Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[Teapot42]

I have to disagree slightly. When writing timetables, and I've written many, you factor for 'reasonable expectations'.

I think Hulleys have a difficult balance to strike here. Factor everything in and you get to the point where the service isn't viable to run commercially. They seem to hope only some of the problems will arise, and on the days when lots of things go awry they struggle to cope, especially as they've now got rid of the spare capacity they had previously.

The 80 was an example of this - several sets of long term roadworks in succession stretched the timetable beyond what it could cope with when you add in bad traffic in Chesterfield. Had those roadworks been better planned, or if contractors had an incentive to get works done quickly then the timetable would have been more workable. Of course you can argue they should have capacity to allow an extra bus to be deployed to a route when such happens, but that makes everything less commercially viable as you've got the same (or potentially less) income on the disrupted route, but higher costs.

The impression I got was that

For example, on one route a town had a market day every Wednesday and every other Friday. No traffic the rest of the time, but on market days it was crackers. We did 3 or 4 timing runs (I'm that old this is pre-Google maps!) on a market day and from that worked out our Monday to Friday timetable, as it wasn't practical to have a Wednesdays and every other Friday timetable! The result being on most market days the service ran to time, on exceptional traffic days it ran a bit late, and on non-Market days the bus waited for around 5 mins at the timing point in the town and took it steady to ensure on time departures from the next timing points.

We did it that way to demonstrate to the TC that we had factored in reasonable expectations, and whilst there may be delays on odd days we could justify them as being abnormal.

Ignoring the Breezer debarkle totally, I'm afraid I don't see the above been applied in Hulleys timetables. Look at the 55 and 170. The 55 has the same departure, arrival and intermediate times between Calow and Alfreron from 0857 to 1857, and vice versa from 0630 to 1530. I don't drive through Chesterfield that often, but when I do at peak times there's always congestion. These times imply the same congestion is present at 0830 as it is at 1230 and 1630 which I struggle to believe.

The 170 timetable likewise runs to the same times between approx 0700 and 1800, and the Saturday running times are the same as the Monday to Friday times. From my experience traffic around Baslow, Chatsworth and Bakewell is worse on a Saturday than during the week.

The M-F timetable seems to have enough padding that a delay on one section can be recovered on another. Saturdays I'd agree with you, but short of dropping another service on Saturday there isn't much they can do to add extra padding. Not to excuse it, but the X17 is often a complete basket case on a Saturday, but I don't see people have as much of a pop at Stagecoach over that as they do at Hulleys, and Stagecoach should have much more resources to allow for the inevitable traffic over what is a very long route.

I'm afraid it appears to be normal business for Hulley’s to ask for such pragmatism and discretion for issues that could have been forsee. The Breezer timetable farse, entirely the Operators fault and my 7 year old great Nephew could have told them was farcical and totally unachievable. Changed under short notice. The dropping of the commercial section of the 55 between Alfreton and the Designer Outlet done under short notice. The cancellation of all bar 2 trips on the commercially operated service 6 done under short notice and resulting in DCC having to quickly find another Operator to provide a (very) partial replacement. The latter 2 changes we're told were to either stem commercial losses and/or allow some vehicles to leave the fleet and/or to match driver availability to duties.

Many of the short notice changes have come in due to new services or significantly altered services having problems. Yes, it shows planning could have been better, but surely it's pragmatic to attempt to address these issues quickly and get passengers on-side rather than force a situation to drag on to the point where everyone will have given up and the service get cancelled as it's not viable.

The 6 and 55 changes seem to be Hulleys attempt to put themselves on a stronger footing going forward as they realised they'd over-stretched. Again, not ideal but surely more pragmatic than forcing them to run empty buses for 6 weeks. And hopefully a positive sign going forwards that they recognise they can't carry on the way they have been in the last few years.

