office.

“L.J. Fageol, Twin Coach president, said his firm had developed designs for the vehicle in cooperation with technical men from the various services.”

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 profits from Twin Coach Stockholders.’

"Frank Benjamin of New York said Twin Coach President Louis J. Fageol ‘conceived the plan to enrich himself at the expense of the company’ (Twin Coach).

“In a petition filed in common pleas court here yesterday, Benjamin said Twin Coach passed up a chance to make a new type of vehicle, a convertible coach.

“The Twin Coach officers organized the Super Freight Truck Development Co. which got a government contract for 1,509 convertible coaches, Benjamin said. The convertible coach was tested and developed with Twin Coach funds, facilities and personnel, the suit charged, and Twin Coach agreed to manufacture the new coaches and pay the new firm a percentage of the sales price.

“Beside the president, Twin Coach officers named as defendants were Board Chairman F.J. Fageol, executive vice-president, W.B. Fageol; and directors C. W. Enyart, Alfred G. Wilson, H.L.F. Kreger and John G. Burge.

“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 Government

“More information on the convertible bus defense contract that was awarded jointly to the Twin Coach Co at Kent and the Flxible company of Loudonville by the U.S. Army was released by officials of Flxible.

“Flxible will produce several hundred of the 1,650 orders placed by the Army with the Twin Coach firm and will make most of the 60,000 seats included in the order.

“The new unit will be powered with a six-cylinder Fageol engine. The bus will be built to seat 37 passengers and can be converted quickly from a passenger bus to an ambulance, a cargo truck or a combination bus-truck.

“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 be 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 are removed. When the coach is set up to carry seated soldiers, it will have inside luggage racks and there will be a four-foot space behind the rear seats for 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 Fruehauf design.

“Officials of Flxible announced that every effort is being made toward the production and delivery of as many regular domestic buses as possible before the army production is begun. The company also intends to continue building as many intercity buses as material allocations permit.”

A propane-powered coach was rushed to market and 1951 sales increased to 751 units, albeit 500 were a fleet of propane coaches for the Chicago Transit Authority. The propane coaches were followed up by 1952’s Fageoliner, a new coach based on the Model F-32 convertible coaches they had constructed for the US Army.

Founded in Loudonville, Ohio in 1913 as a builder of motorcycle sidecars, Flxible had made a name for itself through the manufacture of ambulances, funeral cars, and intercity coaches, yet had never been a player in the transit coach field. That changed in September of 1952 when Flxible and Twin Coach joined forces to build a small run of transit coaches for a Brazilian operator, the September 5, 1952 issue of Passenger Transport reporting:

“Twin Coach, Flxible Team Up On Production – Pool 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 speed deliveries, cut production costs and assure more uniform production schedules.

“Principals in the plan, which will pool engineering and manufacturing facilities on some types of transit vehicles, are the Twin Coach 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 can be utilized in the filling of large orders or in the meeting of urgent delivery dates. The result is that the potential production of each company is substantially increased without additional capital investment for new equipment or the employment of additional workers. Furthermore, many of the production peaks and valleys, common to the bus manufacturing industry, are eliminated for each company by this pooling of available work.

“The plan, according to L.J. Fageol, Twin Coach president, was inaugurated early in 1951 when that company received a U.S. Army order for 1509 ‘convertible’ bus-trucks. In order to facilitate deliveries on the urgently-needed vehicles, the Twin Coach Co. approached the Flxible Co. to request that the latter take over the production of certain parts of the vehicle. As a result of arrangements effected with T.P. Butler, Flxible vice-president, a smooth-working cooperative production plan was devised which permitted the building and delivery of the ‘convertibles’ in record time.

“Based on the success of the ‘convertible’ program, the companies again recently joined forces to build 22 deluxe intercity buses for Vicao Cometa S/A, Sao Paolo, Brazil. On this order, work was carefully divided so that each company performed those production tasks for which it possessed the best facilities and most open production capacity.

