Tuesday 12th August 2014 will go down in history as a milestone date for Blackpool’s traditional tram fleet, as it was on this date that the new organisation set up to look after these trams went ‘live’, with a public announcement confirming that the Blackpool Heritage Trust is now the official custodian of the town’s heritage tram fleet. This includes all of the trams which have been returned to Rigby Road from the Lancastrian Transport Trust collection, the illuminated feature cars, and the old favourites which have operated on heritage tours for the last few years.
The new trust has been formed primarily to ensure that the heritage trams will remain a part of Blackpool forever, and will not face the risk of being axed in the future with changing management, budget cuts etc. Now, the old trams will be safeguarded by a special charitable trust which is solely devoted to their long-term preservation and operation in their home town. The new Trust aims to work closely with the local Council to ensure that the trams can continue to be enjoyed on Blackpool rails, with Blackpool Transport continuing to act as the operator of these vehicles. Hopefully, in the longer term this will enable the heritage cars to be showcased more often than is the case right now, although for the time being simply to ensure that their future in Blackpool is secure is quite rightly the main priority. Charitable status is the next aim, which will also give the Blackpool Heritage Trust access to more funding opportunities and the chance to capitalise on gift aid offers with any donations it receives, which could go a long way towards achieving many of the ambitious goals to restore various trams to an operational condition.
As if this announcement wasn’t exciting enough, it has also been confirmed that the Trust aims to create a new interactive visitor attraction so that the vintage trams in its care can be displayed to the public when they are not in service. The ultimate aim is to have a new museum which will become one of Blackpool’s ‘must-see’ attractions, and bring these trams to a much wider audience, allowing them to be enjoyed by future generations even at times when a heritage service is not operating.
The new Trust is naturally being led by Blackpool Transport’s own Bryan Lindop who takes on the role of Chairman. The other three Trustees are James Millington, Eric Berry and Paul Wigan, who bring a variety of skills and ideas to the table. This is without doubt a hugely significant day for British tramway preservation, and another leap towards creating a museum fleet integrated with a public transport system to rival what is offered overseas, but had never before been seen here in the UK. British Trams Online would like to thank everyone involved for all their hard work behind the scenes to make this development possible, and we look forward to supporting their future efforts and seeing what exciting things they will have in store over the years to come!
The Blackpool Fight back is well under way. People year after year write it off and each year comes back and proves them wrong. Blackpool is the system that never died. That character and resilience lives on in 2014. Its built into the places DNA that against all the odds it survives. Hope this acts as a message to anyone or any group who tries to undermine Blackpool current operation. The motto “Progress” lives on. If History shows Blackpool triumphs in adversity. It’s the system that survived whilst others perished. The current management in conjunction with the council have embarked on ambitious path which will ensure the heritage trams operate in perpetuity alongside the modern system.
Todays announcement is a game changer. Overnight the preservation landscape changed for the better.. Exciting times. Real statement of intent and certainly are very exciting times for Blackpool & Its wonderful unique collection. So grateful to everyone behind the scenes who worked tirelessly to get the operation to where it is today. The mouth watering prospect of world class museum at Blackpool will hopefully unite preservation. Exciting times
will the new museum be at star gate or another location ? lot visitors go to london to ride on a london bus n tube . vistitors go to blackpool to ride on vintage tram and illuminations as these are 1 of best attractions in the uk for tourist need i say more . looking forward to seeing the trams when visit blackpool in september
Great news indeed. With Bryan in charge there is no reason for anybody to have anything but the greatest confidence in this Trust. Things can only get better now. I presume (hope) that the ‘B’ fleet widened balloons are not classed as ‘heritage’ for the purposes of the Trust.
Just need to merge with Friends of Fleetwood and get those other trams back into public view
People seemingly missing the point. Its not a race to fill the depot up. Its about building a representative collection. Whole point in quality not quantity.
Erm no thanks… the FoFT have only one vehicle (Jubilee 761) which will add anything to the collection already assembled.
Sad that it is, miracles excepted, we have to treat those trams as ‘lost’ to preservation. The fact that they are asking more than double the amount they paid for 641 to rent it for a day says it all about where their priorities lie and why they should not have any influence or connection with the Blackpool Tramway Heritage Trust.
