It has been confirmed that Wirral Council are to redistribute funding between projects – this includes the removal of at least £3 million which had previously been allocated to the renovation of the Wirral Transport Museum. The decision to change development projects to support in their area came in a behind closed doors meeting, although the results were soon leaked by a local Green Councillor.
It had previously been announced that £4.5 million was being allocated towards a major redevelopment of the Transport Museum which is located at Taylor Street and has been closed since April 2023. This included the heritage tramway with the original decision being made following a visit by the ORR.
Big Heritage – a CIC who operate a number of historic tourist attractions across Merseyside – were named as operator of the Transport Museum (and by its connection the tramway) in December 2023 and came forward with grand plans to redevelop the museum, creating extra display space and concentrating on the complete story of transport in Birkenhead. A lot of this depended on the funding, which had seemingly been confirmed in 2024 and Big Heritage had previously said their plans would be revealed early this year. A revised business case had been submitted by Big Heritage in January 2025 and it seems that this may have caused in some way a change of plan by the Council.
But now that has all changed with Wirral Council voting (8 to 3 in favour) of redistributing their various funding. The £4.5 million has now been changed to £1.5 million, but only if a revised business case is submitted (some reports suggest this has to be done by 23rd April or the money will be distributed elsewhere). Councillors expressed doubts the project would be completed in time for the area to qualify for the government funding, whilst also requesting extensions for other projects.
Recriminations have now begun with Big Heritage quoted as saying they didn’t ask for the £1.5 million and would not be accepting this offer. Big Heritage Founder and Managing Director, Dean Paton, made a passionate speech to councillors accusing them of effectively killing off the Transport Museum. Its not clear where Big Heritage will go now with their plans, or even if they will continue to progress with them at all.
It wasn’t just the Transport Museum which has recently seen funding removed with a housing development at Conway Park losing £2 million and other projects at Woodside Ferry Village and Birkenhead Priory seeing over £1 million redistributed.
The money is being diverted to other projects including improvements to Birkenhead Town Centre, the creation of a new Birkenhead Market and redevelopment of New Ferry High Street.
The Transport Museum currently remains home to several trams. That no longer includes the three former Merseyside Tramway Preservation Society trams – Birkenhead 20, Wallasey 78 and Liverpool 762 – which are being moved to Crich following a decision for their transfer due to the situation at the Transport Museum. This will leave the MTPS’s Warrington 28 still in situ along with others such as Hong Kong pair 69 and 70 (owned by Wirral Council) and Liverpool 245 (owned by Liverpool City Museums). The MTPS have already moved their horse trams to Hooton Park (Liverpool 43 and Douglas Bay Horse Tramway cars 11 and 47). Lisbon 730’s ownership was transferred to Beamish in January 2024 with the tram moving to the northeast at the same time.
A council that makes decisions in secret to go back on it’s promises. Now there’s a surprise!
Seriously though, this once again highlights why museums need to be independent and have some kind of commercial operation that provides them with their own method of funding without relying on government grants. Who remembers the plans the West Yorkshire Transport Museum had when they got a ton of money and became Transperience? When the cash ran out the whole thing collapsed because it couldn’t support itself.
It’s also interesting that Crich claimed they didn’t have space for many unique examples of the Blackpool fleet (Including a twin-car and a centenary car) but have now magically found space for the MTPS collection.
It’s enough to make you think you can’t believe anything any more.
I must take issue with your ill-founded criticism of Crich, which is an example of the independent commercially orientated organisations that you so favour. The decisions over which Blackpool trams to accommodate were carefully made at the time and were, correctly, not ‘Blackpool-centric’ (there are other trams). The solution for the MTPS collection was not ‘magical’; it has required serious, and often difficult decision-making and forward planning. Taken together with the necessity of providing on-site accommodation for the items currently stored off-site, large sums of money are going to be needed in the not too far distant future. I am certain that Crich would welcome any funds that you might be able to direct their way?