As you don't know the area, you maybe won't know that what Stagecoach are now running to replace the 6 was originally a Hulleys idea when they ran the 48. The area served will never attract many passengers - it's through very well off villages where car ownership is very high and population density low. I've been told it's never attracted more than 1 or 2 passengers a day no matter how frequent the service, but there is someone with connections to the council who causes trouble whenever the service is threatened.

It's essentially a poisoned chalice to any operator who gets it, and being subsidised it probably the best option as it hamstrings any commercial service.

Compare that to Arriva Yorkshire...

It's not about losses not having an impact, it's about being able to sustain those losses. Hulleys are a small operator owned by one person who used to be a driver for the same company. A large group can make a commercial decision to get out of an area and sustain the loss in doing so cleanly. A small operator is looking for any saving they can to stay afloat and needs to innovate to find gaps in the market they can profit from. There is always the sword of Damocles hanging over them - Stagecoach could decide to start a Chesterfield to Bakewell service tomorrow and take their main market from under them.

This is why I think in the bus industry, just like in almost any other industry, you need the same framework to ensure the safety of customers and staff, but more flexibility to allow a small operator to survive. If not then they will all disappear, and along with them many rural and niche services.

The big bus groups have the lucrative routes tied up. There is no way a small operator can get a cut of a commercial urban route as they've just get run off the road. There is no way for a smaller operator to get involved in most franchising, as the favoured schemes seem to be large parcels of services based on what's happened with the Bee Network and is likely to happen elsewhere. They fill a gap, and forcing the same costs on them without the same ability to generate revenue is very likely to cause that gap to be vacated.

 

[markymark2000]

The TCs have always been clear that,.particularly for commercial mileage, poorer than expected returns are not a valid reason for short notice submissions.

Perhaps going off topic but it's a relevant question. If the TC does keep accepting these short notice registrations then, is it not time that we question the role of certain commissioners TC if they aren't even going to stick to their own rules? Operators are getting away with whatever they want left, right, and centre. And now the TC is accepting registrations that don't even comply with their own rules?

 

[Tetchytyke]

During the period between announcing the changes and implementing them they continued to loose money, either through lost revenue or paying agency drivers inflated rates to cover services, but handled these commercial changes in what I deem to be the normal process

I think you’re being rather charitable about how Arriva managed- or more accurately, didn’t manage- their January network rewrite/retrenchment. WYCA didn’t even have timetables available from Arriva on the day of the change, even with the longer lead-in. Compliance with the previous timetable was “varied”, to put it kindly.

Now would it have been better for all concerned to let them change sooner? At least passengers would have known what services were actually running.

And let’s not forget that they changes/retrenchment aren’t because Arriva are unprofitable and the routes are unprofitable. It’s that the routes weren’t meeting Arriva’s margin expectations. I’ll bet the replacement operators will make money and Arriva Yorkshire will continue to sink into pointlessness.

It’s a tough one as I agree in principle that smaller independents should be held to the same standards as the bigger companies. But the flip side of that is that independents don’t- can’t- have the same financial reserves that the big boys have. All that taking a “one size fits all” attitude achieves is that the independents exit the market entirely. Sullivans in London being a case in point.

Maybe that’s a good thing if they don’t have the financial resources. But the problem is that in many rural areas, including the Peak District, the independent and semi-independent operators are the only ones left because the big boys couldn’t make enough margin for them to be bothered anymore.

If the TC takes too robust a line and sends an independent out of business, who really benefits?

 

[Goldfish62]

If the TC takes too robust a line and sends an independent out of business, who really benefits?

Too robust a line? The TCs take their roles extremely seriously and if they close down an operator it's in the public interest. Would you want to travel on a bus or coach that's not roadworthy, for example, because an operator has a poor maintenance record despite several opportunities given to improve?

I really do despair at the line taken by some on this thread that TCs should let some operators off the hook because of their size. The minimum standards are the minimum standards, end of. They should be and are readily achievable by the smallest of operators as amply demonstrated by the overwhelming majority who go about their daily business without the smallest hint of adverse attention from the DVSA or TC.