Quite right Chris.on the matter of 761,it is owned by the fleetwood group.until they agree to hand it over,readers should not assume it will become part of any museum,blackpool or anywhere else.the fleetwood group also own two other prototype trams,621 and 641.if anything,these three trams have been saved and this group deserved much merit against all that has been thrown against them.there has not been anyone who has come forward to help them and yet they are the forerunners with help from local sponsors in purchasing these trams three years ago with the hope of starting a museum and training scheme in fleetwood for school leavers and working with the ministry of justice at kirkham prison.this would have helped offenders prior to leaving prison in working in training at fleetwood.an example being the 2012 queens jubilee,290.I really do believe that if there is any credit to be given then it should go to the fleetwood group in achieving so much against all the muck that has been thrown at them.I have,like most no doubt,that there are only four trustees.no mention in the local press which seems to me as a done deal.no merit there.on a parting shot,from a blackpool ratepayers,I would have thought that the fleetwood group would have been approached to become trustees after all the work they have,and are doing.on saying this,I notice there are members of the fts and former ltt on board as trustees.something not quite right there I think.there should be more,many more,y
The LTT are represented because that was a condition of their trams being returned home to join the heritage collection based at Rigby Road, and it seems fair to me that the FTS are represented as they have done a lot over the years to support the tramway, with 701’s repaint being a recent example. I’m sure the FHLT – or at least some of them – are trying their best, but apart from repainting Brush car 290 not a lot has been achieved by them since the initial purchase of their trams. Whilst I hate seeing much loved vintage trams scrapped, I don’t think most of their collection would add anything to the Blackpool collection as the Balloon, Brush, Twin & Centenary cars are already well represented.
The LTT may have representation on the Board of Trustees, but if as has been implied Bryan Lindop is in charge, that is good enough for me.
It seems a misconception has arisen – the FTS are NOT represented on the new Trust.Just because one of the trustees is also a member of the FTS committee does not mean that the FTS are part of the new Trust.
Let’s all just step back and have a think for a moment instead of all the showering of praise. If BTS was so great and well organised, they would never have scrapped or sold the majority of their classic tram vehicles in the first place, nor pumped millions of pounds into the development of modern robotic train vehicles or constructed a large eye sore at Starr Gate. There should have been a huge investment in the vehicles already in service to extend their working life and make improvements. Clearly with the policy route adopted, it took for public demand and pressure before BTS realised that without the classic tram vehicles on the network, there is no tram system to operate. Nobody wants to travel to Blackpool from all over the world only to ride on a modern robotic train vehicle which you can find in most trendy European cities these days. It’s a traditional 1930′s Balloon or Brush Car the people dream of and wish for. So it’s no wonder BTS has acquired several classic trams again-they are the stars of the show, always have and always will be. Just a shame it took BTS 10years and millions of pounds later before it saw sense and the error of it’s ways. Comments please!!!
This comment probably warrants a full article in response but frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination – although a read of the foreword of my recent book ‘Blackpool Trams – Where Are They Now’ would answer some of your comments. In brief, BTS were given a restriction on how many heritage trams they could keep with plans to sell off the land occupied by the Rigby Road depot, hence the need to sell off so many trams. Thankfully this never happened and by putting someone who is passionate about the old trams in charge of their operation in the form of Bryan Lindop, it was possible to consider expanding the heritage side of things. The Flexities are not designed as a tourist attraction but a useful transport link to serve the people of Blackpool all year round, and now we also have a larger heritage fleet than any of us could ever have hoped for, we can enjoy the best of both worlds.
