ORR “not involved” in Blackpool Heritage Tram Tours suspension

The saga of the suspension of all Blackpool Heritage Tram Tours operation has taken another turn, with “The Blackpool Lead” quoting a spokesperson from the ORR as saying they were not involved in the decision whilst also claiming that two sources have told them the decision was made for financial reasons.

To take a step back a couple weeks, you will remember that it was announced on Friday 6th December that Heritage Tram Tours had been suspended with immediate effect because “operating…alongside our modern fleet has become increasingly challenging, with issues such as depot space, tram movements, general safety and maintenance conflicts making it difficult to continue running the service effectively.”

At the time that was thought to be an indefinite suspension. But then a few days later, Blackpool Transport Managing Director, Jane Cole, released an additional statement where she confirmed the company’s commitment to running heritage trams and that they would be back on the Prom in 2025.

When the suspension was announced it was widely thought that most of the reason behind was safety related after advice from the ORR but according to the statement on “The Blackpool Lead” from the ORR this was not the case. A spokesperson is quoted as saying: “ORR has not been involved in Blackpool Transport’s decision. Heritage tramways are required to assess the risks relating to collision between heritage trams and members of the public and implement any reasonably practicable controls identified. This will include light-of-sight operation. We have not required them to install obstacle detection or overspeed technology.”

“The Blackpool Lead” article also says they have spoken to two unnamed sources who allege that the decision was made for financial reasons.

This entry was posted in Blackpool Tramway. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to ORR “not involved” in Blackpool Heritage Tram Tours suspension

  1. Andy says:

    Well done to The Blackpool Lead for doing some extremely good journalism here to weedle out some of the truth about what is going on.

    As I posted previously, modern safety systems, such as the much talked about ODAS cameras, are NOT required on heritage vehicles. They’re actually not required on any vehicles, but are recommended on modern LRVs following the Sandilands crash. So that excuse is totally in the bin!

    Finances are now being implicated as a deciding factor, which I think is much more likely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Blackpool’s heritage fleet is much more cost effective to operate than the LRVs. BT appear to be worried that their accounts could well end up showing that, per mile operated, the heritage fleet is far more profitable than the LRVs. Remember, balloons and brush cars are long since paid for while LRVs are a major financial risk, although much of that was paid by outside sources. However when they fall due for replacement (which will be quite soon judging by other operator’s fleet renewals) BT may have to bear the cost themselves. Also the Blackpool Lead article reveals that the ‘Christmas Express’ tours using the Western Train were sold out! So why would these £20 per head short tours be cancelled just a few days before they were due to operate unless someone wanted to ‘knobble’ this festive money-spinner? It’s a very similar story to asking why open topper ‘Princess Alice’ hasn’t been restored as a top priority given it’s money making ability both in normal service and on private hires. Why were series 1 Balloons effectively given away rather than being restored as Alice-clones to run a fully open-top summer service on the promenade? And why were the ever-popular Boats reduced in number yet again?

    The truth is the people at Blackpool Transport, led by Jane Cole, are totally vision-less when it comes to operating a transport company, especially in a town that generates a great deal of it’s income through tourism and entertainment. Cancelling a slew of sold-out tours for no good reason can surely shout of nothing other than complete incompetence. And as general manager, Cole should be dismissed by the council with immediate effect. But she’s still there, forcing through plans to replace Blackpool’s already modern bus fleet with even newer electric vehicles, which come at a much greater cost and have a much shorter lifespan than conventional diesel buses. When the general public have seen through they hype and are shunning electric cars, only an idiot would invest in a similar fleet of very expensive buses!

    • Nick says:

      They may not be required, but you try explaining to the lawyers why one set of vehicles is fitted and the other isn’t when someone gets hurt!

