[Christoph Heuer]

Hello,

as this reply is rather lengthy and with quotes I moved it from Richard Lomas' blog to the forum. I am referring to the comments of the following blog entry:

http://tramways.blogspot.com/2010/10/bl ... l#comments

In the 7th comment Anonymous writes:

"i would just like to point out that the comment about the facts is about the first posting on these comments and not at christoph (...)"

This is one of the problems with commenting comments on the blog. Until comments are released by Richard things may get in the way which is why I keep suggesting to use this alternative platform for discussion and which is why I have opened it for anonymous/pseudonym contributions.

In the 4th comment another Anonymous writes:

Fact - The only trams to break down with regularity belonged to the TMS
Fact - Rack 2 broke down at least four times - causing disruption and chaos (including to me who was delayed on an important journey by an hour as all service trams were held up)
Fact - All other societies trams ran well
Fact - Of the eventual seven trams which were offered to Blackpool, none made it into regular service
Fact - 167 caused mass disruption at Bispham on its one and only passenger journey

These facts can not be denied even though I believe that 765 saw only limited use. Any comments on that?

Fact - Rack may be the oldest tram, but Marton 31 isnt far behind and it ran well

We must not forget that 31 was heavily rebuilt in 1918 making it more a 1918-built tramcar than a 1901-built tramcar and certainly has much more robust electrical equipment such as the sturdy (and big!) BTH 510 controllers. The B18s of B&F 2 are much more delicate and thus more prone to developing faults.

A LOT of enthusaists are sniping at Crich over this fiasco

Yes, but is it justified, does the TMS and the TMS alone have to take the blame? Could anyone please explain why this should be the case? Yes, the TMS is the owner of the cars, but they are maintained using parts of various suppliers and operated on Blackpool infrastructure with Blackpool staff.

Kind regards

Christoph

[Guest]

765 ran as a replacement for a TMS vehicle
It ran on the depot open day as a shuttle service.
It ran all day Tuesday on an FTS tour
It then ran on an MTMS private hire.

This sounds a lot less limited than the TMS vehicles to me so how is that limited or is this just an attempt to deflect attention onto another tramway that happened to come out of the anniversary events well?

[Christoph Heuer]

Hi,

765 ran as a replacement for a TMS vehicle
It ran on the depot open day as a shuttle service.
It ran all day Tuesday on an FTS tour
It then ran on an MTMS private hire.

This sounds a lot less limited than the TMS vehicles to me so how is that limited or is this just an attempt to deflect attention onto another tramway that happened to come out of the anniversary events well?

Thanks for the information. I have to admit that I have lost track of which vehicle was used on which occasion so I was not aware that 765 saw that much use, including the depot shuttle. (BTW, I was on the TMS tour on Sunday 12 Sept. and was pleased to ride 765 rather than 167 and 273 which I see much more often than 765.)

Christoph

[Guest]

Fair enough, in that case I appologise for the aggression in the reply.

I am not a person who attacks the TMS over issues I have no knowledge of as I have not visited for 16 years.

However I did not understand why 765 came into a discussion about the TMS in Blackpool.

[brushcar625]

Strange that the majority of criticism has centred around 2, 167 and 273. Whilst the situation regarding those three and their failures reflects badly on TMS maintenance standards, I feel a bigger criticism must be the ludicrous situation regarding tree damage. This is not a criticism of the TMS for withdrawing the deckers after 60 became damaged, but rather allowing the situation to go unnoriced. Did nobody see that the trees around the site were growing? Did nobody realise the potential difficulties? Is this the first year that trees have grown around the museum? The situation is rather reminiscent of a badly written television farce

[Liverpool762Lover]

Some interesting discussion here... I think most of the slagging of Crich is probably deserved, although I did enjoy Rack2. Why did the trams they sent fail when others worked OK? Liverpool 762 did particularly well as it only runs occasionally on a short track. 765 also did well as said before. I think the main questions that need to be asked are:

*Why was Rack 2 so unreliable? I know a lot of people are blaming the TMS for being unable to maintain trams to a standard that is fit for service on a public system, which seems harsh, but maybe theres some truth in it?

*Could 167's problem have been identified sooner or was it just one of those things? I saw a comment on Richard's blog saying that tram bearings are old so failures happen - er, hang on, 167 had just been overhauled and they were brand new!

*Why were double deckers sent without any protective covering? I didnt make much of it at the time, but having talked to a few people it seems that in the past they have always had some form of protection for road journeys. Part of me wonders if the TMS Board expected this to happen and did nothing so as to have a good excuse for not letting their trams go to Blackpool? Some attitudes I've heard about Blackpool 'wrecking' museum cars would certainly back this up but well probably never know for sure.


