A Part of Fire Service History
As we have seen in previous articles in this fire service history series, the American Industrial Revolution was a period of rapid growth in population, cities, and manufacturing. This period of growth also created circumstances that led to increased fire hazards that could potentially impact entire cities. To confront the fire problem and help prevent its costly impact on life and property, communities across the nation looked to improve their fire protection resources. Measures included the move from volunteer to paid departments, and improvements in firefighting capabilities, such as the move from the hand pump fire engines to the new steam fire engines of the period. The previous article, The Age of Steam Fire Engines, covered the reasons for these transitions in the fire service during the Industrial Age.1 As mentioned in that article, the steam fire engine was not necessarily the best mechanical solution to the fire problem for all communities. During the “Age of Steam” experimentation and resulting inventions would produce another type of fire apparatus that also became prominent in America for a time, the Chemical Fire Engine. It served a need in some smaller communities, and in some cases served alongside steam fire apparatus in larger departments. Despite the chemical fire engine’s prolific expansion into the fire service of its time, this type of apparatus was never as highly regarded as the steamer in historical references. During the chemical engine’s heyday, it was a highly popular and well-praised piece of apparatus despite its misunderstood effectiveness. Though the era of the chemical fire engine lasted into the early days of motorized apparatus, it would eventually be replaced by the steam fire engine by the versatility and water flow capabilities of the motorized pumper and booster tank engine. Despite all this, the chemical fire engine played an important role during this interim period and its contribution and impact on the Fire Service were far-reaching.
The Era of Steam and Chemical Fire Engines
A major change in society in Europe and America occurred during the mid-1700s to 1800s. This change was driven by the Industrial Revolution where “technological changes introduced novel ways of working and living and fundamentally transformed society.”2 This technological change also affected the culture and operations of the American Fire Service. In a previous article, we detailed the coming of the age of steam that introduced the steam fire engine. The shift of populations from farms to factories and the growth of cities affected the structure of the communities. This also impacted the local fire department and the resources needed to successfully combat the growing fire hazards. The change from hand-pumped fire engines to steam-powered fire engines helped provide the water flow capability to handle major fires in the growing communities. The steam engine also reduced the manpower required to power the pump and therefore enabled a shift from requiring large numbers of volunteer firefighters to a smaller paid or volunteer fire force.
However, though the steam fire engine addressed some of the needs and changes, it did not adequately solve all the issues of fire protection that resulted from the societal changes that were occurring. With the growth in population and housing clustered closely in communities and increased fire hazards from the flourishing manufacturing industry, the potential fire hazard had increased exponentially. A small fire could spread rapidly through this urban setting and create a major conflagration that could devastate a whole community. Though the steamers could continuously pump large volumes of water, once a major fire was entrenched it was hard to stop. The steam fire engine took time to get up steam to power the pump, and it also took time to establish a water supply and lay hoses for firefighting operations. The steamers only carried sufficient water for initial use by the boiler, and therefore to pump water for firefighting an immediate water supply had to be established by drafting from a well, cistern, or a local water system. What was needed was a method of quick self-supported fire attack requiring limited manpower to hold the fire at bay while the steam fire engine company was set up. A novel new means of addressing this need would be the development of the chemical fire engine.
It Began as a Fire Extinguisher
In 1909, in his book Bucket Brigade to Flying Squadron: Fire Fighting Past and Present, Herbert Jenness related that “it is the endeavor of all firemen to find every arrangement that will insure the application of water or chemicals upon a fire in its early stage.”3 In the early days of America, it was understood that a major fire or conflagration could be prevented by taking quick action in the beginning phase of the fire using buckets of water or various types of hand pumps. Thus began the quest for a readily available portable fire extinguisher. Various inventors experimented with a variety of concepts. The first handheld chemical fire extinguisher is credited to English inventor Capt. George Manby.4 The extinguisher called the “Extincteur” consisted of a three-gallon cylinder containing a solution of water and potassium carbonate (called pearl ash) expelled by compressed air. This produced a soapy like water-based solution. Reference sources vary as to the date of this invention, sometime between 1813 and 1818, and not much is known today about the actual design of this extinguisher.
Philippe Francois Carlier, a French inventor, eliminated the need for a source of compressed air by developing a solution that would create pressure to discharge the extinguishing agent through a chemical reaction. He used a water solution containing sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and mixed it with tartaric acid.5 Tartaric acid, also called dicarboxylic acid, is a natural acid found in foods such as grapes and can be concentrated.6 This combination when mixed “generated copious amounts of carbonic acid gas (carbon dioxide), soon led to the ‘soda-acid principle’ of fire extinguishment.”7 Carlier and his collaborator, Alphonse Vignon, French Corp of Engineers, sold the American rights to the extinguisher to Dawson Miles, who somehow had his name added to the American patent.8
Perhaps the best description of the typical soda-acid fire extinguisher of the time was described by R.O. Matson in Fire Engineering magazine in 1926. He said the:
The Soda-acid extinguisher consists essentially of a cylindrical tank of approximately three gallons capacity, with a hose and nozzle attached, and an acid bottle supported in a metal cage within the tank. The tank contains two and one-half gallons of water in which is dissolved one and one-half pounds of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCOs), and the acid bottle has approximately four (liquid) ounces of commercial sulphuric acid (H2S04). Soda-acid extinguishers are of two types: The loose stopple type contains an open-necked bottle and is operated by inverting; the break bottle type contains a sealed acid bottle and is operated by shattering the acid bottle using a plunger extending through the extinguisher cover. Upon operation, the acid flows from the acid bottle and enters into a chemical reaction with soda, and as a result, carbon dioxide gas (C02) is formed under pressure. It is this gas that causes the water to be discharged through the hose and nozzle.9This type of portable fire extinguisher would be quickly adopted by the American fire service as a quick initial fire response. By 1868, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) had soda-acid fire extinguishers placed in each firehouse. They could be grabbed by firemen who would run to local neighborhood fires and extinguish the fire while in an incipient stage.10 In 1871, Boston took the next step by placing a fire extinguisher wagon in service “carrying ten hand operated soda-acid extinguishers…it was designated ‘Extinguisher Co. No. 1’.”11 This concept would be quickly transfigured by American industry into the first Chemical Fire Engine.
