A recent visit to Beamish revealed Blackpool Coronation 304 has been out of use since withdrawal from service in early November and has been stored outside the depot since then.
Presumably in readiness for its return to Blackpool its lifeguards and trolley pole had been removed and are stored inside the tram. A plywood sheet covers one door aperture and the door itself appears to be stuck in the open position. On the day of the visit 304 looked a bit down at heel. Outside storage is beginning to take its toll and there were black rain marks down the side panels and condensation build-up inside. There is a photograph of Portuguese tram 196 outside the Beamish depot on the museum’s recent posting about depot rewiring (http://www.beamishtransportonline.co.uk/). 304 can be seen next to 196.
Undoubtedly 304 proved popular during its short stay at Beamish, and the museum should be congratulated for providing a period of undercover housing and operation following the tram’s enforced outside storage in Blackpool. However those who hoped 304‘s short term loan to Beamish was a prelude to a much longer stay in the North East, along the lines of Balloon 101 (703) and Boat 605, will be disappointed. Seeing 304 stored outside ready for collection and 101 on the depot road previously occupied by 304 leaves little doubt its period of operation is at an end and it’s time for it to go home. In reality it is inevitable this would be the case. Beamish depot is quite small, has limited capacity, and operating a 50ft long 8ft wide tram must have posed operational problems. And of course the museum will shortly be starting preparations for its 40th tram celebrations in April, when several different visiting tramcars will be heading to County Durham. 304 will soon be in the way, and it is to be hoped the LTT have transport arrangements in place for its return, as it would not be fair for it to outstay its welcome and cause problems in the New Year for 304‘s erstwhile Beamish hosts.
This does pose the question “Where will 304 be housed when it returns to Blackpool?” Despite initial assurances by the LTT that their trams placed in outside storage in early September would be for “a very short term” the fact is they are still there four months later. There seems no prospect of the LTT trams moving to more appropriate undercover
storage, so sadly we can only assume 304 will be returning to the yard at Marton for continued outside storage. A bleak Christmas and New Year prospect for a unique tram restored as recently as 2004. The same of course could be said for OMO 8, one of only two surviving OMO’s, and the only one close to operational condition and also now in outside storage.
In late October the LTT trustees announced the much vaunted appointment of an independent consultant with a brief to review the Trust’s strategy and collection. Despite promises of regular announcements on review conclusions, nothing more has been heard. Perhaps the trustees will break their silence and surprise us with some positive announcements about its collection, and provide us with some Christmas and New Year cheer??!!
Article by Steve Jones
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of British Trams Online.
Check out the LTT facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lancastrian-Transport-Trust/201246723258020
– quote from 27 November post: “As part of an ongoing review into all aspects of the activities of the Lancastrian Transport Trust, five vehicles have been identified that are now surplus to its requirements. Good homes are still sought for two of these…”
The five vehicles mentioned however are all buses, but it does show that at least some decisions have been made.
My understanding is that the LTT has identified a way to get 304 undercover when it can be returned but I understand that they are having some difficulty getting a haulier for the return trip. You will note that 627 hasn’t yet been recovered from Pleasure Beach either. Word has it that Scotts are no longer in the tram moving business and this is giving problems. Alleleys refused to deliver the LTT’s cars into a building and are reported to be only prepared to operate as they do with heavy rail rolling stock picking up and setting down in open yards only. We may have a big problem.
Comments in the article relate to the trams in the LTT collection.
Enthusiasts, particularly those that donate to the trust as a contribution towards the upkeep of its trams are anxious to know their fate. The trams currently in outside storage were originally planned to be housed in the adjacent Classic Bus North West depot, according to the blog posting at the time. Reportedly this proved impossible due to difficult access with a long trailer, and a shorter trailer was being sourced. Once sourced the trams were supposed to be moved to inside storage.
Is this still the problem? If so has a shorter trailer now been sourced, and has it been booked to transport 304 back to Blackpool? Will the shorter trailer enable it to be transported straight to undercover accommodation at Brinwell Rd? Or is there a more fundamental problem? It is to be hoped that safe housing of 304 at least will not have to wait for a consultant’s report!
