Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[TheGrandWazoo]

Tbh the streetlite hulleys had was really good, most if not all drivers were a fan of it… shame they had to sell

Indeed - I went on it from Chesterfield to Bakewell and it was absolutely fine.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Interesting assumption. As both companies had the same owner when they were initially leased the money would be coming from the same ultimate source.

They have plenty of classic E200s which seem to work fairly well. There is a lot of faster running and plenty of hills, plus our roads are frankly terrible. Maybe the build quality just isn't up to handling them?

ADL's build quality does seem to go in cycles. Early e200s (circa 2006/7) were often quite poor; operators complained and ADL improved.
Hulley's oldest is an 09 plate IIRC with most between 11 and 64, by which time the build quality was pretty good.
It does seem from reports that build quality has slipped again recently (loose engines etc.)
Also, what gearboxes do Hulley's classic e200s have? ZF and Allison were options until recently, but recent ones only come with Voith. If the gearbox is different it can make a massive difference to the performance of outwardly similar buses.

 

[MotCO]

Was there a difference in build quality between the Scottish built and Yorkshire built vehicles? I seem to remember some operators insisted that their vehicles were built in a specific factory.

 

[Teapot42]

That's really not how it works!

Quite, that's the point I was making. The legal Go Coach entity won't sign a lease for buses to be painted in a different livery and operated by a different legal entity. While not impossibly, I also can't see Go Coach having a better credit rating due to the common ownership, meaning little reason for them to be the one taking out the lease.

I suspect the transfer is part of the untangling of the two companies when Go Coach was sold back to the previous owner - after all, their fleet hasn't seen any new vehicles since the original sale.

 

[Goldfish62]

I suspect the transfer is part of the untangling of the two companies when Go Coach was sold back to the previous owner - after all, their fleet hasn't seen any new vehicles since the original sale.

Agreed!

 

[AWK]

So these buses that we were told on this thread were going because they're faulty, so awful to drive and passengers hate them are being acquired by other operators, including the very one who provided engineering support to Hulley's.

I always these supposed reasons for their disposal was nonsense.

Indeed.

Hulleys had a very similar E200MMC (no. 1) when they took out the lease on the other 4, same (or very similar) driveline so they knew what they were getting. Identical vehicles operate in the Scottish Highlands, Pennine Hills and Welsh hills & valleys with both major and independent operators without issue, and of course locally with High Peak on the Buxton to Manchester Airport service which includes hill climbing and fast (motorway) running. The Hulleys operating terrain isn't that unique!

If there were issues with build quality then these can/should be addressed by the manufacturers or leasing agent as the vehicles will still be under warranty. Not a reason to return them without replacement.

I'm very much of the opinion that the vehicles have been returned to get the rental costs off the books, and the recent service changes have allowed this to happen.

If some have gone to Go-Coach this is likely to be a separate arrangement with the leasing company rather than a transfer of leases. Given the 2 reported to Metrobus have a 'missing' number between them (one has a fleet number ending in 0, the other is 2 up) this COULD suggest that at least 1 more is heading that way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

Quite, that's the point I was making. The legal Go Coach entity won't sign a lease for buses to be painted in a different livery and operated by a different legal entity. While not impossibly, I also can't see Go Coach having a better credit rating due to the common ownership, meaning little reason for them to be the one taking out the lease.

I suspect the transfer is part of the untangling of the two companies when Go Coach was sold back to the previous owner - after all, their fleet hasn't seen any new vehicles since the original sale.

Sorry, that's very wrong.

As both Go-Coach and Hulleys were owned by the same legal entity (ModelDart Ltd) it is entirely plausible that this was a deal signed by that entity (Modeldart) with an internal transfer of costs where by, as an example, Modeldart pay for all 4 then charge the cost of 2 back to Hulleys and 2 back to Go-Coach, even though all 4 are actually operated by Hulleys. Comments attributed to Austin Blackburn suggested Go-Coach was "propping up" Hulleys and this is one way that could have been happening - GC's accounts paying for vehicle costs they weren't operating. Another way could be GC's accounts paying the wages and parts costs for the Hulley's vehicles they were repairing/putting through MoT without those costs being recharged to the Hulley's business, so GC had all the costs and Hulleys essentially got free work.

