Former Edinburgh Trams Managing Director, Lea Harrison, has been named as the new Managing Director of Blackpool Transport Services. He will take up his role from 1st March 2026, ahead of the retirement of Jane Cole OBE, with a handover period in place between the two.
Lea Harrison has a wealth of experience at modern tram systems, and started his career as one of the first tram drivers for Manchester Metrolink in 1991. He later became Head of Service Delivery at Tramlink Nottingham, where he was involved in the successful introduction of two new extensions in August 2016. After Nottingham he then moved on to become Managing Director at Edinburgh Trams.
He spent 10 years in the top job at Edinburgh Trams, where he successfully oversaw a variety of projects, including an extension to the network an a “Tap-on, Tap-off” contactless ticketing system across both buses and trams. During his time there he saw a 250% growth in patronage along with multiple awards for customer service at the Global Light Rail awards and the Institute of Customer Services. He left Edinburgh earlier this year after a restructuring saw the operations of Lothian Buses and Edinburgh Trams merged.
Cllr John Boughton, Chair of Blackpool Transport Services Board, said: “I’m delighted that somebody with Lea’s experience is so keen to come and work in Blackpool. He will bring a wealth of knowledge about well-connected public transport operators that puts customers first.
“I’d also like to place on record my immense thanks to Jane, who has spearheaded enormous change at BTS over the last decade, and she will be missed.”
Cllr Mark Smith, Blackpool Council’s cabinet member responsible for its relationship with Blackpool Transport, added: “We’re really lucky in Blackpool to have a bus and tram operator that is owned by the council and can put local people and customers first, unlike private corporations. Our relationship is the envy of many councils across the country and I am excited to see how Lea takes us on to bigger and better places.”
Initial thought – a good appointment from the tramway perspective – a “Tram-man” rather than a “Bus-man”.
Will have to wait and see what his vision for the heritage side might be though.
His credentials seem excellent – let’s hope he can make the core LRV service highly profitable with well connected buses. Of course, the unknown is his view of heritage operations, as none of the systems which he has so far managed run such a service. He may make sweeping changes, which could well include the total removal of all heritage trams from the system; even including 754. I think the various museums had better ensure that they can make space for as many unwanted old Blackpool trams as they possibly can.
It is not just a question of space! Museums (should) have a rationale for their collection; they are not an alternative to the scrapyard. Stretching resources (including, but not limited to space) too far is a recipe for disaster. There are times when the head has to rule the heart and not everything ‘Blackpool’ can be, or should be, saved. The Birkenhead trio at Crich are a supreme example, a much greater historic value than the same number of Blackpool cars. Many enthusiasts would disagree with my choices, but this really is the time for rational discussion within the tram preservation movement.
Equally, he may not wish to commence his career in Blackpool by proposing something so obviously unpopular?
Perhaps he may even look favourably towards the idea of making the Heritage part independent of Blackpool Transport Services, as has been suggested from a number of quarters recently?
I suspect he will have his hands full resolving the current problems with the performance of BTS, in any event.
As you say it remains to be seen what the vision might be for heritage under the new management. However if it’s not a positive outcome why should the various museums and heritage outfits suddenly be interested at this time when they made their choices the first time round when the modernisation was being implemented. I think you’ll find that there isn’t a rush to take up the slack. However the recent move of 143 might prove me wrong.
I do indeed feel that the move to EATM of 143 indicated that at least some museums may be glad of a second chance to acquire something unique from the Blackpool Heritage or FTT collections. I suppose that trams such as Princess Alice would appeal as it is the only Open Top Streamliner currently in existence. Of course another could be created – no doubt at great cost – from the likes of 712 or 702 in due course, but surely better to have one ready made? Also there could be a case for 279, 304 and OMO 8 from the FTT collection, the loss of which would otherwise render entire classes of tramcar extinct (ignoring any rebuilds or long-term stored examples). Sadly, I expect that the remaining Brush Cars and Balloons would experience difficulty in being acquired as these are well enough represented in various museums.
Heritage operation is the Council’s decision not his.
I think you will find that as Blackpool Transport Services are the operators and as such the owner of the safety case for the tramway they will have a significant input into any decision about what may operate on the network. Both the operator and the infrastructure manager who in this case are the council are mandated to maintain safety management systems in respect of the tramway therefore all decisions must be joint.
But the Council, even one led by Councillor Williams, will assuredly take into account the opinions of the new MD of BTS about the issue?
Now what about borrowing a couple of spare Edinburgh trams………….
Excellent idea until you consider the practicalities… Too long for Blackpool platforms, several curves are below their minimum radius (at least Fleetwood Ferry to Pharos St, PB inner loop). Would not fit 2 per road in Starr Gate Depot even if you could get them in and out.
And that’s before you get to type-training for crews and engineers on something that totally different to the Flexitys.
As well, up here in Edinburgh, we need all of our trams now, 18 are out on a 7 minute service +3 for the peak extras, and we have 27 total trams.
Mark the suggestion they had was to borrow a couple and remove 2 sections. The only reason no formal request was ever made was because they had Edinburgh trams on the seats!!!!
Do You really think that minor cosmetic detail would be the overriding factor above numerous technical and physical compatibility issues??
By your arguments, is it really easier to remove 2 sections from the tram than to replace the seat cushions?
(as a benchmark we can change over a full set of seat cushions in around 2.5 hours – would be interested to see you take two sections out of a tram in less time than that)
Dave G – you attack me like it was my decision! I’m only saying what I was told (and by someone quite senior at the time).
Clearly it was an excuse not to proceed and I’m not sure how compatible the Trams would have been platform wise anyway.
But would they want the seats replacing? You’d have to put them back when it was returned!!!!
Well…
It was you that said “The only reason no request was ever made was because of the seats” which, if it really was a problem is an easy job to temporarily change over.
Mark had already told you they weren’t physically compatible!
Oversaw extensions to networks in Nottingham and Edinburgh. Doubt if cash available for Blackpool to make it a hat trick.
Capacity and service would be a good start!
I doubt much useful purpose can be served merely by speculating at this point. It simply makes sense for all those who may become involved, in the worst case scenario for the heritage trams, to have a plan in place should they indeed wish to contribute to any recue operation. Success of any proposed action will require planning as failing to plan, as they say, amounts to planning to fail.
I wish Lea well. let’s face it, he can’t be any worse than Cole was? (Can he?) I remember someone once saying “If they don’t upgrade the tramway Blackpool will end up with a line that runs Pleasure Beach to Bispham in the summer only as a tourist attraction.” I now think that would have been preferable to what we got!