Clark V. Wood was a taciturn, solid-from-the-ground-up Vermonter, not unlike the one in the White House at the time. A career railroad man, he began as a telegrapher with the Grand Trunk Railway upon graduation from high school in 1881. One stop along his career ascendency was a tenure as superintendent of the Wabash, a railroad with the reputation of being a school for railroad executives. Here he developed marketing skills when, in 1900, at the request of the road's president, he took a temporary assignment developing freight traffic on the Pittsburgh Railways. Upon completion of the assignment in 1906, he returned to New England and joined the New Haven Railroad-controlled New England Investment and Security Company (NEIS), a holding company for the railroad's Massachusetts trolley lines. By 1919 he had become president of NEIS and its companies, which included the Springfield Railway Companies, the Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Company, the Milford, Attleboro and Woonsocket Street Railway Company, the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Company, and the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company. The Springfield Republican, announcing Wood's retirement in 1932, noted:

His rise to this position was in recognition of his efficient handling of the Springfield Street Railway Company through the troublous times which it, in common with other trolly companies, experienced with the coming of the automobile as a general means of transportation.

Wood had been particularly successful in urging local regulation of the jitney bus operators. When enacted, this legislation effectively eliminated them as serious competitors.

Wood, the Republican reported, was well respected by other railway executives for his abilities, and by his employees for his "leadership and kindly character." In September 1924, he inaugurated a Springfield Street Railway employee newsletter which, after a company-wide contest, was named Stryco News, Stryco standing for Street Railway Company. On November 18, 1925, Stryco News announced the company's intention to design an all-new streetcar and urged employee input. It noted that an order for a sample car had been placed with the Wason Manufacturing Company (also of Springfield) and that it was "to be built exactly as we want it to be built." The newsletter went on to describe the goals of this new design:

This car wants to be as near ideal as possible and in order to be ideal it must be easy to look at, easy to get into, easy to ride in, easy to operate, easy to repair, quick and quiet, well lighted, well ventilated and heated.

Miss Springfield under construction at the Wason Plant. Photo: Ken De Celle collection.

The work of designing the car was entrusted to W.L. Harwood, Engineer of Power and Equipment for both the Springfield and Worcester street railways. Wood and Harwood began by listing what in their opinion were the objectionable features of "the design used universally in this country." On a second sheet "they listed the things that should be accomplished." At some point they decided to direct their efforts "particularly toward reducing noise and vibration and toward giving the car an attractive appearance." As work progressed, various ideas were explored, plans were drawn, scrapped, and redrawn. Numerous manufacturers of components were contacted. Finally, on March 26, 1927, with finishing touches still to be made, the new car was unveiled with much ceremony from the Journal. Gordon saw "great promise" in the effort, calling it an example of the faith that "large financial interests have in the future of the industry. They are not shaken in their belief that rail transportation never will become a thing of the past." He hastened to add, however, that it denoted "the insistence of owners and operators that radical improvements must be made to compete with modern conditions."

"In the past," he continued, "the industry has not so much lacked in possibilities as in imagination and courage to progress."

Springfield Mayor Parker and C.V. Wood. Photo: Ken De Celle collection.

From the start, the new car's rakish lines turned eyes. Low and sleek, Miss Springfield exhibited styling heretofore found only on the automobile. The body sported a wide automotive-like slanted windshield and sun visor. Roof lines were made "to resemble [those] of a high-grade automobile." An encircling apron gently curved inward at the sides below the floor line and hid from view the greater part of the car's underbody equipment and running gear. The tapered, rounded vestibules were trimmed with automotive-style bumpers. Side windows were single drop-sash, clean and simple. Compound curves were used liberally in forming the extremely light wood and Duralumin body. On June 15, 1927, Stryco News reported that "motor drivers are paying more attention to [the new car] than [to] the operation of their own cars," with the result in one instance that the driver of a Mack truck ran into the car while gawking at it. Fortunately, the damage was slight.

