Members of the Merseyside Tramway Preservation Society are set to be given a unique opportunity to decide on the future for one of the Society’s collection of vintage tramcars. The derelict lower deck of Warrington 2 was acquired by the MTPS from the St Helens Transport Museum several years ago, and since then a significant amount of work has been undertaken to restore the tram to operational condition. However, the car has sat untouched for the last two years for a number of reasons, and now an important decision needs to be made regarding its future preservation.
Whilst work on the restoration of Warrington 2 was underway, a discovery was made relating to the tram’s working life. When the car was purchased it had been decided to restore it as an open balcony double decker, which would represent a type of tram not currently in the MTPS fleet as the only other open balcony car at Birkenhead, Wallasey 78, features the unusual ‘Bellamy’ top cover with no roof over the balconies. However, it was subsequently realised that 2 had never actually operated in this guise, having been built as an open topper and then being rebuilt, becoming fully enclosed. A decision was therefore made by the MTPS Board that the tram should be restored in its final enclosed condition, however this proved controversial with some of the volunteer workers at Birkenhead reluctant to work on a tram which they considered a duplicate of the other enclosed cars based at the tramway. This lead to the project stalling and now the incomplete tram sits idle inside the Taylor Street museum building awaiting completion of its rebuild.
It has now been decided to hold a special emergency meeting next month, which the entire MTPS membership are invited to attend. All members will be given the opportunity to vote on whether Warrington 2 should ultimately be presented in its final fully enclosed condition (as decided by the Board), or whether it should be restored with open balconies to fill a gap in the collection, overturning the previous decision made. Although this wouldn’t be authentic for this vehicle, others like it did run in this condition for some years and this would therefore potentially justify such a decision. However, this meeting will not necessarily guarantee an upturn in the Warrington car’s fortunes: if the decision made does not appease the working members then the tram may remain untouched, and could even potentially be moved to outside storage. Offering it to another preservation group is also an option which could be considered if this is felt to be in the best interests of the tram, as some volunteers have already refused to continue working on the car if it has to be preserved in fully enclosed form.
Another potential issue could arise as the position currently occupied by 2, will soon need to be vacated. As the tracks inside the Taylor Street depot and workshop building are all fully occupied, this leaves the MTPS facing the problem of where to house the tram. Although it is understood that Liverpool horse car 43 will be allowed to remain in the Pacific Road complex for static display as part of a new retail development, it may not be possible to store any other trams there for much longer. This has also ended all hope of Blackpool Brush Railcoach 626 ever operating in passenger service at Birkenhead; due to concerns about a shortage of depot space, the MTPS have felt unable to accept the tram into their collection, although it is believed that another organisation has shown interest in offering it a home. This cannot, however, be confirmed until more is known, at which time it will be reported on this website.
Whatever the future holds for Warrington 2, the decision to allow MTPS members to decide on its future is a very welcome move and hopefully, even if the decision is not universally agreed with, the way it has been made will be approved by all and enable the last surviving Warrington tram to run again before too long.
I doubt if Blackpool 626 could ever have operated on the Birkenhead Heritage Tramway due to its length providing insufficient clearance when entering the sidings at Woodside.
626 was succsessfully fully gauge tested along the entire line in November 2010 not long after it arrived Tony. No problems were found with clearances.
The Birkenhead Horse Tram also needs to be retrieved from storage and put on display at Pacific Road.
I’m afraid I’ve got to agree with the Board on this one and say, of the two options given, Warrington 2 should be fully enclosed. I think custodians of historic vehicles have a duty of care to be as authentic as possible and to convert 2 into a condition in which it never previously existed is as wrong as it would be to give it streamlined ends or gasket mounted bus windows!
What does puzzle me a bit though is why they haven’t considered restoration as an open topper as an option? Open cars are always a big passenger draw, so I would have thought the oportunity to restore an authentic open top car would be a bit of a no-brainer. It’s also a lot less work to construct an open top deck, which is basically just a railing) than it is to construct a complete top cover. If labour (or lack of it) is an issue then open topper would seem to be the way to go.
Out of interest, do your views on this policy extend to other musuems? It’s worth noting that, for example, the National Tramway Museum’s London Transport 1622 has been presented in a ‘rehabilitated’ condition, when it was never included in the fleet modernisation programme, and also LCC 106 never operated in its open top condition with a trolley fitted. I’m sure there are other examples at Crich and elsewhere. My point is, using a preserved tramcar to represent its type rather than an authentic condition for that individual vehicle is not unheard of – whether it is correct practice is obviously open to debate. I agree wholeheartedly with Paul though, that letting MTPS members have the final say is a very positive move.
It depends how far you want to go when deciding what is or isn’t ‘authentic’. I would have thought that if some of that class of tram at Warrington were operated as balcony cars at one time then it is reasonable to restore this car as such, if there is no surviving example. Which is more important, to demonstrate the trams in various conditions or to keep. To the history of the individual team concerned? It’s only a fleet number! And this is more authentic than what has happened to Blackpool 703 at Beamish (no criticism intended). But as you say it’s good that the MTPS members are being given their say and the rest of us must respect their decision.
Andrew, you make a very valid point and it is worth pointing out that, were 106 not to have a trolley pole, it would never be able to operate at Crich as, desirable though it might be, the cost of installing conduit at Crich would be prohibitive. The obvious addition to your list is Glasgow 1068 and, particulary, if you include tramcars operating on the type of truck they would not have had in service, I suspect you could come up with others. If you go further than Crich you can identify plenty more – a Blackpool Balloon operating in Sunderland livery for instance? These changes are often reversible and can be justified on an individual basis.
Your endorsement of letting MTPS members have an involvement in the decision making process, democracy as it is described elswhere, is open to challenge. There could be an argument that the “doers” rather than the “discussers” should drive the decision making. Equally, perhaps, the democraticaly elected board, who are thus the custodians of the collection could be seen to be abrogating their responsibility by referring back to the membership. I am not stating an opinion in this, merely drawing atteention to the fact that there is more than one perspective on the issue.
The intent of the original decision of a balcony top was to give a different type of car to any other in the fleet – they already have Birkenhead 20 in open top form and Liverpool 762 in fully enclosed form.
As the majority of the batch of cars did run in balcony form, there is some justification for restoring 2 in that form as it would still be representative of that batch of trams (had it been no 3 for example that survived instead of 2 this debate would be unnecessary), unlike your comments about streamlined ends or bus windows which would be totally fictional and not at all representative of any of the batch…
The real positive in this story is that the Board of the MTPS are not dictating restoration policy as happens elsewhere, they are giving the entire membership a democratic opportunity to have their say on what should be done with the car.
how about restoring warrington No 2 as a open top tram, or letting beamish have it