The FHLT has arrangements in place with Blackpool Illuminations for the return of 290 (627) from its present site at the display track on the Promenade – to HM Prison Kirkham. These arrangements are being handled by the Illuminations team on our behalf. It is worth noting that the Rocket tram similarly remains at the Gynn Square roundabout where it was deposited by Scotts in August.
Alan,
You may be right that there is a problem. Has anybody checked with Scott’s that they have definitely pulled out of the tram transport business I wonder? The Scott’s team have done some good work for the TMS, MTPS, Beamish, EATMS and the LTT etc. Given the 2013 events and planned temporary tram exchanges, Scott’s withdrawal from the business may have a significant impact on transport arrangements. Is their withdrawal a fact or a misunderstanding? Is there a reason for the withdrawal?
Regarding the LTT problem with 304 and their other trams, has any attempt been made by the trustees to seek advice and input from other tram preservation bodies? After all a lot of expertise has been built up over the last fifty years or so. They may know of other hauliers or it may be possible to borrow spare rail that would allow a temporary track to be laid. A tram could be delivered by Alleleys to an open area as their normal practice, and the temporary track used to put the vehicle in a building. For example there must be considerable old track from the Blackpool Tramway upgrade that could be used for this purpose.
For reasons best known to themselves the LTT trustees seem reluctant to share information on issues with the wider preservation movement, so few people are aware there is a problem, and do not know help is required. Phrases like “word has it…” “it is reported that….” and the occasional upbeat PR announcement abound when it comes to the LTT, but little detail seems available. Expertise that may be available in the preservation movement is therefore unaware of any problem. The issues with 304 are a good example. From what you say this could escalate and impact on Beamish if transport is unavailable to move 304 away from one of their access roads.
Of course one obvious area of help which may have been available in the past is Blackpool Transport. The soured relations probably now rule this out. Lack of information, failure to seek expert help, soured relations etc in the end means it is the trams that will suffer!
That is the problem, Steve, it is the trams that will suffer. All the money donated by enthusiasts and the general public which has been spent on renovating the likes of 8 and 304 is also going down the drain as the vehicles lie exposed to the elements and slowly deteriorate. I have donated to LTT in the past but will not do so again until they demonstrate to their supporters that they are taking some responsibility for the situation.
The Rocket tram is still at Gynn Square as it is currently serving a useful function, being illuminated as part of the Christmas lights in the town. Brush Car 627 serves no such function; its position at the Pleasure Beach makes it extremely vulnerable as, although this location is the centre of the tourist industry during the summer season, in the winter it is a bleak and forbidding place. 627 sits in almost total darkness in a place generally uninhabited as, as such, is a prime candidate for the attention of vandals, as has already happened with another FHLT earmarked tram.
The situation with the Lancastrian Transport Trust’s collection of trams is far from ideal, with so many still in outside storage. However, do readers think that this is a situation wanted and encouraged by the owners? This is a case of an unfortunate set of circumstances – had Scotts been available or the replacement hauliers able to unload as per the original intention then these trams would now be safely undercover.
Also, it is worth viewing the situation with the LTT trams in a much wider context – throughout the country trams are currently languishing in outside storage – this is not a situation which is only limited to Blackpool or the LTT. The MTMS currently have four trams stored outside, although this will hopefully be rectified early in 2013. There are five trams outside at the Black Country Museum, few of which have any prospects in an upturn in their fortunes. On the Isle of Man three trams are currently outside, including open Toastrack horse cars over a century old. NEETT have their entire collection of Blackpool cars in outside storage and private buyers of displaced Blackpool cars, which include the Centenary Car in use at caravan park plus Brush Car 634, have all elected to store their purchases outside.
Furthermore, it is worth, when attempting to criticise unduly the LTT, to compare the situation with the two Fylde based preservation groups. The LTT own a fleet of fourteen trams, of which eight are currently stored outside, representing 57% of their collection. Of the ten trams originally purchased by the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust (or purchased on their behalf by other individuals) nine are outside, representing 90% of the collection. In this context are the achievements of the LTT so bad?
