Leeds Trams at Crich

[Barry O]

It is time for Leeds to get the Trams back from Crich. I note they are mucking about with 600, have forgot that Bluebird cam e from Leeds  and seem to be going backwards in terms of running trams. As  a good selection of Leeds trams are available couldn't we have them back in Leeds where they should be rather than locked away at Crich?

 

and just be aware of what the Middleton did to 601 and the Mumbles car...  perhaps Ropundhay Park may be a good place to start.

[jamie92208]

It is time for Leeds to get the Trams back from Crich. I note they are mucking about with 600, have forgot that Bluebird cam e from Leeds  and seem to be going backwards in terms of running trams. As  a good selection of Leeds trams are available couldn't we have them back in Leeds where they should be rather than locked away at Crich?

 

and just be aware of what the Middleton did to 601 and the Mumbles car...  perhaps Ropundhay Park may be a good place to start.

Just remember who it was that helped us finish 107  Middleton couldn't have been more supportive,  But watch this space for possible future developments.  Middleton still have the trackwork for the original tramway crossing between their railway and the Tramway.  As an aside there was one abortive scheme to have a ram museum at Temple Newsam using the reserved track from Halton up to the house.

 

 

Jamie

[PLD]

It is time for Leeds to get the Trams back from Crich. I note they are mucking about with 600, have forgot that Bluebird cam e from Leeds  and seem to be going backwards in terms of running trams. As  a good selection of Leeds trams are available couldn't we have them back in Leeds where they should be rather than locked away at Crich?

 

and just be aware of what the Middleton did to 601 and the Mumbles car...  perhaps Ropundhay Park may be a good place to start.

 

The chances of getting cars released from Crich are extrememly remote... The majority of the leeds trams at Crich are anything but "locked away" - 399, 180 and 345 are used rather too often... One of the criticisms of Crich that is deserved is the lack of variety in which cars are used. You can pretty much guarantee that whatever day you visit there will be at least one Leeds car in service!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mucking about with 600' - 600 remains at Clay Cross where it has been untouched for several years. As for London CC 1 / Leeds 301, It's ironic you have used her London nickname! Her impending restoration to service is as a direct result of £100k+ funding from the London Tramway Preservation Fund. Rightly or wrongly, the way things currently work at Crich is that a car that attracts sufficient external funding jumps the queue for restoration/overhaul. Perhaps if a local benefactor or support group comes up with sufficient funds, 600 could be active within a few years...

[Barry O]

The chances of getting cars released from Crich are extrememly remote... The majority of the leeds trams at Crich are anything but "locked away" - 399, 180 and 345 are used rather too often... One of the criticisms of Crich that is deserved is the lack of variety in which cars are used. You can pretty much guarantee that whatever day you visit there will be at least one Leeds car in service!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mucking about with 600' - 600 remains at Clay Cross where it has been untouched for several years. As for London CC 1 / Leeds 301, It's ironic you have used her London nickname! Her impending restoration to service is as a direct result of £100k+ funding from the London Tramway Preservation Fund. Rightly or wrongly, the way things currently work at Crich is that a car that attracts sufficient external funding jumps the queue for restoration/overhaul. Perhaps if a local benefactor or support group comes up with sufficient funds, 600 could be active within a few years...

Some bright boy wants to convert 600 back to being a Sunderland Car - and it is a Leeds car.  They have never tried to run 600 - and it would attract more funding if it was back in Leeds. And as for releasing them - who really owns them? If it hadn't been for the foresight of people in Leeds Leeds 301 would not be here! Last time I was in it it still had LCC internal signs etc.  Bit like Hull cars...

[PLD]

Some bright boy wants to convert 600 back to being a Sunderland Car - and it is a Leeds car.

 

...

 

If it hadn't been for the foresight of people in Leeds Leeds 301 would not be here! Last time I was in it it still had LCC internal signs etc. Bit like Hull cars...

I hadn't heard that one Barry, but I bet it isn't a TMS backed plan... I agree with you that 600 can't be described as anything other than a Leeds car - It was so heavily rebuilt by Leeds, I doubt there is much 'Sunderland' material actually left in it and to un-rebuild it would effectively be a new replica car.