Of course, none of this applies in the impending Hulley's case given the issues are apparently minor... (on a serious note TCs don't close down companies for failing to operate registered services reliably).

 

[Teapot42]

Too robust a line? The TCs take their roles extremely seriously and if they close down an operator it's in the public interest. Would you want to travel on a bus or coach that's not roadworthy, for example, because an operator has a poor maintenance record despite several opportunities given to improve?

There is a massive difference between operating vehicles which aren't roadworthy and wanting to alter a timetable that has proved unworkable.

As I comment above, I have no issues with the same safety standards being applied.

Indeed there is an argument that forcing an operator to attempt to run to a timetable has safety implications. I rode on the Sunday 257 before it was changed and the driver was having to try very hard to keep to the timings. He was very skilled, but a small miscalculation could have resulted in an accident. Allowing a change which meant such driving wasn't necessary is in the interests of all road users. You can argue all you want who is at fault, but fixing the problem should come above all else.

So, to clarify, I fully agree the TC should apply safety standards across the board, but when it comes to operational matters a bit more leeway can be given in cases where the alternative is detrimental to passengers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The TCs take their roles extremely seriously and if they close down an operator it's in the public interest.

If a TC forces a business to close because they’re unsafe or because they’re too financially weak to run things properly then yeah.

I should have been more clear though: I meant the financial consequences of forcing an independent to operate a route that the operator has identified is a financial basket case just because. Running a service at a heavy loss for 42 days or whatever could be enough to tip an operator into insolvency. Sure, they shouldn’t have got their sums wrong, but is that really what we want? Who benefits?

 

[AWK]

The big bus groups have the lucrative routes tied up. There is no way a small operator can get a cut of a commercial urban route as they've just get run off the road. There is no way for a smaller operator to get involved in most franchising, as the favoured schemes seem to be large parcels of services based on what's happened with the Bee Network and is likely to happen elsewhere. They fill a gap, and forcing the same costs on them without the same ability to generate revenue is very likely to cause that gap to be vacated.

Franchising is and will be a major problem for independent operators I agree, and that's a terrible outcome all round. You're quite right, the Bee Network has seen some long established and well-respected operators such as Stotrs.(Oldham) practically closed down. The West Yorkshire Franchising, if/when it goes ahead will probably see the likes of Ross (Featherstone) go, a long established family business who have delivered a good standard of service on their couple of core routes for decades, and that'll be a massive loss to the industry and local community.

I would disagree that independents can't compete. Craig Temple.(Connexions) had been annoying Transdev in Harrogate for years. The previously mentioned Ross Travel saw off the competition from Arriva/West Riding on their core Castleford - Featherstone - Pontefract route. Globe in Barnsley operate the direct Pontefract - Hemsworth - Upton service they inherited with their takeover of Ron Watersons business, at one stage that route had 3 operators all fighting for control.

I'd argue at present with ongoing driver shortages and fleet reductions to allow older vehicles to be withdrawn the "big boys" aren't in as strong a position to retaliate as they once were

 

[Teapot42]

The previously mentioned Ross Travel saw off the competition from Arriva/West Riding on their core Castleford - Featherstone - Pontefract route.

I believe Ross cut back a fair bit recently. While I'm not familiar with the local services I do work in Castleford and used to see Ross buses running past the office regularly. They came off that route last year, maybe even 2023, and now we only get Arriva.

Indeed I believe one of their Solos turned up at High Peak as they had surplus vehicles to sell off.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2025 ==

The daft thing is I can't see why franchising needs to be done the way it is. In dense urban areas there is an argument for large operators, but in the smaller towns and more rural areas then having a local operator who knows the area can be a benefit, and guaranteeing them income for a service gives them the stability they need to invest in vehicles, premises and staff. After all, should Hulleys go then whatever services remain will all be on DCC/SYMCA tenders which will cost more not only because the larger operators want more margin, but because their depots are a long way from the routes so there is dead mileage to account for.