Chemistry and the Chemical Fire Engine
The chemical fire engine would be another modern invention during the Industrial Revolution. Its development and use fairly closely parallel the age of steam and the steam fire engine in the fire service. First, we need to examine the definition of an engine. The term “engine” is defined in The Britannica Dictionary as “a machine that changes energy (such as heat from burning fuel) into mechanical motion.”12 For steam fire engines, the burning of coal was used to heat water to boiling which expanded into steam thus driving the steam pistons that moved water through a connected water pump. In the chemical engine, a chemical reaction is producing pressure through a rapid expansion of the reacting agents inside a vessel. This pressure is used to push or drive something, in this case, an extinguishing solution out through a small diameter tube and hose. Though it does not appear to be a traditional engine, the inventors and firemen of the time considered the resulting mechanism to be a chemical engine providing the necessary pressure to shoot a water solution out through a hose onto a fire.
Though various mixtures of chemicals were tried, ultimately a chemical process would be standardized for fire service extinguishers and later chemical engines. In its day the chemical and resulting reaction were described as using bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) mixed in solution with water and adding “oil of vitriol” (sulphuric acid) which immediately reacted to produce carbonic acid gas (carbon dioxide).13 So, was this some vile concoction by alchemists or a chemical breakthrough? Dr. Goodman in his book, Inventing the American Fire Engine, identifies the chemical formula of the reaction as: H2SO4 + 2NaHCO3 > Na2SO4 +2H2O + 2CO2.14 Sodium bicarbonate plus sulfuric acid react to produce a mixture of sodium sulfate, water, and carbon dioxide. This reaction occurring inside a specially designed pressure vessel produced a confined pressure that was released through a discharge tube connected to a rubber hose with a nozzle on the end. The resulting discharge was a foamy water-based extinguishing agent.
At the time, most firefighters thought that the combination of chemicals and resulting solution were producing a more effective extinguishing agent than just plain water. However, this in reality was not the case. The suppositions related to chemical fire extinguishment will be covered in more detail in the next section.
Why A Chemical Fire Engine
The introduction of an American-made chemical fire engine to the Fire Service began in 1872 with the development of the Babcock and later the Holloway Chemical Fire Engines.15 Seeing the successful capabilities to immediately handle small fires with hand-portable soda-acid fire extinguishers, Babcock Manufacturing quickly developed the idea to mount a large version of the soda-acid extinguisher onto running gear (cart or wagon) that could handle small to medium size fires. Col. Holloway and his company soon followed with an improved chemical tank design.
The chemical fire engine was the fast attack mini pumper of its day.16 This concept filled a need for self-supported fire apparatus that could upon arrival immediately begin a fire attack with limited manpower and no external support. This quick action capability provided a means of either extinguishing a small fire or keeping a larger fire held in check until the steam fire engine company could arrive, establishing a water supply (supported by a Hose Company), and beginning firefighting operations. For some communities that could not afford the expense or provide the necessary support of operating a steam fire engine, the chemical fire engine was a means of providing rudimentary fire protection for its citizens. In addition to the initial cost of purchasing a steam fire engine, there was the cost of manning it with a qualified steam engineer, firehouse infrastructure to support the boiler, horse teams, and drivers to transport it to the scene, and some type of municipal water supply and/or hose company. The citizens and community could eliminate these additional required costs of operating a steamer by using a chemical fire engine, which also had a lower initial purchase price than a steamer.
In addition to fulfilling the initial firefighting role, the chemical fire engine had, for its time, several advantages.17 It was overall smaller and lighter than a steam fire engine. The smaller units could be hand drawn/transported without the need for stabling and harnessing horses. It required no special infrastructure in the firehouse except in cold climates, where it needed to be protected from freezing. Anyone could be quickly trained to recharge and operate the chemical engine, no engineer was required. It only required one or two people to operate. It was reasonably cheap to operate with the recharge chemicals costing only a few pennies per pound. Its pre-connected rubber hose carried on the cart or wagon could be immediately uncoiled and placed in service. And probably the most advantageous point was that it arrived on the scene as a self-contained unit, water, chemical, and hose on board ready to fight fire with the simple throw of a lever to dump the acid to start the almost immediate reaction of the chemical agent.
It should be mentioned that for communities that had no readily available water system capable of supporting the fire streams of a steam fire engine, the chemical fire engine, caring its own limited water solution, was perhaps the only answer to that community’s fire protection needs at the time.
The chemical fire engine did have advantages and as the manufacturing companies would say, many “merits” or selling points. However, one of the main theories associated with the chemical fire engines’ successful ability to extinguish the fire was an inflated claim at best. Various manufacturers made bold statements about the extinguishing capabilities of the chemical water solution. In Babcock’s company advertising paper of 1874, The Babcock Fire Record, it was claimed that “Carbonic acid gas is both the working and extinguishing agent, which, bulk for bulk, is 30 times as effective as water, the 200 gallons of the first class engine being equal to 6,000 gallons of water.”18 The Ajax Fire Engine Works, in their advertising materials, said: “the fire extinguishing properties of these AJAX Chemical Engines has been estimated by the recognized authorities, to be forty times the efficiency of an equal amount of water.”19 So Ajax claimed 40 times more capability, but failed to mention who the “recognized authorities” were that determined this.
