As is well known restoration projects at the Crich Tramway Village, home of the National Tramway Museum, would not be possible if it was not for external funding. The recent restoration of London County Council 1 was funded by the London County Council Tramways Trust, whilst many others (including Newcastle 102 and now Blackpool pair 298 and 645) have only happened thanks to funding from the Tramcar Sponsorship Organisation (TSO). In this update from the TSO they explain the recent progress which has been made in the Workshop at Crich, and also provide details of how you can help these and projects in the future come to fruition by becoming a member.
The big restoration projects in the Workshop at the moment is that of Blackpool Brush Railcoach 298.
Work has continued on fitting the internal wood panelling and the external drivers cab end doors. All the parts for the bogies, including axles, wheelsets, motors, springs and ancillary parts have arrived at Crich from a specialist contractor. Reassembly of these into the bogie frames is to begin in the near future. As work progressed on the bogie parts a number of missing and defective components were identified, along with some new requirements. This caused delays and additional costs. All of these issues have now been overcome, by the resourceful efforts of the Crich workshop team and the contractors.
Work continues on finalising the correct colour match for the moquette seating. This is a challenge without any historic records or colour photos. Resolution with the supplier is close in determining the correct shade of brown required.
Work is also in hand to source suppliers and installers of the external steel panelling for the sides of the car and the correct profiled ends for the domed cab roofs. The task of installing these is expected to be carried out by contractors.
The TMS has begun work at Crich to convert Blackpool tram 645, a centenary car from the 1980’s, into a new accessible tram for people with reduced mobility. To assist in meeting the target of £150,000 to undertake this work, the TSO members have donated a generous sum of money to this project. It is hoped this tram will be complete in early 2026.
Regarding future projects for the TSO to fund, discussions have taken place within the membership of the TSO together with the Tramway Museum at Crich, to determine which tramcar restorations are funded after Blackpool 298. These discussions centre around a number of potential projects and accurate details of estimated costings are awaited. With future projects in mind, it is essential funds continue be donated to the TSO for future projects. New members are always welcome as the current age profile of the TSO is well over 60. New members are needed if the museum is to continue its excellent restoration work into the future. If you would like to support TSO by committing either a one-off payment or regular payments, please send an email to tsotrams@gmail.com and a member of the TSO will respond.
Two internal views of 298 showing the excellent progress being made on the restoration of the tram. (Both Photographs courtesy of the Tramcar Sponsorship Organisation)
298 really is looking stunning – I keep saying it elsewhere, but its going to be incredible when its finished!
It will be interesting to see what goes through the works after 298 and 645. I wonder if any thought has been given to returning Southampton 45 to operational condition, as 2030 will mark 75 years since the TMS was formed, and it effectively started the UK tram preservation movement? Then there’s the new arrivals from Birkenhead to consider, depending on what level of attention they need. To be honest though, there is such a long list of worthy candidates for big and small projects, it will be very tough to choose one!
I thought one of the Sheffield tramcars on static display 189 was going to be restored next .
I honestly don’t think 45 will run again in the current H&S oriented world with its handrails so low.
Is that not something that can be accommodated in a sympathetic way, like with Newcastle 102?
102’s railings are higher, there was just a very big gap between them which has been covered with mesh. I guess if 45’s railings are an issue, they would need to be raised which is a more substantial alteration.
I must admit I’d not considred that 45 might fall foul of H&S regulations. It would be sad if it never runs again, but at least it has a good home and its place in the history of British tram preservation can always be remembered.
Yes, a good restoration of Brush car 298, but, has a new tram been built ?
Possibly! But you could say that of any restoration. Trigger’s Broom!
It was hoped that much more of the original wooden structure could be re-used, but the many repairs carried out by Blackpool over the years turned out to consist of filler rather than something more substantial.
Tram, train, boat or plane, most restorations of examples that are about 100 years old are going to end up with a significant proportion being rebuilt. Dismantling reveals unwelcome surprises that are often unexpected and unexpectedly expensive to remedy. If the aim is to return a vehicle to safe operating condition there are standards that have to be attained.
