In December 2016, we reported on the exciting news that the remains of Glasgow 1016 – also known as Paisley 16 in its past life – had been moved to Blackpool, having joined the collection of the Blackpool Heritage Trust. We are now delighted to be able to bring you some pictures showing the tram leaving its previous home at Bridgeton Garage, where it was part of the fleet of vehicles in the care of the Glasgow Bus Museum.
1016 was extracted from the bus garage on 3rd December; no easy feat as it was stored in several components, the main ones being the body frame and truck, which were stored seperately. It was therefore decided to lift the framework onto a waiting lorry using a forklift truck, whilst a crane was brought in to manoeuvre the tramcar truck into position. Both items – along with many other smaller objects which will hopefully assist with restoring the tram to its former glory – were then transported to Blackpool on the same lorry where they are now housed. Once again, thanks must go to the Scottish International Tramway Association (SITA) for ensuring that this valuable tram was able to move to Blackpool, and to everyone involved in its safe transfer to its new home. It is hoped that, at some point in the future, it will be fully restored to its original open top condition, either in Paisley or Glasgow colours as a representative of typical Edwardian tramcar design in Blackpool’s operational heritage fleet, whilst also providing a car which is sure to be popular with Scottish visitors to the seaside town.
The body of 1016/16 is seen inside the old bus depot awaiting collection.
Now loaded up ready for its road journey, this view of the surviving body shows how much work will be involved in restoring 1016 in the future.
The tramcar truck is lifted out of the corner of the shed using a crane.
The truck is now seen in daylight revealing that it appears to be fairly complete.
Next the truck was moved by crane onto a larger covered trailer.
All the parts of the tram are now seen loaded up ready to leave Glasgow. The truck can clearly be seen in the middle of the lorry trailer, whilst the saloon frame can be seen on the right hand side of the image. (All photos by Stuart Little, courtesy of SITA)
Is that the original truck of Paisley 16? Even if not it’s good that such an important component is there for the restoration.
No it is not. The truck is ex-Porto acquired by SITA some years ago with motors fitted. Indeed the day it left the Bridgeton Garage of GVVT, looking into the motors revealed bright gearing as if it was all ready to go! Also going with the truck and body were controllers to be used in the restoration process.
The reason for the skeletal condition of the body was that during its time at Bridgeton, some remaining members of SITA had totally stripped the body and removed the platforms, etc. However, everything that was removed from the body has also gone to Blackpool.
It is ironic that 1016, built originally by BEC, an organisation not exactly renowned for quality, has so far survived 33 years in preservation with many problems along the way, to eventually be donated to Blackpool Heritage Trust, hopefully a happy ending.
Good to know the truck is in good condition and many of the body components are available. It will be good to see it complete and running.
Am I the only person who is wondering why a Paisly Tram and not Lytham 43? Yes its brilliant and I will support the project but its just a copy of 68 at Crich and we only have one Lytham Tram. And I’m sorry but I don’t agree with its appeal to Glasgow visitors, even painted as 1016 its too far back in memory – just paint a Balloon orange its more like what they remember!
But echoing whats said above the fact its complete and has all the relevant bits is brilliant!
It’s not a case of a Paisley tram instead of a Lytham tram. – in the longer term it will be BOTH!! The acquisition of 16 is an unexpected bonus extra, it doesn’t replace any other project.
16 will likely run before 43 simply because all the major parts are there and it will require less finance to complete. (43 needs a truck sourcing and a completely new top deck building)
Suggesting panting a Balloon orange is at best naive given the reaction it would receive from the average Blackpool enthusiast… I have in the past said myself however that a proper Glasgow streamliner (Coronation or Cunarder) would be the perfect addition to the fleet.
I was being sarcastic – an orange balloon would mean about the same as 16 to the everage Glaswegian. there are more bits of other Blackpool trams which could and arguably should be restored before a paisley Tram. 59 springs to mind (yes I know its Crich owned) as do 8, 663, 279……….I know the operation requires variety and 16 will be popular with passengers.
16 also requires a top deck (albeit less of one), seats, platforms, stairs etc. I don’t wish to deride Heritage – I will always support it, I’m just expressing my opinion.
The simple answer to your query is that Blackpool Heritage Trust discovered that the truck is not suitable for Lytham 43.
So find another truck or make one. ‘We looked at a truck and it wasn’t right so we abondoned the project and went for another’ Please!
Lytham 43 has not been “abandoned”, nor will it even be delayed by the acquisition of 16!!!
I’ve no idea who you are “Ste”, where you have suddenly appeared from, or what your motive is, but your comments on this and and other stories show a clear agenda in your distorted presentation of the facts and deliberate attempts to mislead readers.
(you’re not our old friend Franklyn hiding behind another pseudonym are you? We’ve not heard from him in a while and your comments are just like his gibberish and distorted view of the world)
That’s an unwarranted personal attack. my comments are borne out by exactly what has been said by others. Would you like to elaborate on my ‘agenda?’ I have stated many times that I fully support Heritage and other museums but I am allowed an opinion. the world isn’t nice and spice and all jolly, if I think something is misguided or i don’t like it i will say it. i also say lots of constructive and positive things. So “Mr. Trent” whoever you are perhaps you could direct your bile elsewhere. How do you know anyway? are you speaking on behalf of Heritage? oh and no I’m not Franklyn but your attitude makes me wonder if you are one of several such persons also hiding.
Ste, apologies if my comments were harsh, you have shown you’re not Franklyn by having he grace to reply when challenged. Maybe I’m a bit cynical these days about posters using pseudonyms for controversial topics. Andrew Trent is my real name (though I admit I have previously posted under a nickname) and I am a volunteer engineer at another tramway, not Blackpool but I am known to some Blackpool staff. Would you do us the same courtesy of giving your true identity and position?
I suggested you have some agenda because of your comments. Above you say Lytham 43 has been abandoned in favour of Paisley 16, which is factually incorrect. In the article on the fare changes you distort the scale of the increase by comparing the cost of single trip mini tour tickets last year to a day ticket this year.
To me this could be genuine misunderstanding on your part but you continue with the same theme when others have taken the time to explain rationally. The alternative is a deliberate intent to mislead.
Oooooh handbags at dawn! I thought this was Trams Today again for a minute. Whatever Ste may or may not agree with he is entitled to say as are you Andy Trent but I’d rather read your opinions not insults.
No, I won’t give you a personal bio. I’m a private person and I’m not having you googling me and harassing me elsewhere. Yes you would find me on google under my full name (not for dodgy reasons before anyone says!)
Quite frankly I’m not going to go over old ground again and again. I have not made any misleading comments, I have given opinions – if you interpret them as such that is your business, they were not intended to be.
I did not get confused as you so patronisingly put it on my comments of the fare increase nor did I distort the facts, if you read my comments you will see I said that the overnight increase may put them off buying a family day ticket so they may have one trip instead and that is the calculation I gave.
Now if we disagree can we please do it by reasoned discussion because despite your apology you still have a very aggressive attitude.
I understood what you meant! I dont necessarily agree but I understood!