Blackpool Tram Crash, approx 1980?

[BestWestern]

Hi all, recently stumbled across this page which has a few interesting pictures of Blackpool's worst tram crash, which evidently involved a pair of Balloon's at the Pleasure Beach. An actual story is pretty scant, just pictures, does anybody have any interesting info on what exactly took place here? Were either of the cars involved scrapped? I presume at least one was returned to service as I recall the recently scrapped 722 as being only the second Balloon to be broken up. Any info much appreciated.

 

[bluegoblin7]

The accident that you refer to occurred in 1980 and is the worst accident to happen so far in the history of the tramway, though thankfully there were no fatalities.

The incident occurred at the loop at Pleasure Beach, with Balloon 705 (heading straight on) colliding into 706 (coming off the loop). The reason was due to incorrectly set points which diverted 705 into the path of 706. Both trams were subsequently withdrawn and neither were expected to run again, though in the end only 705 was broken up, with 706 being re-converted back to open-top configuration and is still with us today.

http://www.pardon4darrell-pierre.com/, a website dedicated to getting an apology for the drive of 705 who was wrongly blamed of causing the crash, contains a lot more information about the collision and is worth a read.

Hope this helps.

Jack

 

[astock5000]

The incident occurred at the loop at Pleasure Beach, with Balloon 705 (heading straight on) colliding into 706 (coming off the loop).

I've read this on several websites, but I'm not sure that's exactly correct. It was a head-on collision, and for 706 to be leaving the loop 705 must have run onto the inner loop with 706 on the northbound line after leaving the inner loop. However, I read somewhere that it occurred where the outer loop crossed the northbound track, in which case 706 must have been running from Starr Gate.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Sorry! A slight error on my part here.

705 was operating a southbound service to Starr Gate when it met a set of incorrectly set points and veered off onto the Pleasure Beach loop. The points had been left open by the conductor of the preceding tram.

706 was operating a northbound service on the main line and was in the path of 705 as it veered off to the right hand side, causing the head on collision to occur.

Information clarified with Stephen Pierre, the author of the above website, and the son of the driver of 705 whom the accident was (Wrongly) attributed to.

Jack

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The accident was rightly attributed to the driver of 705. The BT rule book states that drivers should stop and check points before going over them. What shouldn't have happened is attributing 100% blame to him.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Sorry, yes... that's what I meant. 20% blame was later apportioned which was appropriate. What you get for sending replies at 3AM!

 

[BestWestern]

This is very tense territory, so I shall tread sensitively and be brief.

Is that absolutely correct that the Rulebook for tram Drivers on the Blackpool system states that the Driver MUST check any set of points before proceeding over them? Presumably it also states that a Conductor must replace any set of points they have changed after their tram has cleared them?

In which case, would the blame not clearly be 50/50 Driver and previous Conductor? Of course, these things get very complicated, and of course I wasn't there at the time. But if that is the lay of the Rulebook, I'm curious as to where the blame which was laid at BT's door would have come from? Also curious as to why BT felt the need to cover up the identity of the previous Conductor? Any thoughts?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As I understand it, drivers should check points before going over. However, drivers should also replace points to the normal position if they have been changed.

 

[theblackwatch]

722 was also scrapped owing to an accident, when 711 went into the rear of it in October/November 2007 - my parents were actually on it at the time! Despite it being subsequently declared a write-off, they actually remained on 722 after the incident and travelled on it (as far as Tower I think), after which it ran under its own power back to Rigby Road, never to run again.

 

[BestWestern]

As I understand it, drivers should check points before going over. However, drivers should also replace points to the normal position if they have been changed.

Exactly, so in that case I'd have thought that the 20% blame apportioned to the Driver who's tram went wrong road was a tad lenient? As I said though, I'm not trying to stir up what is clearly a very emotive issue for those directly connected, merely trying to understand the mechanics behind the outcome of the investigations.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Exactly, so in that case I'd have thought that the 20% blame apportioned to the Driver who's tram went wrong road was a tad lenient? As I said though, I'm not trying to stir up what is clearly a very emotive issue for those directly connected, merely trying to understand the mechanics behind the outcome of the investigations.

They originally blamed it entirely on him. 50/50 sounds a bit better. I don't think the issue is with the amount of blame, just that they refused to release the other driver's name, whilst saying it was all his fault.

 

[BestWestern]

They originally blamed it entirely on him. 50/50 sounds a bit better. I don't think the issue is with the amount of blame, just that they refused to release the other driver's name, whilst saying it was all his fault.

Yeah it's quite mysterious that the Conductor who previously failed to replace the points was never named, very odd
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

722 was also scrapped owing to an accident, when 711 went into the rear of it in October/November 2007 - my parents were actually on it at the time! Despite it being subsequently declared a write-off, they actually remained on 722 after the incident and travelled on it (as far as Tower I think), after which it ran under its own power back to Rigby Road, never to run again.

Wow, that's quite interesting, she suffered a bent chassis I believe so I'm suprised she carried on in service!

 

[bluegoblin7]

I'll avoid commenting too much as I'm privy to some details that haven't been made public and consider the case, like many, to finally be closed on what happened, but basically the driver was later apportioned only 20% of the blame as Blackpool Corporation failed to blame the conductor of the other tram or name them, whilst technology which could have more easily stopped the accident from happening (colour light indicators - now fitted!) had been ruled out.