I agree, but as others have said, most parts on a vehicle of that age get renewed at some point in it’s lifetime, so i doubt there’s much left even before the restoration that dates from the 1930s.
What’s more worrying is the mention of ‘new requirements’. If you’re restoring something to original then there shouldn’t be any modifications of any kind. If you start changing stuff then the restoration becomes null and void as it will technically be in 2025 condition, not it’s 30s condition. Crich has form for doing that sort of thing though. Extra braking equipment on 602 (no, it’s NOT as it left Leeds despite what some would have you believe) and the missing air operated doors on 331 are just two examples. Then there are the ‘rivets’ at the bottom of the rocker panels on 102 that are actually modern bolts with locktighted nuts on the back and the heads ground into a dome shape! That was done during it’s garden festival overhaul.
Any restoration includes compromises.
On the one hand, there is the desire to achieve the target condition (not necessarily original – there are many who wanted Liverpool 869 to be restored as Glasgow 1055).
On the other hand, you have the natural forces of ageing (steel and iron rust, rubber and leather perish, paint fades, wood slowly decays), wear and tear during the tram’s life, and the requirements of legislation (glass must breaak safely, you can’t import teak any more or use asbestos anywhere), which mean that some things have either to be left in their current condition (eg. pitted with rust, or rotten through) or replaced with new material.
A restoration with no compromises is called conservation. You keep the tram in the condition it was in when it was acquired, and do whatever you can to slow the gradual deterioration over time, but change nothing. There are no rides on conserved trams, though.
I think it’s overstating by a long way to say that the kind of modifications Crich have made to certain of their superbly restored and maintained trams renders the restorations of those vehicles ‘null and void’. I suspect that isn’t what the comment was actually intended to say, but it could be interpreted that way. I seem to remember from reading Crich’s Journal that Leeds 602 had some sort of electric brake failure at Crich in the 1970s (perhaps a la Blackpool’s Coronations?) and was withdrawn for a time for investigations, so possibly whatever modifications it carries resulted from that. The TMS rightly took the incident very seriously. I myself don’t know why MET 331 doesn’t have power operated doors at present but from a purist point of view these could presumably be restored; however may there possibly be a safety requirement for a centre entrance to be manually operated in service at Crich and, if so, thinking about it, could this also affect Blackpool 298? It would be interesting to learn more. I think the point Andy makes about renewals during the period a vehicle was in normal operational service can be, and probably has to be, extended to include practical and sensitively applied modifications to keep a heritage vehicle in service to meet unavoidable and external changing requirements during its preserved life, and I cannot think of anything that has been applied insensitively to any of the Crich fleet, any of which to me are models of the highest standards of restoration and maintenance. I think the staff and volunteers of the Tramway Museum do a superb job and in the absence of any heritage tramway operations in my own area this year I have been following their news pages with great interest and enthusiasm, even down to what is running each day. I am looking forward to visiting when I can, hopefully riding on Bluebird again, and I cannot wait for Blackpool 298!
Museum does a superb job and in the absence of
Regarding the condition of Brush car 298 before commencement of its rebuilding it raises the question as what kind of condition Brushes cars 621, 623, 630 and 631 are in as they still operate in Blackpool and museums .
630 and 631 had massive top-to-bottom refurbishments in the 90s and should hopefully be okay for many more years of operation. 621 was only recently restored so it must be in fairly good condition.
298 was a works car for around thirty years (?), and as it was not required to carry passengers I imagine it wasn’t as intensively maintained as the other Brush cars.
I think you are confusing your Brush cars – it was 259 (ex 624 originally 287) that was the permanent way car from 1971- early 2000s. That one remains at Rigby Road in a heavily stripped state.
298 was purchased for preservation in 1974 by Keith Terry being at that time the most original and in better condition than most. Before moving to Crich then Clay Cross for storage, it spent a long time at Salford where a lot of bodywork was done, but seemingly not to a sufficient standard, and the metal chassis frame apparently deteriorated to the extent of needing complete replacement.
