New plans submitted for Rigby Road Workshops

Its been the best part of a year since we had any significant update on plans for Rigby Road Depot at Blackpool with the complex mostly out of bounds awaiting the results of a condition survey. But now there has been an update of sorts with Blackpool Transport submitting new plans for the workshop area of the depot (what is currently known as the Paint Shop, Body Shop and Fitting Shop).

If you recall previous plans for this area of the depot complex had been for the entire building to be demolished as part of the introduction of electric buses to the resort. This would have seen the heritage tram workshops moved into the main tram shed as part of the wider Tramtown attraction development.

But now it seems things have changed and the latest plans submitted would see part of the building retained. This would be the section currently housing the Fitting Shop (closest to Blundell Street) with the existing Paint Shop and Body Shop still demolished. The land freed by this demolition would then be laid out as parking and a service yard. There would also be a joinery shop and general store and canteen.

The planning application was submitted on 4th October with the following description: “Creation of service yard with vehicle parking following part demolition of building and external alterations to remaining building including re-roofing and installation of roof lights.”. The plans along with the application describe the building as the BTS Heritage Tram Building.

The Fitting Shop has been available for Tramtown tours during 2024 but the Paint Shop and Body Shop have been off limits since their closure in 2023. The planning application is only concerned with this part of the depot complex and makes no mention of the main tram shed. As has been widely reported this has been closed completely for around a year with details of a much waited for condition survey not having been released. This has reduced the number of available heritage trams with operations centred on Starr Gate Depot (up to five trams).

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

24 Responses to New plans submitted for Rigby Road Workshops

  1. mac says:

    Break this down for me Holmes. So no update on the Tram shed but there not knocking down the shop across the way?

  2. Christopher Callan says:

    This proposal to put part of the historic workshops out of its misery actually seems quite sensible. It would sum up the last 12+ years if they somehow actually pull of this bit then the track from Lytham Road into it gets condemmed shortly after.. or the Main Shed just caves in behind the fence.

    • Harvey says:

      Why is it a sensible idea?

      What happened to the restoration of the old Tram shed? Shouldn’t they should really be investing their time and money into saving it while they still can?

      Correct me if i’m wrong but wasn’t the original plan to demolish the workshop buildings and relocate the workshops to the main tram shed?

  3. Andy says:

    I can smell a rat the size of an elephant! What sort of a herritage attraction will they have if they knock half of it down?
    Why can’t the electric buses go to some out of town industrial estate with a ready built building on it? Oh wait… it’s because they’re electric buses and wouldn’t have enough range to get back into town again! If only there was some way of making an electric double decker that didn’t rely on dodgy battery packs. Maybe using an overhead wire or something.

    • Harvey says:

      This isn’t the main Heritage Tram Shed. It’s for the workshops opposite.

      Personally, I’d rather have the entire workshop building gone and focus turned renovating and restoring the main tram shed instead (Complete with modern day storage and workshop facilities)

      It seems to me as though Blackpool Council/BTS are wanting to just continue forward with a skeleton fleet of Heritage Trams while the main tram shed behind the fence (and the fleet of Trams sitting in it) slowly decays until it becomes unsalvageable and the whole Tram shed falls apart

  4. Nathan says:

    I visited Blackpool this week and it is indeed a shame to see the tram shed in such a state of dereliction. I think it’s time for a rethink on the heritage operation, at the moment there is too little variety to draw in enthusiasts and not enough fun tourist-y aspects to capture the attention of the general public.

    What happened to the restorations of 304 and 143? Both were supposedly close to returning a few years ago. Now more than ever I think a big re-launch is needed to give some sense of progress, perhaps these trams could be taken off-site to be finished off and then delivered straight back to Starr Gate when they’re ready.

    I also think the collection needs slimming down somewhat. What value do 703, 632, 676+686 add, rusting away as duplicates of already operational trams? Perhaps it’s time to sell or donate them somewhere they will be cherished and looked after.

    • Gareth Prior says:

      Don’t forget 304, 143, 703 and 632 are all owned by the FTT so not directly related to the heritage operation

    • Fylde Transport Trust says:

      Nathan, before you get too carried away with suggesting the donation or sale of trams, it may be useful for you to research who owns which tram. Of those you mention, 143, 304, 703 & 632 belong to the Fylde Transport Trust and not Blackpool Transport (all the ownership information is available via British Trams Online Fleet Lists).

      You are correct in saying that 143 & 304 were in final commissioning before the roof situation halted this work; commissioning will be completed once Blackpool Transport / Blackpool Council allow access to the depot complex for our contractors to complete their work.