“The result was rapid, efficient production of coach combining the outstanding features of both Twin Coach and Flxible. In the production of these vehicles, Twin Coach built the chassis and body shells. These included Twin Coach windshield and front end design. Buses were powered by Fageol 210 h.p. gasoline engines which had been previously employed in 42 other Twin Coaches owned by Cometa. The latter operate between the cities of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo, Brazil, covering 246 miles in less than six hours scheduled time.

“In the new coaches, The Flexible Co. installed it streamlined side paneling, its 72-inch sliding windows and 36 of its standard recliner seats. All interior trim was handles by Flexible.

“Representatives of Cometa and Twin Coach and Flxible officials are quoted as being delighted with the appearance and performance of the new vehicles.”

Frank R. Fageol even testified before a congressional subcommittee in regards to General Motors’ aggressive marketing and unfair business practices, but the investigation came too late and in 1953 Twin Coach literally gave away their transit coach business to Flxible, who at the time 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 used on the firm’s 1951 Military order. Leaf springs replaced the Torsialastic suspension on the first post-war Twins and the coaches were made available with a choice of under-floor Diesel engines from Cummins, Fageol-Leyland or Mack. Available in lesser capacities, the FS/FL-series was a commercial failure and only 155 Fageoliners were delivered.

Eventually 1,034 'Flxible Twin Coach' transit buses were built between 1953 and 1960. These units had traditional Twin Coach design features (most notably a unique 6-piece windshield assembly) mated with classic “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 from General Motors’ intercity coaches and believed a more robust offering would help it to compete. They felt the move to transit coach production was so important that they temporarily discontinued construction of their popular line of Buick-chassised funeral cars and ambulances, re-entering the professional car field in 1959 with a totally new series of coaches designed around Buick's new X-frame chassis.

Between 1952 and 1959 Flxible/Twin Coach delivered a total of 900 liquid propane-fueled coaches to the Chicago Transit Authority. Most were the Model FT2P-40, a slightly modified version of the Twin Coach designed FL-40 Fageoliner introduced in 1952. Total production of all ‘Flxible Twin Coach’ transit buses reached 1,034. All coaches constructed ruing the period bore a Flxible/Twin Coach badge under the distinctive 6-paned Twin Coach windshield.

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 front-engine designs of 1927 to 1936, about 2,700; rear-­engine buses of 1934 to 1943, about 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 third party truck and bus manufacturers. In 1950 the firm commenced the manufacture of Fageol-Leyland Diesel engines under a reciprocal licensing agreement with Leyland Motors of Canada Ltd. who commenced the manufacture of Twin Coach buses and trolley coaches at its Longueuil Quebec, Canada facility. The facility was 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 two years experimentation by the Fageol Co. Among its many outstanding features, the 31-foot van with a four foot cabin will carry a gross payload of 30,000 pounds, 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 van, 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 the van 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 joined into a single, strong, lightweight truck. Extensive use is made of high tensile steel, die-formed members and tubular shapes to provide maximum strength with minimum weight. It carries a gasoline tank that will hold 200 gallons.

“It has an International engine of 450 cubic inches displacement and has an International tandem drive. The van part of the truck was built by Fruehauf Trailer Co. of nearby Avon Lake. It win be on exhibition for another week and the public is invited to study the experimental model.”

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 carriers the option of standing up while driving short distances or sitting down for longer distances. The sliding side panel doors allowed carriers easy access to mailboxes along the route. By 1955, 3,791 sit or stand vans were being used by 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 Wednesday announced the purchase of the Progressive Engine Products Co. of Akron. The Akron firm makes superchargers for boats and automobiles. Its personnel and facilities will be moved to Kent within the next two weeks. Fageol Products is a subsidiary of Twin Coach Co., manufacturer of bus, truck and marine engines.”

Progressive Products was acquired to provide Fageol with a supercharger for his soon-to-be released VIP 44 4-cycle marine engine. While recovering from a competition boating accident in 1955 Fageol came up with an engine that bridged the gap between currently available inboard and outboard marine engines, the V.I.P. or ‘vertical inboard power’.