From those who have seen underneath the various cars, it is interesting that 298’s underframe had actually deteriorated a lot more than others that did 30 years longer service in harsh Blackpool conditions. That can only have been caused by environmental conditions at Salford and Clay Cross and lack of regular care and attention during that time.
As for the bodywork I suspect a lot of the need for new material is a result of well meant but poorly executed work earlier in it’s restoration.
Of the others, remember 630 and 631 (also 626 which hasn’t been mentioned for a long time) had substantial rebuilds in the 1990s, including new underframes and new cab end body framework.
623 & 634 were long regarded as among the best of the non-refurbished cars, having had some work in the 1980/90s. At one time You would also have put 627 in that category, but now it offers a good example of how rapidly a tram can deteriorated is not given and care and left stored in less than ideal conditions, validating the theories of the post presentation decline in 298’s condition.
In response to both Nathan and Paul’s comments, I’m afraid there are quite a few inaccuracies about the various Brush cars.
To call 621’s workshop visit in 2017 a ‘restoration’ is being extremely generous! It wasn’t much more than a re-panel and repaint; when it first returned to use the interior was very shabby indeed although this was tidied up a bit subsequently. I know a few people who drove it around that time and felt it was nowhere near as good as 623 or 630.
298 was never a works car; I assume that Nathan is thinking of 259, the old Permanent Way car which is now owned by the Fylde Transport Trust and stored at Rigby Road.
None of the Brush cars rebuilt in the 1990s had complete new underframes, although it is a common myth that that they did. Much material of the underframes was renewed, I think from memory the sole bars were still original. I’ve heard suggestion that 630 is showing its age now which is fair enough really as its refurbishment was 30 years ago (that makes me feel old!), presumably 631 is in a similar condition.
623’s relatively good condition was one of the reasons it was chosen for Heaton Park, it had a new cab underframe at one end in about 2004 which helped matters but it was already a good car. Again its showing its age but having a fairly easy life on a shorter working line helps matters.
To be honest, I think we’re at a point where ALL of the 1930s Blackpool cars that haven’t already had major rebuilds and new underframes, will need major work doing if they are to keep running. Don’t forget that 701, 706 and 715 were all withdrawn by Blackpool, Beamish gave up with 703 once it developed some issues as it was on borrowed time already, and 712 has never run at Crich as its underframe is considered to be worn out.
The extent of restoration being lavished upon 298 might seem excessive to some, but realistically any less would probably mean a very short operating life before it would be withdrawn in need of more extensive work again.
Yep I had confused 259 and 298, apologies!
When 298 is complete I suppose Crich will likely retire 630 but I hope they don’t dispose of it. Having them both gives a unique look at how long-lived the Blackpool streamliners were and how much they were modernised and rebuilt over the course of their working lives.
I am finding this correspondence very interesting and would also like to mention other facts. In the 1970’s Keith Terry set up the 220 Railcoach Fund and invited small and regular donations from enthusiasts who would like to see a series 1 English Electric railcoach preserved. 220 and most of the remaining members of the 1st series were withdrawn after the closure of the North Station route in 1963. Brush railcoach 638 had been rebuilt/modified as a one man operated car but the experiment was deemed a failure and therefore BCT built 13 OMO cars from EE rail coaches including series 1 railcoach 220 which Keith Terry hoped to preserve. BCT had withdrawn 298 as it was needful of a full overhaul ; it was deemed surplus to requirements and was acquired by Keith Terry.
Keith and his men spent a lot of time and money on 298 and were hopeful of it being used eventually at Crich. Was all the restoration work carried out by Keith and his band of men in vain ?
Excited to see what comes next.
I would like to see Blackpool 49 or one of the Sheffield trams return, but with 3 Merseyside tramcars that presumably aren’t far off operational condition, it would be a shame not to take advantage of those in the short term.