 

The difference for Bluebird and the Hull cars it that they were relatively unchanged in Leeds from the condition they left their previous owners so can fairly represent their original owners. I do acknowledge though that without their 'afterlife' in Leeds they may not have survived at all...

 

it would attract more funding if it was back in Leeds.

That's a difficult one... Which is better Stuffed and Mounted locally or a remote location but running?? I know my personal preference is I'd rather have Hull 96 running in Heaton Park than static in Hull...

 

 

 

[Londontram]

Now they have completed the E1 rehab at Crich I believe these guys want to restore No.1 Bluebird back to running condition in its original blue colour see this link  http://www.lcctt.org.uk  and go to there news page 

[Greenbat]

Speaking as a volunteer at Crich...

 

600 is stored off site, pretty much as withdrawn. It is dry, inside and secure. Like every other tram we own, it will be restored when funding is found. Not heard anything serious about turning it back to 85, as has been said it seems pretty daft. Might I also point out that all the Leeds trams came to us because, er, Leeds wanted rid? Seems a bit ungrateful to angrily demand them back after 50 years safe storage and full restorations of 3 of them.

As has been said, funding is key, hence LCC 1 will be done next, then, hopefully, Glasgow 1282. Talking of (30)1, wasn't it originally saved for the British transport museum in London?

Way back at the start, the decision was taken that any tram on site would belong to the TMS. There are exceptions-Chesterfield 8, Cardiff 21 and formerly, Edinburgh 35. But them aside, this has the huge advantage that, unlike every steam railway or bus group in the country, we DON'T have half done projects scattered in bits, or dumped in sidings. All our efforts are concentrated on a couple of projects that we know we will finish.

Regards getting trams out from Crich, it is possible. However, we are a designated national collection, and so have pretty strict rules for this. In a nutshell, we'd need a plan that ensures the borrowed tram is safely stored, won't deteriorate (e.g. no dumping it outside in the rain for ten years,), and any work done to it is agreed with us to our standards. Remember, trams are either wooden or thin metal, so will rot to bits given the chance. Plus the designated blah blah blah bit gives us lots of funding.

 

And finally...where does this lack of variety thing come from? We've got (I think) 15 cars in service, another 4 joining them next year and a further 4 that only need minor to medium attention. I think that, with the withdrawal of 331, it's only the streamlined double decker we can't run an example of.

[Red Devil]

Speaking as a volunteer at Crich...

 

600 is stored off site, pretty much as withdrawn. It is dry, inside and secure. Like every other tram we own, it will be restored when funding is found. Not heard anything serious about turning it back to 85, as has been said it seems pretty daft. Might I also point out that all the Leeds trams came to us because, er, Leeds wanted rid? Seems a bit ungrateful to angrily demand them back after 50 years safe storage and full restorations of 3 of them.

As has been said, funding is key, hence LCC 1 will be done next, then, hopefully, Glasgow 1282. Talking of (30)1, wasn't it originally saved for the British transport museum in London?

Way back at the start, the decision was taken that any tram on site would belong to the TMS. There are exceptions-Chesterfield 8, Cardiff 21 and formerly, Edinburgh 35. But them aside, this has the huge advantage that, unlike every steam railway or bus group in the country, we DON'T have half done projects scattered in bits, or dumped in sidings. All our efforts are concentrated on a couple of projects that we know we will finish.

Regards getting trams out from Crich, it is possible. However, we are a designated national collection, and so have pretty strict rules for this. In a nutshell, we'd need a plan that ensures the borrowed tram is safely stored, won't deteriorate (e.g. no dumping it outside in the rain for ten years,), and any work done to it is agreed with us to our standards. Remember, trams are either wooden or thin metal, so will rot to bits given the chance. Plus the designated blah blah blah bit gives us lots of funding.

 

And finally...where does this lack of variety thing come from? We've got (I think) 15 cars in service, another 4 joining them next year and a further 4 that only need minor to medium attention. I think that, with the withdrawal of 331, it's only the streamlined double decker we can't run an example of.

Blackpool 298? 

 

301 was donated to the British Transport Museum on the proviso it stayed in Leeds livery.

 

600? Better back in Leeds being restored, not that I'm saying that will happen but the likelihood of it being anything other than a depository for discarded Halloween costumes as it is in Clay Cross would be a move in the right direction. 600 is so far down the 'to do' list at Crich that it's never going to happen be it funding or workshop space issues or even the will to do it. 602 which as the last all new tram in Leeds (600 went into service later but is technically a rebuild) is possibly a more deserving project but again spends most of it's time stuffed and plinthed.

[Greenbat]

298 is a very sorry tale. Despite being told on numerous occasions that the underframe was knackered, it was built upon it, and so will need a full strip to replace that. I've seen under it too, I can assure you it is definately rotten.

 

Didn't know that about 1, thanks for filling in my knowledge.

 

I'd agree that it would be lovely to restore 600 or 602, or both. As I say, if someone could put together a properly costed proposal and raise necessary funds, there's no reason why any tram couldn't be done off site. Or on site by us.

 

 

BTW I've been looking at your Grime street layout, I'm very impressed! Will you be at Crich models weekend? I'd love to see it in the flesh.

[Red Devil]

298 is a very sorry tale. Despite being told on numerous occasions that the underframe was knackered, it was built upon it, and so will need a full strip to replace that. I've seen under it too, I can assure you it is definately rotten.

 

Didn't know that about 1, thanks for filling in my knowledge.

 

I'd agree that it would be lovely to restore 600 or 602, or both. As I say, if someone could put together a properly costed proposal and raise necessary funds, there's no reason why any tram couldn't be done off site. Or on site by us.

 

 

BTW I've been looking at your Grime street layout, I'm very impressed! Will you be at Crich models weekend? I'd love to see it in the flesh.

Not knocking Crich, but 298 is a sad tale, yeah I understand he underframe is knackered, I think what grates with 'Blackpool enthusiasts' (of which I'm not one, is the fact that I understand that there's quite a substantial pot of money available for its restoration, albeit possibly not enough, but very little is either mooted or happening, dunno that's the gist of what I get told.

 

From what I've been told 600 is a similar case, cracked trucks etc, so it ever nearing the top of a the queue has got to be slim to nil, perhaps that's why off site restoration might be a better bet, as to the happening, well as much as I'd like it to happen I just don't see it at the moment.

 

As to Grime Street at Crich, well no, it's been mooted but it's never happened, never been invited properly, again I don't want it to appear as if I'm knocking Crich but the models weekend needs a serious looking at, there's little on the site about it and organisation seems haphazard at best, and the event appears 'half hearted'. If you're going to have an event then it actually needs to be a draw, hate drawing comparisons but if Heaton Park  and Beamish can manage to drag a goodly number of layouts to their exhibitions then surely Crich should be able to do so?

 

This hardly draws you in..... http://www.tramway.co.uk/events/models-weekend

 

I'd gladly attend but having visited once I'm afraid I left underwhelmed, and it could be so much better, if they managed to get a decent line up of tram layouts, perhaps offered tours of 'off limit' vehicles with the modeller in mind, I just think that in it's present form it's just neither here or there.

[Greenbat]

Morning,

 

Yep, you're about right on 298, there is money but not enough. I'd forgotten about 600's cracked trucks too, they were a flawed design to start with. They're the same as 869s, which have been modified OK. Thing is, as a museum we try to tell the history of trams. 600 is more a last gasp dead end/oddball prototype than something typical of an era, and what it does represent is perhaps better shown by 602. Again, no reason why they couldn't go off site, we'd just need a proper plan to make sure they'd be safe and secure.

 

Regards events, the new General manager shares your views, as do a lot of members. Next year the concentration will be on a few events done well. Hopefully this will solve the problems you highlight. Not sure what events will stay and go, but the idea is to establish a decent core that we can expand on in later years. Things are happening up in the quarry folks...

[PLD]

Speaking as a volunteer at Crich...

 

600 is stored off site, pretty much as withdrawn. It is dry, inside and secure. Like every other tram we own, it will be restored when funding is found. Not heard anything serious about turning it back to 85, as has been said it seems pretty daft. Might I also point out that all the Leeds trams came to us because, er, Leeds wanted rid? Seems a bit ungrateful to angrily demand them back after 50 years safe storage and full restorations of 3 of them.

As has been said, funding is key, hence LCC 1 will be done next, then, hopefully, Glasgow 1282. Talking of (30)1, wasn't it originally saved for the British transport museum in London?

Way back at the start, the decision was taken that any tram on site would belong to the TMS. There are exceptions-Chesterfield 8, Cardiff 21 and formerly, Edinburgh 35. But them aside, this has the huge advantage that, unlike every steam railway or bus group in the country, we DON'T have half done projects scattered in bits, or dumped in sidings. All our efforts are concentrated on a couple of projects that we know we will finish.

Regards getting trams out from Crich, it is possible. However, we are a designated national collection, and so have pretty strict rules for this. In a nutshell, we'd need a plan that ensures the borrowed tram is safely stored, won't deteriorate (e.g. no dumping it outside in the rain for ten years,), and any work done to it is agreed with us to our standards. Remember, trams are either wooden or thin metal, so will rot to bits given the chance. Plus the designated blah blah blah bit gives us lots of funding.

 

And finally...where does this lack of variety thing come from? We've got (I think) 15 cars in service, another 4 joining them next year and a further 4 that only need minor to medium attention. I think that, with the withdrawal of 331, it's only the streamlined double decker we can't run an example of.

Thank you for your input Phil,

 

As far as I know, Hull 132 (a survivor thanks to its time in Leeds!) is the only National Collection tram to be placed on indefinite loan elsewhere, and the only long-term operational loan I can think of is Blackpool & Fleetwood ‘Box’ 40 to Blackpool Transport… They show it is possible for cars to go elsewhere when there are viable plans and secure accommodation for them, but such opportunities are few and far between. Personally as a crew member at another tramway I’d be very happy to see Crich get more involved in operational exchanges - just look how well 1068s recent spell at Beamish was received. In that Crich appear to be more insular and undeniably lag behind Beamish and Heaton Park in particular.

 

The perception of a ‘lack of variety’ at Crich comes from the fact  that although there are 15-18 trams used over the course of a year, just three systems - Leeds, Glasgow and Blackpool account for over half the operational fleet and are the most frequently used. Those and London cars also seem to ‘jump the queue’ for workshop attention though as you and I have both already commented that is as a result of dedicated external funding. If someone else comes up with the funds I’m sure their pet project (be it Leeds 600 or any other car) would get the same priority treatment. No-one expects every car to be active at the same time, but a few more systems having their turn to be represented in the operational fleet would be nice.

 

Paul

[nathan70000]

Transferring the Leeds trams from a safe home where they are looked after and regularly run to a not-yet-extent tramway museum on the outskirts of Leeds is a thoroughly ridiculous idea. If the trams were to come back from Crich today, where would you put them? Lots of preservation groups from a certain seaside town in Lancashire have faced that problem, and isn't looking like it will end well. Also the 298 saga is a shame, but given it's current state no wonder it's far down the restoration queue. I understand the intention of acquiring 630 was to provide an underframe for 298, but am I right in saying this plan is no longer going ahead? On the subject of Blackpool, what happened to Centenary 648? I believe this was going to join the national collection at some point, but it was rejected due to a lack of space. It doesn't matter too much as 648 has now been fully restored and is now semi-regularly operating tours in it's home town, but is the plan still for a Centenary to come to Crich one day, if not 648 specifically? I think it was a huge shame that 648 was rejected, as the Centenaries were the last class of traditional tram built in Britain and are effectively the culmination of more than 100 years of British tram development.

[Red Devil]

Transferring the Leeds trams from a safe home where they are looked after and regularly run to a not-yet-extent tramway museum on the outskirts of Leeds is a thoroughly ridiculous idea. If the trams were to come back from Crich today, where would you put them? Lots of preservation groups from a certain seaside town in Lancashire have faced that problem, and isn't looking like it will end well. Also the 298 saga is a shame, but given it's current state no wonder it's far down the restoration queue. I understand the intention of acquiring 630 was to provide an underframe for 298, but am I right in saying this plan is no longer going ahead? On the subject of Blackpool, what happened to Centenary 648? I believe this was going to join the national collection at some point, but it was rejected due to a lack of space. It doesn't matter too much as 648 has now been fully restored and is now semi-regularly operating tours in it's home town, but is the plan still for a Centenary to come to Crich one day, if not 648 specifically? I think it was a huge shame that 648 was rejected, as the Centenaries were the last class of traditional tram built in Britain and are effectively the culmination of more than 100 years of British tram development.