I agree with Andrew’s comments on this topic. George seems to be missing the point that the tram upgrade was a necessity for the tram system to survive. As much as we all love to see and ride on the heritage trams, it must be remembered that the principal objective of the tram system is to provide a quality public transport network which is there to serve the general public and not just the tram enthusiasts. Go to Blackpool and take a survey of the passengers on board, and the large majority are just “Joe Public” who want to go from A to B, and are happy to have new trams. What Blackpool is doing is demonstrating that even with a move to the future, the past can still be represnted, as is the case on many European trams sytems.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you entirely there Peter. You’re quite right in that a good percentage of people on the trams just want to go from A to B, but precisely because that is the case, the so-called ‘upgrade’ was completely pointless. If you just want a seated journey from Blackpool to Fleetwood, then maybe 50% of those travelling would be just as happy to travel on the same Brush Car that they have done for the last 80 years. The other 40% go just for the vintage experience as George quite rightly said.
Do the Maths Franklyn…
2010: 3 Baloons an hour to Fleetwood (peak season)=276 seats (of which 156 were on the top deck and inaccessible to many)
2014: 5 Flexities and hour to Fleetwood (all year round) = 380 seats (all accessible)
Which offers the better chance of a seat to Fleetwood???
You state “50% would be happy with a Brush Car, the other 40% just go for the vintage experience”…
Erm… even if we accept those unsubstantiated figures what about the other 10%??
And what about the 30% of current passengers who have started to use the tramway since the upgrade who didn’t use it previously – clearly they were NOT satisfied with a Brush Car.
Paul , what about these maths
5 baloons an hour 460 seats (260 upstairs for those that can, 200 for those that cant.
It was the service that was poor, not the trams.
If everyone wants to use the new service why not scrap the bus prom service and save some money?
Surely the fully accessible service theory can not be put forward as long as BTS use double deck buses, if you cant get upstairs on a tram you cant get upstairs on a bus either.
Kev, the 3 tph in 2010 was more than sufficient for the demand – there was no need for any more. Franklyn’s flaw was his claim that there were fewer seats now than in the past. There are in fact more…
George.
You wanted comments, so here’s one.
Lovely idea, but rightly or wrongly, under new DDA regulations, sadly not feasible. So as well as Andrew’s quite correct remarks below regarding the reasons for the tram sell off, effectively, had BTS done as you would prefer and lived in lovely, cosy 1950’s land, within the next 3 years or so, the tramway would have been allowed to operate for only around 30 days a year in total, or had to close completely.
It HAD to evolve into a fully accessible transport system, or die. It’s as simple as that. I’m not saying I agree with that outcome or not, simply that that was the ONLY outcome BTS could have had. End of!! So please don’t criticise them for making the only decision they sensible could have made!!
And actually, as well as that, somehow what BTS and the council did was, uniquely in the UK, to have the best of both worlds. Get the incredibly difficult to obtain, government funding, for the new LRVs but also ensure that a heritage fleet not only continued to exist, but also to operate as well. So I’m sorry, but in my book at least, BTS and the Council (and Bryan) do indeed deserve some praise.
Also, BTS had already continued to keep a relatively large contingent of heritage trams before it then bought back LTT’s failed heritage attempt, but again, well done BTS for turning a potential disaster into a triumph that may soon allow us all to enjoy a World Class tramway attraction in Blackpool.
And finally, the ever expanding LRV figures prove, that far from the heritage cars proving that “without them, there is no tram system to operate”, the new faster, more efficient services that the Flexity’s have brought, show that that is exactly what most people wanted. Again, not saying that’s what I’d like to admit, but again, you can’t argue with the figures.
So I’m sorry to rain on your parade George, but that proves that the heritage cars are not “the stars of the show”. May be they are for you and perhaps for most of us we’d love them to be, but we don’t make up even 5% of the ridership figures, I’d guess. Yes, a bit of heritage in there is nice too, granted, but by far the majority obviously just wanted fast, clean, efficient modern cars. Not Balloons, modified or otherwise. Sorry George, but the misty eyed fantasy of a fleet of revamped Balloons and Brush cars, is just that.. fantasy. A shame possibly, but its real world time now, not the Festival of Britain.
More efficient services ? If the old fleet had had traffic lights which turned to green as they approached junctions there would be very little difference. Most of the time lost was caused by stopping at every single road crossing through Cleveleys to Fleetwood. Top allowable speed has not really increased.
What you’re suggesting would have meant the tramway would have closed for good in 2019. All non DDA compliant public transport vehicles have to be retired from service by 2019.