      • geoff hewitt says:

        As most lawyers are assumed to respect the law, then the explanation given by the ORR, that “Heritage tramways are required to assess the risks relating to collision between heritage trams and members of the public and implement any reasonably practicable controls identified. This will include light-of-sight operation. We have not required them to install obstacle detection or overspeed technology” Should be sufficient answer.

    • Nathan says:

      Hmmm I hadn’t thought of that – the Flexities are 12 years old and could well be about half way through their viable life span. Unlike LRVs elsewhere they are constantly exposed to the salty sea air which has proven troublesome in the heavy rail sector (see GWR’s struggles with Hitachi Class 800s at Dawlish). The electronics are far more complex and difficult to maintain than those of a heritage tram – I can’t see Flexities running in regular service 80 years after their introduction!

      Which raises the question of – was the upgrade potentially a mistake? Had Blackpool lost its trams in the first half of the 20th century like other medium-sized towns, would there be a financial case for reinstating it as a modern LRV system? Probably not!

      If the council cannot afford to buy new LRVs we may be looking at a scenario in a decade’s time where the choice is between converting to a fully heritage operation or closing the tramway entirely.

      Of course the former would be preferred, but it would raise difficult questions over why so much taxpayer money was invested in the upgrade in the first place.

      Getting rid of the heritage trams would allow the council to issue an ultimatum – new LRVs or closure, without the third option – the most financially attractive AND the most attractive option from a tourism point of view: becoming a volunteer-led heritage tramway.

  2. Nostalgicyetprogressive says:

    As Arthur C Clarke once wrote, ‘The truth, as always, will be far stranger’. It’s often hard to know what sources to trust fully in such circumatances as these. However, the ORR would hardly be likely to deny involvement if this was not totally certain to be the case. Looking at the claim that it may have been a financial decision, one wonders whether this was related to insurance and if so, whether the insurer had stipulated additional safety measures in order to provide cover on an cost-effective basis. This would be much in the same way that home insurance costs can be affected by whether or not one has a burglar alarm installed and other similar security measures. Clearly, actual running costs would prove less of an issue given the use of volunteers on the heritage service.

    • Andy says:

      Most medium to large transport operators are self-insured, so insurance generally doesn’t come into it. It’s not widely known outside the industry that busses (and possibly trams) often don’t have motor insurance like our private cars do. Instead the company operating them has to have a pot of money set aside as a guarantee against a claim. I have no idea if this applies to BT, but it’s certainly possible.

  3. Nostalgicyetprogressive says:

    Whether rightly or wrongly, one gets the impression that comments on this article have at least for now largely been gagged. I therefore wonder if more is soon to be revealed before it would become appropriate to make any comment. Let us wait with interest and let time tell.

    • Gareth Prior says:

      As mentioned pre-Christmas I was taking a break from updating the website “live” (everything you have seen since Christmas Eve has been pre-scheduled) over the festive period. No gagging of comments has taken place, I’m now back and will approve comments daily again.

      • Nostalgicyetprogressive says:

        Glad to know you’re up and running again – I wasn’t sure how soon the live updating would resume. I have to mention that as far as possible I prefer to be guarded with any comments as it’s often impossible to verify sources unless one knows the originator well enough. However, I get a good impression of the reliability of the ‘Blackpool Lead’, which seems to be generally well rated. I would add that I don’t think we know enough about Jane Cole’s reasons for the sudden suspension of Heritage Services either to criticise or appreciate the decision. Again, time will tell.

        • geoff hewitt says:

          I seems that BTS were asked for a statement by ‘Blackpool Lead’ if the article is to be believed.

          But have chosen not to respond. At least, so far.

  4. Big G says:

    I, for one, understood this. You are entitled to a rest from the valuable resource that you provide. ! I do remember when the hassle became to great for you and you did discontinue the comments! I was one of those involved in dissuading you; I am glad I did!

  5. Christopher Callan says:

    It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this point. The whole thing just seems like an utterly surreal final chapter with news slowly dripping out adding to the rather spectacle.

Comments are closed.