The writer bemoans the lack of information forthcoming from the LTT but again, to compare this with the FHLT. Since the disposal of the displaced Blackpool trams began we have seen plenty of press releases from the LTT explaining their current predicament; detailing why the trams had to be removed from Rigby Road, explaining why the recent removals were stored outside and announcing the delays with the development of a museum site. Hardly a news blackout. In contrast, although the FHLT have issued plenty of propaganda statements, few of these have actually materialised as yet. We have heard how Copse Road would be open by November 2012, how Brush Car 627 would be the first tram into the new museum, how the Jubilee tram would be visiting London – none of which have actually happened. Progress in their museum site has been, to a casual observer, almost non existent.
The writer also mentions that the LTT trams have now been in outside storage for four months. True, but the trams of the FHLT have now clocked up a year in this unfortunate position or, in the case of Balloon 710, eighteen months, with no indication as to when this situation will change. Jubilee Car 761 lies unprotected from the elements and this tram is, arguably, as historically important as anything in the LTT collection and has always been known to leak badly – its future survival must be in doubt if continued to be subjected to the full force of the weather. In addition, none of the LTT trams have suffered undue attentions whilst in outside storage in contrast to 646, a car earmarked for the FHLT collection but which is now facing scrap because it was not placed in a secure location.
In this context, are the perceived shortcomings of the LTT so bad? Yes it would be ideal to have the museum site up and running and the trams safe and secure but the plight faced by the LTT is no worse than that being experienced by other organisations and, arguable, it still offers the best chance of a museum of transport on the Fylde, something which has been needed for a long time.
I think there would be a lot more support for the LTT if they actually held their hands up once in a while and said “yes we have made some mistakes in the past” rather than the continual blame game they like to play. To an outsider it seems that the LTT think the situation they find themselves in is because everyone is against them and not anything they have ever done.
Andrew gives a spirited defence of the LTT, and of course he is right, there are many trams throughout the country in open storage, and the prospects for many of them are poor. However a number of them seem to have a bright future, and their owning groups have been clear on their strategy, and in some cases e.g at Heaton Park, their expansion plans are coming to fruition.
As to his contention that the LTT plans to create a heritage site at Thornton Gate offer the best prospect for a Fylde transport collection, well he and I will have to differ on this. I would ask a few simple questions on this subject: “Where are the building plans promised in the announcement on their website in Dec 2011?”, “Where is the outline business case that would support such a venture and justify public money being allocated?”.
Although it would be unreasonable to expect the LTT to provide the fine detail at this stage, I would have thought an outline feasibility study would have been carried out, and shared publicly. After all how can anybody give the initiative any credence and support with no details on its feasiblity whatsoever? Personally I see little value in comparing one Fylde based preservation group with another, but as Andrew seems to have majored in on FHLT, as an outsider their proposals and plans have been well publicised in some detail, and seem much closer to fruition that the LTT.
A combination of “blame” postings (e.g the announcement on the LTT trams move from Rigby Rd) to the occaisional PR spin pronouncements is not what I would call information sharing. When the LTT moves to a more open fact sharing approach, one that is willing to acknowledge when things go wrong, what plans are being adopted to rectify things, and what help is needed, then they may start to attract both financial and volunteer help. But until there is strong and continued evidence of this, I’m afraid in my opinion their prospects do not look good.
As a final comment, Alan Kirkman mentions that he has heard Allelys Hauliers do not deliver into buildings, and this could be a problem for LTT returning 304 to inside covered accommodation at Blackpool. Checking the Allelys website (www.allelys.co.uk) their service offering does include haulage and installation. If you click on the “Installation” heading it shows one of the London trams being moved by them inside what I think is their Acton Large Exhibits museum. It may be worth the LTT (and possibly other museums with moves planned in 2013) getting in touch with the contact named on Allelys website. Better to make decisions on facts rather than supposition.
I have read with intrest people’s comments on here. I have litreally just returned from a day driving a steam locomotive at a steam railway where i also volunteer. Are people going to continually critise and keep going over the same points? I think it is incredibly boring. How do you know we haven’t spoke to people??? Should i do an update and say news update – i spoke to someone on the phone? Get real! I don’t understand the hold your hand up etc! To what? Am i not better trying to spend my time working on the future or do you just want to throw tomatoes at me in the stocks! With regards to low loaders. I have been involved with low loader moves since i was 16 including locomotives up 100 ton so who should i ring for advice??? I am in the process of arranging all this. On top of this i have a family and a life to live! People seem to have an image that the ‘trust’ is massive! Its a handful of very dedicated people who care for the trams and buses. If all of my efforts aren’t enough then i apoligise from the bottom of my heart and it fills me with great sadness that you no longer donate as this and only this means the downfall of vehicles. With regards to low loaders, do people think the money for them grows on trees? Every time a move takes place it is more of my spare time that i have to give up. How many people on here have given up the amount of time and money i have. All i ask for is a bit of understanding and perspective? David Umpleby LTT Trustee
Totally agree with you David.