Big G yes there are other systems and had they survived post 60s then you could have lots of them. As Blackpool was the only survivor and Crich is duty bound to show the development of the Trams purely by default they will be Blackpool!
Still annoyed about the twin-car.
Hopefully the Centenary car will pass it’s wheelchair tests or whatever its called
Why should the National Tramway Museum have to take on the mantle of Blackpool Tramway Museum? Why can’t the Fylde Coast enthusiasts and other interested parties do more for themselves instead of always looking to others to come up with solutions? Get your hands in your own pockets, the TMS and other funders are already expending very large sums on Blackpool tramcars. I don’t ever see much thanks and support for those efforts from corresponders from the Fylde area!
Notch arrestor – Do you actually have ANY idea about the Blackpool situation? The Blackpool enthusiasts have 3 groups, the FTS, FTT and BHTT/BTS – ALL 3 have proved useless so what do you suggest? These groups have been supported over the years and they were the ones supposed to be safeguarding the Blackpool legacy. Many people spent thousands and thousands supporting projects and buying Heritage tickets and merchandise so don’t you dare say they need to spend more money. If the organisations don’t actually do anything with the vehicles they have there isn’t much the rest of us can do is there? You can’t storm the barricade and demand 706 is taken into custody when it belongs to someone else. When did you last see a fund raiser for any of them?
Crich has a duty to show the development of the Tram and from 1963 to 2011 that was soleley Blackpool whether you like it or not. So should Crich not represent any of those post 63 trams just because you personally hate Blackpool? I bet you wouldn’t be complaining if Leeds had survived for example. There are NO other examples of OPO, twin operation etc etc surviving from anywhere so Blackpool it is. It is also rapidly becoming the only tram system in living memory for a lot of visitors. You need to be at least 70 to have a clear memory of a tram ride and in most places 80 to 100!
Notch – thank you for kicking in the teeth those of us who have worked for years and given hours and hours to help Blackpool trams, its really appreciated.
I thought that Crich was the ‘National Tramway Museum’ rather than the ‘Blackpool Tramway Museum?’ I assume that you have visited recently? If so, then you must be aware that the remaining available space is most definitely limited.
Surely, there is ample space for Blackpool’s heritage fleet at the current location? Whether BTS has the interest or the will to maintain and operate it in Blackpool, where it surely belongs, does, however, seem to be a separate issue.
Geoff – you know there were ONLY Blackpool Trams for 50 years so anything represented in that time is Blackpool by default? You could argue its Glasgow and Leeds heavy too……..
Mr. Nick – When have I suggested, or even implied, that Crich is Blackpool heavy, or, come to that, that the museum was ‘Glasgow and Leeds heavy too……..?’
The point I was trying to make was that space at Crich is rather limited, but space at Blackpool rather less so.
Moreover, in terms of post 1962 tramcar development, Blackpool is already well represented in the Crich collection, with only a twin set and, arguably, an unmodified centenary car, not included.
We get some idea about Crich by the way it treats its Nottingham exhibits.
Here in your own words by inference ‘I thought that Crich was the ‘National Tramway Museum’ rather than the ‘Blackpool Tramway Museum?’
I’m sorry but I really don’t get this obsession with all things Blackpool. The post 1963 development at Blackpool is quite well covered at The National Tramway Museum with examples of the final development of the Brush railcoaches, the later development of the double deck cars modified to allow one person operation at quieter times and the Centenary single deck fleet. The twin car would have occupied too much precious space. In my personal opinion the ongoing care of the three MTPS cars represents good use of precious resources. As for the heritage fleet at Blackpool I have seen no suggestion that the scope of the story of development in Blackpool is to be threatened, perhaps some of the duplication will of necessity have to be reduced by disposals. Unfortunately the tramway preservation movement is too small to effectively support all the potential candidates for restoration and operations.
For once I agree with one of your comments – a twin car is huge. If Crich had a second depot then I would say no problem but you are looking at something close to the size of a modern artic!
