John Woodman of the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust has been critical of Fleetwood Town Council following their refusing to offer funding to support his plans to develop a new tram museum in the town. Although local Councillors have supported the project in principle, a recent request for £3,500 to assist with moving the Trust’s collection of trams to a new storage site fell on deaf ears as it was not considered to be an appropriate use of tax payer’s money.
Plans are still being developed to display the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust’s preserved Blackpool trams at a new museum, close to the Fleetwood Ferry terminus of the Blackpool tram system. This will involve a Lottery bid in the region of £200,000 and it is hoped that such an attraction could open as early as next year. Earlier this year the Trust were required to move several of their trams from an industrial yard in Fleetwood, to a new secure compound, and the local Council were approached with a request to fund the transportation of these trams across the town. However, the request was turned down, leaving the group’s other supporters to foot the bill.
Mr Woodman told the Fleetwood Weekly News: “Because of our current financial situation, we have had to rely on our own funds and the goodwill of local businesses. Companies such as Associated British Ports and Halsalls have been a huge help in allowing us to store trams for free on their land. However, Fleetwood Town Council rejected a request for three and a half thousand pounds, to help me move trams. I find it quite remarkable that a scheme like ours is being ignored”. He believes that the new museum would be a major boost to tourism in the town, and would generate new jobs for local residents.
Fleetwood Councillor Terry Rogers was keen to defend the decision, stating: “I did not feel this scheme was at a sufficient stage to hand over so much public money. I would love to see a tram museum in Fleetwood and once he has secured Lottery money, we would reconsider.”
Currently the FHLT own seven retired Blackpool trams, and are also the custodians of a privately owned Twin car set. All of these trams are currently in outside storage, spread across four different locations in the area. Railcoach 678, Trailer 683 and Balloons 710 and 726 were all recently moved to Fleetwood Fish Dock, leaving Jubilee car 761 on the premises of Halsall Toys, Brush car 290 on display near the Pleasure Beach, and Brush car 621, Centenary car 641 and Towing car 671 all at Kirkham Prison. The majority of these trams have now been in outside storage for well over a year, although 621 was initially housed undercover until April this year, when it was moved outside at the prison’s request, as recently confirmed by Mr Woodman. It is intended to move the entire collection to the docks this summer, with the exception of 290 which should join them after the 2013 illuminations, although it is not known whether the required finance to fund these moves has already been found.
If it goes pear shaped it might not be too bad, they may just offer the trams to other preservation groups or possibly Blackpool Transport. In fact, now might be a good time for Crich to start looking at acquiring 641 for the nation. I know some enthusiast’s reaction will be”Oh my, why another Blackpool tram at Crich?” but it’s certainly more representative of a more modern class of tram than that deeply ugly Halle 902, which can probably be banished to Clay Cross to make space for a Centenary. 641 would be more relevant too, being the prototype of the final class of traditional trams ever built in Britain. After all, we don’t want to see it go the way of 646. As for the others, well, 290 will probably disintegrate to a small heap of rust before anything can be done to save it, it’s pessimistic but it has to be said. It’s not looking too good for 761 either. Hopefully if the museum isn’t built all the trams can be accommodated somewhere.
Realistically if the scheme fails a number will not survive. Be lucky if more than one escapes. The scrap values so high hard to compete with them…
I know John Woodman is a regular contributor to the comments section on British Trams On-line so hopefully he does see this.
Unlike some I don’t doubt your original intentions when you set out on this venture actually though their was a solid case and it was something that was likely to succeed.
The dynamics of preservation have changed. The landscape is totally different to what it was like as the old system curtain came down. Under the stewardship of Bryan Blackpool Transport is creating something truly spectacular. Nobody could have predicted it. Other places up and down the land embraced Blackpool Cars.
I know you remain publicly confident that you can still succeed but the trams can wait outside till these dreams one day MAY be realised. But in the mean time things need to be put in place.
The LTT BT Merger just emphasized what can be achieved as one. I beg you to consider any option that gets 761 undercover for the winter. The Car simply cant take another winter outside. Please listen to the offers. Its unique it cant be replaced.
Please put the trams first. Please do what right.
