The London Electrical Cab made its debut more than 120 years ago. The Engineer was there to cover it.
In August 2017, London’s first hybrid black cabs hit the streets ahead of new legislation that came into effect this year, requiring all new cabs to be ‘zero emissions capable’. The TX can operate for around 70 miles on battery power alone, with a petrol range extender allowing it to clock up around 400 miles before refuelling. But London’s very first electric cabs actually came into service exactly 120 years earlier.
“Mr W H Preece inaugurated a service of electrical cabs which are to ply for hire in the streets of London in competition with the ordinary hackney carriages,” wrote The Engineer in August 1897. “Thirteen of these cabs are now ready for work, and a staff of drivers have been instructed in the use of them. The cabs will be let out by the proprietors, the London Electrical Cab Company, Limited, just at the same rate and in the same manner as the London cabs. The ‘cabbies’ are, we are informed, quite enthusiastic about the new vehicle.”
The London Electrical Cab – also commonly known as the ‘Hummingbird’ due to its sound, or the ‘Bersey Taxi’ after its young designer – first took to the streets of the capital on August 19 1897. Inventor Walter Charles Bersey was just 23 at the time, but had been designing and patenting electric vehicles for several years already. According to our predecessors, his creation was intended to mimic the appearance of the horse-drawn taxis of the day.
“The vehicle resembles very closely a horseless and shaftless coupé. It is carried on four wooden solid rubber-tired wheels. There is ample space for the coachmen. The accommodation within is luxurious. The propelling machinery consists of a 8-horse power Johnson-Lundell motor, with double wound armature and fields, so that by the use of a suitable switch or controller a variety of speeds can be obtained.”
READ THE ENGINEER’S ORIGINAL COVERAGE HERE
“The current is supplied by 40 EPS traction type cells, having a capacity of 170 ampere hours when discharged at a rate of 30 amperes. The cabs can thus travel between thirty and thirty-five miles per charge.”
The vehicle had speed settings of three, seven and nine miles per hour, controlled by a lever at the side of the driver’s box. A powerful footbrake that broke the electrical circuit could also be applied, halting the vehicle in short order. This was one of four key conditions under which taxis were granted licenses by Scotland Yard, with carriages also required to be capable of turning in small spaces and climbing central London’s steepest ascent of the time, Savoy Hill.
The batteries, which weighed some 14 cwt (over 700 kg), were hung from springs underneath the vehicle and could be swapped out at Bersey’s Lambeth station using a system of hydraulic lifts. This was undoubtedly restrictive, and it was planned at the time to introduce other stations throughout London where the batteries could be charged and swapped. Though Bersey’s company claimed cab drivers welcomed the vehicle, it appears its introduction was not received as warmly from all quarters, as the following passage from a September 1897 edition of The Engineer illustrates.
“Mr. Walter C Bersey, the general manager of the London Electrical Cab Company, Ltd., has written to the general secretary of the London Cab Trade Council, saying that he fails to see how it can be contended that the introduction of electrical cabs can be against the interests of the cabdrivers. He says he has spoken to hundreds of cabmen on the subject, and has always understood they were most anxious for the change, as it would shorten their hours by saving the time wasted in changing horses, and also save them the unpleasantness of frequently having to drive tired and undesirable horses.”
Despite Bersey’s protestations, the vehicle never really took off, with the fleet only reaching a peak of around 75 units. The cab’s two-tonne weight caused huge wear on the tyres which led to noise and vibrations escalating significantly after six months of use. Bersey’s company lost £6,200 in the first year of operation, and the business was forced to close in 1899, the vehicles disappearing from London’s streets just two years after making their debut.
The (better technological) road not taken! Because that road was not taken, here we are after 120 years: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Let’s hope it’s not too late to re-introduce the EV technology, including the battery swapping system (Bersey’s idea is similar to what Better Place tried to scale recently). Let’s also hope that better minds make today’s decisions on which road to take.
The same problems remain unsolved – range and charging facilities! Address these and they’ll take off. Horses had the same inherent advantage then as fossil fuels do now. They are common and readily available, with horse exhanging facilities throughout the country. Both horse and car produce undesirable effluent in use so not a lot has changed, just a different chemistry.
True Nick, but the Horse Effluent was somewhat easier to recycle, since it breaks down organically.