The ‘obsession’ you refer to is because for anyone basically under 70 its the only traditional Tramway they have known. Just as all the Crich founder members wanted ‘their’ cars represented.
Toytown should be filling the Blackpool story museum role in the ideal world.
No way could the museum have funded itself – the small number of visitors on an average day, even with school visits etc, would go nowhere near the costs. Blackpool Heritage Tours couldn’t have run independently with the thousands they carried!
Crich made a decision THEN, which is totally different to NOW. Two Trams have left since and there is more of a willingness now to look at things. Also the 3 add more to the diversity of the collection – the 3 cars are far more representative than say a Twin. Very few places ever had trailer operation and at the time one couldn’t be turned at town end (I believe it now could). Also a twin and Centenary were represented elsewhere, nowhere else could take these 3.
Agreed! Wallasey 78 is, as far as I know, the only Bellamy-topped tram in preservation. An important part of the general development of the tramcar in the UK; more so, I would suggest, than a Twin-car which only operated for a short while on one atypical system. These are the judgements that the great team at Crich are constantly having to make.
Nobody is denying that any of the preserved trams from the Wirral are important. What I most definitely AM saying is Crich can magically find space for things when it suits a few people who control the place, but not necessarily when they should be filling their remit as the NATIONAL Tramway Museum, which holds the national collection. So why do they have vehicles from the Hague, Oporto, Johannesberg, New York, Prague and others? Great as they are, what part of our NATIONAL story do they tell?
I haven’t visited Crich since they effectively threw a large donation back in the donor’s face to fully restore and return to service Leeds 602. Such a thing would never have happened back in the 60s or 70s when the place was run by real enthusiasts.
To be clear about Blackpool, my position is that the tramway should have been given a protected heritage status, similar to a listed building, and the original fleet should have continued in daily operation with repair and restoration of vehicles and track but certainly NOT the so-called “upgrade”. Unfortunately, those in power in the town seem to have all the tourism and business acumen of a deaf-blind chimpanzee! They have allowed a great heritage asset to be slowly destroyed in the tramway and treated other assets, including the illuminations, equally badly.
But at least it saves me 214 miles worth of diesel half a dozen times a year!
The Leeds situation was far more complex than you make out but here is not the place to go over it all yet again.
Jo’Burg 60 is a Colonial tram and therefore very much part of the story.
And how many times do people need telling the old Blackpool trams are ILLEGAL for frontline service and therefore the system had to upgrade.
60 years is hardly a short time! There were examples trailer operation elsewhere but obviously can’t be represented.
There are the remains of a London County Council trailer body in existence. It is unlikely to be restored, but not impossible.
You say that ‘the old Blackpool trams are ILLEGAL for frontline service and therefore the system had to upgrade.’
Odd, then, that ORR said no such thing. Indeed, to quote from a statement made in December 2024 to the ‘Blackpool Lead’ :-
“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 practical controls identified.
This will include line of sight operation.
We have not required them to install obstacle detection or overspeed technology.”
It would appear that, however many times you make this ‘ILLEGAL for front line service’ allegation. ORR would still disagree with it!
Geoff, the illegality of step entrance trams has NOTHING to do with the current situation, it dates back long before.
All front line service trams have to be low floor – that has been the rule for many years now. Also buses can’t be step access either.
Blackpool operates under an exemption to the accessibility regulations – namely the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) (Blackpool Tramway) Exemption Order 2014.
This states: “A tramcar first brought into use before 1st January 1999 is authorised to be used for carriage on the Blackpool tramway even though —
(a)it does not conform with the provisions of the 2010 Regulations with which it would otherwise be required to conform; or
(b)it is used otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of the 2010 Regulations with which its use would otherwise be required to conform.
There are other stipulations regarding differences between B fleet, and heritage, however it all comes back to one thing: at Blackpool, all front line service trams having to conform does NOT apply to vehicles put into service before this date, therefore, making the heritage fleet legal in it’s current guise.
