The Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust are now just looking to dispose of two remaining trams from their collection at Wyre Dock after Centenary 641 and Railcoach 678 departed following component recovery. This process has provided valuable parts for other preserved trams and would seem to be the best possible outcome when you consider there was no serious prospect of either tram being preserved in their own right.
The threat to the future of these trams has been hanging over them for some time after it was announced last year that the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust would be disbanding their collection. This came about after it was finally conceded that their plans for a tram museum in the town would not be able to come to fruition and the storage compound at Wyre Dock was earmarked for redevelopment. All of the trams under their auspices were made available for purchase by other organisations/individuals and this has seen Trailer 687 head to Rossall School and Balloon 710 back to Rigby Road.
The latest two to be disposed of are Centenary 641 and Railcoach 678. Both have given up parts which will go towards the restoration of other trams and after this 678 was scrapped on site with 641 departing Wyre Dock. 641 will now benefit Jubilee 762 with 678 giving parts towards Brush 298 and in the far future OMO 5 – all three beneficiaries being members of the national collection.
Of these two trams 641 is the one which has been seen the most recently having been located at Pleasure Beach between 2015 and 2019 on a short section of track. Initially in a celebration of Blackpool FC livery it subsequently went purple in 2017 and featured artwork from a local charity who help people to beat addiction. Built in 1984 by East Lancashire Coachbuilders it entered service in the July of that year as the first of a new class of tram and one which would help the tramway to survive to allow an upgrade in the 2010s. It ran for the last time in 2011 but had already been withdrawn before the traditional tramway closed in November. It was soon acquired by the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust and as well as Wyre Dock also spent a period in store at Kirkham Prison.
As for 678, this tram last ran in 2006. Originally English Electric Railcoach 278 (of 1935) it was one of 10 converted for the Twin Car project with it completed in 1961. 678 was never to be permanently coupled to its trailer car and would continue to be operational as single railcoach until its final withdrawal came at the end of the 2006 season. It remained stored at Rigby Road for five years before departing in December 2011 and since then has been in open storage (at two locations).
The end for 641 and 678 means that the remaining trams at Wyre Dock are Brush 637 and Twin Car 673+683. In a statement the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust have said: “The Trust is seeking alternative homes for these cars so it can close the file on the Fleetwood Museum proposals.”
It is such a pity that 673-683 has been allowed to rot in this way.
It was the only Progress Twin Car to retain most of its original features – the two at Blackpool Transport, in the Heritage fleet certainly do not – and, from a driving point of view, it was the fastest and most reliable of all of the twincar fleet.
Unfortunately, the state it has been allowed to reach now probably renders it irrepairable without huge amounts of money being spent on it and it is an absolute disgrace that it has come to this. The seven “Ps” come into this – Piss Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance”.
We can but hope that Blackpool Transport do eventually get round to getting at least one of its twin cars back into operational service in the very long queue of heritage trams that simply do not work.
272-T2 (672-682) is still fire damaged after many years of just being parked up.
675-685 is parked up and hasn’t run for years either.
We can, however, console ourselves that the “same old, same old” reliable trans are out all the time and, occasionally, somebody thinks to put out an open boat – very occasionally two of the three together – when the weather is fine, but it its far too rare. Maybe, one day, all three will work!
I very much agree with what Michael says here. Despite operating with unpaid volunteer crews and having very high fares, the heritage operation in Blackpool has always seemed very lackluster since the so-called “upgrade” of the core service. Yes, occasionally they manage to repaint a tram, but very little actual mechanical work seems to go on and restoration of period fixtures and fittings definitely seems beyond them. One wonders why in needed a team from east Anglia to travel all the way across the country to spot a cracked brake block?
Blackpool’s heritage trams were always a great selling point of the town. The decision to remove them from service was both short sighted and poorly judged from a business perspective. A ride on one of the old trams was as much a part of a trip to Blackpool as a stick of rock or fish and chips. And with a day travelcard being valid on ALL the trams and buses, it was good value too. I used to visit multiple times per year, parked in Fleetwood, caught a tram into Blackpool and then did the reverse on my way home, often catching the last tram North at night for a fantasticly atmospheric after-dark run North. With precious few heritage trams left in the town, only a tiny handful in service and even those running for very limited hours on limited days, Blackpool has lost it’s appeal. I only live a couple of hours drive away, but I haven’t been back for over 5 years now. As Michael says, it’s the ‘same old same old’ all the time anyway. 678 should definitely have been saved and put back into service as something a bit different. This car also had heaters and so would have been ideal for winter use.