The 65/66 mentioned above is an ideal example of this - if it were operated say by High Peak from Dove Holes then you'd have far less dead mileage and the start and end of the day.

 

[AWK]

I think you’re being rather charitable about how Arriva managed- or more accurately, didn’t manage- their January network rewrite/retrenchment. WYCA didn’t even have timetables available from Arriva on the day of the change, even with the longer lead-in. Compliance with the previous timetable was “varied”, to put it kindly.

Compliance was varied due to a well documented chronic driver shortage. The frequency reductions were purely to redu d the driver requirement to match the numbers they had available. I fail to see how WYMCA didn't have the timetable in advance given they were published on the operators website some 4 weeks or so before the changes came in.

Now would it have been better for all concerned to let them change sooner? At least passengers would have known what services were actually running.

And let’s not forget that they changes/retrenchment aren’t because Arriva are unprofitable and the routes are unprofitable. It’s that the routes weren’t meeting Arriva’s margin expectations. I’ll bet the replacement operators will make money and Arriva Yorkshire will continue to sink into pointlessness.

It wasn't about money directly. It was about aligning reduced resources (drivers) with the services that make the most return and to ensure the registered provision could be operated

It’s a tough one as I agree in principle that smaller independents should be held to the same standards as the bigger companies. But the flip side of that is that independents don’t- can’t- have the same financial reserves that the big boys have. All that taking a “one size fits all” attitude achieves is that the independents exit the market entirely. Sullivans in London being a case in point.

My understanding, though I'm happy to give london a very wide berth so may be wrong, is that Sullivan put in very low prices for their contract bids and couldn't make them pay. If we accept that Arriva,.Stagecoach and Co might do the same and suffer the financial consequences or throw the contracts in then surely we have to accept it is the same for smaller operators?

If the TC takes too robust a line and sends an independent out of business, who really benefits?

Probably no one. But if the TC doesn't take action because it's a small operator then who really benefits then? A failing business is allowed to carry on failing, and a message is sent to other independents that the rules don't apply to them.

And the TC will not take "too robust" action. They will take the action that the evidence presented to them at the PI requires them to take (if any). It is highly unusual for a TC to instantly revoke a licence, only in most extreme circumstances of safety failings, not able to meet financial standing requiremenrs or a blatant and continuing disregard for regulations have i known such action to be taken.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2025 ==

Too robust a line? The TCs take their roles extremely seriously and if they close down an operator it's in the public interest. Would you want to travel on a bus or coach that's not roadworthy, for example, because an operator has a poor maintenance record despite several opportunities given to improve?

I really do despair at the line taken by some on this thread that TCs should let some operators off the hook because of their size. The minimum standards are the minimum standards, end of. They should be and are readily achievable by the smallest of operators as amply demonstrated by the overwhelming majority who go about their daily business without the smallest hint of adverse attention from the DVSA or TC.

Of course, none of this applies in the impending Hulley's case given the issues are apparently minor... (on a serious note TCs don't close down companies for failing to operate registered services reliably).

Amen!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2025 ==

I believe Ross cut back a fair bit recently. While I'm not familiar with the local services I do work in Castleford and used to see Ross buses running past the office regularly. They came off that route last year, maybe even 2023, and now we only get Arriva.

Indeed I believe one of their Solos turned up at High Peak as they had surplus vehicles to sell off.

They still operate their core Castleford - Featherstone - Pontefract service (144/146) as they've done for years.

They cut the hourly extension of a 146 from Castleford to Wakefield and the hourly 125 (Wakefield - Airedale - Pontefract), but picked up the WYMCA 158 (Castleford - Knottingley) service. Think it reduced their PVR by 2 (again, and yes sounding like a broken record... sensible changes to match resources to requirements registered in the normal manner, not 2 weeks before the changes came in to force!)

The 65/66 mentioned above is an ideal example of this - if it were operated say by High Peak from Dove Holes then you'd have far less dead mileage and the start and end of the day.