There's no requirement at all for the legal entity on a rental agreement to match the fleetname/livery on the bus! Also, each legal entity will have its own credit rating based on previous financial history, so entirely possible that Go-Coach Ltd has/had a better credit rating than Modeldart Ltd or Henry Hulley & Sons Ltd.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

One final point why I'm convinced build quality is not the issue here is that 2 have gone to Metrobus, owned by Brighton & Hove, arguably one of the most prestigious and well respected operators out there who simply will not buy rubbish! Imagine the phone call...

Hello Mr dealer, Brighton & Hove here. I see you're advertising some 74 plate E200s for lease recently returned to you after a few months with their operator. That's really unusual, can you tell me why they returned them? Yes of course Mr Brighton, it's because they are awful vehicles thrown together and they're not fit to be on the road. Ah thanks Mr Dealer, we're not interested then.

Or

Hello Mr dealer, Brighton & Hove here. I see you're advertising some 74 plate E200s for lease recently returned to you after a few months with their operator. That's really unusual, can you tell me why they returned them? Yes of course Mr Brighton, it's because the company could no longer afford the leases so sadly they had to return them. Ah thanks Mr Dealer, thats a shame for them but given they're practically brand new we'll take them

I know which of the 2 is far more plausible

 

[Teapot42]

As both Go-Coach and Hulleys were owned by the same legal entity (ModelDart Ltd) it is entirely plausible that this was a deal signed by that entity (Modeldart) with an internal transfer of costs where by, as an example, Modeldart pay for all 4 then charge the cost of 2 back to Hulleys and 2 back to Go-Coach, even though all 4 are actually operated by Hulleys. Comments attributed to Austin Blackburn suggested Go-Coach was "propping up" Hulleys and this is one way that could have been happening - GC's accounts paying for vehicle costs they weren't operating. Another way could be GC's accounts paying the wages and parts costs for the Hulley's vehicles they were repairing/putting through MoT without those costs being recharged to the Hulley's business, so GC had all the costs and Hulleys essentially got free work.

I'd be interested to see how that would work from an accounting point of view. I've worked at businesses where creative cross subsidy was used to minimise a tax bill, but I think if one tried to book a cost which was directly benefitting another then any auditor worth their salt would throw up major objections.

About the only way I can see Go Coach being used to prop up Hulleys is if repair / servicing work done there was not charged at commercial rates, likewise vehicles on loan to Hulleys from Go Coach might not have attracted commercial lease rates, similar to what you mention.

I've also heard that the stories coming out of Go Coach are a bit inflated compared to the reality. After all, if you are taking advantage of someone being seriously ill in hospital for your own business ends then maybe there is more to the story than you want the public to know.

One final point why I'm convinced build quality is not the issue here is that 2 have gone to Metrobus, owned by Brighton & Hove, arguably one of the most prestigious and well respected operators out there who simply will not buy rubbish!

I suspect the reality is somewhere between the two. Committing that much on a lease might not have been the wisest decision, and with the buses not being right the decision was made to terminate the lease rather than send them back for rework.

 

[AWK]

I'd be interested to see how that would work from an accounting point of view. I've worked at businesses where creative cross subsidy was used to minimise a tax bill, but I think if one tried to book a cost which was directly benefitting another then any auditor worth their salt would throw up major objections.

About the only way I can see Go Coach being used to prop up Hulleys is if repair / servicing work done there was not charged at commercial rates, likewise vehicles on loan to Hulleys from Go Coach might not have attracted commercial lease rates, similar to what you mention.

I've also heard that the stories coming out of Go Coach are a bit inflated compared to the reality. After all, if you are taking advantage of someone being seriously ill in hospital for your own business ends then maybe there is more to the story than you want the public to know.

I suspect the reality is somewhere between the two. Committing that much on a lease might not have been the wisest decision, and with the buses not being right the decision was made to terminate the lease rather than send them back for rework.