CTC
OK, it was a request for funds that probably don’t exist for a cause against which the odds seem stacked. No surprise that it was declined, but a pity the Trust could not have been more gracious in its response to that decision. That said, let’s not write it off just yet. The ball is in its court to put forward a credible plan, either to achieve its original aims or to ensure the survival of the trams currently in its care by some other means, including dispersal of the collection if necessary.
It is heartening to see so much attention continuing to being given to the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust’s activities – even if from afar. The continuing online interest in our collection is reassuring we have not been forgotten amid the plethora of updates on this or that latest light rail news.
The Trust has secured its trams through private sponsors and is not in a position to offer them to third parties however well intentioned the urgings of such distant voices. Certainly we would not consider offering 641 to the National Tramway Museum who have previously turned down the chance to acquire (at no cost) 648 which was reserved by BTS for the Crich collection – and is now favourably restored to early condition through the work of Blackpool Transport’s heritage team and engineering staff. The habit of locking away trams in its collection for decades on end is not a fate we would wish 641 to share. Far better being looked after by Her Majesty’s Prison in this particular instance.
The Trust’s effort to identify funding for a tram museum in Fleetwood remain unabated. These efforts involve Wyre Council, the local MP and other engaged Parties. Funding is an issue for every transport heritage group – and we are no exception, with perhaps the sole caveat that our ambitions on behalf of Fleetwood have so far resulted in ‘nul points’ from this local town council sitting on their hands to await outcomes they can then applaud. This is in sharp contrast to other organisations more favourably positioned vis a vis pro-active local politicians acting in the interest of their communities.
Nonetheless the Trust has been invited to bring forward a major funding application to a National Lottery and is working with Wyre Council (and with input from Blackpool) to realise a grant decision by the end of 2013.
Fortunately our aims are shared by many local and area companies who are providing practical (and financial) contributions to ongoing work.
761 which seems a particular object of desire on the part of at least one of your readers – is due to be transferred to Wyre Dock shortly to join other trams already in situ at that location courtesy of Associated British Ports. Its condition remains robust and is a far cry from the derelict ‘sheds’ being ‘rescued’ for enormously expensive rebuilding by groups elsewhere. We are particularly pleased with having preserved this tram (again through funds provided locally by a private Fleetwood group) and have every intention of retaining it. When it is moved to Wyre Dock we will provide it with cladding to cover it over this winter along with the other trams already in position at that location. Let us know if you want to assist with the move in Fleetwood and covering the tram.
The Trust has positive relations with Blackpool Council and an ongoing dialogue with Blackpool Transport. We doubt very much that BTS has interest in expanding its already considerable heritage fleet even further – but if that was the case and a constructive proposal emerged you can be certain we would consider it. As it stands the Trust previously offered 761 to BTS (in 2012) for special use but this was declined due to the tram’s uncertain performance in its later years.
There is a lot of ongoing activity by our Trust which we do not place in the public domain for reasons of confidentiality. Insofar as 290 is concerned it will be transferred to Fleetwood by the end of the year pending the Museum funding bid. Claims of its eventual demise due to natural causes are vastly exaggerated. The tram’s display at the Pleasure Beach (the only traditional tram continuously in sight in Blackpool) is with express permission of Blackpool Council and the involvement of its Illuminations team.
In the event the Trust is not successful with its grant application in 2013 we have identified two alternative locations which offer the potential for an operating heritage tramway elsewhere in England. In both cases these projects would be financed through the private sector.
There are already more than enough appeals to enthusiasts for this or that tram preservation project – some far more worthy than others. We regret the inability of the Tramway Museum Society to progress the completion of restoration of Brush rail coach 298 which lies abandoned after nearly forty years of continuing restorative work by dedicated enthusiasts. This tram carries with it in excess of £120,000 (administered by the TSO) of funding subscribed by individual enthusiasts over the years to bring the tram back to operating condition. Their contributions so far remain unrealised under the remit of the Tramway Museum Society which owns and controls the Crich operation. This is in sharp contrast to Blackpool Transport’s restoration of Balloon Car 717 following a bequest of £100,000 – work which was carried out promptly resulting in the tram’s return to service within two years – close to its 1930s’ appearance as required in the bequest.
