Ah. Theory failure, then. I did wonder if the last tram might have been 263. It did seem strange to number a new tram 264. That's what happened in Croydon. The 1st new tram followed on, numerically, from the last old tram.

When you said the last tram I assumed that you meant the last tram that ran on the final day.

From the film, the fleet numbers of the trams that ran during the final week were:-
35 36 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 59 66 72 73 83 88 169 172 180 202 209 210 211 212 223 224 227 228 229
Which rather suggests that there were up to 229 (and maybe more).

And, of course. they might have lower (new) fleet numbers than the one you quoted - 236 - so I think your hunch could well be correct.
Edited to add that you quoted 263, not 236.
The various Wiki entries:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinbur...ation_Tramways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leith_Corporation_Tramways

don't record fleet numbers, but I imagine that this book would:- http://www.transportpasttimes.co.uk/...productId=1761 (and they've got one copy in stock!)

There were definitely trams with higher fleet numbers than the 229 quoted above - re-running the film sees what appears to be 357 and there is reference at 0:52:46 to car 349 'running away' in June 1929, however that scotches (!) your theory about carrying on the sequence (though the preponderance of double digit numbers in the film suggests that there may well have been gaps in the numbering system - maybe based on depots?).

From:- http://www.ferrymeadtramway.org.nz/d...february08.pdf

A photograph of the car 349 crash can be found on page 4 of:- http://www.ferrymeadtramway.org.nz/d...december07.pdf

New tram fleet numbers:- http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/edinburgh.html

OUCH!!!!! They didn't want to do that, did they?:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...cess-1-3338991

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...acks-1-3337177

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...utes-1-3341519