There's nothing wrong with the vehicles. The first thing Brighton & Hove/Metrobus will have done is get them up on the ramps for a full inspection and taken them on a road test. If there were any issues they'd have rejected them. They won't put their logo on a vehicle they're not happy with, simple as.

Such accounting practices are perfectly normal in businesses under the same ownership. It's entirely up to the business owner if they chose to instruct Company A to invoice Company B for money that ultimately comes out of the same pot.

 

[Goldfish62]

Indeed.

Hulleys had a very similar E200MMC (no. 1) when they took out the lease on the other 4, same (or very similar) driveline so they knew what they were getting. Identical vehicles operate in the Scottish Highlands, Pennine Hills and Welsh hills & valleys with both major and independent operators without issue, and of course locally with High Peak on the Buxton to Manchester Airport service which includes hill climbing and fast (motorway) running. The Hulleys operating terrain isn't that unique!

GoCornwall operate around 90 E200MMCs in territory some of which is far more demanding than that of Hulley's. Apart from the 16 acquired from First Kernow they're all bog-standard dealer spec with the common 4-cylinder Cummins / Allison driveline.

 

[Teapot42]

There's nothing wrong with the vehicles. The first thing Brighton & Hove/Metrobus will have done is get them up on the ramps for a full inspection and taken them on a road test. If there were any issues they'd have rejected them. They won't put their logo on a vehicle they're not happy with, simple as.

As usual you are great at missing my point. The vehicles won't have gone straight to Metrobus, they'd have gone via ADL to rectify any issues. FWIW, I don't think there are any serious defects with the buses, but the drivers don't seem to like them. Maybe it's just the spec (engine size etc) wasn't right for Hulleys but is fine for Metrobus.

Such accounting practices are perfectly normal in businesses under the same ownership. It's entirely up to the business owner if they chose to instruct Company A to invoice Company B for money that ultimately comes out of the same pot.

Very much not. You can only claim business expenses for that particular company. You can't get another company to pay expenses for you, no matter what the ultimate ownership. The only thing I can see might fly would be for Go Coach to lease them then sub-lease to Hulleys at less than they are paying as a way to hide some of the cost from Hulleys books.

However, all I've seen and been told suggest this is purely a Hulleys transaction and Go Coach weren't involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

GoCornwall operate around 90 E200MMCs in territory some of which is far more demanding than that of Hulley's. Apart from the 16 acquired from First Kernow they're all bog-standard dealer spec with the common 4-cylinder Cummins / Allison driveline.

From a post on Facebook it would seem all the Hulleys ones were Voith, apart from the 70-plate 'short' one which was Allison. That one blew the turbo after only a short time at Hulleys so went back to the dealer.

I've not spend a lot of time in Cornwall, but am struggling to remember anything 'far more demanding' than the Peak District routes. Even the comparison with the High Peak examples isn't that close, as they shuttle back and forth up the A6, not the steeper and more twisty routes of some Hulleys services.

 

[Goldfish62]

I've not spend a lot of time in Cornwall, but am struggling to remember anything 'far more demanding' than the Peak District routes.

There you go then.

 

[Teapot42]

There you go then.

You know, rather than being a smartarse you could just give a few examples. I've driven enough to have an impression that there is nothing much different to the Peak District and a fair bit unremarkable in terms of hills.

Where are the bits that are 'far more demanding'?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I've not spend a lot of time in Cornwall, but am struggling to remember anything 'far more demanding' than the Peak District routes. Even the comparison with the High Peak examples isn't that close, as they shuttle back and forth up the A6, not the steeper and more twisty routes of some Hulleys services.

In fairness to @Goldfish62, there are plenty of routes in Cornwall that are as demanding as the Peak District. Climbing up and over from Pentewan to Mevagissey, the 95 from Bude to Wadebridge drops down into lots of little villages in coves such as Crackington Haven or Boscastle, 79 from Callington to Tavistock is up and down like a bride's nightie... Just off the top of my head.

Too many people seem to think that "special buses" are needed for their particular territory, whether that's London or Derbyshire. That really isn't true.

 

[Goldfish62]

You know, rather than being a smartarse you could just give a few examples. I've driven enough to have an impression that there is nothing much different to the Peak District and a fair bit unremarkable in terms of hills.

Where are the bits that are 'far more demanding'?

Yeah, with hindsight my "far more demanding" was probably a bit off. "Just as demanding" is more accurate.

Really not any need for personal abuse though.

 

[Killingworth]

I've been on open top buses operating out of Penzance and on Stagecoach's route from Chatsworth up the Winnats Pass to Mam Tor. From a drivers point of view they're both challenging.

Stagecoach put on an hourly service in 2024 using 3 buses, the subject for a different thread.

In 2023 Hulleys also put on an hourly service between Baslow and Castleton. Using only one open top bus on a round trip journey that would take me over an hour in the car on quiet days. It failed rather badly.

The naivety of that operation may have been a warning sign, as are attempts to run viable and reliable routes over the Snake Pass.

 

[MotCO]

Were Hulleys and GoCoach kept as separate companies within the Modeldart umbrealla, or were they completely integrated?

 

[Goldfish62]

Were Hulleys and GoCoach kept as separate companies within the Modeldart umbrealla, or were they completely integrated?

Separate limited companies. Think in terms of the individual OpCos of First, Stagecoach, etc, but on a much smaller scale.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

In 2023 Hulleys also put on an hourly service between Baslow and Castleton. Using only one open top bus on a round trip journey that would take me over an hour in the car on quiet days. It failed rather badly.

And which is still registered, with the last variation effective from 01/07/2023.

The one time I attempted to use it it didn't turn up. Apparently hadn't been seen all week, not that the company were admitting to it.

 

[AWK]

As usual you are great at missing my point. The vehicles won't have gone straight to Metrobus, they'd have gone via ADL to rectify any issues. FWIW, I don't think there are any serious defects with the buses, but the drivers don't seem to like them. Maybe it's just the spec (engine size etc) wasn't right for Hulleys but is fine for Metrobus.


Very much not. You can only claim business expenses for that particular company. You can't get another company to pay expenses for you, no matter what the ultimate ownership. The only thing I can see might fly would be for Go Coach to lease them then sub-lease to Hulleys at less than they are paying as a way to hide some of the cost from Hulleys books.

However, all I've seen and been told suggest this is purely a Hulleys transaction and Go Coach weren't involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==


From a post on Facebook it would seem all the Hulleys ones were Voith, apart from the 70-plate 'short' one which was Allison. That one blew the turbo after only a short time at Hulleys so went back to the dealer.

I've not spend a lot of time in Cornwall, but am struggling to remember anything 'far more demanding' than the Peak District routes. Even the comparison with the High Peak examples isn't that close, as they shuttle back and forth up the A6, not the steeper and more twisty routes of some Hulleys services.

And with the greatest respect, your lack of industry knowledge is telling.

If the vehicles came through one of the independent leasing companies such as Dawsons, Mistral or Close Bros they won't have gone anywhere near ADL. They'd have gone to a Dawsons/Mistral/Close Bros premises or appointed agents for a check over and any routine maintenance and then on to their next operator. Even if they had come through the rental arm at ADL at Anston they will have gone back there just for routine inspections/maintenance. The fact they've quickly gone back out to another operator is proof they have not been anywhere for any substantial rectification work.

It is perfect plausible for a mechanic to be employed and paid by Go-Coach who spent most of their time working on Hulleys vehicles. It is perfectly plausible that Go-Coach paid a local (to them) parts company for a box full of brake pads, several gallons of oil and such like the majority of which ended up in Hulleys vehicles and for all of that to not have been billed back to Hulleys.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

I've been on open top buses operating out of Penzance and on Stagecoach's route from Chatsworth up the Winnats Pass to Mam Tor. From a drivers point of view they're both challenging.

Stagecoach put on an hourly service in 2024 using 3 buses, the subject for a different thread.

In 2023 Hulleys also put on an hourly service between Baslow and Castleton. Using only one open top bus on a round trip journey that would take me over an hour in the car on quiet days. It failed rather badly.