That said, what I dont understand is why all negativity seems aimed at the TMS and not the LTT who failed miserably to complete ANY of their projects on time, and delivered 8 & 143 to Rigby Road with nowhere near enough time to let BTS finish work on them! I think its them who really let the side down, at least Crich had car 2 running a bit.

[Christoph Heuer]

Hello,

may I take up some issues?

Strange that the majority of criticism has centred around 2, 167 and 273. Whilst the situation regarding those three and their failures reflects badly on TMS maintenance standards

If there is one thing I do not like that must be unjustified criticism and this falls into that category.

273 did not develop a technical fault. It derailed at Pleasure Beach at a point where the groove of the rail narrows suddenly, if I remember correctly right at the joint between the curved rail and the cast frog. I believe that the combination of the groove design and the reversed maximum traction bogies of 273 with the lightly loaded small wheels leading caused the problem, not TMS maintenance.

If the reports are correct that 167 failed because of some bearings which had been replaced recently that does not reflect badly on TMS maintenance standards but rather on the supplier of those bearings.

Why did B&F 2 fail? I have not heard any reliable reports on that, so I can not comment and would welcome any information.

Basically there is little to prove the theory that the TMS maintenance standards leave something to be desired. To me the failures are rather a lot of bad luck. But that concept is quite unpopular in this time where everybody seems to be eager to find someone to blame for something in order to get some financial compensation. The concepts of human error or unforeseeable mechanical failure do no longer exist.

I feel a bigger criticism must be the ludicrous situation regarding tree damage. This is not a criticism of the TMS for withdrawing the deckers after 60 became damaged, but rather allowing the situation to go unnoriced. Did nobody see that the trees around the site were growing? Did nobody realise the potential difficulties? Is this the first year that trees have grown around the museum?(...)

Tramcars do not normally move in and out of the museum on a regular basis and to my knowledge most moves, e.g. to Clay Cross or vice versa, took place in winter, outside the operating season. Thus there was little or no experience of the conditions in late summer. The route which has to be taken by low-loaders is one which would not normally be used by anyone travelling to or from Crich so the idea of trees being in the way just did not occur. Call it human error again. The people in charge will know next time, though!

(...)Part of me wonders if the TMS Board expected this to happen and did nothing so as to have a good excuse for not letting their trams go to Blackpool? Some attitudes I've heard about Blackpool 'wrecking' museum cars would certainly back this up but well probably never know for sure. (...)

I have heard that one before and do not think it is correct. As for Blackpool 'wrecking' museum cars I have good reason to believe that some people have that attitude which is based on past experience. What I do not understand, though, is why the visiting cars had to be driven by Blackpool staff. Elsewhere in continental Europe visiting cars were driven by staff, including volunteers, of the owning organisations, usually with someone of the host operator acting as pilot. Würzburg in 1990, Amsterdam in 2006 and Brussels in 2010 are examples of this.

(...)That said, what I dont understand is why all negativity seems aimed at the TMS and not the LTT who failed miserably to complete ANY of their projects on time(...)

Well, the LTT got some bashing on facebook (British Trams Online Facebook Group). And I can offer a reason for the bashing of the TMS: Even people quite sympathetic to the TMS have to admit that in the past the TMS, or to be precise leading persons of the TMS, have shown a tendency that their justified pride in their achievements had turned into arrogance. The natural reaction to that is that those at the receiving end of the arrogance get even more excited if that arrogant person or organisation shows weaknesses even more so, as the cars of the "underdogs" from Birkenhead and Heaton Park performed rather well.

I welcome any further comments, especially those which support my point of view

Regards

Christoph

[brushcar625]

I think its also very sad that, when the deckers were banned, Crich were unable to provide the same number of single deck substitutes. Surely a reflection of their obsession with withdrawing trams from the active fleet on minor pretexts. How wonderful Toastrack 166 would have been running again in Blackpool. Gateshead 5, Prague 180, Leeds 602 - all of these would have been fine substitutes but to offer the electric loco and Cardiff 131 was bizarre.

[Christoph Heuer]

Err,

Blackpool 166 is the one with the loose wheel on the axle, isn't it?
Gateshead 5 and Prague 180 have bodywork which is worse for wear.
I'm not sure about Leeds 602. Could be the wiring.

No, none of them was a real option. Strange that Crich did not embark on the opportunity to send 902 to Blackpool, without a return ticket.