It amazes me that people complain that the tramway has been ‘ruined’! I would wager a bet that the majority of those ‘enthusiasts’ don’t even live in the town. Ridership levels are the highest they’ve been for years. The fact more locals use the new trams says an awful lot. Yes the old girls are beauties, but their time in everyday service had to come to an end!!!
The museum sounds like a great move. Transport museums in popular places do very well. Here in london, the transport museum is very popular with families and is a great attraction which is well maintained. From the way the heritage trams are handled, this can easily be matched.
Thanks Andrew for the info regarding the fts and ltt.It may be interesting if today news is followed up by various Blackpool residents who pay their rates and will be quite rightly interested in this scheme at Rigby Road,after all,its on their turf.There are numerous local history groups in the town and each will have an interest in becoming a part of a local museum trust and increasing the number of trustees.If there is to be a local museum then it should include more than just trams.All this has been argued about for years about having a local museum for residents and visitors alike.I can assure readers here that ,no matter what has been said about Rigby Road site,speaking as a Blackpool resident,nothing has been decided and if anything does happen,it will be the bus garage that would go and again,as it is a in a central position,most unlikely.If nothing happens for the Fleetwood group,as owners of several trams,including 621,641,761,it would be up to their trustees to decide what the fate of these trams would be and that would be to sell or scrap the lot.As the old saying goes,you reap what you sow and after all the treatment thrown at this group,don’t be alarmed if the latter happens.The trustees of the fleetwood group are local Blackpool residents and ratepayers and I would have thought having at least two of their trustees on the board of the Blackpool museum would be most advisable for all concerned.
This all misses the point that in this world of privatisation, outsourcing of public activities to arm’s length charitable trusts is in full swing. This is only the latest of many. Major operations from the British Waterways Board (Waterways Trust) to sporting and many other service activities in towns and cities nationwide have been hived off in this way, still with council staff, in all but name, and the same public obligations as previously, but with none of the resources or statutory backing, all in a desperate move to reduce the PSBR. There have been varying degrees of success, some excellent, others lost without trace.
The new Trust and its independence from the Council is very welcome in some ways, but there are questions that need to be answered as to it’s long term resourcing and existence.
George’s post above hits the nail very squarely on the head. No-one, but no-one comes to Blackpool to ride on a Eurocommutertram. Tramway enthusiasts may not like this but it is the truth. People come to Blackpool to have fun, and Flexxities are a typical big city experience, not a special one.
Thousands come wanting to ride a “Blackpool” tram – every weekend, but they can’t because small minded rule makers have raised a whole host of reasons why they shouldn’t. That is wrong and the phrase “you can’t buck the market” is very appropriate. If the public want Balloons and Open Cars, then it is simply perverse not to make them available.
The people who can see only the Flexxity based service need to step back, take a deep breath, and ask themselves what the Fylde coast survives on. The answer is tourism, tourism that must keep pace with and change in repsonse to public demand.
The unfortunate decision to spend £32m on the Flexxities and not less than £10m on upgrading and modernising the old fleet to provide a whole host of “717s” as recognisable “Blackpool” artefacts will go down, in time, as a major strategic error – especially the “B” fleet – what a waste of public money they were.
Main questions that immediately come to mind are :-
Is Rigby Road included in the assets transferred to the new Trust, subject to what restrictive covenants or clawbacks, so that the heritage fleet has a resilient and reliable home?
Is it now recognised that the heritage fleet is not a public transport stage carriage operation so as to allow the ridiculous bar on heritage cars using official trams stops to be lifted? and will the possibility of bringing heritage cars into service when the sun shines become a reality, as it should in a coastal resort?
Has any dowry been passed to the Trust to provide seed corn to fund outstanding maintenance of premises and trams?
Who will staff the new heritage operation as crews, new exclusive Trust staff, or staff hired in, at what cost, from BTS. And if they are hired in will there be a profit element in the hire fee. Will there be a role for a volunteer element once trained up?
Does this step indicate a new linkage with Tourist managers in the various boroughs and the county?
Yes – funding streams will be available – but they always were – such as the Coastal Communities Fund or the HLF.