Orders similar to this are common across light rail: 9, 10 and 11 at Seaton operate under an exemption, the DLR and London Underground operate under them, and the Tyne and Wear Metrocars also operate under one. Multiple other examples are also available.
Ultimately, the point is that the Blackpool heritage trams are NOT deemed “illegal”.
‘Geoff, the illegality of step entrance trams has NOTHING to do with the current situation, it dates back long before.’
Then how is it that it suddenly became an issue in December, 2024. An issue, moreover, not mentioned by BTS?
Blackpool Heritage Trams stated the following on their Coastal Tours site :-
‘The heritage trams have restricted accessibility due to their historic age and design.
There is a 12- to 16-inch (30-40cm) step to climb onto the tram and some trams have a similar step once on board.
Whilst the conductors will help you board they cannot provide direct physical assistance.’
Once again, ORR seem to have had no problems with steps on heritage vehicles.
Geoff – I’m not sure where your source for step entrances being an issue last year came from but I’d be interested to see it. I have never seen any other reference to that being a reason for suspension anywhere. They were withdrawn by BTS for additional safety measures to be looked at.
Main service Trams must be 100 % low floor access (to the extent Sheffield’s technically fall foul of this now but are so big its not become an issue). Heritage Trams are not therefore cannot be used on frontline service.
Hence Heritage Trams can’t be used. B fleet can but not on main service (except in emergency) – the porches being to assist boarding at platforms.
Heritage not using platforms and having their own stops was an agreement drawn up with BTS and DfT/rail authority as was in 2010.
The exemption was to keep the Trams running (and all Heritage Trams needed it wherever they were) so they could be used on specials/heritage service etc.
Looking from a completely different angle surely you can’t think that using vehicles not everyone can use on service is acceptable?
Clearly plenty of issues between all parties behind the scenes have led to the transfer, still I can’t help but wonder if 3 of the “Star exhibits” being removed influenced the desicion to pull so much funding.
I doubt the councillors who made the decision even know what a tram is, let along what makes a star exhibit.
I love trams, but I think that Wirral Council have made absolutely the right decision here. All Councils nationwide are having to make difficult financial decisions and lets be honest, in terms of serving the local community, if you had to cut back on one of the following – public parks, highways maintenance, libraries, social services, or a heritage tramway – which one do you think the majority of people would choose? Which one has the least impact on the lives of working class families?
I appreciate that Birkenhead has a very important place in British tramway history, but as nice as the tramway is/was, its a very hard sell from a commercial viewpoint. Compared to the other two heritage tramway operations not in a ‘closed access’ museum site – Blackpool (major seaside resort with lots to see and do) and Heaton Park (trams within a massive public park with multiple amenities close to one of the UK’s biggest cities), what is there to attract people to visit Birkenhead besides the trams, in order to make a good day out of it? Like most towns in this country, its just not a tourist destination. I suspect even most tram enthusiasts struggled to justify a visit on a non-event day unless they lived close by. In these tough times, can something like that really be justified if revenue and donations aren’t enough to keep it afloat?
As ‘A’ says, removing three trams to Crich hasn’t exactly strengthened the case for investment in the museum scheme. Obviously Big Heritage didn’t choose to send away the three local cars but without them they have Liverpool 245 (technically on long-term loan), the Birkenhead horse car and two Hong Kong trams… not exactly a brilliant representive of local history worth spending millions of pounds of public funds on. A project that already felt commercially unsustainable, is now of considerably less value from a cultural viewpoint as well.
Personally I am pleased that cars 20, 78 and 762 have all found a good new home at Crich and I’m sure they will be well looked after and appreciated there. This is the most important thing, and I strongly believe was the best outcome these trams could have had.
To return to the decision by Wirral Council to divert funds to support Birkenhead Market and New Ferry High Street, this makes far better commercial sense than supporting a museum which attracts few visitors. The council tax payers of the Wirral would expect to see good returns on the money they give to the council and this is far more likely to be achieved from funding projects of a more commercial nature. When rebellion against the council tax as a concept seems rife across the country, the last thing any council wants to do is to waste their resources on what the majority may view as frivilous projects which will generate neither employment nor wealth.