Up until that time Fageol Products had been offering large 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 cu.in. Crosley Cobra 4-cylinder automobile engine from General Tire, and by equipping the vertically-oriented block with an outboard motor-type lower unit which swiveled 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 pleasure 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 its successful Cheektowaga aircraft plant which was kept busy constructing wing and fuselage assemblies for Boeing, (B-52), Grumann, North American and Republic. In 1962, stockholders approved a name change for the company, and the Twin Coach became 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 income building delivery van bodies and bidding on government contracts for postal vehicles and the like.

In 1960 Joseph T. Myers, a Kent, Ohio businessman (president of Davey Tree Experts) and Twin Coach director, saw an opportunity, and leased a portion of the factory for his own firm, the Highway Products Co., which was formed to construct small-to-medium sized vehicles for the U.S. Post Office and other agencies. Myers constructed delivery trucks, Parcel delivery vans, mobile post offices, small boats, missile launchers, etc., bidding on whatever government contracts were appropriate and in 1962 purchased a portion of the 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 with Cleveland, Ohio’s White Motors Co.Highway Products assumed the sales and marketing of the Compac-Van in 1965 and in 1968 introduced a 25-passenger Chrysler V-8 powered pusher coach that they marketed as the Twin Coach in order to capitalize on a new series of mass-transit grants recently made available to small cities by the Federal government. A 29-passenger Twin Coach joined the Highway Products lineup in 1969 and in 1970 Joseph T. Myers sold his interest in the firm to Alco Standard Co., who subsequently used the facility to construct Class-A motor homes under the Cortez Motor Home brand name. Highway Products went bankrupt in 1975 after approximately 900 Twin Coach buses were constructed.

Frank R. Fageol’s son Lou was a well-known motorcar and speedboat owner and racer, who sponsored two Post-War Indianapolis 500 Fageol/Twin Coach Specials in 1946, 1948 and 1949. He also constructed a small stable of sports cars for his own use that included a former land-speed racer 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 sale of Fageol Products in 1958 and passed away on January 18, 1961, the Associated Press wire service announcing his death as follows:

“Race Driver Dies

“SAN DIEGO, Calif. (AP)-Louis J. Fageol, 54, noted hydroplane race driver and retired bus manufacturer, died Monday of a heart condition, and other ailments. He retired in 1958 as chairman of the Twin Coach 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 of 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 decade, the collapse of the firm’s rail and interurban business prompted rumors of a consolidation in late 1940, the December 8, 1940 edition of the Oakland Tribune reporting:

“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 January 8 to act on a merger plan recommended by directors. Charles J. Hardy, president of each company, announced today. Brill Corporation will be the surviving concern, according to the plan.

“The proposal contemplates that Brill Corporation will become an operating company with manufacturing activities centered in Pennsylvania and, through its holding of Hall-Scott Motor Car Company stock, also a holding company.

“At present American Car & Foundry Motors Company controls Hall-Scott Motor and is in turn controlled by the Brill Corporation. American Car & Foundry Company owns about 65 per cent of the class B voting 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 A.C.F.-Brill Motors Company, N.Y., registered today with the Securities and Exchange Commission 280,138 shares of $2.50 par value common stock to be offered at $12.50 per share to warrant holders prior to 1950 and at $15 between 1950 and 1955.

“Warrants are to be issued to holders of ‘B’ stock of the Brill Corporation and to common stockholders of American Car and Foundry Motors Company.

“Merger Agreement

“The new company formed under a June 19 agreement between American Car & Foundry Motors Company and the Brill Corporation, owns no physical properties but is the sole stockholder of its operating companies – the F.G. Brill Company, Philadelphia; the A.C.F. Motors Company; Hall-Scott 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 subsidiary, American Car and Foundry Investment Corporation, will own about 45 per cent of the common stock under the merger agreement, exclusive of the 280,138 shares registered for purchase on the exercise of warrants. American car and Foundry Investment will also he issued warrants for 178,072 shares of common stock under the merger agreement. A total of 1,250,000 shares are authorized to be issued.

Officers of the Firm:

“Officers of the company are Charles J. Hardy, New York, chairman of the board; Ronald L. Monroe, Philadelphia, president; Lester A. Blackford, New York, vice-president, and K. L. Oerter, Philadelphia, secretary and treasurer.”