If any BTO reader wishes to offer constructive input towards the FHLT or otherwise engage in specific aspects of our activities then you are indeed welcome. Uninformed comments from afar are always interesting to read on this excellent website – and very very occasionally provide food for thought. Those BTO followers with especial interest in 761 sign up now please – anonymous or otherwise !
John Woodman
FHLT
John,
Firstly I must say you deserve some credit for responding to the enthusiast community through this forum, however your contributions at times send out seriously mixed messages. Sometimes such as now they come across as conciliatory and requesting help from the community, at others dismissing them out of hand such as your terse posting in response to someone who was disappointed at not being permitted to attend your talk on Tram Sunday. Often you also seem to respond negatively by criticising others rather than specifically addressing questions raised about your own organisation.
Because of the mixed messages, it has never really been clear to the outside observer what the intentions of the trust are. Whereas other groups demonstrate a clear focus on conservation of their trams, from the outside it is hard to tell what the FHLT is – does it have genuine conservation aims or it is a money-making machine or an ego trip for those involved.
If you want your museum to be viable in the long term, history provides the evidence that you can not rely on the general public alone to provide a sufficient income stream – no transport museum, heritage railway or similar attraction does: you need either the good will and support of the wider enthusiast community (through voluntary labour and/or cash donations) or very wealthy benefactors….
The sole concern of the majority is the welfare of the trams in the care of the trust. It doesn’t matter who funded their purchase nor who is directing the organisation provided there is clear demonstration of a viable scheme for the conservation of those valuable historic assets. The only hard evidence of ‘future potential’ for the trams we’ve seen so far is the treatment of 627/290 and the demise of 646. Hopefully the others won’t follow the same course but what is there to show they will not?
I suspect that Fleetwood Town Council also struggled to see clear evidence of the viability of the project necessary to justify committing public money, hence the rejection of the request for funds.
For the sake of the trams, I really hope you succeed, but to do that I think you need to reach out to what is a potentially large audience and rethink the delivery, scope, and tone of your communications. For example, it seemed particularly strange to charge and admission fee for your talk on Tram Sunday – who else charges people to attend a press conference?? Had it been free to attend with an optional donation if people appreciated what they heard, I’m sure you would have had a considerably larger attendance, donations would probably have exceeded the paltry amount you received in admissions, and it would have spread the message much wider. Or how about doing a presentation and Q&A session with the Fylde Tramway Society, or an interview with the editors of this site where they can put reader questions to you directly?
Paul
Well said Paul, I agree with your comments 100%. Some of the comments made by John have a tone very similar to those made by Mr Umpleby of LTT a while ago which give the impression that they welcome the Enthusiast’s money but not his/her opinion (unless they agree with those of the people in charge), and I get a distinct impression that this is an enterprise for ‘big business’ involvement and the ordinary enthusiast is not welcome. If they want our financial contributions they will need to prove me wrong – but I suspect they won’t even bother to try. Still, there are now quite a few tram preservation organisations which are worthy of support.
Thank you John for updating us all on the current situation.
Whilst funding needs to be found to set up the museum at Fleetwood, it doesn’t seem to me to be appropriate to be asking the taxpayer to fund transport costs between locations. I’ve never heard of any other tramway group (or railway or bus transport group for that matter) asking for money from local authorities for such purposes.
Ken – you as always have a comment for almost every item on the BTO website. You are entitled as ever to your personal opinions. We have every right to invite the precept of this local council to contribute to a project aimed at regeneration and economic revival in its own community.
Whether or not other public bodies have made this or that contribution – it may interest other readers of this online blog to consider the fact that the FHLT received a significant financial contribution through Blackpool Council to ensure the removal, transport and storage of the electrical substation equipment from Copse Road Depot – for eventual installation and display in the planned Tram Museum in Fleetwood.
There is a considerable difference between moving the substation equipment and moving the trams. The electrical equipment might otherwise have been lost whereas the trams were already ‘safe’. If I were a Fleetwood taxpayer I would have been happy with the former but most definitely not with the latter, especially at a time when budgets are being reduced. As you say, you have every right to ask for financial assistance from the council. What I would question is ‘lashing out’ (quote) when the answer is ‘no’.