All that has changed is the name. The challenges are the same, but the toolbox with which to address them, whilst more open to new ideas and avenues, is less well resourced outside Local Authority ownership than within.
I wish Brian and his fellow trustees well. They will have their hands full, and if they ever need assistance – I for one, will always be shoulder to shoulder with them.
To be honest I find it very difficult to believe that ‘thousands’ of people visit Blackpool every weekend during the summer to see the trams – a few dozen maybe if you’re lucky! There are, I’m sure, people who do enjoy the presence of historic trams but many will be equally happy to jump on anything vaguely resembling a tram so long as it will take them to their hotel or the Pleasure Beach. I believe we are extremely fortunate that a museum type collection is being retained in Blackpool, and in fact now that there are modern trams to take the pressure off these vintage vehicles they can be properly restored and maintained rather than being run into the ground, as would inevitably happen.
One thing to state is that BTS will remain the operator of these trams. Think of them as being loaned to the operator, much like Box 40 & Bolton 66 are now.
So where were those ‘Thousands wanting to ride a “Blackpool” tram – every weekend’ in 2012 when the heritage cars did operate every weekend?? I don’t recall any complaints of over-crowding… I’d doubt if there were 2000 individuals in total rode the trams between Easter and August, never mind every weekend!
I read from this latest news that the proposed museum will include an interactive section.By this I assume that anything of historical tramway value would be included within the museum.Perhaps this would be an ideal opportunity for people to give back mementos of the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway that they have collected in the past to start off the museum.Does anybody know of the whereabouts of the contents of Copse Road depot at Fleetwood.When Blackpool council moved out they left the old electrical switchboard inside which went back to at least the 1920s,or even before and which is priceless.This would be a great asset to the museum as it is all part of the local history.The old 1898 switchboard that was at Thornton Gate wad smashed up and weighed in for its scrap value and actually raised around ten pounds at the time in 1997.It’s a shame there was no local people around to save it due to its history.Anything like this has great historical value to any museum.
The term ‘interactive’ is open to interpretation. My guess would be to feature ‘hands on’ exhibits for visitors, as is the trend with most museums, with things like a tram driving simulator being possibilities. That said hopefully there will be some opportunity to include various tramway artefacts in any future museum attraction.
The only type missing in the Heritage Fleet is a Jubilee, so if the BHT could come to some of the deal with FoFT over 761, that would complete the collection. 641 is completely rebuilt (648 is a good representation of how the Centenaries were and 642 a good example of how they later became). As for 621, I think 632 probably covers a traditional Brush Car look and 631 eventually will look more traditional.
Whilst I fully agree with George and cannot see why a “W Luff” rebuild programme could not have included DDA compliance as some posters seem to insist was impossible, to use that phrase – we are where we are.
Ridership would have increased with any upgraded fleet and to call the Flexxities the only route to success is to miss that salient fact. I wonder what the ridership figures look like after the withdrawal of Senior Citizen facilities on the trams this year, compared with the No 1 bus?
Where I am coming from is that now, almost three seasons gone since the end of the conventional tramway, the pointing fingers and questioning looks on the face of the public as a heritage car glides by indicate two things.
Firstly the public are recognising that they clearly see a distinction between the modern units, and the traditional “Blackpool” experience, and secondly, that they have no idea why getting to ride on the older fleet is so difficult. We know, and understand the fare and stopping structure, but the public don’t, and we should not expect them to.
Every tram should pick up everywhere and the platform argument is just barmy. How many mainline stations would be condemned if the “six inch” argument were used there. There is far too much H & S gold plating in this country and to anyone with eyes in their head, the level access from platform to tram is safer than the street to step up required to use the heritage fleet at present.
Why is a ten inch step up safer than a four inch horizonatal gap? And if your knees are crocked which is more DDA friendly?
As I wrote earlier, if the trams in Trust hands are no longer stage carriage work enabled, surely this can now be addressed and the legal issues sorted to enable wider and more available use of the fleet, thus increasing revenue, and improving the leisure experience for visitors to the coast.