I'd say the Blackpool situation is looking somewhat better, put quite simply too many Blackpool cars have been saved, there will be more casualties before it all settles down..

 

At no point was I personally suggesting that there should be a mass exodus of Leeds cars from Crich, but 600 is going nowhere doing nothing, surely the possibility off off site restoration is worth looking at?

 

107 was restored in Leeds, the proposed Roundhay Electric car replica would be built in Leeds....

 

.

[Greenbat]

Manchester 762 at Heaton Park is also a TMS tram on long term loan. We've also sent Cardiff 131 to Beamish, and even had it doing genuine contract work at Blackpool as a rail scrubber! Yes, the 1068 loan, and 167/298 in Blackpool, will hopefully be the start of bigger things. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the HR2 from Carlton Coalville, especially once 1 is finished.

I think the idea of robbing 630's underframe was considered, but it hasn't actually had a new one. Its just been patched up, so not really worth destroying a decent tram. A member paid about £5K to have it repanelled and painted, and I THINK Blackpool did a bit to it mechanically, giving us a very smart new tram. It'll make a great pair with 298, showing how a class was modified to keep it going for 80 years. So barring misfortune and woe, 630 looks pretty secure.

Now the centenary...if I remember rightly, there was an appeal to build a 4 tram shed to give us room for a couple more Blackpool cars. It got nowhere near the required funding, so was abandoned. We really do have to ram them in tight now, both at Crich and the off site storage.

[PLD]

Manchester 762 at Heaton Park is also a TMS tram on long term loan.

Suggest you check your (mis)information on that one...

 

That particular long-running issue was put to bed a couple of years ago. Agreement was reached at the top level of both organisations clarifying the situation. As everyone except a small number deliberately trying to stir trouble had always believed 765 IS the property of the MTMS, though in recognition of their input to it's original restoration the TMS have first refusal should the car be disposed of...

 

 

...167/298 in Blackpool...

Assuming you mean Oporto 273 not 298 (which has never run anywhere in preservation), it's ironic that you highlight the two cars that were spectacular failures in Blackpool in 2010 and overlook the one TMS car that was popular and did put in useful service over the Aniversary week.... In any case those were just short term loans not long term moves as Barry advocates for the Leeds cars...

 

 

Now the centenary...if I remember rightly, there was an appeal to build a 4 tram shed to give us room for a couple more Blackpool cars. It got nowhere near the required funding, so was abandoned. We really do have to ram them in tight now, both at Crich and the off site storage.

The lack of a Centenary does leave a gap in the National Collection, but at least Jubilee 762 - the double deck cousin - is getting close to joining the operational fleet. The best chance of filling that gap in the future will probably be one of the three currently used as gift shops/cafes at caravan sites but to return one of those to servce will entail much more work and cost than a car stright out of service...

 

On the failure of the appeal for the aditional depot, I think it was in part due to a percieved lack of value - the quoted cost was something like 3 times that required by Heaton Park for a building which is almost twice the size of that proposed at Crich (and will be ready for trams move into by the end of next month)

 

Personally, I'm glad it failed - that meant 648 and twin-set 2 stayed in Blackpool and joined the heritage fleet.

[PLD]

298 is a very sorry tale. Despite being told on numerous occasions that the underframe was knackered, it was built upon it, and so will need a full strip to replace that. I've seen under it too, I can assure you it is definately rotten.

Not knocking Crich, but 298 is a sad tale, yeah I understand he underframe is knackered, I think what grates with 'Blackpool enthusiasts' (of which I'm not one, is the fact that I understand that there's quite a substantial pot of money available for its restoration, albeit possibly not enough, but very little is either mooted or happening, dunno that's the gist of what I get told.

298 seems to be a particularly odd saga with all sorts of claims and counter-claims from various parties. As a neuteral observer knowing what I do of some parties involved, I suspect there is an element of clashing personalities as well is it being about the physical condition of the car or finances...

 

My take on the underframe issue is that it seems odd that one should have deteriorated so much more and/or so much faster than it's sisters that served much longer in the harsh Blackpool environment, or has something happened in the 30 odd years since it left Blackpool to adversely affect it?? The only Brush I've been underneath is 623, one of the last two non-refurbished examples in use, and that is actually in remarkably good condition.