      703 & 632 form an important part of the FTT tram collection and will remain as so. We have two Balloons, 703 & 715 which represent both the first and second series so not duplication. It could be argued that 632 is duplicating our Brush tram 621, but this we can live with.

      You mention the idea of taking trams off site for completion. As much as this is a good idea, the cost of just the moving trams today makes this a very expensive cost if only for the work and then to come back. A double deck tram move is in the region of £2500 – £4000 one way (depending on distance), so to move a tram off site, fully commission and bring back could cost upto £8000 just in transport fees. Add on then the commissioning costs being done off site, and costs mount up quickly. This type of arrangement works better when the tram is away for a longer period of time, where the operation on another site can justify some of the transport costs. A good example is our Brush tram 634 which is now on a 5 year loan to East Anglia Transport Museum.

      As much as the current situation looks bleak, be assured that the FTT does care and cherish its trams. The total cost on Coronation 304 for example is well into the significant 5 figure sum, as is the work on Standard 143. Our Trust works purely from donations and sponsorship, we receive no other income from other sources. Remember that we also have a significant bus collection numbering over 20 buses which we need to restore / keep upto standard as well.

      For those wishing to help the FTT, donations can be made either as a one off or as a standing monthly donation. For those who are eligible, we can also claim back Gift Aid on donations. All relevant details can be found on our web page at http://www.fyldett.org.uk/supporting-the-ftt or via email to contact.fyldetransporttrust@gmail.com

      • Nathan says:

        My apologies, I forgot the FTT owns 703 and 632. I didn’t mean to imply those trams aren’t cherished where they are, either. I realise the way I worded my comment looks that way but of course I realise that all the trams are valued by those that look after them.

        In terms of moving either 143 or 304, £8000 is a lot of money in these times but far greater sums have been raised in railway preservation and with the Rigby Road refurbishment clearly a long term project (probably longer than 5 years) I think loaning a tram to say, Crich or Beamish in the interim might actually be a good idea if it allows them to be finished?

        I will donate to the FTT next week, you’ve done a fantastic job so far on 304 and 143 and really my criticism was directed at BTS who don’t seem to be facilitating finishing them off even though they’d be hugely appealing trams for the heritage fleet (and probably more attractive and “heritage-y” to the general public than, say, 723).

    • Kev says:

      703 is NOT a duplicate of anything! No other Tram is currently in that condition with roof windows.

      • Andrew says:

        This is where things get complicated though… at risk of opening a can of worms, is it THAT important? I think a number of Balloon cars representing different stages in the evolution of the class should be preserved, both at Blackpool and elsewhere, but is there justification for saving every single variation that exists? I’m too young to know how tram preservation worked in the 1950s and 1960s, but looking at what trams we have today, I would assume that most people were pretty happy when one of a type survived – maybe more in a few cases of a particularly large or long-lived class of tram (the Glasgow Standards, for example). As nice as it would be to save every Blackpool streamliner, I just don’t think its a viable strategy and could end up taking resources away from other more unique vehicles. I mean, what hope is there of raising funds to restore Dreadnought 59 for example, if people keep throwing money at transporting and patching up various Balloon and Brush cars?

        • Nick says:

          59 isn’t in any danger. When you have a large number of cars available and ONLY those you can portray development on in the whole of the UK then YES they should be saved. 703 is the only survivor in that condition (704 will never be done)

          • Andrew says:

            Surely there is little difference between restoring 703 or 704? Looking at the state of 703, if it was to be restored to running order I would expect it would end up needing a full rebuild to the extent it would virtually be a replica, and most if not all of the features that make it unique would probably end up being replaced.

            To me, I think the development of the Balloon cars could be summed up in the following stages:

            -Original open top ‘Luxury Dreadnought’
            -Original second series car
            -Simplified traditional car with single destination indicator boxes, no roof windows
            -Refurbished car with low voltage equipment, bus seats, modern headlights etc. Possibly 2 of these to represent flat and pointed ends.

            Add in the unique and iconic 700 and 706 which would give 7 trams. Even that compares well with most types of tram that exist today. I just fear that tram preservation is entering a difficult new era and I honestly don’t feel that this idea of saving as many cars as possible is going to be viable moving forwards. It would be tragic to find ourselves in the position of there being no operational Balloon cars at all, and I genuinely worry that it could happen unless some serious investment in at least one of the decreasing number of serviceable Balloons is forthcoming. Diluting already scarce resources could well be a dangerous strategy, in my opinion, especially if Rigby Road depot isn’t upgraded as hoped.