The market along the Blackpool seafront is, after all, about visitors and the leisure industry and not residents.
“As I wrote earlier, if the trams in Trust hands are no longer stage carriage work enabled, surely this can now be addressed and the legal issues sorted to enable wider and more available use of the fleet, thus increasing revenue, and improving the leisure experience for visitors to the coast” – thanks for this insight. I would suggest that you contact Bryan Lindop and offer your services to assist with doing this, and would also like to see your proposal on how to finance the more regular use of the heritage trams that you propose. If anyone has sensible ideas, you will be listened to. If you just want to moan because you miss the good old days and don’t like change, please leave the Blackpool tramway to the many of us who still love it and think it’s fantastic as it is!
To make the 1930s trams DDA compliant would have meant rebuilding out of all recognition, and can you imagine the reaction that would have got from the rose-tinted enthusiasts?? 707 etc were unpopular enough!
Plus if the fleet had all been rebuilt in that way, ther would be NO HERITAGE FLEET at all and NO Preserved Balloons and Railcoaches operating elsewhere. I really can’t believe you would have preferred that outcome…
Well said Paul D! Even the “minor” upgrades to the Brush cars were unpopular with the enthusiasts at the time, the rebuilding of the Centenary cars was considered as ruining their appearance, and the rebuit Ballons, most of the comments available at the time of the first were not very complimentary. Of course, now there is little else, these modifications are now “acceptable”. To rebuild old and aging trams to meet current standards would have meant serious rebuilding work which would have made it very difficult to reverse latter if preserved. Bewteen new and efficient trams versus old and rebuilt trams, I am sure the answer is very logical to most people.
The setting up of the Blackpool Heritage Trust is welcome news. Strategically it makes sense for a separate body to have the responsibility for the historic fleet that together represent the development of Britain’s first electric tramway.
The euphoria from many enthusiasts following the announcement is understandable. However it needs to be recognised that the new trust and its four appointed trustees face some formidable challenges in establishing a firm foundation and financially viable organisation and then moving it forward. The new trust does seem to have a “vision” and high level strategy which are essential, but as is often the case the devil may well be in the detail.
It has been stated that one of the first steps that will be application for charitable status. This of course will open up additional possibilities for grants, sources of funding and of course Gift Aid on donations. However these days the Charity Commission appears to be much more probing about an applicants suitability for charity status, and almost certainly will look closely at an organisations objectives, sources of funding, and how inclusive it is and what are its outreach strategies. An organisation with just four trustees, no other members and no support organisation does look a bit “insular”, and in my view at least does need to be addressed before a charity application is formally progressed.
Even with charity status, people with experience in managing a transport charitable trusts will confirm that grants and other sources of funding are very hard won, and have to meet some tough criteria. Additionally funding bodies, be they local authority, HLF etc do not have the available funds they once did. Even the most worthy causes have to have a very sound business case to have any chance of succeeding with a funding application.
The new trustees will also have their work cut out in establishing and “selling” the business case for an ongoing heritage operation including ultimately having an additional museum. The overheads associated with the heritage operation, including workshops and depot, staff etc will be significant, and on the face of it, it’s difficult to see how such a venture could be financially viable. Undoubtedly there will be “in principle” support from bodies such as Blackpool Council, BTS, Lancashire County Council and so on. But there is a difference between in-principle support and actually providing the cash for the capital (e.g possible rebuilding of Rigby Rd) and running costs for such a venture.
The trustees will have to find the time to pull together a detailed strategy and series of business plans. At least three of them have full time occupations. Have they really the time to work on the development tasks to establish the trust unaided? Unless there are plans to expand the organisation and involve greater numbers of people with the right expertise and experience, the magnitude of what the group of four are setting out to achieve looks daunting. Despite very positive statements about a “new beginning”, I suspect it will be a number of years before the aspirations of the new trust become a reality unless there is an increase in people involved.
I also note that one of the trustees is the current chairman of LTT. Does this represent a conflict of interest? LTT has a “commercial partner” with which it shares garage facilities, Oakwood Travel (formerly Classic Bus North West). This company operates local services in competition with Blackpool Transport. LTT preserved buses are frequently seen being used by Oakwood Travel on private hire work. Presumably this potential conflict of interest has been discussed with Blackpool Transport and Blackpool Council and some sort of agreement reached?
