Blackpool Boat car 233/605 performed its final passenger journeys at its current home in the North East on Sunday 1st September, which was also the fourth and final day of the ‘Power from the Past’ event at Beamish Museum. As anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the last few weeks will no doubt be well aware, the tram has been sold to a new owner in America by the Lancastrian Transport Trust and, barring any unforeseen change of plan, this day marked its final appearance in passenger service on home soil.
The Boat car has been extensively used this summer, finally living up to its full potential, and have been numerous opportunities to see this car in use alongside fellow Blackpool trams, Balloon 703 (repainted as Sunderland 101) and Marton Box 31. 233 ran on all four days of the ‘Power from the Past’ event and ended its lengthy operating career in the UK at the end of the afternoon on September 1st, when it was the last tram to head back to the depot, bringing the curtain down on a highly successful event. Over the past few days, many enthusiasts had flocked to see the tram for one last time, although sadly neither of the British Trams Online team could make it. A photo charter also took place on Saturday 31st August, when the tram was posed for the cameras both before and after the museum’s normal opening hours.
233/605 is now considered as withdrawn and will be prepared for departure, which should see the lifeguards, trolley and gantry removed for its long journey to San Francisco, via Southampton Docks, with departure believed to be booked for Monday 9th September. It is also expected that the British Trams Online posters applied to the car last year as acknowledgement for our sponsorship deal, will be removed before the tram leaves Beamish. Recently we were offered the chance to have our posters remain in situ on the tram when it enters service in the USA, potentially allowing us to promote this website to an international audience. This offer was declined as we do not want anyone to think that we are in any way endorsing the move, and in any case, we feel that this would rather contradict the purposes of British Trams Online. We would never willingly offer funds towards a project that did not involve a British tram in Great Britain, and so you will not be seeing the name of this website on the Boat car in America.
Claims have also now appeared online that Blackpool Transport will be undertaking the outstanding work on Standard car 143 themselves, and that the LTT will provide neither manpower or funds for this work. As restoring 143 for operation in Blackpool was one of the main justifications for selling 233 at a huge profit, if this claim is true then it does open up the inevitable question of how the profits from this sale will actually be used. Hopefully the full ugly truth will come out sooner or later, giving the Trust’s few remaining supporters the chance to make a truly informed decision as to whether they wish to be associated with this organisation anymore.
An unusually quiet scene at Beamish Town, with Boat car 233 seen early on Friday 30th August. (Photo by Steve Kemp)
I would suggest that the LTT are not owners of the priceless historical vehicle which is 233 but only its custodians and that they are not entitled to sell it. I would also suggest that any shareholder who feels that they have not been adequately compensated should not hesitate to sue. And finally, next time the LTT come creeping after donations, everyone should say “no fear”
Sad as I know most of the directors personally over many, many years. I have supported some of their running days and indeed they shared accommodation at St Helens when my Crossley and their Brush car were kept there in the eighties. Can not understand why all this has come to pass.
Just confirming that this was an early departure from the entrance and that this tram was full when it arrived in the town! In fact there was a queue of at least 100 people waiting to get in at 11am. Of note was that all 3 trams were operating clockwise with buses heading in the other direction.
I am afraid LTT have lost a lot of friends and donations and I would think a few members will cancel there support, I sad day for all the workers and visitors who have helped over the years.
What a bad end to good intentions! As they used to tell me when I was a young “watch your back and trust nobody” – good advice. Not all the sharks are offshore.
I would guess that for the LTT there could be worse to come than just losing members and supporters. I paid for a share of 605, but have not even received a certificate and I suspect I’m not alone. I have approached the LTT for a full refund as they will now not be able to justify the issue of a share of something they no longer own. If they are unwilling to reimburse me, then never mind suing them – I shall be contacting the police for advice, I’m afraid.
Sorry to hear that, and I hope you are successful in getting your money back. I did at least receive my certificate (though only after grumbling about not getting one on another tram website!), but in your case I think you’re quite right to ask for your money back.
I wonder if the shares were issued in a proper way in conformity with the law on businesses and shareholders. There are laws about this, for sure.