  5. Notch Arrestor 273 says:

    The likelihood of any of the heritage tramway operators having covered accommodation available is very remote. It is unfortunate that considerations such as secure and environmentally appropriate storage aren’t taken into account when people suggest “saving” another tramcar. The announcement that there is a pressing need to find an alternative location for the contents of Clay Cross means that the TMS will have further stress on its finances. There is a limit to what a decreasing number of broad interest enthusiasts can subsidise.

    • Steve Hyde says:

      I couldn’t agree with you more about the possibility of other heritage sites providing cover for any of the cars trapped within Rigby Road. They were offered examples of cars which were available back at the time of the modernisation and collectively took what they believed they wanted and could look after. It’s time to reduce the collection at Rigby Road to a size which is commensurate with the resources available. There’s far too much duplication particularly in the case of balloon cars. Some of those currently stored will never be restored and might be better dismantled for spares to help keep the deserving ones active.

      • Harvey says:

        Sadly, I’ve got to agree with you here.

        If the past year is anything to go by then I think it’s safe to say that the original proposals to completely restore the main tram shed & open up a museum have all been completely abandoned

        The only realistic option is to downsize the fleet and use the present workshop area as a storage facility for the remaining trams.

        The big question is which Trams should be kept?

        • Nick says:

          The present workshop facility can accommodate 3 at best so that doesn’t work!
          It needs Rigby Road partially rebuilding (but smaller), either within the current shell or flattening and a new building going up.
          The current fleet including the stored cars would fit in half the current building if squished in.

      • Nick says:

        Which balloons Steve? Of those in Rigby Road 9 are B fleet (can’t be touched yet), 3 are privately owned (can’t be touched), 2 in service with Heritage, 1 open top work started on underframe and that leaves just 2.
        So its hardly full of duplicates. If you pooled the fleets together 703 isn’t duplicated and neither is 715.

        • Harvey says:

          I’d have a feeling that 700, 707, 717, 718 & 723 are safe (3 of those being members of the B Fleet). The illuminated cars are certainly safe, 2 of the Boats are safe & maybe Bolton 66.

          As for the rest of the fleet, I think they’ll just rot away in the main tram shed until it eventually collapses to the ground.

        • Andrew says:

          Alternatively, it could be argued that any more than one Balloon car is a duplicate!

          The bottom line here is that, IF Rigby Road depot is not rebuilt, whatever heritage fleet remains will have to be housed within Starr Gate depot and the Fitting Shop (and that includes B Fleet cars as well). This year there have normally been 4 or 5 heritage trams at Starr Gate, and maybe a couple more in the Fitting Shop. The sad reality is, without the millions needed to refurbish the old depot, that will probably be the extent of any retained heritage fleet moving forwards – so duplicating Balloons just because they represent a different decade is not going to be a luxury that can be afforded. Indeed, Blackpool will probably lose entire classes of tram such as Twin, Coronation and Centenary cars. We could well end up back where we expected to be in 2011 with half a dozen or so cars doing illumination tours and private hires.

          As for privately owned trams that ‘can’t be touched’ – if the scenario I’ve described above becomes a reality then I highly doubt that BTS would hang on to other peoples’ trams when there is a risk of them being taken away in the future. If lets say the Train, Frigate, 147, 600, 700 and 717 are all retained there may not be room for anything else!

          Of course, it could be that the heritage team are cooking up a cunning plan to save the day, but the lack of any communication about the findings of a condition survey on Rigby Road depot and previous experience tell me that this is highly unlikely. Come on Blackpool Transport, prove me wrong and save these trams!

          • Nathan says:

            I’ve wondered if the best way forward is abandoning Rigby Road and building something similar to London Transport’s Acton Depot – a modern, purpose-built facility for the heritage trams. At this point, the costs of restoring the old depot probably exceed the cost of building an entirely new one

  6. Steve Hyde says:

    I guess what I was saying was that you can’t justify keeping an example of every variation of the balloons. The B fleet is I would agree outside the scope of any rationalisation although given the lack of use there are probably too many B cars. To me of the rest of the balloons 706 and totally enclosed example are the only justified candidates.

  7. David Blake says:

    I think this discussion may be a bit academic at thus stage as not all facts and evidence are in place, but just for the record it’s worth mentioning that Brush car 631 has also been in service from Starr Gate at times this year and on that basis (unless anything has changed) can be counted as part of Blackpool’s current operational heritage fleet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *