London Electrobus not run by a fraudster


The London Electrobus Company, was a bus operator that ran a fleet of electric buses in London. The electrobus was the first practical battery-electric bus and a forerunner of the electric buses that are experiencing a major resurgence in the 21st century.

The company, which was first registered in April 1906, started running a service of electrobuses between London's Victoria Station and Liverpool Street on 15 July 1907. The clean and quiet electrobuses were popular with the travelling public. The company introduced a number of innovations and it was the first double-decker bus operator to experiment with a roof on the upper deck. At the peak of its success in late 1908 the company had 20 or so buses in operation and it started to run a second bus route from Victoria to Kilburn.

However, the London Electrobus Company was beset by financial chicanery throughout its short existence. By 3 January 1910 the electrobus service had ceased and the company went into liquidation amid accusations of fraud. Eight of the electrobuses were sold to the Brighton, Hove and Preston United company. The rest of the London electrobuses were broken up for spares. The Brighton bus company was taken over by Thomas Tilling in 1916 and the last electrobus in Brighton ran in April 1917. Tilling said that a lack of spare parts had forced it to stop running electrobuses.


From the Economist

On Monday July 15th 1907 an unusual bus picked up its first passengers at London's Victoria Station before gliding smoothly off to Liverpool Street. It was the beginning of what was then the world's biggest trial of battery-powered buses. The London Electrobus Company had high hopes that this quiet and fume-free form of transport would replace the horse. At its peak, the company had a fleet of 20 buses. But despite being popular with passengers the service collapsed in 1909. The history books imply that the collapse was caused by technical drawbacks and a price war. It was not. The untold story is that the collapse was caused by systematic fraud that set back the cause of battery buses by a hundred years.

Indeed, the London electrobus trial remained the largest for the rest of the 20th century. Only recently has American interest in keeping city air clean encouraged trials on anything approaching the same scale. For the past 15 years Chattanooga has had a dozen battery buses. Today the world's biggest fleet, excluding minibuses, is in Santa Barbara, California. The city has 20 buses and is buying five more.

On any rational assessment of the technology the electrobus had a good chance of success. The replacement of horses by internal-combustion engines may now look to have been inevitable, but it certainly did not seem so at the time. At the beginning of 1906 there were only 230 motor buses in London. They were widely reviled for their evil smells and noise. At any one time a quarter of them were off the road for repairs. In 1907 The Economist predicted “the triumph of the horse”. The future of public-transport technology was up for grabs.

The paradox at the heart of the electrobus story is that the electrobuses themselves were well engineered and well managed. All battery buses have a limited range because of the weight of their batteries. The electrobus needed 1.5 tonnes of lead-acid batteries to carry its 34 passengers. It could travel 60km (40 miles) on one charge. So at lunchtime the buses went to a garage in Victoria and drove up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones. It was an extremely slick operation that took three minutes. “It just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun,” says Mark Hairr, of the Advanced Transportation Technology Institute. “That's almost exactly what we do here in Chattanooga. And we knew nothing about this.”

In April 1906 the London Electrobus Company floated its shares on the stockmarket. It wanted £300,000 to put 300 buses on the streets of the capital. On the first day the flotation raised £120,000 and the share offer was on course to be fully subscribed. But the next day some awkward questions surfaced. The company was buying rights to a patent for £20,000 (£7.5m, or $15m, in today's money) from the Baron de Martigny. But the patent was old and had nothing to do with battery buses. It was worthless and a scam. The investors sued for their money back. The company had to return £80,000. The investors would have been even less impressed if they had had any clue about the identity of the “Baron”. He was a Canadian music-hall artist living in theatrical digs in south London.

Martigny was only the front man. The mastermind behind this and a clutch of subsequent scams was Edward Lehwess, a German lawyer and serial con-artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. After this initial fiasco the London Electrobus Company struggled to raise money. But Lehwess had set up a network of front companies to siphon off the company's money. Chief among these was the Electric Vehicle Company of West Norwood, which built the buses. It was Lehwess's private piggy-bank. His personal secretary later said that Lehwess “used the company's banking accounts indiscriminately for his own purpose”.

The London Electrobus Company paid the Electric Vehicle Company more than £31,000 in advance for 50 buses. Only 20 were ever delivered. The buses were extortionately overpriced—each one cost about £300 more than a motor bus. On average Lehwess skimmed off £1 for every £3 that the company raised. It was a rate of attrition that crippled the company and it went into liquidation. Even then the scams continued. Lehwess bought eight buses for £800 from the liquidators, saying they were only fit for spares. He sold them to Brighton for £3,500—a mark-up of 340%—and they ran for another six years. That was a testament to the electrobus's reliability at a time when the life of a motor bus was measured in months.

Whether the fraud was truly a tipping point for electric vehicles is, of course, impossible to say. But it is a commonplace of innovation—from railway gauges to semiconductors to software—that the “best” technology is not always the most successful one. Once an industry standard has been established, it is hard to displace. If Lehwess and Martigny had not pulled their scam when they did, modern cities might be an awful lot cleaner than they actually are.




OK, so what i the company was not run by a fraudster, does it have any chance of being successful?
 
We might have seen more R&D in battery technology and charging technology much earlier than OTL. I wonder what the chances might be of seeing an electric Panzer by WW2?
 
I think they were more triggered by coal fires etc.
Coal fires, coal power stations in the city, coal powered factories and of course coal powered steam engines. The internal combustion engine just added an extra component to the soup. Electric busses would have been charged with electricity generated by London's coal power stations, just like The Tube.
 
We might have seen more R&D in battery technology and charging technology much earlier than OTL. I wonder what the chances might be of seeing an electric Panzer by WW2?

I would suspect the rapid change system would mean that research was not really needed.
 
I would suspect the rapid change system would mean that research was not really needed.
Well haulage companies would be looking at the buses and thinking how they could use the same chassis. They wouldn't be able to change over in the same way as timetabled buses. Even the buses would benefit from batteries that lasted all day rather than half a day.
 
We might have seen more R&D in battery technology and charging technology much earlier than OTL. I wonder what the chances might be of seeing an electric Panzer by WW2?

You might see one, but it would be like the TOG II, a one off proof of concept that for a myriad of reasons is never put into actual service (barring the Sea Mammal somehow happening).
 
The only way to continue the dominance of electric public transport in the early 20th century is to prevent WW1.
 
I would suspect the rapid change system would mean that research was not really needed.

Even with a rapid change system, the faster you can fully charge your batteries the better. The longer they take to charge the longer they're sitting on a shelf and not making a vehicle move. Make the difference in charging times large enough and it might even be the difference between having to buy two or three sets of spare batteries per vehicle and three or four sets to ensure continuous service.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Interesting ideas. I could see a recharge station instead of/as part of a gas station to replace depleted batteries with charged ones for automotive/delivery truck use.
 
Interesting ideas. I could see a recharge station instead of/as part of a gas station to replace depleted batteries with charged ones for automotive/delivery truck use.

That has been one of the suggestions for electric vehicles in the fairly recent past.
 
Interesting ideas. I could see a recharge station instead of/as part of a gas station to replace depleted batteries with charged ones for automotive/delivery truck use.
That has been one of the suggestions for electric vehicles in the fairly recent past.

To make that work would require some standardising of the size of the battery packs and the connections used. I think in the UK, it took the introduction of the National Grid to achieve that with electricity supply.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
Coal fires, coal power stations in the city, coal powered factories and of course coal powered steam engines. The internal combustion engine just added an extra component to the soup. Electric busses would have been charged with electricity generated by London's coal power stations, just like The Tube.
The London government cured the problem by building a "smokeless fuel" plant next to my old high school, London did not suffer but we had to put up with sulfurous fumes and smoke whilst at school.
To make it even better they built it at the bottom of the valley just to make sure the fumes did not dissipate to readily.
We were suffering from acid rain before the English scientists discovered it, washing could not be dried outside in the valley.
The forest and vegetation around the plant all died and even though they closed the plant over 15 years ago nothing will grow on the old site due to contamination. THANK YOU ENGLAND!
 
To make that work would require some standardising of the size of the battery packs and the connections used. I think in the UK, it took the introduction of the National Grid to achieve that with electricity supply.

That wouldn't be a major issue really - it should be easy for the major manufacturers to agree a standard connection from the battery pack to the vehicle (they probably all get the batteries from a handful of suppliers anyway so it should actually be fairly simple to organise). The connection for the car charger would just be like laptops or similar but bigger - a converter pack that plugs into the car (or onto the battery pack if you're pulling batteries and charging them separate from the vehicle) then the appropriate local plug from the mains supply to the converter.
 
New Scientist article

IN THE first decade of the 20th century, transport reached a tipping point. Would the future belong to petrol, electricity or even steam? The stage was set for a decisive showdown when the world’s first practical electric buses hit the streets of London in July 1907. They were clean, quiet, reliable and fume-free, unlike their petrol-powered counterparts, which were widely reviled for their deafening din and evil smells.


Electrobuses, as they were called, were an immediate hit with the capital’s commuters, and the prospect of a successful challenge to the internal combustion engine was greeted with delight by press and public alike. “The doom of the petrol-driven omnibus is at hand,” forecast the Daily News. “The electrobus is probably a more formidable rival than the petrol omnibus, not only to the horse omnibus but also to the tramway,” concluded Douglas Fox, the country’s foremost engineer and designer of many of the world’s railways, at the September 1908 meeting of what’s now the British Science Association.

The future of electric vehicles seemed assured. The bus, with its fixed routes and hence predictable demands on batteries, seemed a very promising application. If battery power proved its worth here, then other uses would surely take off. And London, the world’s largest city and centre of the British Empire, had a track record of setting global trends in technology, so there would be ripples around the world. Yet, in little more than two years, the electrobus was abandoned in favour of the combustion engine – and we are still suffering the consequences. What went so badly wrong?

At the start of 1905 there were a handful of petrol-powered buses in London. By 1907, there were almost 1000 – more than in Berlin, New York and Paris put together. Horses still pulled most buses, but petrol had stolen a march on battery power. However, there were problems from the start.

Protests about noise and fumes had increased sharply with the surge in motor vehicles. Buses were not the only culprits, but because of their set routes and vivid eye-catching liveries, they were the focus for much of the ire. Newspapers were full of angry letters from the great and the good. One came from a friend of the late Queen Victoria, who wrote to The Times complaining of “the incessant roar and rattle and pestilential atmosphere and dust diffused by these monstrous vehicles”. A protest meeting held at the Medical Society of London was told that motor buses “ought to run underground in main drains, like other nuisances”.

During 1907, the police stopped petrol buses 8500 times because of their appalling noise or noxious fumes. The average London bus was ordered off the road every six weeks. On top of this, they were extremely unreliable. At any time at least a quarter were out of action. Broken-down buses littered the streets.

The electrobus couldn’t have appeared at a better time. Within days of its debut, one of London’s largest petrol bus companies went bust. In the summer of 1907, more than 100 petrol buses were scrapped. Horse-powered vehicles were making a comeback; despite being slower, they were cheaper and far more likely to reach their destination. The industry was in disarray and even supporters of petrol power conceded failure, at least temporarily.

Yet the marvellously clean, green electrobus failed to cash in. The history books generally put this down to its undeniably heavy lead-acid batteries. In fact, the technology worked rather well. The real reason it failed was that a gang of swindlers had a stranglehold on the companies that made and ran it. To them the electrobus was not a vehicle for change, it was a vehicle for fraud.

Taken for a ride

The originator of the swindle was Edward Ernest Lehwess, an enthusiastic motorist and sometime second-hand car salesman with a doctorate in law from the University of Zurich, Switzerland. Lehwess was an engaging cosmopolitan character, fluent in English, French and German, and with a well-developed taste for the good life. He was soon joined by Edward “Teddy” Beall, a flamboyant former solicitor who had been the brains behind more than 200 share swindles. Beall had only recently been released from prison after serving a four-year sentence for bank fraud. Given their unsavoury reputations, both men went to great pains to avoid having their names linked with the new enterprise. Beall in particular used dozens of aliases.

It was a con from the start. In the spring of 1906, the London Electrobus Company announced plans to put 300 electrobuses on the streets of the capital. It offered the public the chance to buy shares worth £300,000 to finance the project, claiming that it had acquired a patent for the huge sum of £20,000 that gave it a monopoly on the electrobus. This seemingly guaranteed that investors would reap enormous profits, and the public rushed to invest.