The naivety of that operation may have been a warning sign, as are attempts to run viable and reliable routes over the Snake Pass.

And, per the search facility on the VOSA website, Hulleys have never cancelled the registration for the 'Breezer' service so, per the letter of the law, have failed to operate the service per the registration last summer

 

[WibbleWobble]

And, per the search facility on the VOSA website, Hulleys have never cancelled the registration for the 'Breezer' service so, per the letter of the law, have failed to operate the service per the registration last summer

I'd want to see the paperwork before making that assumption. If the dates of operation were shown in the timetable (which some operators do), then it wouldn't be a failure to operate. It would still need a formal cancellation, as the Traffic Commissioners' admin team haven't entered an end date (otherwise the registration would show "expired").

 

[AWK]

I'd want to see the paperwork before making that assumption. If the dates of operation were shown in the timetable (which some operators do), then it wouldn't be a failure to operate. It would still need a formal cancellation, as the Traffic Commissioners' admin team haven't entered an end date (otherwise the registration would show "expired").

Quite so, and indeed I'm happy to acknowledge my error, I only checked the short notice variation that was received on 23rd June 2023 to amend the timetable from 1st July 2023 had no operation period attached (again, why a short notice application was accepted to address a commercial failing is beyond me, but hey ho) BUT the initial registration was for summer school holidays 2023 only so is indeed now expired, if not cancelled.

My apologies

 

[WibbleWobble]

Quite so, and indeed I'm happy to acknowledge my error, I only checked the short notice variation that was received on 23rd June 2023 to amend the timetable from 1st July 2023 had no operation period attached (again, why a short notice application was accepted to address a commercial failing is beyond me, but hey ho) BUT the initial registration was for summer school holidays 2023 only so is indeed now expired, if not cancelled.

My apologies

You can only go off what you see - I've seen cancellations made several years after the end date, for this very reason - larger operators often have periods of "housekeeping" to get rid of these admin oversights!

 

[Teapot42]

You can only go off what you see - I've seen cancellations made several years after the end date, for this very reason - larger operators often have periods of "housekeeping" to get rid of these admin oversights!

Hulleys themselves did a tidying up exercise a couple of years back, including some that likely hadn't run in over a decade.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

(again, why a short notice application was accepted to address a commercial failing is beyond me, but hey ho)

Do you seriously think it would be better for passengers that they be forced to operate to a timetable that has proved unworkable? I'd hope a dose of common sense would be applied, and indeed I'd imagine recognition of the situation and an attempt to rectify it would look better than muddling on.

There was a lack of oversight in the first place however, someone with more experience should have checked over the plan and pointed out just how unworkable the timetable was. While you learn by making mistakes, you should also be able to rely on someone to mentor you and head off obvious mistakes before they become too much of a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

If the vehicles came through one of the independent leasing companies such as Dawsons, Mistral or Close Bros they won't have gone anywhere near ADL. They'd have gone to a Dawsons/Mistral/Close Bros premises or appointed agents for a check over and any routine maintenance and then on to their next operator.

I love how you keep intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. If they were fine then yes, Dawsons would have just given them a quick once-over and on to the next operator. However, I am making the assumption if there are significant issues that need rectification then this would happen at ADL. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I've not seen any other industry where a manufacturing fault is rectified by the purchaser rather than it being sent back to the manufacturer to fix.

It all comes down to whether the issues raised were manufacturing related, or simply that the buses weren't suited to the routes they were being run on. From what the drivers have said it does sound like one is much better than the others, something which really shouldn't be the case in this day and age.

It is perfect plausible for a mechanic to be employed and paid by Go-Coach who spent most of their time working on Hulleys vehicles. It is perfectly plausible that Go-Coach paid a local (to them) parts company for a box full of brake pads, several gallons of oil and such like the majority of which ended up in Hulleys vehicles and for all of that to not have been billed back to Hulleys.

All possible, but that also doesn't sound like Go Coach propping Hulleys up as has been claimed, just a bit of creative accounting across the group companies. The way it was phrased, the accusation sounds more like Go Coach profits were funnelled directly in to keeping Hulleys afloat.