You only need to look across the pond to San Francisco (ironically the home of two ex-Blackpool boats now) to see how a heritage service should be run. Nobody ever talks about the electric trams over there though. Maybe they don’t like to mention it for some reason?
Just a clarification to Andy’s post. The visit if the East Anglia Transport Museum team was in cooperation with our Trust, working on our tram (Coronation 304), and were not there to work on BHTT / BTS trams. The FTT is sole responsible for the work on our trams, the restoration work being undertaken on 304 is completely independant to any restoration activities by BHTT / BTS.
The E and F line in San Francisco are far from comparable to Blackpool. The funding available for the trams is not on the same scale, San Francisco is a tad bigger than Blackpool…! The “heritage” PCC cars had $1mil PER car in refurbishment, and the lines car in excess of 60,000 passengers per week (not year). The lines are in integral part of the MUNI network and are used by commuters as well as tourists.
Whilst I agree that the heritage trams are an integral part of Blackpool’s appeal (as much as The Beatles are to Liverpool, or Routemaster buses are to London), running the main public services with modern LRVs is the right decision. I don’t think the tramway would have survived in full if it were to be exclusively ran as a heritage operation.
The problem with the Heritage service at the moment is twofold. Firstly I think the heritage tram stops need to be signposted more clearly, and these should be adjacent to the main LRV platforms wherever possible. Currently I don’t think it is clear to the general public that the heritage trams don’t stop in the same places the LRVs do.
Secondly, the fleet needs serious investment and there should be a publicised restoration queue with the eventual aim of having at least one high profile tram re-enter service each year. Certain trams are more appealing to the general public than others- I would certainly look at 706, 604, and 147 for starters. It would cost money, but if the approach was more focused it could be immensely rewarding. Having 3 Boats on the Prom could make £1000+ on a warm summer’s day.
I agree with everything you say Nathan! My biggest concern regarding the heritage fleet is the fact that the dwindling number of operational cars are looking increasingly tired, and without some major investment in either what is running at present, or some of the stored cars, I suspect the number of trams available to use will continue to decrease – possibly until none remain. This would be a tragedy, and must be prevented if at all possible. The likes of 600 and 717 look in dire need of some attention and even 227, overhauled just 5 years ago, is looking rather shabby again.
To sustain a good sized operational heritage fleet you probably need to put something through the works every year – by which I don’t mean a quick repaint, I mean a proper overhaul with attention to trucks, full internal valeting etc. Hopefully this might become a more realistic prospect when the ‘new’ workshop space within the current main depot at Rigby Road is opened, whenever that may be. Some sort of membership scheme, as you say with a publicised list of projects to be supported, would be a good step in the right direction as it could attract regular contributions as well as one-off donations from people wanting to support a particular favourite tram. This is the sort of thing that I was led to believe would happen when the Blackpool Heritage Trust was launched almost a decade ago – sadly since then we seem to have gone backwards!
A further clarification to Andy’s post is regarding the purpose of the visit from our friends at East Anglia Transport Museum to work alongside our team on Coronation 304.
As has been covered in previous posts but obviously missed by some, the visit was primarily for the inspection of the rubber suspension blocks which had to be carried out by an organisation independent to either the owner (FTT) or operating authority (BTS). It was during this visit that the cracked brake block was spotted, otherwise it would have been caught during standard brake checks before dynamic testing. Andy’s post above appears that the EATM team came all the way for very little which was certainly not the case.
Whilst it’s no doubt a pity that the prototype Centenary is lost to preservation, of the first two to enter service, arguably 648 is of greater interest as it has a more complicated history, having run as the experimenatal 651 prior to becoming part of the Centenary fleet. Of course, 641 is not the first protoype to bite the dust – add 200, OMO 1 and 264 to the list, plus of course many other classes of Blackpool tramcar that simply no longer exist in any shape of form.
Although it would have been interesting to see 641 resotored complete with its advertising roof box, I doubt whether a case could ever have been made for the expense entailed, especially when considering that it has been decided to retain the updated passenger windows on both 642 and 648 (rather than reinstate the original style) – these have the advantage over the originals of been less likely to corrode and leak. It is pleasing to see that spare parts have been salvaged from both 641 and 678 to aid with resoration projects at Crich. This is a better outcome that would appear to be the case with 646 and 716, which both quietly disappeared, apparently without yielding any parts to assist with preservation projects (although 646 reportedly ptovided some souvenirs to sucessful bidders).