There may be a positive side to an LTT presence on the Blackpool Heritage Trust board. Last November the LTT committed the proceeds of the sale of Boat Car 605 (approx £19K) to the US would be put towards the restoration of the EE rail coach 279. I think Mr Berry himself made the statement of commitment. Additionally £45k was committed by a private donor to the LTT for the cosmetic restoration of Coronation 663. Nothing further has been publicly announced about these large sums of money. If they could be secured for the new trust, this would certainly give the venture a very good start in terms of building funds for specific projects. Perhaps through the board of the new trust, the position regarding these funds can be clarified?
In summary, the setting up of the Blackpool Heritage Trust is the right strategy and an essential first step. But to achieve its objectives is going to take a number of years, will face a number of uncertainties, and will take considerable resources to establish and operate.
Frank,could I ask you if you live in Blackpool,and if you do,are you a regular passenger on the trams.From my point of view,as someone born here and a resident,all I can say is that the general public just want to get on a tram and go to work,shopping,whatever.During the past two years or so,I have never actually heard anyone waiting at any tram stop ask when an old grammar is due.You state that the promenade is for the tourists.I strongly disagree with your statement.I use the prom every day either driving my car or on a tram and I can assure you that there are many locals do likewise.I used to use the old trams on the inland routes here when I was younger but those times have gone.They are nice to look at and preserve but they cannot carry the same number of passengers as the new ones.
Two things here spring to mind and the word REJOICE is appropriate to both. It is really daft that years down the line people are still harping on about the old timers Verse the new era, Rejoice that at last Blackpool has finally got a 1st rate transportation system. If Walter was here he would be delighted by what has been achieved in the last few years.
My main point is that we should also REJOICE that for the 1st time in UK history we have a unique museum tram collection safe on its own system. We now have an opportunity to develop the collection and museum along the lines of some continental operators. I think that the choice of trustees is perfect as it may (in time) lead to something like the Fylde Transport Museum Society, by encouraging the use of members. We may even end up with something like they have in Amsterdam where the separate Tramway Museum lends Cars to the city for tours. We are on the cusp of a new era, lets stop moaning about the old days of the Balloons to Fleetwood and start asking how we get involved and support the new Trust.
I live in Blackpool, have been a tram enthusiast for over 60 years, loved the street routes and their railcaoches and balloons and I always ride on the heritage trams when they are running. I use the Flexities on an almost daily basis and think that they are brilliant. They are reliable, punctual and quick loading and very busy. The number of disabled people using the trams is considerable.
I can just imagine what some of the current ‘moaners’ would have been saying if they had been around in the 1930s when the streamliners were being introduced: ‘we don’t want these new trams replacing box cars, dreadnoughts’ etc.
History tells us that the travelling public waited and let the old trams go past so that they could ride on the new ones. Joe Public had the chance to ride on hetritage trams in 2012 and didn’t. On the odd times that the ‘B’ fleet have operated it was a nice experience for the tram enthusiast but loading a balloon car was a painful sight compared to the Flexties. With echoes of the 1930s, families with buggies were standing back and waiting for a Flexity. We do have the best of both worlds now and perhaps people should ‘move on’.
First and foremost the establishment of the Trust is the most important development in the history of the Blackpool Tramway since the approval of the upgrade. It puts the heritage fleet on a secure footing beyond the political whims of the Council and no longer at the mercy of the financial fortunes of the operating company. Surely that is something we should all celebrate and support, therefore it saddens to see that the same blinkered characters (Franklyn, Frank Gradwell etc) yet again try to hijack the article to repeat their long since disproven anti-upgrade rants. Face facts folks, No Upgrade = no Heritage Trust because there would be no Tramway.
The establishment of the Trust is important because of the opportunities it open up.
Those who want to see the fleet increase in size and variety should support it because the potential funding sources it makes available will aid further restorations.
Those who want to see the heritage service operate more often should support it because it makes it less likely to be sacrificed to bolster the company’s other activities.