Firstly I would like to point out that all of the charities and trusts I am sure are trying to do the best that they can with the resources and finances available. All in all it is the trams that we all love and care for that deserve looking after. With the Blackpool Streamlined fleet now dispersed throughout the UK and the onset of Winter, in an ideal world, I am sure the LTT, FHLT, NEETT and MTMS would all love their vehicles secure indoors. However, we can only continue to support these charities in whatever way we can. I also think that communication between groups is essential for the blackpool trams that have been purchased to survive for future generations. Lets face it, we love the trams, so why not communicate with each other MTMS, NEET, LTT and FHLT and share our ideas and thoughts and knowledge. In this way, more of our beloved vehicles can be restored, displayed and preserved. Look at Beamish and the LTT, that shows good communication and co-operation. Last of all, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and lets look forward to a brighter 2013 for all parties concerned.
David,
Your comments and tone of your response will I’m sure concern many people.
The point has been made before on other subjects that the LTT is a registered charity. As such it is receipt of public money in the form of donations, Gift Aid that can be claimed on donations made by a UK taxpayer, and 80% business rate relief on buildings owned or leased by the charity. In the case of the LTT this amounts to many thousands of pounds, which I’m sure you are aware of. With the benefits that charities enjoy comes responsibility, and one of these is that the charity is legally and morally accountable not only its donors, but to the public at large for the effective management of its affairs . You can easily check this with the Charity Commission, and I would recommend you do so, just as I would recommend you check on the LTT’s account submission the amount of public money the trust receives. Of course the LTT could de-register as a charity, become a transport club, and would then be accountable to no one but its members! It would of course not have access to the public funds it currently enjoys.
Given the interest and enthusiasm that 304 has with the enthusiast community, and given the significant sums that were donated to its restoration in 2003-4, it should not surprise the LTT trustees the level of public interest and comment its enforced outside storage has generated. I’m sorry you find questions on the subject “boring”, but the enthusiast community has a right to know. Like most people I do realise the LTT is a small team, the volunteers have jobs, other interests, families etc. But being a charity trustee carries responsibilities that you must have been aware of when you accepted the role. As the saying goes “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
Please don’t take this personally, but I have a worry that you seem to be struggling with the concept of how to communicate effectively as a trustee with the outside world e.g. “news update, I’ve spoken to somebody on the phone”. You must know this is not what was meant and you may want to seek advice from the other trustees on effective communication. What the enthusiast community is looking for is periodic updates on LTT matters that are of interest or concern. The fate of 304 post-Beamish loan was obviously going to be of concern and raise questions. Smart communication would have been to foresee this and through blogs such as BTO, Trams Today and the LTT’s own blogsite do a short update on what is happening, what the issues are and what possible solutions are being explored (factual, not “spin”). As a charity this isn’t a “nice thing to do”, it’s a responsibility that has to be fulfilled, and if you feel you do not have the time, then I suggest you delegate to one of your trustee colleagues. It’s not for people outside the LTT body to define who should do what, and being busy is not an excuse for this not being done!
One final closing comment. Given as you have reminded enthusiasts a number of times on various postings the LTT is a small team which is overstretched, finances are challenged etc etc how is the LTT therefore proposing to establish, resource, finance a Fylde transport heritage centre at Thornton Gate? And what will the income streams be ongoing? Many people see the TG project as the only option to house, display and operate 304 and the other LTT trams in the future. It is in the LTT’s own interest to update enthusiasts on feasibilty (detail, not high level propaganda!) plan development, costings, fund raising options and timings as these progress.
I have agree Steve. I’m appalled by the comment that people stopping contributing, and nothing else, will cause the trams to deteriorate, totally ignoring the effect of the elements particularly on the likes of 8 and 304 which have been restored to working condition. The tone of the post as I read it is that LTT wants subscribers’ money but not their opinions.