I do agree it is a shame that twin car set 3 has become so delapidated – I do hope someone will be able to restore this tram some time in the future, although there are already a few in preservation and it’s hard to envisage who might be willing to rescue this further example. Of those at Rigby Road 675/85 is of special interest as it includes the original trailer, albeit remotored and with plain green roof, from the 1958 experimental twin car. I’m not sure what is planned for 637, but no doubt in the worst case, parts could also be salvaged from this if the owner cannot relocate it.
To be correct 641 was also scrapped on the docks.
All the components were recovered by myself (with assistence from others) as a private transaction/initiative with FHLT and then following this they were donated to Crich.
I would like to thank the Trustees of the FHLT for allowing this to happen.
Thanks for recovering parts to help other trams in the future ?
Thankfully I was able to ride on all of these trams before Blackpool Transport threw them away.
Probably the best possible outcome given the advanced state of deterioration of these trams. Whilst it is a tremendous shame to see these historic vehicles lost, it was always hugely unlikely that every Blackpool tram would find a suitable home in preservation.
I look forward to seeing 762 and 278 back in action! 762 was operational until recently- has it developed a problem?
762 has a motor fault and I believe is in the queue of trams awaiting workshop attention, hence it has temporarily been moved to the Exhibition Hall to allow Leeds 602 to feature in the Coronation celebrations recently. Its time will come!
Nathan is absolutely right – the only way to attract everyday passengers away from their cars and onto the Tramway was to bring it up to modern light rail standards with accessibility possibly being the most important factor alongside reliability. Add to that a good onboard information system and facilities such as Wi-Fi and this makes it a no-brainer for many in choosing their mode of transport either to work or for shopping. I doubt many drivers would wish to abandon their cars to squeeze into overcrowded Centenary Cars. I suspect that in the absence of the upgrade to LRT, the system would have been truncated to a Pleasure Beach to Little Bispham line, with most trams operating only between Cabin or North Pier and Pleasure Beach. Although undoubtedly better than nothing, this would have meant trips to Fleetwood could therefore be only by bus and it’s possible that as a consequence, Fleetwood would have fewer seasonal visitors with various ramifications for the port, including adversely affecting the Market and Affinity Outlet.
I think the situation regarding the number and location of Heritage Tram stops is linked to the legislation to ensure accessibility, which if I’m not mistaken is derived from EU Law. Now that we are post Brexit, maybe the Ministry can be prevailed upon to allow a little more flexibility regarding the matter of Heritage operation. Obviously, stops for Heritage Trams cannot be too close to the LRT platforms to allow clearance for safe stopping distances, but they could be indicated more clearly with directions shown from the LRT stops. I feel it would be beneficial to add a permanent stop between North Pier and Pleasure Beach – maybe make the Manchester Square stop more official to serve Tramtown – plus one at Norbreck potentially to benefit from a large prospective passenger count.
An excellent summary of the process that lead to the upgrade to an LRT based system. One small but important point regarding what might have happened if Blackpool hadn’t moved to a modern model with full accessibility and up to date facilities though. It wouldn’t have simply been a case of the line being truncated, it had been made clear that the system would have had to be closed entirely. The government were willing to support the upgrade but with attached conditions. The new and heritage fleets had to be kept separate and the heritage operations had to be self supporting. The positioning of the heritage stops is not related to accessibility as most heritage trams are fully accessible, I suspect it simply part of the need to provide physical separation.
Steve, the Heritage Trams are not fully accessible. Only the Western Train is.
I am fully aware that the heritage fleet isn’t accessible. That’s why the two operations have to be kept independent. My point was in support of the upgrade of the normal services to modern standards with fully compliant trams. A formal derogation from the current ORR standards was required to allow the heritage trams to operate using their own designated stops. The LRT service fulfills the public transport function whilst the heritage operations are more of a leisure attraction. They just happen to share the same track.
Steve – I quote from your comment….. The positioning of the heritage stops is not related to accessibility as most heritage trams are fully accessible,
Hence my comment – you stated they are.
On another subject mentioned in your comments I think you’ll find that far from allowing a little more flexibility in heritage operations ORR are tightening their approach to safety management within all rail based heritage tramways and railways.
Tramcar666
regarding your most recent post regarding accessibility I see my mistake and yes you are right. My mistake I must learn to proof read my posts