Christoph

[Christoph Heuer]

Err,

Blackpool 166 is the one with the loose wheel on the axle, isn't it?
Gateshead 5 and Prague 180 have bodywork which is worse for wear.
I'm not sure about Leeds 602. Could be the wiring.

With the exception of 602 none of them was withdrawn for minor pretexts.

No, none of them was a real option. Strange that Crich did not embark on the opportunity to send 902 to Blackpool, without a return ticket.

Christoph

[Another Guest]

Christoph,

On the whole I think you present a more level headed point of view than has been prevelant by the masses.

For many of the reasons you have previously mentioned regarding personalities there is a desire to talk down our own society, most of the people not in the any of the societies were very happy with their time at Blackpool, our own members the most scathing almost taking pleasure in the failure, again probably for the reasons you describe.

R2 - It dissapointed riders on one of it's tours, but operated faultlessly on the other three much to the delight of it's passengers. The other failures appear to be unfortunate and on two training runs, although details don't appear to be available. Forget the age, aren't Blackpool going through the issues with 672/682 and until recently 761? Lets be realistic, use things and they break. Use things in a different enviroment and different faults will surface.

167 - operated many training runs as well as the day tour for the FTS/TMS, not just one trip as some commentators unfairly post. All that appears to be confirmed is it is a bearing fault and that the axle locked. This one looks like bad luck, perhaps more will come out in due course?

273 - Reversed maximum traction, renowned for a tendency to de-rail. It was a suprising initial choice for many because of this. Likely a track/tram combination? The operator appears to have decided to be careful and pulled it? Could it not have operated Depot - Bispham on the open day? The rest of the recorded training appears to have been without reported events?

Double deckers - I don't know much about the height issues, but did note that Liverpool 762 didn't get by unscathed having suffered damage to one of it's upper deck corner areas. Looking at various pictures on the web, even the lower height of 167 appears to have collected branches on it's way.

On the trips I was on or heard of, none of the cars behaved 'faultlessly' Liverpool 762 had electrical and controller issues, Manchester 765 a hot axle box and Stockport 5 had to be replaced on one tour I believe.

Don't get me wrong, this is not the TMS's shining hour, far from it, but nothing operated faultlessly, although Marton 31 would seem to be close with just a de-wirement or two?

Now a what if - What if all of these trams had been available, what would have been different? Little I suspect. I base this on the fact that the seemingly only way to get Sheffield 513 out on the Saturday was to pull Boat 600 in, would there have been extra crews available? It actually seems unlikely if we are honest. Same on the Sunday, Vintage cars were sat in the depot that could have operated the shuttle had there been the desire. Now that is conjecture, so I expect to be shouted down!

The whole thing is a sad affair, not just for the TMS, and I suspect a lot will be learnt by all of the parties involved, but perhaps in private, rather than the witch hunt that seems to be desired by many.

Finally, how on one hand can commentators criticise the TMS standards of maintenance, and yet also crticise them for withdrawing cars where defects are found during maintenance? Or are we in a 'Have the cake and eat it' world? Has everyone really forgotten Newcastle 102?

Regards.

[David Holt]

Just thought I'd use my own name to distinguish myself from the "Burkablogger brigade". The trouble is, you can't tell whether they're men or women can you?

Anyway, Oporto 273 might have derailed because of weight transfer, like Newcastle 102 once did at Glory Mine in the dim and distant past.

This can happen for example when such a tram stops on a dry curve. The driver applies power, the flanges are stuck by "stiction" to the rails, and the leading motor tries to wind itself down round the gear wheel, thus pressing down on its suspension springs which in turn bear down heavily - very heavily - on the back transom. With the driving axle acting as fulcrum, the front of the bogie lifts, and the wheels flip out. Nothing is faulty, neither the tram nor the track, it's just a phenomenon which can be avoided if you know how.

Hurtling along the curvy riverside line in Oporto at breathtaking speeds on the same sort of tram with the river alarmingly close and no intervening wall nor even a kerb, just a precipice, we used to fancy that the drivers applied the brakes short and sharp just as the leading wheels flew into each curve, thereby pressing them hard down on the rails and saving us all from an early bath, before winding straight up to full parallel again through the curve and out the other end ready for the next one. Those were the days.

Just spent a week in Germany with Graham Feakins, and we didn't see any derailment marks at all anywhere whatsoever, and they don't exactly hang about there do they.

Didn't see you on our travels though Christoph. Nice weather you have in Germany I must say, not like here.