Alan,
Confirmation has been received from Scott’s Haulage that they are able and willing to move vintage trams on their special low loader. This is obviously good news for the tram preservation body, particularly those planning moves and exchanges in 2013.
This is just turning into a slagging match.
Oh no it isn’t!
Jonathan,
I have read through again my original posting and various people’s comments, and I do not see it as developing into a slanging match.
Sorry to labour the point, but the LTT is a charity, and like any other charity, is in receipt of donations and public money. Enthusiasts are passionate about preserved trams, will have their opinions, and are entitled to express their views to the trams’s custodians, particularly when the custodian is a charity. Nothing as far as I can see from the 304 posting is of a personal nature and the LTT trustees as a body should note the comments, give them objective (and not defensive!) consideration and to some extent “take it on the chin”. The LTT has gone public recently and admitted it is in difficulty. Consequently it needs to be open (and show it is open) to feedback and criticism. There is seldom one single cause for a particular problem e.g. reduced donations. One LTT spokesman recently attributed this solely to the recession, Ken has given a different perspective in his comment. Almost certainly there will be a number of reasons, and the LTT need to listen and gain an understanding, in order to develop some options to reverse the donation decline.
One thing that did strike me in reading through the comments was that I had given no recognition to the people that are trying to keep the LTT going. I don’t know this, but reading through various blog postings I suspect there are a small number of people turning up at the LTT depot on cold winter nights trying to keep the show on the road. I have seen your name mentioned and I’m sure David is also in the small band. You and the small band should be commended for your efforts.
Again I don’t know this but my experience, observation and instinct tells me the real problem at the LTT is lack of effective leadership at Board of Trustees level. If this is the case it almost certainly will mean the active volunteers are working with no clear plan, as there is no strategy from the trustees on which to form a short, medium and long term plan for the volunteers to organise themselves and work to. The result will inevitably be “task hopping”, with projects being started, then stalling and little real progress being made. The LTT is not alone in this problem, but with such a small band of volunteers it is important they should be clear on objectives and plans, otherwise they will inevitably feel little progress is being made, become disillusioned, and sooner or later walk away! This is not the way to build volunteer numbers. I would not expect this to be acknowledged on a public forum, but would hope the LTT trustees and volunteers will take a long hard and honest inward look, and ask themselves whether this is the case.
My observation and instinct also tells me the LTT Board of Trustees are trying to focus on two many things, which may account for some of the trust’s problems. As David says the LTT is a small band, and some of this small band are LTT trustees and directors/managers of the LTT’s fledgling Classic Bus North West commercial operation (I will try and avoid comment on this, although I know there are strong feelings about the direction and the damage setting up a competitive local bus operation has caused with former partners like BT and Blackpool Council). With such a small group of people it must be well nigh impossible for these individuals to give the right level of focus to being directors/managers of a new commercial bus operation venture, and at the same time give effective trustee input to the LTT. Something surely has to give, and my suspicion is the LTT is suffering from lack of input and stewardship from certain key trustee individuals. Again the LTT needs to take an inward look and ask itself if this is the case.
The postings did take in broader issues than just 304 moving back to outside storage. Hopefully it helped established certain facts e.g. Scott’s with their specialist trailer are still very much in the vintage tram transport business, and can be considered by the LTT as an option for returning 304 to Blackpool. Allelys also offer a facility to install a tram indoors, subject to site sutability and do not restrict themselves to “open yard” delivery only. Also it has given an opportunity for enthusiasts to express support, give input and express concern to the LTT.
I am keeping my fingers crossed views will be taken on board by the LTT, regarded positively and given due consideration. They may influence the LTT to adopt a more open approach to communication, including issues, plans on how they will be managed and future strategy. I’m not holding my breath, but you never know!
With regard to CBNW’s bus services, perhaps BTS should be grateful that it was not one of the “big 3” setting up in competition, and BTS are very fortunate to have a transport monopoly in the town. If they can’t cope with a small company setting up 2 routes, one of which was able to mop up passengers who had been let down by the tramway operation, then there’s little hope for them if they ever have to face the real world of competition from one of the 3 big boys, as has happened in many parts of the country.