Regardless of what the reality is, I do wonder what the problem is with the owner of a business doing what he wants with the money it makes. It sounds more like someone was regretting selling.

 

[AWK]

Hulleys themselves did a tidying up exercise a couple of years back, including some that likely hadn't run in over a decade.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==


Do you seriously think it would be better for passengers that they be forced to operate to a timetable that has proved unworkable? I'd hope a dose of common sense would be applied, and indeed I'd imagine recognition of the situation and an attempt to rectify it would look better than muddling on.

There was a lack of oversight in the first place however, someone with more experience should have checked over the plan and pointed out just how unworkable the timetable was. While you learn by making mistakes, you should also be able to rely on someone to mentor you and head off obvious mistakes before they become too much of a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

Yes, that is exactly what should have happend. It is the responsibility of the Operator to run the service as registered, and if they wish to change it, to give the minimum statutory notice period. if the Operator has cocked the timings up, if their commercial judgement is out and the goldmine of a service they imagined is a dead dog tough. You submit your cancellation or ammendment forms and 42 days later the changes come in to effect. Same rules for every Operator.

Are you suggesting the designated Traffic Manager did not have sight of the service registration before it was submitted? That would be unusual to say the least.

I love how you keep intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. If they were fine then yes, Dawsons would have just given them a quick once-over and on to the next operator. However, I am making the assumption if there are significant issues that need rectification then this would happen at ADL. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I've not seen any other industry where a manufacturing fault is rectified by the purchaser rather than it being sent back to the manufacturer to fix.

If there were serious faults then yes, they would have gone back to ADL for reworking. Even if they were ADL-owned vehicles they would be sat in a yard somewhere still now awaiting workshop space for attention. They will not have been sorted and back out to a new operator in a matter of days.

All possible, but that also doesn't sound like Go Coach propping Hulleys up as has been claimed, just a bit of creative accounting across the group companies. The way it was phrased, the accusation sounds more like Go Coach profits were funnelled directly in to keeping Hulleys afloat.

Regardless of what the reality is, I do wonder what the problem is with the owner of a business doing what he wants with the money it makes. It sounds more like someone was regretting selling.

Let me give you an entirely ficticious scenario to explain...

There are two bus companies, Company G and Company H. Company G is privately owned. Company H is 100% owned by Company M.

The owner of Company G retires, he sells his profitable business to Company M. The sole owner of Company M makes several promises to the owner of Company G about investment in the business and further developing it.

At the end of the financial year Company G has made a massive profit, and pays a huge dividend to Company M, leaving no profit at all in Company G to buy new vehicles or improve provision. Company H has lost a load of money and pays no dividend, but Company M injects a load of money, strangely equal to amount it got in divided from Company G in to Company H. Despite Company H being loss-making suddenly 5 new buses arrive whilst Company G struggle along with their existing fleet and are unable to invest any money.

Thus, I would suggest that the money made by Company G was being used to "propping up" Company H, wouldn't you?

 

[Teapot42]

Yes, that is exactly what should have happend. It is the responsibility of the Operator to run the service as registered, and if they wish to change it, to give the minimum statutory notice period. if the Operator has cocked the timings up, if their commercial judgement is out and the goldmine of a service they imagined is a dead dog tough. You submit your cancellation or ammendment forms and 42 days later the changes come in to effect. Same rules for every Operator.

Amazing. No wonder the industry is in poor shape if it's perfectly acceptable to leave passengers wondering whether a bus will turn up rather than allowing a prompt change to a workable timetable. So much for customer focus.

Are you suggesting the designated Traffic Manager did not have sight of the service registration before it was submitted? That would be unusual to say the least.

I'm sure they did. Whether it was scrutinised in the way it should have been is another question.

Thus, I would suggest that the money made by Company G was being used to "propping up" Company H, wouldn't you?

In your fictitious scenario where did the owner of Company M get the money to buy Company G, and why did he do that rather than invest it in Company H?