 

Claims that 'we told them they'd have to replace the underframe' before Blackpool Transport even considered it necessary or feasible are obviously spurious (or we should ask the claimer for this weekends lottery numbers and problem solved!)

 

It is only since it arrived at Crich that concerns about the underframe have become public It is also fact that four or five years ago an offer of a brand new underframe fabricated by Blackpool Transport at a knock-down price was declined. Why if it was known to be an issue that long ago??

[Greenbat]

I'm not doing well with numbers today! Yes, I meant 273. Can't remember what other trams went up then, or did you mean box 40? True, they had some misfortune, but sh*t happens. Point is, we have and will send trams away, as long as it's done properly.

Mind you, I can't help thinking that by the time you'd have funded finding and equipping a workshop in Leeds, you'd be halfway to the cost of us doing it...

 

My last point on 298-I've heard from several sources that many people told them to do the underframe. Certainly enough times to find it credible. Why it is rotten, I don't know. Nor do I know about the alleged new one. Whatever, it looks rough as, and I certainly wouldn't want a ride on it. Having said that, the fund is still open for donations.

[Red Devil]

 

Mind you, I can't help thinking that by the time you'd have funded finding and equipping a workshop in Leeds, you'd be halfway to the cost of us doing it...

 

 

Rebuilt in Leeds......http://leedshorsecar107.squarespace.com/ now at Crich.....

[PLD]

I'm not doing well with numbers today! Yes, I meant 273. Can't remember what other trams went up then, or did you mean box 40? True, they had some misfortune, but sh*t happens. Point is, we have and will send trams away, as long as it's done properly.

Crich loans to Blackpool for 125th Aniversary 2010:

 

Initial List:

• Blackpool Standard 40 (move cancelled after 60's incident)
• Blackpool 167 (axle seased on first day of use - Private hire for TMS and FTS members)
• Jo'burg 60 (hit trees en-route and turned back to Crich: Crich blamed Haulier because of route taken, Haulier blamed Crich because more was several weeks later than originally intended)
• LCC 106 (overhaul at Crich delayed so not ready in time)
• Leeds 399 (move cancelled after 60's incident)
• Oporto 273 (derailed on first test run - never left depot again)

Later addition in leu of above Cancelations:

• B&F Rack 2 (suffered overheating resistances on one run but otherwise ran successfully most of the week)

[Greenbat]

Ta for that, I remember 60's windows getting broken. When you consider it was the first such movement in a long time, theres bound to be initial problems. At least its something learnt.

[Londontram]

I missed that - what happened to No. 60

[PLD]

I missed that - what happened to No. 60

 

 

 

• Jo'burg 60 (hit trees en-route and turned back to Crich)

[Londontram]

Thank you PLD stupid I am NOT and there's no point in making the writing BIGGER because I can read with out glasses I was just wondering if there was a bigger story behind  it like who's fault, how much damage, is it being repaired, has it been resolved ect. but you just carry on scoring petty points if you feel the need

[PLD]

Thank you PLD stupid I am NOT and there's no point in making the writing BIGGER because I can read with out glasses I was just wondering if there was a bigger story behind  it like who's fault, how much damage, is it being repaired, has it been resolved ect. but you just carry on scoring petty points if you feel the need

 

Ah right... Your question was a bit ambiguous... as it was following Phil's comment about 60 having windows broken, the most likely interpretation was that you were asking how the windows were broken...

 

The full story is that in July 2010, Jo'burg 60 was the first car to be moved of up to 6 to be loaned to Blackpool for the 125th aniversary events.

• En route (I believe only a few miles from Crich) it stuck low hanging tree branches.
• That probably can't be blamed soley on one single party: Crich and/or Blackpool Transport for the timing of the move when trees were in full leaf (For reasons never made public the move was around 6 weeks later than originally intended); the Hauliers for the timing and thoroughness of their route survey; Derbyshire Council for reducing tree cutting.
• The immediate consequence was the cancelling of the load of other enclosed deckers.
• Any compensation or other settlement for the damage has never been disclosed.
• It was quickly repaired, I believe it required several panes of glass replacing and paintwork touching up, and returned to service at Crich (can't remember if it ran in 2010 but was a regular throughout 2011 & 12)
• It has now been withdrawn for general overhaul and temporarily moved in to the exhibition hall last month (which suggests it probably be a year or so before it is overhauled)