This whole saga is very sad for a preservation movement that has generally always been reasonably selfless. The loss of 233 to USA is probably the tip of an iceberg that has yet to reveal the bigger picture. If the LTT was just trying to raise funds (for whatever reason) or pay debts to survive, I am sure there are/were enough people out there who are enthusiastic enough to join those who already own a share in 233 to put in sufficient cash to match or improve the USA bid. Why didn’t the LTT put out a request for interested parties to purchase the tram before taking the first and possibly, only offer? Very strange, as they could have probably raised more. With a society formed (say the Blackpool Boat 233 Preservation Society) enough people could have purchased the tram from LTT and perhaps kept it at Beamish. I, for one would have contributed to this. Where has this all gone wrong? The LTT is probably finished because it is unlikely that it can ever recover from this, as its credibility is seriously damaged. A great pity, as it was formed to do exactly the opposite of what it has actually done in selling 233, and not even to the highest bidder, let alone allegedly not being the legal owner.
Whilst I think I know what you mean regarding the LTT being “reasonably selfless” by preserving worthy vehicles, I have to say, that purely in my own personal dealings with them, “selfless” was perhaps not the first word that came to mind from day one and nothing I have seen since and certainly not recently, has changed my view one iota. They treated trust members as an open cheque book, other organisations similarly, including charities and even councils and certainly customers of Bus Works.
And whilst your boat fund idea is a very sound one, I am, I believe, reliably advised that as they received around £18,000 for 605, that would be a heck of a fund needed to top it. Additionally, it seems it’s the speed with which the funds were forthcoming from MUNI that has meant this has had to have been completed so quickly, so again, whilst very laudable, a donation fund sadly probably wouldn’t have achieved that in the required time.
The interesting point now perhaps, if the other online claims regarding BTS now sorting 143 are confirmed, is that as the LTT’s own site states the reason for selling 605 is to complete 143, is that…., horror of horrors…, all just a naughty fib by LTT? ( surely not!!). I still think it has more come about to support the ailing Classic Bus operation, but I could be wrong and in the end, only time will tell.
Incidentally, is this also possibly the death knell for “Totally Transport” as that is an LTT organised event, so who, on principle, would now want to support that?
Whilst I admit that it might be a shame for it to go, though it has been contracting entries and stall wise in recent years, I can’t see any true transport enthusiast wishing to support it now , if the LTT’s name is still attached to it.
Hmm..Perhaps the new and it seems, far more successful Fleetwood Festival of Transport/ “Tram Sunday” committee might take it on? It’s not such a basically dissimilar event after all, or is it now just time for TT to go? Just a thought.
Well, actually, I meant that the movement in general is reasonably selfless. I have been in the preservation movement one way or another for 40+ years and in the early days such grandiose schemes such as LTT were few and far between, but everyone involved in preservation worked to a common goal of saving historic vehicles. In 1976, I and five of my friends raised the sum needed in just one week, to save a historic vehicle, albeit privately, and that vehicle is still around. The points you raise however are valid. Still, it’s all very sad, and given the time left it is unlikely to be stopped now.
I don’t think that £18,000 is a great amount as preservation projects go, especially for a fully operational vehicle. The fact remains that groups in this country should have been given the opportunity to acquire 605; whatever LTT urgently want the money for, it won’t be for 143, whose restoration, like every other LTT project, has been dragging on for years.
Another thought: seeing MUNI/MSR’s large duplicate collections of PCC and Peter Witt cars, are they looking to get hold of the other remaining boats now?
They may well want to try, but I think that events have shown that Bryan Lindop / BTS and LTT are at opposite ends of the spectrum in the morality stakes. I presume that Crich will also show themselves to be above profiteering if the situation should arise. However everything owned by LTT must now be regarded as at risk.
If the Wirral Waters streetcar scheme does not proceed, there would potentially be a supply of ‘surplus’ single-deckers that could be converted to open-top form. Whilst obviously requiring a lot more work, they would surely be acceptable for Muni purposes.
if blackpool transport are funding 143 themselves can the alleged funds that were to spent on this be spent on puting the rocket back on the rails instead
Trams get exported, it happens, there’s still 4? Boat Cars in the country so be happy.
I agree with the shareholders, they put a lot of money into it and they have a right to criticise, but the people that haven’t paid a penny towards it need to grow up, It hasn’t been scrapped so be happy, at least its alive.
I didn’t contribute to that fund but I have still spent money travelling to their Totally Transport events and purchased the odd ticket to ride on CBNW etc. When all said and done, the Lancastrian Tram Traders have proved to be a disgrace to the preservation movement and should be ashamed of themselves. They have proved that they don’t actually care about the trams and instead showed that they were in it for the money. I also made a similar comment on their Facebook site but that comment was deleted. I don’t think they like criticism too much. I for one will not be having anything more to do with them following this utterly disgraceful act.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Mark. Even if someone has not directly supported the Boat car, I think people are still entitled to express an opinion if they are unhappy with what’s happened – particularly when we all know that there was plenty of interest in 605 here in the UK and therefore there was never any danger of the tram being scrapped. Ultimately, there are plenty of other tram and transport organisations who need enthusiasts’ support, and if the LTT decide to upset its core audience then they will surely take their money elsewhere.
I fully agree. There are 3 reasons I can think of why people who have not necessarily bought shares in 233 have a right to make their views known
1. The actions of the LTT Trustees may be illegal
2. Their actions risk bringing the preservation movement in general into disrepute and thereby damaging financial appeals made by other preservation bodies
3. There are plenty of people who, although they have not purchased shares in 233, have contributed to the LTT in other ways, either voluntarily by general donations to them, or without their permission or knowledge as taxpayers due to the Gift Aid scheme.
Just singling out shareholders in 233 as the only ones with a right to speak out is well wide of the mark.
As far as Totally Transport is concerned this was a concern to me when I stopped my LTT subscription, not that it wasn’t a Price I was prepared to pay to stop my payment etc. However wearing my TLRS hat the exhibition in the Solaris has become quite important to us modellers. However whilst in Blackpool over the Bank Holiday I was speaking to a senior member of the Civic Trust who assure me that arrangements were continuing and that in all probability it would in future be in partnership with the New Trust. A certain very busy person is already attending meetings albeit in a private capacity at present. LTT support was already dwindling due to the very few people they had available anyway and the other organisations were looking for further assistance. The current question mark concerns Council Support for the event but subject to that being resolved it will continue and the TLRS will continue with the Exhibition in support of our other friends and the NEW trust. With the way Fleetwood has developed into a general Gala Day with less transport I would not call their organisers ones to join with.
That Alan, is potentially good news as it was a good event and if the NEW trust do manage to take “Totally Transport” on board, then that would be most welcome news. But I would suggest that, since this total PR disaster from the Lancs. Transport Trust, there would need to be NO ONE from the LTT management involved in it in ANY way, to then give it any chance of being able to try to regain at least some of it’s former glory.
Otherwise entrants, stall holders and potentially visitors will stay away in their droves, some simply on principle, others just because it possibly wouldn’t be seen as trustworthy any more.
I’m fairly sure that no one now would …trust the trust… as it were, so I would suggest if “Totally Transport” has any chance of being a successful event once again, if it is to survive, whoever does organise it, they must be seen to distance themselves fully, from any of these recent and any other similarly shameful LTT shenanigans.
As for not perhaps wanting Fleetwood’s committee from having any involvement, it may indeed be more of a “Gala Day” than TT is, but with over 80,000 visitors this year, I for one, could do with even just 5% of them coming through any Model Tram Exhibition that I was organising.
And OK, maybe most of them wouldn’t know a “Balloon” from a “Bellamy”, but firstly, so what? And then secondly, I’d perhaps suggest they are the very ones from where the next generation of modellers or tram fans might come. The more people that see a potentially new interest, the more potential converts. That’s just simple maths.
Remember, if it was purely up to enthusiasts, most preserved railways wouldn’t last a week. Preserved tramways probably aren’t that different. It’s Mummy, Daddy and 2.4 kiddies that keep them going, so a bit of a “Gala Day”, might not be such a bad idea to open up our hobby, whether model based, or in 12 inch to the foot format, to more, potentially interested new members.
Just ask any of the many tram, bus or train orientated stalls how they did from the non enthusiast visitors, as well as the enthusiasts that day and you’ll see whether a “Gala Day” or an enthusiast event wins the day, or not. I know where my money is! ( I seem to recall that I read somewhere that Wyre Borough themselves, estimate it brings in the region of £2m, both directly and indirectly, to the local economy annually.)
And as we know, two markets are always better than one. That’s just basic economics, especially when one market is simply huge! I would argue that on the whole, TT caters for just one market, “Tram Sunday” for both.
Plus this year, “Tram Sunday” had more stalls than ever, TT less than ever. (Incidentally, it appears that “Tram Sunday” actually had more vehicle entries than for the last 10 years and of course, as quite correctly reported right here in BTO, more trams than for quite a few years too, so I’m not quite sure where the “less transport” bit comes in.)
Also, at least the “Tram Sunday” bunch do it purely because they love providing that event, are TRUE volunteers, (they certainly don’t personally make a penny out of it, in fact I know that it personally costs them usually). And also amazingly, they are actually able to talk to the local tramway operator that serves the event, they can have trams officially sent by that operator to their event and also they have sponsored several trams to return to Blackpool and as far as I know, they have never knowingly sold any of them for permanent export from under their shareholders noses!!
That said, I’m fairly certain that they know of the LTT’s shameful behaviour by now, so it may be that they simply wouldn’t want their name sullied by association, with an event currently linked so closely with “they who should now be shunned”
So, if the new trust can sort it, that’s fine, but if this event is to survive, I for one wouldn’t want to miss out on exploring any avenue, or dismiss any potential assistance, especially from an organisation that, like it or not, must be doing something right as even in such straightened times, it does obviously manage to still run a very popular local transport event.
I would add that the event needs to have a new name, as any mention of TOtally Transport risks people thinking that LTT are still involved.
Ken.
Couldn’t agree more.
It’s not even an accurate title.
Totally, means, all encompassing. All of… Transport. So where were the ships, hovercraft, aircraft, even railways? I must have missed them somehow. Lol.
Tram Sunday had more stalls than ever before! I must have missed those. I counted three transport related stalls at the event – 10 years ago that number would have been 15 or 20! Maybe there were more tombola’s this year than ever before. As for having more vehicles than anytime for the last ten years, the massive gaps along Lord Street would suggest otherwise.
With respect, I never said that they were transport related. I just said there were more stalls this year than ever before. And there were 89. As stated, the most ever. Whether they were Tombolas or not, I’d suggest that 80,000 can’t all be wrong.
And again, I said more vehicle entries, not attendees. Admittedly some didn’t turn up. But no one can make them come. The entry numbers though were considerably up. But the ones that did arrive were widely commented upon generally as being a distinct improvement on previous years both numerically and in variety.
I spent several years running model Exhibitions at Tram Sunday constantly changing venues to find one that worked and sadly there wasn’t one! the situation now is even worse there is nowhere suitable on the “route” of the event. Indeed if there was we would actually hold the Festival of Model Tramways in Fleetwood to coincide. The only suitable locations for that are the Marine Hall and/or Leisure Centre both too far away as 1998 proved. The Solaris as rebuilt is ideal and exhibition ther are better attended in the room than previous attempts were in Fleetwood. I see no reason to throw away a name used by a large number of organisation for an event that is well established, just because a number of quite reasonably aggrieved enthusiasts have no idea of the true make up of the organising committee. And as for comments about talking to the operator of the tramway are you suggesting a certain person won’t talk to himself!!!!!!! Finally may I just remind everyone that the NEW Trust must be set up legally by very responsible public bodies ie BTS Ltd and the Council, they could not take a position in which a major contributor in terms of vehicle numbers was not a part of the NEW Trust as it is set up. This is simply a legal fact. The guilty party in LTT and I suspect majority shareholder in what I remain sure was a privately owned 605 merely in the care but not ownership of the LTT is specifically exclude from any part in the new world. In should remind everyone that charity law say that a Charity owns its property through its Trustees, therefore there cannot be ownership shares in an item of Charity property. That must mean that 605 which was paid for with the persons own money was never transferred in law to the LTT and when extra finance was neede for the move and repaint they decides to issue shares but kept the huge majority himself, incidentally valuing the car then at way above it’s purchase price. I regret that he used to be a friend but he’s changed a lot in the last few years since 304 was made a runner.
Alan.
A few points perhaps.
Firstly, “Tram Sunday” has, to the best of my knowledge, never organised a model exhibition. Outside organisations have done so, to coincide with the event, but nothing has been organised by them directly and so I’d suggest that it is a little unfair to suggest that they did, as that isn’t accurate. That said, regarding numbers, I do recall a separate organisation put one on in the early days, that ran for a quite a few years in a community hall and that was highly successful with numbers that Solaris can only dream of. But irrespective of that, I think you may have missed the point a tad as it wasn’t particularly whether the committee had ever provided a successful/ stable venue or not, but whether the ideas, knowledge, experience, potential financial savings by combining similar costings etc, thereby possibly assisting TT could be useful and that a call to them might be of some use. That was all. You seemed to dismiss that possibility out of hand, seemingly simply based upon whether there have been enough of your favourite trams there in recent years, which I’d suggest isn’t perhaps the best criteria for such a decision. (A factor incidentally which is obviously totally outside of their control.)
Interestingly, whilst your response seems to indicate that you may have a bearing on the Festival of Model Tramway’s venue, strangely at odds to your statement, the Fleetwood committee had recently invited the Festival to attend in 2015, with apparently a very suitable venue, but this seems to have been politely declined. There are, I believe, incidentally at least 3 other very competent alternative venues directly “On route” to the ones you state. But I’ll leave that one with you.
Moving on to whether anyone is “talking” to themselves, I again feel you may have missed the point.
I can only go off what has occurred, not what might and for this year at least, the point was that because of their “head on collision” attitude to just about everyone, the organisers of TT could not talk directly to the tram provider, where as Fleetwood’s could. Whilst some trams were eventually provided, BTS couldn’t (or wouldn’t) even mention the event they were serving.
The point was made that LTT had “made it’s bed” etc and so with your fairly obvious, lack of support for the LTT, I would have thought that anything that shows LTT’s total lack of foresight, would have been supported, rather than ridiculed, but hey, there we go!!!
Regarding the legal aspects, I am sure that you are correct and that this will/ should indeed be the blueprint for the future of any event/ organisation etc etc.
But irrespective of that, what I personally take all of this discussion to be, is a rare opportunity for tram fans to witness an originally fairly laudable organisation’s fairly spectacular fall from power, due to it’s own past and even current, arrogance.
Remember many, if not all of these fans, have been ignored, belittled, conned or just generally just naffed off, by the LTT in some form or another, over the years that they thought that they were the bees knees. So now, just like seeing the previously all powerful bully fall flat on their face in the playground..it’s now pay back time!! Enjoy.
Deckerman,
It’s disappointing to read you turning this thread on to your regular hobby-horse of promoting Fleetwood Town Festival (Formerly Tram Sunday). What has any of your latest post got to do with the subject of this thread – the sale of Boat car 605…
But if you insist; to address some of your points:
Alan never said “Tram Sunday had never organised a model exhibition”. He sated that HE had organised them for several years. The TLRS that he represents was the “separate organisation” you then refer to so it is you that is being (more than) a little unfair in accusing him of being inaccurate.
Regarding the invitation to hold the 2015 Festival of Model Trams in Fleetwood you allude to: are you aware that the Festival alternates between Northern and Southern locations with the odd years being the Southerners Turn? Perhaps that is part of the reason for an invitation for 2015 being declined? Also as to suitability of the venue without knowing what that venue is we can’t really assess it, but speaking as an experienced exhibition organiser (as is Alan – are You??) I knowthat many apparently suitable venues prove not to be when studied in detail for numerous reasons.
With regard to your previous comment in this thread; you admit that a big proportion of the stalls this year were not “transport related” and that while the number of vehicle entries was up many of them actually didn’t turn up on the day! This is rather at odds with your numerous previous contributions denying the observation made by many contributors that the emphasis has distinctly shifted away from Transport as the core theme of the event towards a more general Town Fete.
Now please can we get back on topic…
Paul
Paul.
Thank you for your observations, but with respect, the topic may indeed not be directly regarding 605 now, but it certainly does relate to the organisation that has committed this “dirty deed” and their connection to Totally Transport, which by their actions may now be threatened. Whilst I admit that we should perhaps indeed be looking more at the plight of 605, the seriousness of the situation which was catalyzed by the sale, has quite rightly opened a real “tin of worms”, which I suggest requires some discussion and includes TT hence my suggestion. I simply suggested that the Fleetwood committee may possibly be able to give some relevant expertise that could, if it were considered that the TT event should continue, be given to whoever decides to take the job on. If nothing else it should at least show some potential savings in co hosting the 2 basically similar events by sharing similar costs. I personally, didn’t think that was an unreasonable thing to suggest. But it was only a suggestion. Nothing more.
And just to equally and finally perhaps put you right on some of your own points.
The separate organisation I quoted, was not the TLRS, as I stated the exhibition was highly successful, which Alan freely admits his efforts sadly were not. I was in fact a co organiser of the stated organisation’s Fleetwood exhibition that ran very well for several years. This also, by default, then answers your question asking if I had been an exhibition organiser or not.
Regarding the alternative years of the Festival, I may admittedly have put 2015 instead of 16 in error, but I have checked and it was offered to the TLRS as the next as yet, un-booked available year when it was to be in the north, which would indeed by now be 2016. So the refusal was not on geographical grounds. Also, if you note, I stated that there were at least three venues too, so, whilst admittedly not impossible, I’d doubt all three could fail to be suitable.
Regarding your final comment, I do agree that a fair proportion of stalls were not transport related, but there were certainly more than that stated by other contributors, which forced me to respond and the proportional balance has also improved in recent years. Not perhaps as transport orientated as in the earlier years, but the enthusiast/ non enthusiast balance of visitors will probably never see that split return. Market forces and all that. So I do not feel that I contradict myself in any way.
I sincerely hope that this now finally puts things fully in context and that, with total agreement to your comments, we can now indeed get back to the point in hand.
Here’s two off the wall ideas for you. How about asking Muni for a spare PCC car. Doesn’t have to be a double ended one. If that’s not available could a boat Mk2 be created by slicing the roof off a single decker? A less destructive method might be to recreate the sliding roof with which some were built. Just a thought.
As the US drives on the wrong side of the road we do need a DE Pcc to run anywhere in the UK. Due to the width of US PCCS only Blackpool has a half a chance of one being able to operate. As Muni are on a desperate search for running DE cars sadly we don’t have a chance. One of the preserved Illinois Terminal DE ones would be better or a Dallas if there are any.
AK: Thank you. At last some reality is emerging: LTT didn’t actually own 605, so it is of no concern to the Charities Commission.
AB: With regards to the first suggestion (1) who is going to pay for it (2) what are they going to do with it given that it will be too wide for any UK tramway and (3) on what do you base the supposition that Muni has PCCs to spare? With regards to the second suggestion, which I have previously alluded to, again (1) who is going to pay for it and (2) from where will the donor vehicle come? No criticism of your thinking out of the box, just some practicalities to put it into context.
In any case, I really don’t see how importing a PCC car will in any way make up for the loss of a popular and historic British tram to America.
GL: I guess size does matter. The dimensions of the rebuilt Philadelphia cars are here and they are wide. http://www.phillytrolley.org/GirardAve_PCC_specs.htm
AW:Acquiring a PCC doesn’t make up for losing the boat but it but might make them think next time they want one of ours, if we ask for one of theirs in exchange. 😉 There are two other boats in the US which, I think, are out of traffic, maybe an appeal to bring one back might find some takers? Hard to make a good case to casual donors when there are four in the UK already though. If there was a will to create a Mk2 version maybe a consensus could be reached among the afficianados as to the subject vehicle and funding method. Like I said, it’s an idea.
Well, I can easily see half the currently existing Brush single-deckers being scrapped – the general attitude seems to be that preserving all of them is unnecessary – so converting one to a replica Boat would obviously be preferable to scrapping. If this was to be done, Beamish seems to be the obvious place for the ‘new’ tram’s home. As for the best donor vehicle, 636 is the Brush Car with the most doubtful future.
Sounds good to me. We have a candidate and a location. Anyone got any money?
there is no proof whatsoever that the LTT didn’t own 605. It was on their asset list and therefore can safely be assumed to be the property of the ‘
Trust’. Suggestions that it was owned by an individual are speculation ad, even if true, do not in any way mitigate the disgraceful antics of the group in selling it
Departing a bit from the loss of a Boat from the UK I think the Market St Railway, the enthusiast run organisation in San Francisco, is worth looking at in depth. They support the heritage F-Line with its historic streetcars in partnership with MUNI and amongst other things do a lot to ensure that the cars are as historically accurate as practicable. At the little museum they run I was told that the ridership is 50 / 50 tourist and local and is the only MUNI service to make money! It has a monopoly along the waterfront but along Market St runs above the Muni Metro (tram subway) and BART (heavy metro) and beside trolleybuses showing that people want a good service with frequent stops and street level access; what we love trams for and why the Hong Kong trams lost only about 25 per cent of the riders when Mass Transit opened underneath!
If I were to spend their next wodge of dollars on something it would be a Brussels PCC car; their present one is in Zurich livery and it would be nice to see at least one in one of the authentic STIB liveries for the type.
Milan’s name for the Peter Witt car is Ventotto which I think much better!
I couldn’t agree more with you Ian. Although the Market St Railway has been a long time in the making, what it has achieved and is achieving are definitely the way ahead. Any of the three piers may not be Pier 39 but you can see parallels all over the place between SF and BPL (including the I “heart” BPL tee shirts!). It took an earthquake to open up the waterfront in SF, similar bold thinking for Blackpool might work as well.