The History of Coaches

by George Athelstane Thrupp

In perch carriages we have abandoned the nearly upright spring for the C spring, chiefly because the C spring is of a more elegant shape, and also resists wear better than the elbow or whip spring, which was found to break away from its supports.

In elliptical springs the action of the steel plates is precisely contrary to the action in the C spring; in both the back plates are similar in shape, but the shorter plates in the C spring are on the inner side of the curve, and in the elliptical they are on the outer side of the curve. A careful consideration of the effects of this variation may lead to a new combination which will be more satisfactory in its results. The elliptical springs made by Hobson were doubly compassed, and the same shape may be seen on some of the public omnibuses. A carriage may be hung to be very easy by using double horizontal springs, one under the other. At the Exhibition at Brussels this year (1876) the most easy hand ambulances on wheels were constructed in this manner.

In one elliptical spring you do not have the advantage of two horizontal springs, because the ends are in the elliptical spring united, and if a coupling is substituted at the hind end it is found in practice difficult to keep it upright.

Mr Adams, in his work on “Pleasure Carriages,” considers it a mistake to hollow out each steel plate of a spring. I am quite of his opinion that this process of hammering leaves the inner surface of a steel plate very uneven, thereby harbouring moisture and dirt, and rendering the plate liable to fracture. I should recommend, on the contrary, that each plate should be ground or filed quite smooth on both sides. If careful tempering were generally the rule among Coachbuilders, I am convinced that there would be fewer broken springs, and less complaint of rust accumulating between the plates.

The use of brake Retarders to the hind wheels has now for some years superseded the use of drag-shoes. It is evident that the action upon two wheels is better than on one only; the brake can be applied or removed without stopping the carriage, which had to be done with the drag-shoe; it can be relaxed in its hold in an undulating country, and the horses can proceed at speed up the next hill without the check formerly necessary whilst the drag-shoe was removed.

The brake was invented very early, and was in use in the coal trucks upon the first tramways in Northumberland, long before steam was used to draw them. They are now of two sorts: screw brakes, which are used on railways in England and all sorts of carriages on the Continent, and the old lever brake, which was the original form, and which is still the favourite among English coachmen. In Scotland the lever handle is often superseded by the treadle, or foot-brake, which has been selected by the General Omnibus Company.

In deciding upon the exact size and shape of the details of the brake a Coachbuilder is necessarily guided by the shape of the vehicle to which it is to be applied. It is necessary to attend to the following points: the lever arm that presses upon the rim of the wheel should be short, both for quick action and also for strength. The handle should be long, that the coachman may have greater power in applying the brake. The whole of the handle and the connecting-rod irons should be made somewhat weak to allow a little spring in them. If they are made too strong they will be rigid, and not fit with and favour the motion of the carriage and play of the springs. If a quick action is desired, the inner half of the levers on the wheels should be short, or long if a slow action is preferred. The blocks which press upon the wheels have been variously made of cast-iron, wrought iron, brass, wood, india-rubber, and leather. The wood is the best for hold on the iron tyre and freedom from noise and smell, but it wears out fast. India-rubber, especially for light carriages, seems most satisfactory.

The use of the brake is very much overdone on the Continent, especially in Germany,—it is put on for such slight declines that the unfortunate horses are always kept up to their collars, and never get the ease that we give them going down hill.

There is an error which is deeply rooted among Coachbuilders and the public who use carriages, which consists in the idea that the draught is diminished by placing the front part of the under-carriage as far back as possible. Intelligent men who have thought on the subject, and watched the actual working of this idea, have long been convinced of the error, but much remains to be done to convince everyone of its fallacy. We have already seen that with large wheels the draught is less. If a load has to be placed on a four-wheeled vehicle it should be placed in relation to the front and hind wheels, so as to place the heavier part of the weight upon the higher wheels. To obtain this result it is sufficient to bring the hind carriage part as far under the body as it will work with comfort and safety, in order that as little weight as possible shall rest on the fore carriage part. English Coachmakers have been working at this for thirty years, but for the most part blindly. They have copied well-known builders in construction as well as shape; they hear that these well-known firms’ carriages run and follow very lightly, and if they would copy accurately they would obtain the same reputation. One firm should be specially mentioned as having for years been careful to build carriages to run lightly. As long ago as 1846 Messrs Laurie and Marner brought the hind wheel of their carriages well forward, and advanced the position and raised the height of the fore wheel, thus balancing the weight properly, or rather as properly as the shape of the landau and barouche will allow.

There are many carriages, however, such as stanhope and mail phaetons, omnibuses, waggonettes, and pony phaetons, in which it is easy to advance the hind wheel, so as to carry the principal part of the whole weight of the body. This has been done, but then many persons have erroneously imagined that the carriage followed the horse easily, not because the weight was on the higher wheel, but because the wheels were so near together, and they have pressed the Coachbuilder to keep the front wheels backwarder, instead of rather placing them forwarder, as they should have done. In the stage coach we see a conspicuous example of this great error, and some of the drags more recently built are the worst. If the roads round London were not so good as they are, or if the roofs of drags were loaded with luggage, we should hear of more accidents to the summer amateur coaches than we do at present. Most of the weight of the stage coach or drag is upon the front wheel, which is much the lowest, and it is so far back under the body that if the horses gallop the coach begins to swing, and a very small obstruction is sufficient to upset the whole. Compare this with a similar load upon an omnibus, with four horses at a rapid pace on a bad road. The comparative security and safety of the latter vehicle is at once apparent. If a coach and omnibus could be fairly tried together, it would be found that the omnibus with three horses could beat the coach with four horses, besides doing its work with much greater safety, and turning in a much narrower road. It is right to mention that the idea, or a great part of the above, has been contributed by a foreign Coachbuilder, in whose views I entirely concur. It is as easy to make a stage coach as safe and nearly as light in running as an omnibus, by making it with much higher front wheels, and carrying them more forward. If it is considered essential to be able to turn in a narrow road, it would be easy to cut a small arch in the boot, which would allow the wheel to turn as far as the perch, instead of only half way to the perch as at present.