Ripe with cash from massive wartime contracts, Conslidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. purchased a controlling interest in A.C.F.-Brill in early 1946, the February 1, 1946 of the Altoona Mirror announcing:

“Consolidated Purchases Brill And Subsidiary

“NEW YORK, Feb. 1.—Consolidated Vultee Aircraft corporation, announced today it has purchased controlling interest in A.C.F.-Brill Motors company, Philadelphia, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hall-Scott Motor company, Berkeley, Calif., from the American Car and Foundry company for about $7,600,000 cash.

“Irving E. Babcock, chairman of Consolidated, said the purchase is part of a post-war diversification move by the company, one of the 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 of 280,044, outstanding. Each warrant carries the right to purchase one common 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 twenty-five years. Until a year ago, he was president of Yellow Truck and Coach Manufacturing 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 on 29 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 market. American Car and Foundry, in divesting itself of all interest in Brill, will not manufacture buses or trolley coaches for city operation, or buses, for inter-city operation, Babcock said.

“The Hall-Scott, company, at Berkeley, Calif., produces bus, marine and industrial engines. Babcock said surplus plant capacity of the aircraft company may be used to augment Brill's facilities.”

The February 2, 1946 issue of the Oakland provided details of the acquisition which directly affected the operations of the Hall-Scott 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 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation the other day for $7,500,000. The purchase price 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 largest United States manufacturers of motor busses, trolley coaches, and specialized engines.

“The purchase marks the first entrance by a major aircraft company into the field of automotive surface transportation. Consolidated, as so many of you guys know, built the now famous PBY ‘Cats’ which did such yeoman duty during the war. Consolidated-Vultee also built many other types of heavy aircraft for such duties as anti-sub patrol, training and reconnaissance, and Army and Navy bombardment craft. Somewhere in the group are the famous B-24 ‘Liberators’.

“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 Co.

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 to 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 American Chain Co.

Road Vehicle - USRE17889 - Grant - Filed Apr 23, 1923 - Issued Dec 2, 1930 - R.B. Fageol - assigned to Eight-Wheel Motor Vehicle Co. (re-issue)

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 Co.

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 Corp.

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 Chain Co.

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 Engineering Corp.

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 Engineering Corp.

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 Engineering Corp.

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 to Twin Coach Co.

Dual Drive Road Vehicle - US1992365 - Grant - Filed Aug 3, 1929 - Issued Feb 26, 1935 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

Multi-wheel Road Vehicle - US2006800 - Grant - Filed Aug 3, 1929 - Issued Jul 2, 1935 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

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 Coach Co.

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 Engineering Corp.

Dual Drive Multiwheel Road Vehicle - US1949830 - Grant - Filed Dec 5, 1929 - Issued Mar 6, 1934 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

Traction Regulating Means for Multiwheel Road Vehicles - US1926273 - Grant - Filed Dec 7, 1929 - Issued Sep 12, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

Multiwheel Road Vehicle - US1924984 - Grant - Filed Dec 12, 1929 - Issued Aug 29, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

Multiwheel Vehicle of the Tandem Axle Type - US1926274 - Grant - Filed Apr 26, 1930 - Issued Sep 12, 1933 - R.B. Fageol assigned to Automotive Engineering Corp.

Cooling System For Self-Propelled Vehicles - US1969172 - Grant - Filed Sep 6, 1930 - Issued Aug 7, 1934 – Frank R. Fageol assigned to 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 of Operating Same - US1972333 - Grant - Filed Oct 16, 1930 - Issued Sep 4, 1934 – William B. 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 Coach Co.

Fuel Control Apparatus - US1982049 - Grant - Filed Mar 20, 1931 - Issued Nov 27, 1934 – Robley D. Fageol assigned to Leibing Automotive Devices Inc.

Flexible Guard for Road Vehicles - US1825344 - Grant - Filed Apr 1, 1931 - Issued Sep 29, 1931 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Motor Vehicle - USD84576 - Grant - Filed May 7, 1931 - Issued Jul 7, 1931 – Frank R. Fageol & William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

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 Twin Coach Co.