And apparently, the fire service was quickly on board the chemical train. Numerous Fire Chiefs of the period praised the merits of the chemical fire engine and its ability to extinguish the fire. In a report on the effectiveness of chemicals in firefighting, New York’s Fire Commissioner related that:
The value of these chemicals in fire extinguishing, according to the testimony of the Fire Department authorities of Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Buffalo, and twenty other leading cities of whom inquiries have been made, is the effect that they are the most valuable of recent aids and expedients in arresting fire, their operations covering an absolute control of from 25 to 80 percent. of all the fires in those particular cities.20 No scientific study at the time was done to substantiate these claims, but somehow they were quickly believed and embraced by the fire service. It is curious that the fire service was slow to embrace and change to steam-powered fire apparatus, but was quick to move to chemical fire engines when they were developed.
It was thought that the CO2 gas entrained with the chemical solution was helping extinguish the fire. In actuality, most of the gas was lost as it exited the nozzle and never made it to the fire. Exterior or ventilated fires were not going to be affected by the limited residual gas. The other belief was that sodium bicarb and water were more effective than just water as an extinguishing agent. Though much later fire studies showed some improved effects with chemicals in water, it was potassium bicarbonate that had some added impact compared to sodium bicarbonate.21 Though it took almost 40 years to comprehend the reality, it finally became apparent that as far as firefighting goes the era of “chemicals were vastly overrated.”22 What was working with chemical fire engines was the pressure created by the chemical reaction produced a quick self-contained method of pressurizing and flowing a water solution onto a fire enabling rapid suppression of small to moderate fires.
The Evolution of Manufacturing the Chemical Fire Engine
With the fast-spreading propaganda of the success of the new chemical fire extinguishers and fast attack capability using hand-portable extinguishers, it did not take long for inventors to take the concept a step further. Building on Boston’s success with their fire extinguisher wagon, Babcock Manufacturing Company in Chicago built the first chemical engine manufactured in America in 1872.23 The engine first saw service in the Chicago Fire Department. Colonel Charles T, Holloway from Baltimore would soon follow by forming a company to produce the Holloway Chemical Engines that were placed in service in Baltimore and also Chicago. We will find that these two companies and their successors would become the leading manufacturers of chemical engines in America. However, just like the amazing number of new companies that sprang into business to make steam fire engines, the chemical fire engine business would see a boom of manufacturing companies entering the marketplace during the heyday.
W.B. Dick and Company
The first fire engine that used a chemical solution was built by W.B. Dick and Company of Glasgow, Scotland. They constructed a three-compartment tank mounted on a wheeled chassis. This was a hybrid engine using both a chemical agent and a hand pump engine. It used water, bicarbonate, and tartaric acid combined in a third chamber and hand-pumped onto the fire. The company was one of the early promoters of the effectiveness of chemical solution over water by claiming, “Water and carbonic gas combined to produce a far greater effect upon a fire than an equal bulk of unmixed water.”24 Dr. Goodman in his book, Inventing the American Fire Engine, related that Dick and Company supposedly sold over 9,000 of these engines throughout the world.25
Babcock Manufacturing Company
In America, the Babcock Manufacturing Company and their inventors, Jerome B. Stillson and John A. Kley patented a chemical engine in 1872 that consisted of a four-wheel crane-neck chassis with two upright chemical tanks, and a rubber hose on a reel.26 The patented apparatus was relatively small, compared to steamers, being approximately four feet wide and nine feet long, and originally designed to be hand drawn. The tanks included a mechanism to stir or mix the chemicals, and a hand force pump on the rear step to refill the tanks with water.27
The company developed many innovations and went to a horizontal tank configuration called “The Champion” which was rotated upside down to mix the acid with the bicarbonate water solution. A later version, “The Champion-Babcock,” had an internal agitator or series of paddles operated by a hand crank lever at the rear end of the tank. This agitator mechanism helped mix the solutions more uniformly, thus more rapidly producing pressure.28
Over time the Babcock Company became the Fire Extinguisher Manufacturing Company (FEMC). By 1886, Babcock and its successor FEMC, had “produced and placed more than two thousand chemical engines in active service across America.”29 In 1900, the company was sold to American-LaFrance a major manufacturer of steam fire engines.
Col. Charles Holloway and the Holloway Company
Charles T. Holloway was the son of Robert Holloway a clock-maker and lifelong volunteer firefighter. Charles grew up in the volunteer fire service and at age 15 he became President of the Hope Junior Fire Company. He later organized the first Hook and Ladder Company in Baltimore. In 1858 he was commissioned as the first Chief Engineer of the Baltimore paid Fire Department. During his career, he served in a variety of prestigious positions including being the first Commissioner of the Baltimore County Fire Department. Early on he was an advocate of steam fire engines in the fire service and was responsible for introducing them to the Baltimore FD.30 However, he was also a prolific inventor holding numerous fire service patents, including ones for chemical fire engines. In 1870 he formed his own manufacturing company the Holloway Company. When he was appointed Commissioner of the Baltimore County FD, he equipped this department “almost exclusively with chemical engines.”31 The chemical fire engines he chose were Holloway Engines. Today one would wonder about this conflict of interest. Holloway continued to develop and sell new apparatus versions, including combination apparatus such as a city service hook and ladder truck equipped with a chemical fire engine. He was one of the originators of the concept of multi-purpose fire apparatus with a dual and triple function that would ultimately lead to today’s combination pumper concept.
Holloway’s Chemical Fire Engine had horizontal tanks similar to Babcock’s, however, the Holloway tank was stationary and not required to rotate to dump/mix the acid. He developed a method of opening and tipping the acid contained in the tank from an outside screw top and tipping lever. To rapidly mix the contents and get pressure, he had a central shaft in the tank with a series of paddles that could be operated by a handle outside the tank.
Holloway was a promoter and shrewd businessman, and he was willing to adapt and outfit his “multipurpose truck according to the needs of each specific purchaser.”32 This included providing options for either hand-drawn or horse-drawn apparatus configurations.