Those who want the trams more accessible when not in service should support it because there is no way a commercial operator could fund the set-up costs of a museum.
Those who want to get involved themselves should support it as I’m sure the opportunities will come that would not be possible if it was part of a commercial operation.
Regarding the make-up of the Trustees, this is a starting point and is not set in stone for ever more. It will inevitably evolve over time… The LTT saw the light and realised that the best interests of their trams lie elsewhere. They have contributed several important assets to the fleet (e.g. 304, 8 279, 143), so for them to be represented is not unreasonable in the short to medium term.
Those who call for the FoFT to also be included step back and review their record so far. They have attracted a lot of negative comment for good reason. Remember they are the group responsible for the only recently preserved tram to be scrapped (the unfortunate 646) and who else (half) painted a tram in gaudy graffiti and left it exposed to the weather for two years becoming an eyesore? Their Given that track record would you really want to put 304, 147 or Princess Alice in their hands??
That said, the Trust isn’t a one-hit panacea and “Cautious Observer” is justified in adding a note of caution. There is of course still work to be done and a big fund-raising effort needed. It will take time for all the plans to come to fruition, but there is now a clear route forward and it does need us to get behind the project and back it in whatever way we can be it financially, or simply riding regularly, and stop raking over old ground about the upgrade that will not and can not be reversed.
I’m sure that there will be a ‘supporters association’ or similar body through which individuals can get involved though whether that is an all new organisation or evolution of an existing group remains to be seen…
Thanks to all those commented and agree, or not-it has been a lively debate. To the realists like Frank Gradwell, I tip my cap. To those who clearly have close links to BTS and must lap up everything at all costs, we should all just give up and let the chimps take over! Here is an idea, bring back Fylde Blue Buses and get some efficiency, competition and stop all the waste of taxpayer money on ‘Carbuncle’ projects.
Yes Kevin. I repeat…”more efficient services”. No loading or unloading the less able bodied at stops on or off a high step fairly unaccessable Balloon, Brush car etc. Full length, multi-entry, platform height access. One level for conductors to get more fares more quickly and despite your view, faster services through traffic light priority, reduced number of stops and reduced number of joining roads etc etc. Therefore whilst allowable speed may not have increased vastly, all these efficencies will combine to show a marked increase in service volumes.
All have and will benefit a “more efficient service”. Just look at the figures. What can’t speak, cant lie…. or pine for the past!!
George, Sorry but I think you are confusing the word “realist” with “idealist” or even “fantasist”!!
There is a correction to be made here regarding 646.This tram was purchased by a local furniture company for use outside their offices and showroom near to Blackpool airport.They were advised on more than one occasion to cover it up and protect it in whatever manner they thought to do.this company did not do that and it became a target for local vandals.this had nothing to do with the fleetwood group whatever.It was a shame but this is what happens when trams,buses etc are left with no security.It is unfair to blame a group that wasn’t responsible.For those not able to visit 290,may I suggest asking your friends to visit it on their next journey to Blackpool.Due to the windy and rainy conditions the fleetwood group are pressing ahead with trying to get 290 ready for the August bank holiday.If they have not finished it in time,due to hospital appointments,caring for other pensioners in their homes,doing all the things that pensioners have to do,etc,etc,I’m sure there will be little tasks still to do with painting,putting lights on the top,little jobs for idle hands.I for one will be down on that windswept prom offering my services so please be free to offer your services and skills to the fleetwood group.Don’t be afraid of a little paint on your hands,its all to a good cause and I’m sure the photographs will turn out nice.
Thomas,
If you are going to be pedantic, I believe that all the FoFT trams were purchased by individuals or local businesses cajoled into doing so by the FoFT trustees…
646 featured prominently on the FoFT website until its unfortunate demise, as a check of various web archives will confirm. for example
http://web.archive.org/web/20120706033334/http://visitfleetwood.co.uk/our-trams They were quite happy to claim credit for its preservation until it got vandalised.
If you are suggesting that FoFT never had any responsibility for 646, then it follows that they also have no interest in 761, it having been purchased by VoiteQ Ltd.