Here is one example of the better minds: young, creative, daring like Bersey in his time
https://sonomotors.com/sion.html/
Nick, what range are we talking about as not being solved?
You need a charging station? Here is where to find and/or post one: https://openchargemap.org/site/
Is there a comparable electric vehicle that can carry the same load, in the same time for the same distance and is capable of being refuelled in 5 or 10 minutes? Not yet. When the charging time, charging locations, and sufficiency are addressed then electric will take off. Until then they do not compete except for small localised niche services. I have nothing against the concept of electric drive systems, other than the practicality of the infrastructure. We need at least a further 60GW of available power generation to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels. Adequate charging facilities for hundreds of vehicles raather than 1 or 2 at a time are needed. Think about the feasible rate of charging dozens of vehicles in one place, not least that most current batteries can only be charged at a max of 150KW per hour, and since a household supply can only supply something like 15KW it will take 10 hours to charge one (small) vehicle so long distance journeys are effectively out of the question.
Yet milk ‘floats’ and trams -which I suspect were introduced at a similar time- thrived for most of the last century? Perhaps there is a difference in operation(s) and additional research would have suggested more appropriate use for cabs. The Jeepneys of the Philippines and TukTuk in Thailand operate along ‘set’ routes: it is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in the major cities there by a few changes and zig-zags. Perhaps the real issue is the almost random direction(s) of the street patterns in most UK cities: the legacy of their being designed? for horse and cart?
Electric cabs compared
2017 LEVC TX black cab.
High headroom;
Average speed in London = 9mph;
Rear wheel drive;
Weight = 2.2 ton;
Range = 70 miles (EV mode);
1897 ‘Bersey Taxi’
High headroom;
Average speed in London = 9mph;
Rear wheel drive;
Weight = 2 ton;
Range = 35 miles;
So what’s changed in 120yrs ?
More comfort for driver, heating, & twice the range.
The article goes to show that the flat earthers ( the world is flat and that is that ) are still very much in charge, along with the vested interests of coal and oil, who do not want to lose market share. Fortunately electric motors are more efficient and batteries have made good improvements in storage and charging times, and with the general public becoming more aware of the environment implications, this time the electric vehicle with win out.
You are right. The technology must only be electric motors with batteries, as no other technology exists.
Yet milk ‘floats’ and trams -which I suspect were introduced at a similar time- thrived for most of the last century? Perhaps there is a difference in operation(s) and additional research would have suggested more appropriate use for cabs.
Milk floats operated a defined route so battery charge optimisation was not a problem. Trams had an external source of electricity again resolving the battery problem.
If the average traffic speed in London is 9mph then 72 miles on a charge may be possible for an 8 hour shift. A couple of trips to the airports may exceed the available range as may the use of heating and airconditioning systems in winter and summer.
Another area where EVs are unlikely to have much impact is in agriculture. The Russians attempted a couple of overhead cable fed tractor systems and the Americans once produced a fuel cell powered tractor. I think that diesel will be the only solution for land machines for the foreseeable future.
Best regards
Roger
Another interesting and lively debate on the pros and cons of EV’s. It seems to me that most articles I read on this subject in The Engineer, and elsewhere, skirt round or completely ignore the pollution created by the generation of the electricity to charge the batteries. It would be great if we could all use EV’s and get them charged as easily as we can fill with petrol/diesel, and as quickly. I still wonder if the overall level of ‘green house gasses’ would really drop as we will need far more electricity than solar/wind/hydro can provide. What ever happened to working from home and the paperless office?
We do usually describe EVs as being ‘zero emissions in use’ and certainly have commented on the argument that one of the advantages of nuclear energy is its ability to meet demand from EVs without increasing carbon emissions (although even that needs a caveat, as uranium mining is not emissions-free)
Not quite, at least the comments always deal with the charging infrastructure. Here are some of the solutions:
http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/
https://driv-eco.com/index.php/en/home-eng/
http://www.go100re.net/map/
Behavioral solutions: telecommute (agree with you Keith), car-sharing instead of ownership (reduces the volume of cars significantly and not a moment too soon) , mass transportation, clean transportation (biking, walking, etc.)
The Engineer has written many times about the future energy-mobility systems, every serious player in the EV market designs and makes EVs within the framework of such integrated system. Same for RE players.
At this moment in time convenience is not at all what matters, but consequences, we have no choice but to adopt 100% clean, renewable energy urgently. Nuclear does not fit both criteria, as Stuart notes, so it’s out of the energy mix we need.