Trackless Trolley Vehicle - US1988073 - Grant - Filed Oct 23, 1931 - Issued Jan 15, 1935 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

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 to Divco-Twin Truck Co.

Dumping Vehicle - US1996540 - Grant - Filed Apr 15, 1932 - Issued Apr 2, 1935 - William B. Fageol & Frank R. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Road Vehicle Body Frame - US2039215 - Grant - Filed May 3, 1932 - Issued Apr 28, 1936 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Pneumatic Tire Combination Rail and Highway Unit - US2027684 - Grant - Filed May 26, 1932 - Issued Jan 14, 1936 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Carburetor - US2034048 - Grant - Filed Sep 28, 1932 - Issued Mar 17, 1936 – William E. Leibing & Robley D. Fageol assigned to Leibing Automotive Devices Inc.

Pneumatic-Tired Highway and Rail Vehicle - US2140421 - Grant - Filed Nov 14, 1933 - Issued Dec 13, 1938 – William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

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 Twin Coach Co.

Unit Section Automotive Vehicle - US2128930 - Grant - Filed May 18, 1934 - Issued Sep 6, 1938 - Frank R. Fageol & William B. Fageol; one-fifth assigned to Strauch & Hoffman (William A. Strauch & James A. Hoffman, attorneys)

Motor Vehicle and Vehicle Power and Drive Mechanism - US2083059 - Grant - Filed Jun 5, 1934 - Issued Jun 8, 1937 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Motor Vehicle and Vehicle Driving Mechanism - US2118810 - Grant - Filed Apr 6, 1935 - Issued May 31, 1938 - William B. Fageol assigned to 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 - US2123991 - Grant - Filed Jan 14, 1936 - Issued Jul 19, 1938 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Vehicle Driving Construction and Arrangement - US2232105 - Grant - Filed Jun 4, 1936 - Issued Feb 18, 1941 - William B. Fageol assigned to 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 to Twin Coach Co.

Reinforced Vehicle Body Construction - US2239089 - Grant - Filed Dec 29, 1938 - Issued Apr 22, 1941 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

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 to Leibing-Fageol Co.

Vehicle Spring Suspension - US2344983 - Grant - Filed Dec 28, 1940 - Issued Mar 28, 1944 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Vehicle Spring Suspension - US2330482 - Grant - Filed Mar 26, 1941 - Issued Sep 28, 1943 - Issued Mar 28, 1944 - William B. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Carburetor - US2443464 - Grant - Filed Jun 7, 1943 - Issued Jun 15, 1948 - William E. Leibing & Robley D. Fageol assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.

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. Fageol 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 assigned to 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. Fageol Co.

Speed Response Governor for Internal Combustion Engines - US2651316 - Grant - Filed Apr 12, 1949 - Issued Sep 8, 1953 - Robley D. Fageol assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.

Pressure Actuated Transmission Control Unit - US2584995 - Grant - Filed Apr 12, 1949 - Issued Feb 12, 1952 - Robley D. Fageol assigned to R.D. Fageol Co.

Method for the Production of Vehicles - US2773304 - Grant - Filed May 5, 1953 - Issued Dec 11, 1956 – Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Method for Construction of Self-Propelled Vehicles - US2791826 - Grant - Filed May 19, 1953 - Issued May 14, 1957 – Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Single Lever Control for Power Plant Carburetor and Transmission - US2808733 - Grant - Filed May 24, 1956 - Issued Oct 8, 1957 – Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Vertical Shaft Inboard Marine Power Plant Installations - US2976836 - Grant - Filed May 24, 1956 - Issued Mar 28, 1961 – Louis J. Fageol

Internal Combustion Engines and Methods of Manufacturing Such Engines- US2852837 - Grant - Filed Dec 4, 1956 - Issued Sep 23, 1958 – Louis J. Fageol assigned to Twin Coach Co.

Marine Power Propulsion Assemblies - US3164122 - Grant - Filed Feb 26, 1962 - Issued Jan 5, 1965 – Louis J. Fageol deceased by Caryl Morris Fageol assigned to Textron Inc.

© 2004-2013 Coachbuilt.com, Inc.|books|disclaimer|index|privacy