With regard to comments about the LTT and its operations, I have a few additional observations. Having donated sums of money to the Coronation 304 project and the Standard 143 project over a ten year period, I withdrew my input at the end of 2010 reluctantly as it was plain to see that the new manager at Blackpool Transport Services was (much) less amenable to continue involvement with operating trams owned by other groups/individuals than the previous manager. He ordered a complete clear-out at the Depot (Rigby Road), imposed punitive storage charges for remaining vehicles and an ultimatum to get the trams removed, even imposing a clause in the agreement drafted by Blackpool Council to that effect. In my opinion (and others) this change ‘at the top’ is a key factor in the LTT’s present troubles. The 143 project stalled and 304 was ‘withdrawn’ despite its historical uniqueness. Why? With hindsight this debacle could have been predicted and I think that both sides have committed errors of judgement-at the expense of the genuine enthusiasts. When I wrote to the present manager his reply was on the lines of ‘enthusiasts have another agenda’, meaning presumably that all HE wanted to see was an up-graded system and little else. Prior to all this it was the sheer variety of trams and the tours using these vehicles that, for me was the driving force and encouraged a willingness to part with hard earned cash.
We donated money in order that these historical vehicles could be once again seen on the promenade at Blackpool, not dumped in open storage and left to the ravages of the wind and rain. It really is quite scandalous. 304 and OMO 8 should, with the agreement of BTS, have had transponders fitted as other cars have had to enable their use once more.
Relations between the LTT and BTS should not have been allowed to deteriorate in such a disastrous and seemingly irrevocable manner.
The policy of spouting forth on local radio a couple of years ago achieved nothing apart from exacerbating already worsening relations, nor did the printing of acrimonious articles in the Evening Gazette.
Sadly we are left with the stark reality: 304 abandoned to its fate, the incomplete restorations of Standard 143 and railcoach 279, with little or no future as runners in Blackpool even if and when completed.
Whilst on the subject of historical trams (not connected with the LTT)
another superbly restored tram 700/237 was sadly disfigured in appalling fashion and santioned by ??? Whoever the guilty party was, 700’s treatment was shameful-another tram of interest ‘down the pan’. No opportunity to ride on it and to take photographs anymore.
Going over old ground now. As far as I’m aware, all other buyers of trams were given exactly the same deadline as the LTT to move their trams and everyone else complied. No one has ever given a reason why the LTT should be a special case and expect preferential treatment… Other groups by co-operating with BT and not complaining to the Media seem to have maintained good relationships. The continued use of Bolton 66 show that BT are not anti privately owned vintage trams.
Chris
Going ‘over old ground’ maybe, but the fact is that public money and donations from another organisation/ other individuals went into 304’s restoration, to the tune of £55,000! Hardly peanuts!
I did not fritter away part of my teacher’s pension for this situation to take place.
The LTT never did seem to grasp that they needed BTS and Blackpool Council far more than they needed the LTT, if their “vision” of a Fylde Transport Heritage Centre at Thornton Gate was to become a reality. My guess is that in the absence of any firm business plan, BTS/BC concluded there was little prospect of the heritage centre becoming a reality, and there was no point continuing to store the LTT trams at Rigby Rd.
I’m not sure about the contention BTS levied a “punitive” rent on the stored trams. The rumour mill was rife at the time, and the LTT never did disclose what the rent paid actually was. Most bus preservationists will be familiar with paying storage costs for their vehicles, which typically are in the region of £70pcm to £120pcm per vehicle, depending on type of accommodation and location in the country. According to hearsay, the rent being paid by LTT for storage of its trams at Rigby Rd was well within these parameters. It’s not unreasonable for BTS to expect the LTT to pay its share of the costs of storing its trams by charging a reasonable commercial rent, as it is a business after all.
I quite agree with Ken that the LTT’s associated Classic Bus North West commercial bus operation will be nothing more than a small irritation to BT. And judging by the observed very light loadings on Seafront 12 and Catch 22 I guess BT management will judge they have better things to worry about than a few elderly buses trying to fill some perceived transport need for Blackpool citizens and visitors. But it isn’t the sort of strategy that is likely to build bridges with potentially valuable partners.
As we all agree, the losers are 304, OMO 8, Standard 143, EE Railcoach 279 etc.