Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,477
What would be the benefit in removing them?Bargain basement project which didn’t have the scope to remove them?
What would be the benefit in removing them?Bargain basement project which didn’t have the scope to remove them?
Aside from avoiding the obviously poor ride when the trams pass over them, just general professionalism and ‘doing a good job’, I suppose! Presumably long disused pointwork would carry a significantly increased risk of failure, although clearly that hasn’t happened here.What would be the benefit in removing them?
Ah, that is interesting! It has plenty of life in it, then?!Some of the disused pointwork on the prom (the Foxhall crossovers) were actually provided for the upgrade for potential depot provision at the Rigby Road/Blundell Street site.
The upgrade was very much bargain basement with decisions being left for as long as possible. Despite the issues, if there wasn't an upgrade there probably wouldn't be a tramway at all nowadays.
but for how long? They can’t seem to keep the full fleet running at just 14 years old. The oldest track is 25 years old, most north of Cleveleys is 20+ years old too. The overhead infra in Blackpool was renewed in 1994 so 32 years old. At some point another upgrade will be needed and Blackpool is back to needing central funding for a tramway that is no where near its patronage forecasts! It carried 4.4mn in 2024/5 - 6.4% down on the year before and about the same as in 2003!Ah, that is interesting! It has plenty of life in it, then?!
Absolutely agree, the system couldn’t have stumbled on as it was. You do have to wonder if the sums were skewed greatly by the ‘deprived Norff’ aspect; regardless I’m very glad it remains.
What is particularly frustrating about this is that these figures are almost certainly being negatively impacted by the poor service currently being provided - if you offer something which is effectively unusable, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people don’t use it.but for how long? They can’t seem to keep the full fleet running at just 14 years old. The oldest track is 25 years old, most north of Cleveleys is 20+ years old too. The overhead infra in Blackpool was renewed in 1994 so 32 years old. At some point another upgrade will be needed and Blackpool is back to needing central funding for a tramway that is no where near its patronage forecasts! It carried 4.4mn in 2024/5 - 6.4% down on the year before and about the same as in 2003!
Surely that leads to the old sheds where the old cars are......would still be in use if the legacy cars were still in useInteresting regarding cost savings etc; I presume that explains why there is still disused pointwork along the prom that doesn’t go anywhere etc? Bargain basement project which didn’t have the scope to remove them?
Even going back to the years leading up to COVID, the service was often insufficient at the busiest times, leading to crush loading, passengers being left behind, conductors unable to take fares etc. They were probably carrying a fair few more people than the figures suggested at times.What is particularly frustrating about this is that these figures are almost certainly being negatively impacted by the poor service currently being provided - if you offer something which is effectively unusable, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people don’t use it.
I have no doubt that when major work is required the money will be forthcoming; no government wants to be seen as abandoning ‘The North’, and the historic aspect of Blackpool’s system would give an extra layer of shock & negativity to the reporting if were ever to close. That being said, it seems painfully clear that a vastly different approach is needed to what very much appears to be a current strategy of managed decline.
There's the set of points leading down Lytham Road into the tram sheds, but there were a set of points replaced (and some more pointwork added if I remember rightly) in 2008 a bit further north at Foxhall in readiness for a potential Depot on the old Blundell Street site (now houses).Surely that leads to the old sheds where the old cars are......would still be in use if the legacy cars were still in use
I assumed those two lines were equally elderly and simply ran into different sides of the same siteThere's the set of points leading down Lytham Road into the tram sheds, but there were a set of points replaced (and some more pointwork added if I remember rightly) in 2008 a bit further north at Foxhall in readiness for a potential Depot on the old Blundell Street site (now houses).
The line into Rigby Road was of course still in use until the recent suspension of heritage operations, and will have been used when certain heritage cars were transferred from there to Starr Gate. It remains to be seen what might become of it if Rigby Road shed is demolished; I doubt the funds exist to lift the track given the wider financial issues.I assumed those two lines were equally elderly and simply ran into different sides of the same site
The relevant thread in the "heritage" forum will probably be of interest, though I don't know if it exactly answers your questions: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/blackpool-heritage-tram-operations-suspended.278086/I should really know this as a frequent visitor to Blackpool but can anyone please tell me the last time any of the trams were used from Rigby Road Tram Shed? The last time I was up close it was in a very sorry state and do wonder how damaged the trams are that are in store there.
How many heritage trams are in store in the modern depot ?
Interestingly, my reading of the ORR statement seems quite clear that the issue is maintenance itself, however BT say the following:The ORR have served an Improvement Notice over failing to failing to manage bogie wear.
![]()
Blackpool Trams given 17 days for urgent repairs by watchdog
A watchdog says there is a risk of "derailment or collision" of Blackpool's trams, linked to worn components.www.bbc.co.uk
They do seem to be in an awful mess at the moment, for whatever reasons. How quickly the optimism of last summer's improvements has vanished. I can't see the government allowing the system to fail, but once questions of safety start to be raised, concern for the future is only natural.Interestingly, my reading of the ORR statement seems quite clear that the issue is maintenance itself, however BT say the following:
“While the Improvement Notice identified shortcomings in documentation associated with some specific repairs, we would like to assure customers that safety has always been our top priority, with appropriate measures put into place to address any potential risks.”
The final sentence in the article:
"With other customers - such as Nottingham Express Transist (NET) - we offer servicing and maintenance, however Blackpool Transport does theirs in-house."
That seems an odd arrangement, I wonder whether Starr Gate is staffed by many of the former Rigby Road tech personnel?
How many of the fleet are actually in daily use, though? Aren’t half of them mothballed in the depot?17 days to fix it, so roughly a tram per day
Is that feasible? Are the service parts even available in that timescale?
What happens if they miss the deadline?
A half million or so bailout followed by an ORR notice on the main tram fleet certainly isn’t where you’d choose to be as a business.They do seem to be in an awful mess at the moment, for whatever reasons. How quickly the optimism of last summer's improvements has vanished. I can't see the government allowing the system to fail, but once questions of safety start to be raised, concern for the future is only natural.
The timetable introduced last month requires 10 trams. The emergency one that was in before that did indeed require only 9 of the 18.How many of the fleet are actually in daily use, though? Aren’t half of them mothballed in the depot?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A half million or so bailout followed by an ORR notice on the main tram fleet certainly isn’t where you’d choose to be as a business.
It might be fair to assume then that the degree of worn bogie components must be significantly lower on the unused cars, so perhaps some ‘christmas tree’ action might be in order! Or is the fleet rotated to ensure that they all see some degree of use?The timetable introduced last month requires 10 trams. The emergency one that was in before that did indeed require only 9 of the 18.
Disappointing to hear this. Fair play to him for continuing the updates however.Paul Galley Has posted a new update, pretty much saying he knows nothing and he's not being told anything
link
If they continue to insist that it's only the paperwork that has a problem, then surely by now, all of the physical work should have been carried out, and a full service should be running?Disappointing to hesr this. Fair play to him for continuing the updates however.
Mr Galley is more concerned with the heritage side of things. Regretfully BT appear to be conducting themselves with zero transparency, Mr Galley describes himself as having been “excluded” from any meetings on the subject and once again raises the issue of what the Council have done with the money donated to support Tramtown, which they currently appear reluctant to account for - one does have to wonder what the legalities of that particular aspect of this sorry situation might look like at this point.If they continue to insist that it's only the paperwork that has a problem, then surely by now, all of the physical work should have been carried out, and a full service should be running?