Miss Springfield interior. Photo: Ken De Celle collection.

The interior was also strikingly different. Entry was afforded by a single well step, the car's vestibule floors being less than thirty inches above the rail. Gone were the interior bulkheads of traditional cars. Instead, the low, white Agasote ceiling continued clean and unbroken for the full length of the car, curving to the vertical at sides and ends. Above the window sills, the walls were covered with mahogany-faced Haskelite; below, with imitation leather. The heavily cushioned seats were covered in dark Spanish leather. At each end, the motorman was provided with a similarly fashioned chair that could be adjusted up or down, and forward or backward. When not needed by the motorman, the seat could be reversed for use by a passenger. A single console at each end of the car contained two panels into which were placed all the controls needed to operate the car and its doors, lights, and heating system.

Driver's console. Photo: Ken De Celle collection.

Most impressive, though, were the car's smooth, quiet ride and quick acceleration. Reporting on the car's trial runs witnessed by industry officials, including H.S. Williams, American Electric Railway Engineering Association's (AEREA) noise reduction committee chairman, the Journal noted:

Good riding qualities...proved to be one of the outstanding features....Noise of operation was limited to the hum produced by the wheel flanges in grooved rail, the trolley wheel and motor armatures. Gear noise was absent and brakes were entirely silent.

This outstanding performance was attributed to the car's innovative trucks and, to a lesser extent, light weight (less than 24,000 pounds). When Frank Sprague created the cars of the first generally successful streetcar system, completed in 1888 at Richmond, Virginia, a key element was the design of the cars' trucks. By mounting the motors with their shafts parallel to the wheel axles, Sprague needed only simple spur gears to convert the higher speed of the motor to the slower speed desired for the axle. He extended the motor housing at each end to form a grip about the axle in wheelbarrow fashion. Split rings in the grip allowed the axle to turn freely while caps secured to the axle kept the motor and the gears properly aligned. The motor, thus supported on one side by the axle, was supported on the other by springs that allowed flexibility when riding on uneven rails. On single truck cars, the springs transferred the load equally to the truck and chassis; on double truck cars, to the truck alone. The design was so successful that it survived unchanged in America for the next forty years.

Brill Magazine.

The differing needs of the automobile, however, brought forth a different means of connecting the motor to the axle. The gasoline motor required a variable transmission between itself and the axle. For simplicity, and no doubt to accommodate space limitations, the motor and transmission were mounted directly to the chassis in a straight-line connection, with shafts parallel to the direction of travel. A drive shaft with universal joints allowed flexible alignment when wheels bounced over uneven roads, and bevel-gears or worm-gears were used to change the axis of rotation from drive shaft to axle. The auto designers also developed the differential drive axle, which enabled opposing drive wheels to turn at differing speeds when the vehicle rounded a corner. The new arrangement of gears was mounted in a housing filled with oil to continually lubricate and protect the gears from dirt, snow, and water. The result was smoother, quieter, longer-lasting performance.

Brill Magazine.

Having looked to the automobile for the latest in styling, Harwood no doubt saw possibilities in the automotive form of drive mechanism as well. Experiments with automotive drives for streetcars had already been underway in Europe. The Journal reported regularly on such developments and on September 11, 1926, carried a detailed description of single-truck bevel-geared cars in Paris. Four hundred seventy-five of these cars were in use or on order, the earliest ones dating to 1921. Noteworthy was the drive equipment, which consisted of a chassis-mounted motor connected to the drive shaft by a universal joint and geared to each axle by beveled pinion and gear, the latter mechanism being fully enclosed in an oil-filled casing. Braking was accomplished by pressing brake shoes not, as before, against the wheels, but against the inside of a drum keyed on the pinion shaft. Claims for the new arrangement included reduced total weight, reduced unsprung weight, reduced operating and maintenance costs, and improved riding characteristics.

Brill Magazine.