Lenin’s quotation was “Communism is Soviet Power -and the electrification of the whole country.” I had a physics teacher at School (his name was Dole, and he had been a 1930s contemporary at Cambridge (?) of Professor Powell (later at Bristol- and so far to the Left that he was excluded from certain funded projects) who opined that the Soviets launching Sputnik in 1957 would change the entire attitude of the West to the role and status of Engineers? Was he Right/correct? No, he was very far to the Left! He also told his A level physics class (appropriate that its 60 years to the day since I too received my A level results) that the future was planning and centralised control. I recall him describing the Soviets in the 50s building railway lines between areas of the mining of ore and coal and placing a steel works at both ends- for obvious reasons. Weren’t the original ‘steam-engines’ used to plough, via a vast pulley and cable system? that was driven from one side by the ‘engine?’
That rather depends on what you mean by ‘original’. The very first commercial steam engines were used to pump, although ploughing was an early application.
Of course: I should have said ‘traction engines’: I have a very vague memory of seeing one in action in the farming area near Tunbridge Wells: where I was at school in early 1945: indeed an earlier memory (it would have been September 1944) is of the sky above TW (at least to a 4 year old, looking up!) literally full of planes: which I subsequently learned was the gliders etc headed for ‘A bridge too far!’
I believe the first static traction engines were indeed used for agricutural applications.
Portable (not self propelled) steam engines were used for farming applications including driving threshing machines. They were also used for the first steam ploughing systems, driving a wire rope system to pull the plough backwards and forwards across the field.
This was later developed to a system using two traction engines fitted with winches to pull the plough across the field and then move along as each pass was completed. The largest system I am aware of had two 250hp engines and was used in the peat industry in Germany.
Direct ploughing did not come until lighter IC engined tractors became available which did not compact the soil which was the problem with the heavier steam engines.
This article talks briefly about the Russian electric tractors:
https://jalopnik.com/5796595/when-the-soviets-built-an-electric-tractor
May be we will return to this idea as well 😉
Best regards
Roger
I revert once again to my excellent physics master: who (in 1957) opined to we 17 year olds that “mankind did not necessarily pay for the water, gas, electricity, sewage-disposal we used….but for the convenience of having such available. That was of course before the grocer’s daughter and her ilk sold them all off! I accept that now we have to consider the consequences of all human effort: but sadly the ‘economic model’ (how I dislike that phrase when used by CEOs) is one based on annual increases. My dear US boss (who knitted the first nylon stocking ever – I was not born then) use to say “never worry about working in textiles, Mike: as long as people keep falling in love and ****wing, the demand for our industry must increase.
There are some people who still refuse to accept that electricity can be created by renewable energies, such as wind, solar, tides and hydro, and it must be created using coal and other fossil fuels when considering the environmental costs. Solar panels and micro wind turbines create electricity at source, and do not require connection to the electricity grid. The electric energy produced can be stored in batteries, with no cost to the environment.
Have you considered the considerable environmental impact of the manufacture and installation of solar and wind generation systems and batteries? Do you really think that it is possible to make steel, aluminium and concrete purely with renewable sources?
Best regards
Roger
Mike, my education has been sorely amiss. I cannot for the life of me think of what word you are discreetly hiding here. Do tell!
Nice one!
In textiles we ‘draw’ fibres so the answer is draw (as in Picasso)
The London Electrobus Company ran London`s first battery electric buses (which used swappable batteries like the London electrical cabs and the Better Place company used in Israel and elsewhere for electric cars) in London 1907-10 and some of the electrobuses were used by the Brighton and Hove Bus Company between Brighton and Hove,South East England in 1910-17. The electric double decker electrobuses had a range of 40 miles,enough for four return trips during the morning shift,before the swappable lead acid batteries were replaced in the Victoria depot in 3 minuets.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/01/09/the-fraud-that-killed-off-londons-first-electric-buses/ .There is also an article in New Scientist titled All Aboard 9 Sep 2017.
Nice article and great correspondence on the early history of EVs.
It is always important to learn from history, (but all too often forgotten).
Maybe if we had not followed the USA in going for AC power things would have developed differently.
The original article states that the Electrical Cab was fitted with a 3 hp motor (not 8).
This potentially would have been faster than the conventional single horse powered cab of the day.