Another one bites the dust at Crich

Sadly, Metropolitan Electric Tramways 331 has become the latest vehicle to be withdrawn from service at Crich Tramway Village, home of the National Tramway Museum. Following on from the withdrawal of Blackpool & Fleetwood ‘Rack’ 2, Southampton 45 and Johannesburg 60 earlier this year, 331 has now become the fourth tram to be sidelined during 2013 following a mishap.

It was previously reported that MET 331 had suffered a derailment at Glory Mine during the second day of the museum’s ‘Capital Weekend’ in July. Unfortunately, the tram has not operated since, and is expected to be lifted for a thorough examination to determine what damage, if any, has been sustained, and whether any obvious cause of the derailment can be found. The Feltham car is therefore unlikely to run again this year.

It is to be sincerely hoped that the efforts required to return 331 to service can be made sooner rather than later, as the longer it sits idle, the less likely it is to run again in the foreseeable future. Despite the loss of several useful and popular operational cars in 2013, the running fleet remains at a respectable sixteen trams which is, of course, considerably more than any other British museum tramway.

This entry was posted in Crich Tramway Village. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Another one bites the dust at Crich

  1. Tommy Carr says:

    Yes it is a respectable number-but 16 out of over 50 cars………..hopefully the running collection can be enhanced next year….106,510 and 762. And in the future, we have 869, 273,45,2,60 and 331, as well as (IMO) the best car in the collection….LCC 1!

  2. bob riley says:

    When running in Sunderland as no 100 the Feltham car had a habit of derailing on tight curves as a result it was mainly used on long straight routes such as the Durham Road reserved track extension. Although I dont think there are any tight curves on the Critch layout it seems old habits die hard. Hope its fixed soon as its best looking car at Critch. Especially in Sunderland livery.

    • David Holt says:

      It is my understanding that 331 was quite correctly derailed at Glory Mine by its safety chains when it split the points through driver error – no fault of the tram, the only possible shortcoming being that the derailment chains might have been too long, allowing the bogie to rotate too far before being derailed. This would have nothing whatever to do with its habits in Sunderland, which were caused by the decrepitude of its experimental bolster rollers, fitted originally at the ends of the bolsters by the MET to prevent hunting at high speed, by resting in slight indentations in the quadrant plates in the straight-ahead position. Those rollers, which were only fitted in a spirit of high tramway optimism to see how the idea performed, were subsequently allowed to wear out so badly that they sat in the bottom of the trunnions, making the bogies extremely reluctant to rotate and causing derailments particularly at diverging switches. A side-effect was excessive flange wear, contributing to derailment proneness. This was the deplorable condition in which 331 arrived at Crich. In 1972 when the car was restored mechanically and electrically, new bolster rollers were fitted complete with greasing facilities and after that the tram sailed round all curves beautifully, and ran rock-steady at speed. The rollers were later replaced with pads, sacrificing the anti-hunting feature. Conclusion: this magnificent tram has not misbehaved on this occasion!

  3. NotchArrestor273 says:

    Given that a thirty year restoration costs about £300k, that’s £10k per year. Having 16 cars available means £160k has had to be found for every year, not including commissioning costs, repairs & scheduled maintenance. That’s nearly £5million to provide a basic running fleet for one life cycle. Where do you imagine that money is coming from? There are some enthusiasts out there who have no conception of the debt they owe to those people who had the foresight to start preservation 50 years ago & have largely paid for everybody else to keep criticising them whilst complaining that one tram or another hasn’t been saved/preserved/restored. It’s rather sickening! At least the story isn’t quite as anti-Crich on this site as one of the others.

    • Mel Reuben says:

      I endorse what NotchArrestor273 has to say. I am part of the operation crew team and also a Museum Guide and speaking to our visitors they agree we do a marvellous job in keeping the National Collection in good working order. Some of our trams in service are over 100 years old which is quite a remarkable achievement by our engineering department. It appears that the only criticism that Crich gets is from the so called enthusiast who should no better. If they put their money where their mouth is than maybe we can add more trams to operation fleet.

      • Andrew Waddington says:

        Personally I do put my money where my mouth is – just not at Crich! Other tramways give better value for money in my opinion and do not withdraw trams without explanation. In response to NotchArrestor273’s comment above, note that some of the trams that are now out of service are those which have been restored more recently at considerable expense – e.g. Oporto 273 and Liverpool 869. By contrast, Glasgow 1068 has had no significant attention for years other than a repaint and is running perfectly… food for thought?

    • Paul says:

      It does indeed cost Crich c£300k for a tram restoration that should last 30 years (but according to the TMS’s own policy will infact only last a maximum of 8 years without further substantial expenditure!) However comparable restorations by other bodies apparently cost around half that. Why?? A detailed audit of where the money goes on a Crich restoration could yield interesting results and perhaps reveal how a greater variety of trams could benefit from the same limited funds.

      Just to give a couple of examples, I believe the MTPS’s budget for the Baby Grand is c£150k and Blackpool Transport restored Balloon 717 for around the same cost as the amount (of other peoples money) the TMS managed to spend on boat 607!!

      P.S. No I’m not “anti-Crich” as you put it, just a on-looker frustrated by the lack of trasparency and flexibility in TMS policy which does at times lead to a (potentially unwaranted) negative public image. And yes I do put money into UK heritage tramways, but others where value for money and progress are much more visible…

      • NotchArrestor273 says:

        I think you will find that the money spent on 607 / 236 was the amount charged by BTS for the overhaul carried out at Rigby Road plus the costs incurred in having other work carried out by contractors (motor overhauls, compressor overhauls, re-chroming of components, etc.

        Crich is a national designated museum whether anybody likes it or not and the standards that have been set from the outset have resulted in it operating tramcars for longer than almost every other system in the UK largely on the backs and wallets of a relatively small number of individuals.

        If you don’t actually know all the facts relating to the withdrawal of a tramcar from service why comment so critically. The main aim is usually to ensure that there is no further damage inflicted beyond the initial reason for withdrawal. Go to Crich & have a close look at 331 for example, oh & by the way whilst you’re there put your hand in your pocket & find something to put in the donation box!

      • Christoph Heuer says:

        As for the cost of restorations, I believe it is more of an accounting issue than anything else.

        Let’s assume that the cost of materials and work done by contractors is £150,000. Museum A might quote the cost as £150,000 plus free volunteer labour. Museum B might quote the cost as £150,000 plus volunteer labour rated as x Pounds. Thus the restoration at museum B look more expensive when it is not. Please do not forget either, that the NTM used paid staff which adds to the cost.

  4. Jamie Guest says:

    The main difference in the cost is due to the fact that Crich have a permanent workshop staff to pay so restorations like the one of 159 are charged for at normal rates. On the LTHS’s recent restoration of 107 the direct cost for materials,patterns, premises etc was over £45,000 but it also involed over 12,000 man hours of volunteer labour and a considerable amout in unclaimed travelling and other expenses. If labour was charged at a conservative £10 per hour the total cost would ahve been in excess of £160,000 for a small double deck horse car with no electrics and a relatively simple set of running gear, albeit one produced from scratch with all the costs of research, design and patterns.

    Jamie

Comments are closed.