Almost immediately, however, inquisitive reporters exposed the scam. One bought a copy of the patent. He discovered that it was for a motor vehicle transmission – about as relevant to the electrobus as a patent for a hair dryer. It was simply a device for conning would-be investors. Another reporter visited the west London works where the electrobuses were to be built. Instead of finding a production line gearing up to churn out hundreds of vehicles, he found a former stables next to a pub. Alerted by articles in the papers, angry shareholders demanded their money back. It all ended up in court and the electrobus company was forced to refund more than 1000 investors.

Despite this initial setback, Lehwess wasn’t deterred. People’s enthusiasm for clean buses, and their willingness to support them with hard cash, convinced him that he had a sure-fire way of making a lot of money. But first he had to put some buses on the road, and to do that he needed reliable batteries. So Lehwess set sail for New York to meet Charles Gould, head of the Gould Storage Battery Company, based near Buffalo.

Through a series of meetings in the autumn of 1906, Lehwess convinced Gould to ship batteries and a team of engineers to London. Each battery weighed around 1.75 tonnes and could power a bus for just 60 kilometres. Recharging took almost 8 hours, meaning vehicles would be off the road for half of their working day. But Gould’s engineers helped devise an innovative way round this problem. The batteries were bolted to the bottom of the bus. After the morning shift, buses returned to the charging station, where workers unbolted the batteries, lowered them with a hydraulic lift and took them off to be recharged, replacing them with fresh ones. This lightning pit stop took just three minutes.

So Lehwess had his batteries. True to form, he failed to pay what he had promised for them. It would take Gould two years to realise that he too had been conned. Meanwhile, after months of rigorous testing, an electrobus picked up its first fares. The inaugural journey began at Victoria Station at 7.30 am on Monday 15 July 1907, and headed off on a 6-kilometre journey across the centre of London to Liverpool Street Station. With a fleet of six buses on the road, Lehwess and Beall were now ready to take investors for another ride.

Beall was a past master at conjuring money from his suckers lists, with seductive circulars promising quick riches. According to one, the return on electrobus shares “should amount to about £26 per annum on the outlay of each £100”. There was no shortage of ingenuous people with spare cash who were taken in. Between 1907 and 1909, the swindlers banked close to £95,000 – worth around £10 million today. Each time they raised more money, they promised to put dozens more electrobuses on the streets, but the number increased only very slowly, reaching a maximum of 20 or so. Of all the money that had been poured into the electrobus enterprise, just £14,000 was spent on buying buses – and even that was paid to a company controlled by Lehwess who, naturally enough, was grossly overcharging for them.


The end came on Monday 3 January 1910. Loyal commuters turned up at Victoria Station as usual to catch their smooth, quiet, fume-free ride, but their electrobuses didn’t arrive. One final scam, a company “reconstruction”, had led to its demise. It was the end of the line for London’s electrobuses. Petrol was victorious in the battle of the buses.

It wasn’t quite the end of the road for battery power – electric delivery vehicles lingered throughout the 20th century and electrobuses themselves went on running in Brighton, UK, for another seven years – but it was a decisive setback. The electric vehicle had lost what was probably its best chance of challenging the internal combustion engine.

The swindle didn’t just rob Edwardian investors of their nest eggs, it bequeathed a toxic legacy to the world’s cities. Today, diesel has widely replaced petrol as the most common fuel for combustion engines. In London alone, nearly 9500 people a year die prematurely from breathing nitrogen oxides and ultra-fine particles known as PM2.5, mostly from diesel exhausts.

We are finally facing up to the problem. In 2009, the world’s leading industrialised countries agreed to promote electric vehicles with the twin aims of cutting air pollution and reducing carbon emissions. As a result, battery development is racing ahead. Most modern electric vehicles use lightweight lithium-ion batteries, and the amount of energy they can store has more than doubled in the past six years, while their cost has fallen by two-thirds. Demand for electric cars is soaring. They are still far outnumbered by diesel and petrol ones, but perhaps not for long. In July, Volvo promised to end the production of cars powered solely by an internal combustion engine within two years. Before the month was out, the governments of France and the UK had joined Norway in pledging to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 or earlier.

The electric bus is also making a comeback. There are now around 350,000 worldwide, many of them in China. This year the Chinese city of Shenzhen is due to become the first to run only electric buses. The future of transport has just reached another tipping point. But imagine how things might have been if we hadn’t missed the opportunity to embrace battery power a century ago.
 
Top