As far as I know, 298 was not a works car but remained in passenger service as 635 until withdrawal about 1974. The Brush car that went to works use was 624 (287), I think around 1971 and in replacement of Permanent Way car 5, the former 221, an English Electric Series One Railcoach which was then rebuilt as OMO car 5.
I remember sneakily exploring inside car 635 when it was in store inside Blundell Street depot at the time of the LRTL visit to Blackpool in October 1975. By the time of Dreadnought 59’s inaugural tour following restoration, in November 1976, 635 had been earmarked for preservation and after the tour we were invited to step aboard it in Rigby Road depot (I think) where Keith Terry addressed us about the Blackpool Railcoach Fund and as I recall, was asked some quite tough questions about the need to do this at that time with so many Brush cars still in service. I personally was really excited at the prospect of a Brush car being restored to 1937 condition but aged only 14, was not in a position to do much. At the time, I think Keith Terry did present his case on the basis that if not then selected as the most original surviving Brush car, 635 would join the overhaul queue and likely be modernised (simplified with elaborate features removed and standardised with English Electric equipment might be a more accurate description) in line with others of the class which were then going through the works. Even at this time I think it is fair to say things were developing such that there were hardly any two Brush cars totally alike. 621 was later going through this process and kept its twin destination screens and chrome rail around the interior above the waist up until about 1980 but others which received overhauls in the 1970s included 622-3/5-6/30-4/7. I understood 636 may have been done about 1968. 638 was the ex-one-man experimental car which was modified back into crew operated form but without full drivers’ partitions and to my amazement just before withdrawal about 1980 retained original Brush car Crompton-Parkinson controllers (which the lady driver on the day I rode it didn’t like!). 629, another early 70s withdrawal, was in the supposed ‘overhaul queue’ at Blundell Street depot but was never done and was scrapped around the time the depot was cleared for demolition in the early 80s, as eventually was 638 following its much later withdrawal. In this scheme of things, 627 was something of a delightful oddity as despite some modernised features, it retained a virtually unchanged central platform area complete with art deco ceiling panel and long disused centre destination screen access panels which used to flap around noisily as it trundled about its business! This was my personal favourite Brush car and I never remember it having a long period out of service. I was thrilled when it sensationally – and highly successfully – reappeared after a 5 year absence following the 2004 ‘mothballing’ of many cars, for the memorable Last Night to Fleetwood Ferry event in 2009, evoking memories of when, as 290, it had been the last North Station car in 1963.
I have no knowledge of mechanical engineering but used to avidly read Modern Tramway, Fylde Tramway Society and Trams magazine reports of what was happening in the workshops. I think it is probably easy to underestimate how much work was carried out to keep these cars – and the whole remaining tram fleet – in service including overhauls, patch-ups, mechanical work, repanelling, specific jobs needing doing, and accident repairs of which there were a fair number. Apart from some restoration work carried out away from Blackpool, 635/298 was removed from.this process as a then totally run down car many years ago and was not kept up.in the same way, which might help to explain its poorer condition at the time the TMS commenced full restoration. It also.may be a tribute to the staff of Rigby Road works for the way they were able to keep so.many ageing and obsolete trams on the road for so long.
I really liked the Brush cars before they were updated. I liked the decorative light fittings in each saloon and the green glass quarter lights to the outside – when walking in the evening on the cliffs it was easy to pick out the Brush cars from the EE cars due to the green lights along the sides. Did the Brush cars have a sturdier body to the EE cars ? During the last few years in service prior to conversion to OMO cars many of them were humped back or should I say drooping ends ?
What is the answer to the operation of vintage trams in Blackpool ?
Blackpool basically has one route which was updated a decade or so ago and Blackpool Transport are attempting run a reliable, running to time, service.
Prior to the end of vintage tram rides in late 2024 many vintage trams were running short and to Fleetwood with only five or six passengers. No wonder money was being lost. Blackpool isn’t like Amsterdam or Prague which systems have many routes for the operation of preserved trams.
Finally, can someone explain to me why the EE controllers are superior to the Crompton Parkinson version,