Other Chemical Fire Engine Companies
Just as numerous companies and entrepreneurs saw the business potential and jumped on board to produce steam fire engines in the age of steam, so too were there large numbers of businesses formed to take advantage of the demand for this new development in firefighting, the chemical fire engine. While many companies obtained licenses to manufacture, other companies ignored the legalities or made slight modifications to the acid bottle dump mechanism to obtain new patents to get around this. Even with the significant number of manufacturers getting into the business, “for a number of years manufacturers could scarcely keep up with the demand for chemical engines.”33 Probably part of this was due to the hype that the solution mixture was more effective than just plain water in extinguishing fires. A belief that persisted in many fire departments and was spread through articles in respected fire service publications of the day. Other more reasonable justifications as already mentioned was the quick response capability of chemical engines over steamers in large cities, and the affordability of the purchase and maintenance of these engines for smaller communities versus the expense encountered with steamers.
In regards to the business of building chemical fire engines, the manufacturing of these engines did not require the precision engineering of steam boilers and the mechanical engine and pump. This probably was another reason so many business entrepreneurs went into the chemical engine business instead of steam fire engines. With the manufacture of chemical fire engines requiring less engineering, limited upfront manufacturing costs and facilities, and the ability to use more general laborers instead of technically skilled craftsmen, this new industry was ripe for investment and exploitation opportunities.
The actual number of chemical engine manufacturers of that period is buried in numerous archives. Some of the other early chemical fire engine companies included: Ajax Fire Engine Works, Muskegon Chemical Fire Engine Company, Nott Fire Engine Company, New England Fire Extinguisher Company, and the Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Company. Though the records of all manufacturers are historically obscure, some more prominent companies that went on to transition into the motorized fire apparatus age with chemical units were American-LaFrance, Peter Pirsch & Sons Company, Seagrave, and the Obenchain-Boyer Company.34
The Chemical Fire Engine in Use
Babcock and Holloway’s companies being the primary builders of wheeled chemical fire engines set the standard for chemical engines, and their designs were generally copied by many of the other start-up companies. The main difference between any of the manufacturers was their method for activating the engine by mixing the acid with the bicarbonate solution to start the chemical reaction. Some simply copied the hand-portable soda acid fire extinguishers and had a lead stopper that came out of the acid bottle and the acid mixed when the tank was rotated or tipped up. Others like the Holloway engines had a more elaborate glass bottle break or acid container that was tipped by a lever. These types mixed the solutions without having to turn or tip the tank.
The other major difference in the type of chemical fire engines was in their size or method of transport. Hand-drawn engines came in smaller two-wheeled carts or larger capacity engines on four-wheeled wagons. The horse-drawn apparatus was generally larger capacity chemical engines and usually carried additional firefighting equipment, such as hoses or ladders. These were the forerunners in the development of multi-purpose engines or combination apparatus. Though the chemical engine itself was similar in function in both types, their operations differed. First, we will examine the operation of the Chemical Fire Engine Cart.
Chemical Fire Engine Hand Cart
The chemical fire engine hand cart was a hand-drawn piece of fire apparatus and was usually configured on two wheels. It had a horizontal main tank, made of steel or copper, with a hose basket on top of the horizontal tank containing a pre-connected coiled rubber hose. The hose was ¾ inch in diameter and had a shutoff nozzle on the end. To pull the cart, a short cart tongue with handles for two people was provided. If more manpower was needed for longer runs or uphill streets, one or two 50-foot drag ropes wound on reels were mounted underneath the tongue.35 The single tank unit was generally sized as a 40 to 50-gallon vessel.
The amount of chemicals used to charge an engine was based on a ratio, and the exact amount was calculated for the size of the tank. As an example, “a 40-gallon tank should have eight pounds of acid and sixteen pounds of soda. Acid, although a liquid, is measured by weight.”36 At the time the soda was shipped in bulk in a dry barrel or cask and the acid in a glass and wood-boxed carboy container. Chemicals could be ordered from the manufacturer, or company salesman or they were usually obtainable through the local apothecary (drug store). The Chemical fire engine was recharged after each use, and it was recommended if not used to change the chemicals once a year.37
To prepare the engine to a standby-ready state, the tank was filled to the proper level (leaving an air gap space in the tank) and soda was added to the tank. The air gap space at the top of the tank is essential so as not to over-pressurize the tank when the solutions are mixed. Some engines had a safety charging flange to prevent overfilling.38 Acid was poured into the acid bottle or contained and placed in its holder inside the tank. A cover or dome was screwed down tight to prevent any leak around the tank threads. If the tank was equipped with an agitator, it is used to help better mix the bicarbonate and water solution during recharge or before use if the engine had set for some time. The cart chemical engine was now ready if needed for fire response.
On a fire “run” the engine was brought to the scene, and if there was a fire the chemical engine would be activated at that point by mixing the chemicals. The method of activation depended on the manufacturer and type of engine, but in a typical two-wheeled cart, this could be simply tipping the cart up on end (dumping the acid into the mixture) and then bringing it back to horizontal. Rocking the tank back and forth during use provided “a better mixture and better working pressure.”39 The rubber hose was pulled from the basket and stretched to the fire for direct application of the solution on the fire. The fire stream reach varied due to several factors, but one company claimed their engine’s “pressure is sufficient to throw a stream about eighty feet, under average conditions.”40 If the cart was equipped with two chemical tanks, only one tank would be charged for use at a time. Some engines carried a replacement supply of chemicals on the cart so that if needed the engine could be recharged on scene by bleeding off the remaining pressure and then refilling the tank with water and chemicals as before.
To return the “engine” to service, the hose is coiled back in the basket. Recommendations were that “it should be coiled in a clockwise direction looking down upon the top of the basket. This will have a tendency to tighten the chemical hose coupling when pulling it from the basket.”41 There was a concern that the hose might become uncoupled if coiled the opposite way.
The chemical engine was placed back in service by recharging it with the solution mixtures as previously described. Care was taken to make sure any acid or solution spilled on the engine-painted surfaces was diluted and carefully neutralized and removed.
The Horse-Drawn Chemical Engine
The horse-drawn chemical fire engine procedures were similar to the hand cart, but with some specific differences. The wagon-mounted chemical fire engine was generally larger containing one or two tanks of 25 to 50 gallons each or one large tank of up to 220-gallon capacity. On wagons, the tanks were usually of the Champion-Babcock or Holloway type with an internal glass break or container tip mechanism for the acid. These larger tanks would also have an agitator or paddles on an internal central shaft that could be used to help mix the initial bicarbonate and water solution during recharge or better mix the reactant solution during use.
At the station, for the initial charging of the tank(s), it was the practice to mix the soda/bicarbonate powder in a bucket of water to dissolve it into a solution before pouring it into the tank. This was done in larger tanks to get a better initial mixture. Setting idle for extended periods and temperature/seasonal changes did affect the solution mixture causing the sodium bicarbonate to gradually settle out of the water solution and cake along the bottom of the tank. It probably was a common practice to mix the tank bicarbonate solution using the internal agitator or paddles every so often if not used. One does wonder if this is the origin of the joke where today’s pranksters tell the Rookie Firefighter to stir the water in the booster tank.
It should be mentioned that, unlike the steam fire engine, the chemical fire engine usually required no station watch to maintain boilers and mechanics. Only in northern winter climates did the tank solution need to be protected from freezing by heating the apparatus bay. The horse-drawn chemical engine only needed a trained teamster to drive the engine to the scene and initiate the activation of the chemical mixture. No need for a highly skilled steam engineer, stoker, and other assigned personnel to initiate a fire attack.
When a fire call was received, the chemical fire engine wagon would be hitched to the horses usually by positioning the horses under a hanging quick-hitch harness spreader and lowering them onto the horses, similar to the harnessing method used for steam fire engines. The difference here was that the chemical fire engine wagon weighed far less than the heavy steam fire engine with a steel frame and iron boiler. So where the steamer usually had a three-horse hitch, the chemical engine only required a two-horse hitch. Also, unlike the steamer, no action with the chemical engine was required until arrival on the scene. If a small fire was found, usually the engine wagon was equipped with two-hand portable soda acid fire extinguishers that could be used instead of charging the main tanks. Many chemical engine wagon manufacturers instituted this option by placing the extinguishers (2 ½ gal. size up to 5 gal.) on either side of the driver position or on the side running boards.42 If a working fire was encountered the tank (or one tank in a two-tank engine) would be charged using the appropriate method based on the designs previously mentioned. The coiled rubber line was advanced and extinguishment operations commenced. If a two-tank system was used and more extinguishing agent was needed the second tank would be activated as the first tank ran out. Valves within the piping would allow for switching from one tank to the other to supply the rubber chemical hose. Usually, the chemical engine wagon had a small hand pump on board to use to refill the tank(s) with water from a local water supply if needed to recharge the engine on the scene. For extended fire operations, additional chemicals were usually carried in a storage box on the wagon.
Once the fire was out, the rubber chemical hose would be taken up and coiled in the chemical line basket on the wagon or mounted on a hose reel (eventually to inspire the booster line hose reel in the 1900s). Care was taken to make sure the hose was probably coiled or loaded to prevent the hose coupling from unscrewing from the engine pipe connection (see hand-cart operation section). The chemical wagon was taken back to the firehouse for cleaning and recharge and then placed back in service. If the chemical engine wagon was a multi-purpose piece of fire apparatus the other equipment would need proper servicing also.
Another feature of the chemical engine wagon was the addition of side running boards and a tailboard. This for the first time provided riding positions for additional firemen. Up to that point, they either pulled the apparatus or ran alongside to the scene. Starting in the days of the hand-drawn and hand-pumped fire engines, the tradition was that no one road on the engine or apparatus, firemen were expected to pull the apparatus or run alongside it. Even with the development of the steam fire engine, usually only the teamster to driver the horses and the engineer to work the boiler rode the apparatus. All the other firemen ran to the scene. With the lighter-weight chemical fire engines, horse-drawn rigs could now carry other equipment and the other firemen in the company to the scene, allowing the firefighters to be fresh and ready for firefighting operations.
In larger cities where the chemical fire engine was a multi-purpose piece of apparatus, it might also carry regular leather or cotton jacketed fire hose for use with a steamer fire company to establish water supply or firefighting lines for the steam engine company at major fires. The wagon could also carry ladders to perform ladder work and rescue operations as part of the on-scene responsibilities, conducted by the additional manpower riding this piece of apparatus. Here we see the beginnings of new operational procedures and traditions in the fire service, the multi-purpose engine company, and the crew riding tailboards, all beginning with the chemical fire engine in the late 1800s.
It should also be mentioned, that not to be outdone or lose prestige in comparison with the shiny, polished, gleaming steamers, the chemical fire engine wagons in many cases had the tanks and metal fittings polished or brightly painted, with the addition of polished brass railings (grab bars) around the wagon bed. Also, a brass bell or gong could be added to help clear the way for the responding apparatus. The manufacturers understood that the firemen would want to take great pride in the appearance of their company’s apparatus and offered many trim options, be it a steam or chemical fire engine.
Transition to Motorized Apparatus
Just as horse-drawn steam fire engines transitioned to motorized apparatus in the early 1900s so too did the horse-drawn chemical fire engines.
Possibly the first motorized chemical fire engine was made by A.C. Webb for the Joplin (MO) Fire Department in 1907. According to research done by Fire Chief (Ret.) Bill Westhoff in his article “History’s Corner, Joplin Fire Department Part Two” in the FFAM magazine, Webb was a former race car driver and had an automotive repair shop in Joplin. He was reportedly friends with the fire chief. Using a surplus chemical tank and hose reel from the fire department, Webb mounted them on a “Buick F passenger car, [and] ‘the goat’ was born.”43 Webb went on to form the Webb Motor Fire Apparatus Company in 1907, and “primarily made motorized Hose Wagons on its own chassis.”44 In 1909 the company moved to St. Louis. The company went through dissolution in 1911 in Missouri and later moved to Pennsylvania in 1913.45
Another possibility for building the first motorized chemical fire engine was the Knox Automobile Company of Springfield, Massachusetts. The Radner Fire Company of Wayne, Pennsylvania awarded a contract to purchase a Knox Hose and Chemical Engine on October 12, 1906. The engine was delivered on March 3, 1907.46 Though ordered in 1906 the Knox motorized chemical engine wasn’t delivered until March of 1907. Also, reference materials indicate that both Seagrave and American-LaFrance fire apparatus companies delivered motorized chemical fire engines to fire departments sometime in 1907.47 So the bragging rights of who was first with a motorized chemical fire engine are muddled in fire service history.
By combining the quick and fast response of the automobile and the ready-to-operate chemical fire engine, a truly rapid response and quick attack fire truck was realized. This concept quickly spread and many fire apparatus manufacturers were swift to capitalize on this new development.
As mentioned previously, some more prominent fire apparatus manufacturers that went on to transition into the motorized fire apparatus age with chemical units were American-LaFrance, Peter Pirsch & Sons Company, Seagrave, and the Obenchain-Boyer Company.48
However, future engineering changes would finally signal the end of the era of Chemical Fire Engines. Motorized drawn steamers were soon to be replaced by apparatus where the internal combustion engine drove both the running gear, as well as the hydraulic fire pump. Charles Fox of the Ahrens-Fox Fire Apparatus Company went a step further when he conceived of a new paradigm for fire apparatus in 1913. His novel idea was to mount “a small-capacity front-end pump and water tank on a motor hose wagon, instead of the commonly used chemical tank, and gave the name of “booster” to the water tank and pump assembly.”49 With this innovation the base design for all future fire apparatus was established, a motorized fire apparatus and pump carrying its water supply enabling quick fire attack and then transitioning over to hose feed water supply. And so was born the modern design for fire apparatus.
Interestingly, a magazine article from that time reported that a Fire Chief of a major city fire department saw the new Ahrens-Fox concept at an exhibit and said: “That thing will never replace the chemical engine.”50 Needless to say, history proved his prediction wrong.
The End of an Era, A Change in Perception
Near the end of the Chemical Fire Engine Era, there was a major resurgence of chemical hand carts and some motorized apparatus with the entry of the United States into World War I, 1917–1918. The U.S. war effort needed a way to provide quick, limited support, and fire protection to new and expanding military bases, naval ports, and airfields in the U.S. and overseas. They accomplished this in part by purchasing a variety of chemical fire engines. Ajax Fire Engine Works reported in their advertising that “during the years 1917 and 1918 almost our entire output of these engines was taken by the United States War and Navy Departments.”51 They went on to say that in “one record month” the government ordered over 900 chemical fire engines of various configurations and sizes.52
With the transition to motorized fire apparatus, the Era of Chemical Fire Apparatus lasted on into the 1920s. However, its days were numbered. Ahrens-Fox’s new pump and booster tank concept quickly lead the fire service through another transition in technology and operational tactics. This major change became the focus of a national discussion presented in a series of “Round Table” articles in Fire Engineering in 1932 regarding “Chemical Tank vs. Booster Tank”.53
The majority of responding Chiefs felt that the combination of a pump and booster tank compared to a chemical engine tank was just as good and better for many reasons. Reasons given included the ease of operation and transition to large hose lines when needed versus chemical engines. Also, most of them reported problems resulting from the chemical solution itself. These problems included acid damage and deterioration from contact with firefighter clothing, citizens’ furniture (wood and upholstery), firefighting hoses, nozzles, apparatus paint, and fire station floors. This acid contact came from both handling chemicals during recharge and servicing, as well as exposure to the chemical solutions from firefighting.54
In his response to the Round Table discussion, Acting Fire Chief C. T. Donnelly, of Lakewood, Ohio, said: “It has been proven that the booster tank is just as efficient as the chemical tank; it has about the same extinguishing power and is generally of a larger capacity. The cost of operation, also, is very much less and will not damage finished or delicate household goods; it may be refilled at a fire before returning to quarters and is ready for use, if a fire is located or received when company is returning.”55
It appears that the chemical engine had not been the complete resolution to the problems the fire service faced in the late 1800s. By the 1920s, Fire Departments began adopting the booster tank combination pumper concept in force. Historically, the chemical fire engine had come about at a time when it was successfully able to fill a niche. These specialized apparatuses carried many communities through to a time that would allow most all communities to adopt new technology, the motorized combination pumper.
Historic Chemical Fire Engines Today
So where are all the old chemical fire engines today? No concise estimate of how many were manufactured during the era is available, but with the number of companies in the chemical fire engine business and their popularity, there must have been many thousands. Unfortunately, the vast majority did not survive over time. The solution tanks and apparatus components that routinely came into contact with the chemical agents and acid soon deteriorated by the end of the era. Other motorized chemical units were converted to the new pump and booster tank-type apparatus and their chemical tanks were scrapped. However, some fire departments fondly remembered their chemical fire engines and maintained them as parade apparatus. Today, Chemical fire engines, especially motorized ones, are still found restored in their original fire company or its descendent organization, in fire museums, and the collections of fire buffs.
Fire Museums
Understanding the important role chemical fire engines played in the growth of the American Fire Service, these apparatus are considered an important part of any apparatus display collection. Some fire museums have several in their collection including hand-drawn, horse-drawn, and motorized apparatus. Thus depicting the full range of example apparatus during the era of the chemical fire engine. On display, the chemical tanks are left empty to prevent further deterioration by the caustic solutions, and for safety purposes.
The Vintage Fire Museum of Jeffersonville, Indiana, has some chemical engine hand carts including a most unique example. It is a Monnet Company, Paris, France, hand-drawn chemical hand cart. It was first shipped to the United States in 1870 and is believed to be the oldest chemical fire engine in America.56 Board Chair Curt Peters of the Vintage Fire Museum related that the chemical fire engines had the advantage of speed, being quickly deployable to a fire, and having everything needed to start fire extinguishment with limited manpower. Because of their simplicity of operation, a fire engineer or skilled operator was not required. Peters related that an overlooked advantage of the chemical hand cart was it brought increased on-site fire protection to America’s manufacturing industry. Their use provided for a quick response by factory workers to incipient fires thus preserving jobs and protecting industry.57
Fire Collectors
Chemical fire engines are popular with fire buffs or collectors that have specialized in collecting fire apparatus. There are many fire apparatus collector organizations and among them is the Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of Antique Motor Fire Apparatus in America (SPAAMFAA). They also have regional chapters throughout the U.S. and Canada. They provide several publications and resources that include motorized chemical fire engines.
During the research for this history article, the author had the fortunate opportunity to speak with fire apparatus restorers and collectors. Their diligent study, research, and apprenticeship show their dedication to preserving the history of these unique pieces of fire apparatus. My utmost respect and appreciation go out to each of them for their willingness to share their knowledge and perspective that contributed to this article.
Resources and Cautions
For the Museum Curator or Conservator of antique fire apparatus, as well as the fire service buff or collector, some resources can be of use in identifying the historical significance, manufacturer, and dates of chemical fire apparatus. Among these are two books: Chemical Fire Engines, by W. Fred Conway, Fire Buff Publishers, New Albany, Indiana, 1987; and Inventing the American Fire Engine, by M.W. Goodman, M.D., Fire Buff Publishers, New Albany, Indiana, 1994. Even these well-researched works are not the complete definitive resource, but they do provide substantial documented history with corresponding photographs, technical drawings, and other data. Other artifacts held in museum collections and archives are original sales and technical literature from the various fire apparatus or extinguisher companies that can assist the researcher. The Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, and the National Fire Heritage Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland, contain significant historical fire service artifacts and information in their collections, though somewhat limited in access. Many fire museums throughout the United States have collections of chemical fire engines that can provide a unique perspective and resource.
Some words of caution. As with all fire apparatus, safety precautions and prior training are required before attempting to restore or operate them. Though Chemical Fire Engines can be restored to their original condition, the chemical engine is not normally charged or operated due to potential hazards and corrosion of the components. If the chemical tanks were to be charged, they would need to go through prior inspection and pressure testing to ensure they could safely handle the generated pressure of a charge. Proper amounts and ratios of compounds for the specific type of engine would be needed, and the handling of the acid and caustic solutions is hazardous. Also, fire streams from the chemical fire engine may contain higher concentrations of acid due to inconsistent mixing, so contact with the solution/agent being discharged could be hazardous. In addition, there is a possibility that a previous restorer/owner may have altered or retrofitted the components over time. The last thing one would want to have is a catastrophic emergency to occur from the unsafe or improper operation of a chemical fire engine that was historically meant to save lives and property. As always in the restoration or retrofit of antique fire apparatus or components, a modification may affect the provenance or historical importance of the fire apparatus.
It should be understood that this article does not provide the necessary knowledge and practical training experience to teach one how to safely restore or operate a chemical fire engine, nor should it be substituted for appropriate instruction and apprenticeship under the supervision of a qualified and experienced antique fire apparatus engineer.
The Legacy of Change and Traditions
Several Missouri Fire Department websites have a brief history of their department that list one of their first engines as a chemical fire engine. These departments began their history and traditions of protecting life and property through the capabilities provided by this specialized piece of fire apparatus. If not for the advantages of the chemical fire engine at the time these expanding communities would not have had measurable fire protection for many years, impacting their very lives, fortunes, and future. So despite the undo hype of chemical fire engines, they did play an important role in providing initial attack and rudimentary fire service in Missouri and throughout the country during the early fire service of the United States.
In larger cities such as St. Louis, the chemical fire engine provided a method of self-contained quick fire attack that worked in conjunction with the steam fire engine companies to provide initial fire attack while the steamer was establishing a water supply. Other cities like Columbia, Missouri, transitioned in 1901 with the purchase of a horse-drawn fire wagon carrying hose, ladders, and three 4-gallon chemical fire extinguishers. In 1913, they added a motorized chemical fire engine from the Kissel Motor Car Company (Hartford, Wisconsin) a combination apparatus equipped with a 40-gallon chemical extinguisher unit.58
Chemical fire engines were the principal apparatus that provided the opportunity for innovations in the fire service. The concept of multi-purpose or “combination” apparatus was first tried with horse-drawn chemical fire engines, such as adding a hose wagon (tender) or ladder company operations to the base chemical engine wagon. Also, the addition of side running boards and tailboards to the apparatus started with the chemical fire engine. Thus began the tradition of firefighters riding the apparatus on running boards and tailboards, a practice that would last into the 1980s.
The change from horse-drawn to motorized apparatus provided an even quicker response for the chemical fire engine and increased their popularity even more in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, the time of the motorized chemical engine would last only for a very short time in the motorized age. With the mechanical innovation of adapting the internal combustion engine to drive both the running gear and a hydraulic pump, a new age of fire apparatus was on the horizon. The next innovation came when the Ahrens-Fox Company added a “booster” tank to the combination pumper enabling it to carry a water supply that provided the same quick attack capability as the chemical fire engine. With the hydraulic pump and water tank mounted on the apparatus, the expense of chemicals and associated hazards was eliminated. Also, the new pumper configuration provided a quick transition switching from booster tank to regular water supply using the same apparatus and hose lines. The modern operational tenants of the fire service were now set for the future.
The era of the chemical fire engine had met its demise. But in its time it provided an invaluable method of meeting fire protection needs for smaller communities and quick response capabilities in larger communities. They also introduced practices and new apparatus design concepts that would find the basis for establishing operational procedures and traditions that would transform the fire service. These chemical fire engines without a doubt were an important part of fire service history. Their actual contribution to society in lives and communities saved and allowed to prosper over the years is incalculable. The era of the Chemical Fire Engine would be another important step in the continuing development of the rich history and traditions of the American Fire Service.
Author’s Comments:
The author wishes to recognize and thank the fire service personnel and organizations for their assistance in the development of this article. In particular, the author expresses his appreciation to: Curt Peters, Board Chair, Vintage Fire Museum; David Hartman, Museum Curator, Wyandotte County Historical Museum; the Missouri Historical Society; and the University of Missouri Ellis Library/Lending Library for assisting the author in obtaining the inter-library loan of various research documents and archival materials.
Photos
All photos are credited within captions, taken by author or considered public domain.
Endnotes
1 David E. Hedrick, “The Age of Steam Fire Engines, A Part of Fire Service History”, Fire Fighters Association of Missouri magazine, Vol. 65, Issue 6, November-December 2022, FFAM, Warrensburg, MO, p. 8-22.
2 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Industrial Revolution”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 Mar. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution. Accessed July 12, 2022.
3 Herbert Theodore Jenness, Bucket Brigade to Flying Squadron: Fire Fighting Past and Present, Cambridge, Mass, 1909, p 5.
4 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Fire Extinguisher.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 5, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/technology/fire-extinguisher .
5 David A. Fryxell, “History Matters: Fire Extinguishers”, Family Tree Magazine, December 2014, website: https://familytreemagazine.com/history/history-matters-fire-extinguishers/#:~:text=French%20inventor%20Fran%C3%A7ois%20Carlier%20eliminated,and%20provided%20its%20own%20propellant.
6 Brown, W. H., “tartaric acid.” Encyclopedia Britannica, April 17, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/science/tartaric-acid.
7 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, Fire Buff House, New Albany, Indiana, 1987, p.11.
8 M.W. Goodman, M.D., Inventing the American Fire Engine, An Illustrated History of Patented Ideas for Fire Pumpers, Fire Buff House Publishing, New Albany, Indiana, 1994, p. 93.
9 R.O. Matson, “Course of Instruction in Fire Protection”, Fire Engineering, Vol. 79, Issue 24, December 25, 1926, website archive: https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/course-of-instruction-in-fire-protection-22/.
10 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 11.
11 Ibid.
12 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. Encyclopedia Britannica, The Britannica Dictionary, “Engine”, 2022, https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/engine#:~:text=Britannica%20Dictionary%20definition%20of%20ENGINE,burning%20fuel)%20into%20mechanical%20motion.
13 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 9.
14 M.W. Goodman, M.D., Inventing the American Fire Engine, p. 91.
15 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 12.
16 Ibid, p. 10.
17 Ibid, p. 30-31.
18 Clarence E. Meek, “Copper & Brass – The Chemical Engine Era!”, Fire Engineering Magazine, Volume 112, Issue 8, August 1959, web article accessed Nov. 21, 2022, https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/copper-brass-the-chemical-engine-era/#gref.
19 Ajax Fire Engine Works Advertisement, “The Story of the Ajax Chemical Fire Engine”, System, The Magazine of Business, Volume 35, No. 4, April 1919, W. Shaw Company, Division of the McGraw Hill Publishing Company, p. 722, web accessed Nov. 30, 2022, via Google Books, https://books.google.com .
20 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 42.
21 Howard D. Tyner, “Fire-Extinguishing Effectiveness of Chemicals in Water Solution”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 33, Page 60, January, 1941, p. 64.
22 Clarence E. Meek, “Copper & Brass – The Chemical Engine Era!”.
23 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 12.
24 M.W. Goodman, M.D., Inventing the American Fire Engine, p. 94.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 14.
29 Ibid, p. 12.
30 M.W. Goodman, M.D., Inventing the American Fire Engine, p. 106.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 10.
34 Ibid, p. 89-90.
35 Ibid, p. 48.
36 Ibid, p.21.
37 Ibid, p. 31.
38 Ibid, p. 17.
39 Ibid, p. 13.
40 Ajax Fire Engine Works Advertisement, “The Story of the Ajax Chemical Fire Engine”, System, The Magazine of Business.
41 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 14.
42 Ibid, p. 85.
43 Bill Westhoff, “History’s Corner, Joplin Fire Department Part Two”, Fire Fighters Association of Missouri magazine, Volume 62, No. 2, March/April 2019, p. 21.
44 “Webb Motor Fire Apparatus Company”, Rogers Park/West Ridge Historical Society’s HistoryWiki!, website accessed November 10, 2022, https://rpwrhs.org/w/index.php?title=Webb_Motor_Fire_Apparatus_Company.
45 Ibid.
46 Bruce Anderson, “Historic Apparatus”, Radnor Fire Company, Wayne, PA, Website accessed Nov. 18, 2022, https://www.radnorfire.com/content/retired/, Copyright © 2022 Firehouse Solutions (A Service of Technology Reflections, Inc.).
47 W. Fred Conway, Chemical Fire Engines, p. 89.
48 Ibid, p. 89-90.
49 Clarence E. Meek, “Copper & Brass – The Chemical Engine Era!”.
50 Ibid.
51 Ajax Fire Engine Works Advertisement, “The Story of the Ajax Chemical Fire Engine”, System, The Magazine of Business.
52 Ibid.
53 Fire Engineering Staff, “The Round Table, For Practical Discussion of Current Fire Department and Fire Management Problems – Chemical Tank vs. Booster Tank”, Fire Engineering, Volume 85, Issue 5, May 1, 1932, and Volume 85, Issue 6, June 1, 1932, web archives: https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/the-round-table-636/, and https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/the-round-table-78/.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 Telephone interview with Curt Peters, Board Chair, Vintage Fire Museum, Jeffersonville, Indiana, conducted by author December 10, 2022.
57 Ibid.
58 “History of the Columbia Fire Department”, City of Columbia, web article 2022, website accessed Dec. 8, 2022, https://www.como.gov/fire/about-us/history/
FFAM