It is the driver's responsibility to check all points before travelling over them, however I know from experience that sometimes, particularly at night and in bad weather, it can be hard to see where the point blades are, particularly from Balloons that have enclosed cabs, and what direction they lie - though I cannot recall the circumstances of the 1980 accident and - I add - have never had a points issue myself!

On the Blackpool system it is the responsibility of the conductor/guard to set and reset all manually operated points on the system, though this will probably change next year when the Supertrams come in.

Jack

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It is the driver's responsibility to check all points before travelling over them, however I know from experience that sometimes, particularly at night and in bad weather, it can be hard to see where the point blades are, particularly from Balloons that have enclosed cabs, and what direction they lie - though I cannot recall the circumstances of the 1980 accident and - I add - have never had a points issue myself!

With respect, that's irrelevant. If the rules say you have to check the points and you can't see them from the cab because it's dark/inclement weather, then you get out and walk up to them to look.

 

[BestWestern]

I'll avoid commenting too much as I'm privy to some details that haven't been made public and consider the case, like many, to finally be closed on what happened, but basically the driver was later apportioned only 20% of the blame as Blackpool Corporation failed to blame the conductor of the other tram or name them, whilst technology which could have more easily stopped the accident from happening (colour light indicators - now fitted!) had been ruled out.

What a bizarre case this was! Reducing the apportioned blame of a guilty party beyond what was appropriate, simply due to an initial failure to identify another guilty party, is most odd! Without wishing to delve beyond acceptable boundaries, I sense from what you mention that there are/were other 'factors' at play here?! I must confess I haven't read viewed the website which is linked elsewhere, but what is the rough basis for the ongoing campaign to exonerate the Driver concerned?

 

[WestCoast]

It is indeed a bizarre case. I had heard of it before now, but I hadn't read the website. Certain things on there seem credible, but others don't

The main thing that stands out is that BCT "couldn't track down the conductor", which gives a major hint towards a cover-up since that just wouldn't happen. They would have had records of who was working on that tram.

 

[BestWestern]

Being 'unable' to track down a Conductor could surely only be complete fantasy. As you say, there would be somebody rostered to work on the tram involved. The only remotely credible explanation that I could think of would be if there were more than one Conductor involved and both denied responsibility, but I would think that unlikely somehow. One can't help but wonder if the person responsible was perhaps worthy of being protected, or shouldn't have been undertaking those duties at all?

Very, very odd

Edit - Have just read the website campaign set up by the family of the Driver. The 80% blame was laid at the door of BTS by the Courts, which is a slightly clunky way of redressing the balance, and sadly didn't make any significant moves towards unveiling the facts which were still being kept a secret. There was just the one Conductor on the previous tram, who it seems was allowed to 'go free' due to what are suggested as the dubious actions of those investigating the incident. A twisted tale indeed.

 

[WestCoast]

Being 'unable' to track down a Conductor could surely only be complete fantasy. As you say, there would be somebody rostered to work on the tram involved. The only remotely credible explanation that I could think of would be if there were more than one Conductor involved and both denied responsibility, but I would think that unlikely somehow. One can't help but wonder if the person responsible was perhaps worthy of being protected, or shouldn't have been undertaking those duties at all?

Very, very odd
.

They conducted a "full investigation" at the time, and then failed to track down the top-deck conductor who was allegedly involved. No, that's just a lie, it's not credible at all.

The most logical explanation I reckon is, as you say, they were somehow protecting those involved or covering the company against negligence.

Could it have been a trainee who was not supposed to be there? Could it have been someone connected with councillors/higher management (perhaps a son/daughter)? If you read the section about the telephone call on the website, I had a slight feeling that the nature of the call suggested something about the incident.

Anyway, an interesting case, thankfully no fatalities, but still very difficult for the driver, which was this case was about.

Thankfully, nowadays safety improvements have taken place and with all the cameras (even on trams!) about, I doubt the management would ever be able to perform such a cover-up. I am glad a closure has been reached on this though.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, I guess closure is yet to be found for the Driver's son

As for the company being negligent, I would imagine the situation on that front would be no different whether it was the Driver or the illusive Conductor who had been found guilty, or indeed both, which might suggest that it could have been a case of covering someone's backside :cry:

 

[WestCoast]

Well, I guess closure is yet to be found for the Driver's son :

Very true.

As for the company being negligent, I would imagine the situation on that front would be no different whether it was the Driver or the illusive Conductor who had been found guilty, or indeed both, which would suggest that it was very possibly a case of covering someone's backside :cry:

If there has been a cover up then it seems really shameful that the management did such a thing, I thought the municipal operator had more decency than that. Is it a surprise that the management team of then and witnesses cannot or will not speak to the driver's son?

If there had been fatalities (thank goodness there wasn't), I guess they wouldn't have been able to perform such a cover-up. In this modern age of CCTV and camera phones, again it would be harder to conceal.

There was something about that conductor which is the root of all this, sadly for the driver's son, it seems we will never fully know. Although, he may well know more than what has been publicly released.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Again I'm treading carefully with this, but I will say that there is more known than is being publicly released and someone's comments made above were in the right area... but I hope you understand that that's all I can say.

An apology was made last year by the Council and, as far as the driver's son is concerned, that's the end of his apology campaign and closure has been found. Further facts are known by him as mentioned above, but I think it's safe to say that the full details of the accident will, sadly, never be publicly released.

Jack