In its editorial on the same date, the Journal marveled at how America, with its much more extensive street railway systems, could have ignored such developments for so long and apparently made so little effort to explore new ideas. The criticism was countered by Walter S. Adams, Designing Engineer for the J.G. Brill Company in Philadelphia, and member of the AEREA noise reduction committee. Writing to the Journal on December 8, Adams noted that he had followed developments in Europe but found the Journal's latest report to be inconsistent with some of the weights and measures previously reported elsewhere. Thus he found the credibility of the Journal's report diminished and the claims therein unsupported. In any event, he noted that the independent mounting of motors on trucks in 1887, by John A. Brill, a vice-president of Brill at the time, was "considered a very progressive step, which fact is attested to by the general adoption of this practice." This latter point was evidently intended to discount the Paris design's use of a chassis-mounted motor, but since the car was single-trucked and the truck fixed to the chassis, the point was moot. The Journal acknowledged an error in translation, but reiterated its commendation for the research work being carried on in Europe.

A little over three months later, Miss Springfield was unveiled. In addition to its new styling, the car's dominant feature was a bold new variation of the automotive drive, about which the Journal could declare: "Radical departures have been made from established practice in truck design."

The car's trucks were the result of a joint undertaking by Wason (a Brill subsidiary), the Springfield Street Railway, and the Timken-Detroit Axle Company. Two light-weight, high-speed, Westinghouse V91B 300-volt motors were mounted on each truck through rubber blocks. Each motor was positioned with its shaft parallel to the direction of travel and connected to the remote axle by a flexible Spicer propeller shaft. A universal joint at the motor end of the shaft allowed the motor to be positioned high on the truck, away from water, snow, and slush. A worm-gear at the other end of the shaft, operating in an oil bath, meshed with the gears of a differential axle. The gearing was designed to reduce gear noise and permit the use of high-speed motors.

Twenty-six-inch-diameter rolled steel wheels were mounted to the axles and dished to bring the throat vertically in line with the tapered roller bearings that supported the axles. Use of these "frictionless" journal bearings was made possible by placing the motors' weight on the truck frames rather than partially on the axles. Taking the motors off the axles and thus reducing the unsprung weight was expected to reduce the wear and tear on track and diminish the noise of pounding over track joints and special work.

The air-operated, internal expanding brakes were similar to those found on buses. Use of air brakes eliminated the need for levers and rods, which, because they rattled, were a traditional source of noise. The truck itself was fashioned of steel I-beam internal side frames. Coil bolster springs supported the weight of the car to three-fourths of its seated load, and semi-elliptical springs mounted in seats provided with Mack rubber shock insulators gave support at all loads.

Even as the final coats of paint were being applied to Miss Springfield, the Journal, on April 2, carried news of a sample worm-drive replacement truck for testing on existing cars of the Chicago & Joliet Electric Railway. It bore a striking resemblance to the Springfield truck, and was the product of Timken-Detroit and Westinghouse, two of the Springfield collaborators. The Joliet truck differed in several ways, though. Its bolster was fixed instead of floating, its side frames were made of pressed instead of rolled steel, and its gear ratio was 8.5 to 1 instead of 10 to 1. Meanwhile, the Journal announced, Cummings Car & Coach Company was building a prototype light-weight car body of wood and Duralumin to go with the new trucks.

The sequence of announcements causes one to wonder whether the still-drying Miss Springfield was "permitted" the opportunity of first announcement by agreement of the common contributors (Timken-Detroit and Westinghouse) for having been the initiator of the worm-drive experiment, or whether the Springfield contingent, getting wind of developments in Joliet, rushed their announcement in order to be first. Regardless, the automotive drive idea was big news. Wason's parent company, Brill, described Miss Springfield in the September 1927 issue of Brill Magazine, concluding that "only time can establish [the new design's] success, and its performance in service should be watched with considerable interest by the entire electric railway industry."