I'm sure Go Coach are more profitable than Hulleys, but Go Coach have a more modern fleet to start with, so little need to invest in the short term, unlike Hulleys which has several vehicles which are life expired, and also the need for more Euro 6 buses due to the Sheffield CAZ.

And surely an easier way to take advantage of the purchase would be to just cascade some of the Go Coach fleet to Hulleys.

 

[AWK]

Amazing. No wonder the industry is in poor shape if it's perfectly acceptable to leave passengers wondering whether a bus will turn up rather than allowing a prompt change to a workable timetable. So much for customer focus.

It is the responsibility of the Operator to ensure their registrations are correct and they are able to deliver that registration. From this, they and the local authority will communicate details of the service provision, including a timetable, to passengers. This is the method through which passengers are able to know when their bus should turn up.

If the Operator has made a mess of their timings that is their fault. It's not the job of the service registration and statutory notice period to get them of that mess.

I'm sure they did. Whether it was scrutinised in the way it should have been is another question.

Then they have failed in their duties.

In your fictitious scenario where did the owner of Company M get the money to buy Company G, and why did he do that rather than invest it in Company H?

Dunno. Maybe they won it on the horses, remortgaged their house, Great Aunt Aggie died and left them the money. Who knows?

I'm sure Go Coach are more profitable than Hulleys, but Go Coach have a more modern fleet to start with, so little need to invest in the short term, unlike Hulleys which has several vehicles which are life expired, and also the need for more Euro 6 buses due to the Sheffield CAZ.

And surely an easier way to take advantage of the purchase would be to just cascade some of the Go Coach fleet to Hulleys.

But if you took vehicles out of Company G they'd have less resources to make money with. And in that entirely ficticious scenario, Company M needs Company G to make as much money as possible so they can invest it in to Company H

 

[JKP]

Amazing. No wonder the industry is in poor shape if it's perfectly acceptable to leave passengers wondering whether a bus will turn up rather than allowing a prompt change to a workable timetable. So much for customer focus.

I'm sure they did. Whether it was scrutinised in the way it should have been is another question.

In your fictitious scenario where did the owner of Company M get the money to buy Company G, and why did he do that rather than invest it in Company H?

I'm sure Go Coach are more profitable than Hulleys, but Go Coach have a more modern fleet to start with, so little need to invest in the short term, unlike Hulleys which has several vehicles which are life expired, and also the need for more Euro 6 buses due to the Sheffield CAZ.

And surely an easier way to take advantage of the purchase would be to just cascade some of the Go Coach fleet to Hulleys.

It would not surprise me that some Councils or Transport Authorities would not give a letter of support to an operator to change an unworkable timetable. Without naming names I can think of some, normally the more politically inclined. Usually though this is where a good relationship between operator and local authority is key. This is in my experience the norm but as I say it does vary between authorities.

 

[AWK]

It would not surprise me that some Councils or Transport Authorities would not give a letter of support to an operator to change an unworkable timetable. Without naming names I can think of some, normally the more politically inclined. Usually though this is where a good relationship between operator and local authority is key. This is in my experience the norm but as I say it does vary between authorities.

Agreed, but whether the local authority supports or not, there are clear requirements for the submission/acceptance of short notice registrations/changes/cancellations as I've posted previously in this thread. Cocking up your timings or poor commercial judgement isn't a valid reason per the TCs own guidance.

 

[AB93]

Amazing. No wonder the industry is in poor shape if it's perfectly acceptable to leave passengers wondering whether a bus will turn up rather than allowing a prompt change to a workable timetable. So much for customer focus.

The operator could (should) provide the extra resource required to run the advertised registered timetable until such time as the timetable is changed under the standard notice period.

 

[AWK]

The operator could (should) provide the extra resource required to run the advertised registered timetable until such time as the timetable is changed under the standard notice period.

Absolutely spot on. This is a basic requirement of holding an Operators Licence!

 

[Teapot42]

The operator could (should) provide the extra resource required to run the advertised registered timetable until such time as the timetable is changed under the standard notice period.

Not an option here - Hulleys are / were at the limit of the number of discs they have - so maybe that was one reason for accepting this as a short notice change?