I recall a visit to The museum on a very busy Saturday and pre-pandemic. Having travelled to Liverpool, I crossed the Mersey by ferry, which was full to the gunwales. Yet on disembarking at Woodside hardly any passengers made their way to the trams: the museum itself was pretty much deserted. One could say the writing was on the wall even then. Whereas all involved in running the museum are to be highly commended for their efforts, unfortunately in the final analysis they have rather sadly been on a hiding to nothing. Not their fault – it would seem to be a niche interest that doesn’t appeal widely to the general public. If only it were otherwise.
Wirral Borough Council are a complete and utter disgrace. They had the chance with Woodside, The “Grasshopper” pumping engine on which I did the property work and BR solicitors the legal, Pacific Road and the tramway to get up to Conway Park and Hamilton Square and make a real heritage footprint on the banks of the Mersey – but – too late now! So what do we have, Summerlee, Beamish, Crich and Carlton Coalville as operating possibilities and – God Willing – Blackpool if it can get its act together and see what real tourist orientated heritage operations could bring to the Fylde coast. The ringing of a few changes and rotation of cars between systems is still something of a possibility but squabbling amongst system devotees will not help.
You know Summerlee hasn’t run trams for a few years now?
This is just an idea off the top of my head, but is there any scope for one of the larger/more ‘stable’ organisations to take on operation of one of the more struggling heritage tramways as a satellite site?
I was thinking in terms of management, engineering, training and regulatory compliance (the latter increasingly important these days), there might be some advantage in pooling resources.
For instance, if the Wirral tramway infrastructure could be brought up to scratch, the NTM could loan back some of the Merseyside cars, and maybe organise the operation in conjunction with local volunteers or someone like the MTPS?
There could even be a minimal benefit for Crich in relieving depot space by outstationing vehicles, or in enabling NTM members in other parts of the country to volunteer at sites nearer home.
I suspect there’s no mileage in this idea as all these organisations are probably equally short of volunteers and money, and the mood in the heritage tram movement seems to be retraction rather than expansionism these days, so the probable outcome is for struggling sites to simply close down… but it’s just a thought that some of these places might survive better if they combined forces.
Establishing outposts been muted in past. I agree with your final paragraph that recognises contraction with sector in retreat in the quest to find a stable platform to retain something. I think most are slowly starting to accept that 2-3 operational heritage tramways on UK Mainland looks best we can hope for.
It was volunteer run, by the MTPS and WIrral council ended that.
I apologise for contacting you in this manner, but I seem to have no other means of responding. Please may I reply to Trevor P, who seems to have misunderstood my reply to Nick?
I simply quoted Nick’s earlier, incorrect, claim in a reply to me, in which he said.
‘Geoff, the illegality of step entrance trams has NOTHING to do with the current situation, it dates back long before.’
My response was as follows :-
Then how is it that it suddenly became an issue in December, 2024. An issue, moreover, not mentioned by BTS? I did not say that it became issue in December. I simply asked NIck why, after the steps not being an issue for more than ten years, they suddenly, in his opinion, seemed to become one.
Trevor P then suggests that I claimed that :- ‘Looking from a completely different angle surely you can’t think that using vehicles not everyone can use on service is acceptable?’ I wonder what led him to that conclusion? I have never referred to the Heritage Fleet as ‘service cars’ because they are not. They are ‘Heritage Cars.’ The clue is in the name.
I suggest that Mr. P. reads the response from pmh9800, which is far more detailed and comprehensive than anything I have written.
He might then perhaps state what the additional safety measures to which he, rather vaguely, refers :- ‘They were withdrawn by BTS for additional safety measures to be looked at’ are, as they seem to have gone unnoticed for at least ten years.
Or he might simply read what I have written, rather than what he thinks I have written? (you don’t need to include that bit, if you choose to post my comment!)