High Peak used to run the 65 before Stagecoach using a pair of Optare Versas in a special branded livery...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2025 ==

I think Hulleys have a difficult balance to strike here. Factor everything in and you get to the point where the service isn't viable to run commercially. They seem to hope only some of the problems will arise, and on the days when lots of things go awry they struggle to cope, especially as they've now got rid of the spare capacity they had previously.

Then don't run the service. If you can not register a timetable with sufficient slack to cope with some delays, then you're only hope of delivering that timetable in a viable way is to have a clear run on every trip. That doesn't happen.

The 80 was an example of this - several sets of long term roadworks in succession stretched the timetable beyond what it could cope with when you add in bad traffic in Chesterfield. Had those roadworks been better planned, or if contractors had an incentive to get works done quickly then the timetable would have been more workable. Of course you can argue they should have capacity to allow an extra bus to be deployed to a route when such happens, but that makes everything less commercially viable as you've got the same (or potentially less) income on the disrupted route, but higher costs.

There should be sufficient slack in the timetable to allow for some roadworks. I accept several sets isn't feasible to schedule for, but personally I'd always expect to encounter one set of roadworks on a route and would give an extra minute running time between each timing point for this, or an rtc etc. I wouldn't know where I'd hit that delay, and it may mean I'm 4 mins late past the next timing point,.but a couple of timing points down the route I'm back on time. And if there's no delays my driver will sit for a couple of minutes at the next timing point or take their foot off the gas a bit.

Again, for genuine reasons - where there are long term roadworks the TC will be sympathetic as long as you can demonstrate you've done all with in your control to allow within reason for some delays in your timetable. But if your timetable is flawed and clearly unachievable to start with, like the Breezer or your mention of the Sunday 257 elsewhere in the thread, then saying "it's because of the roadworks" won't get you very far.

I remember looking at the Hulleys timetable for the 80 when it started and comparing it with the one previously operated by Stagecoach. My recollection is that Hulleys timetable was less generous than the Stagecoach one over several of the common sections, offered little recovery time at Pistol Creeks, and was extended if memory served across Chesterfield to Holymoorside with little to no recovery time at that end?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Compliance was varied due to a well documented chronic driver shortage.

As have Hulleys’ issues over the last year or so, yet you seem unable or unwilling to cut Hulleys the same level of slack. Why is that?

I fail to see how WYMCA didn't have the timetable in advance given they were published on the operators website some 4 weeks or so before the changes came in.

They must have been very well hidden, I couldn’t see them. WYCA specifically said they could not include the timetables in the January bus changes update as they had not received the details.

It wasn't about money directly. It was about aligning reduced resources (drivers) with the services that make the most return

Then the situation isn’t comparable. Making an operator run a profit-making service is a very different proposition to making an operator run a service which is heavily loss making.

And the TC will not take "too robust" action.

Forcing any operator to run a service at a huge loss will have consequences, but these will be a lot more significant for a small operator which doesn’t have the financial resources of a big operator.

I wasn’t talking about the TC taking licences away, I was talking about the TC refusing to accept service changes when the operator has realised very quickly they’ve dropped one.

 

[Bungle965]

Let’s keep things on topic please, please create a new thread if you want to discuss matters outside of Hulley’s

 

[Goldfish62]

I wasn’t talking about the TC taking licences away, I was talking about the TC refusing to accept service changes when the operator has realised very quickly they’ve dropped one.

That would require a rewriting of the Senior Traffic Commissioner's Statutory Guidance, which itself is based on the relevant legislation. That's not to say I don't think that some of it needs rethinking. For example, I think the 95% punctuality standard is unrealistic, particularly in urban areas where headway management of services may be more desirable than trying to ensure each individual bus is "on time".

Allowing operators a quick get-out when they mess up would open the flood gates for a torrent of unrealistic registrations because operators would know that if they messed up they could simply pull the plug within days. The current regulations incentivise operators to ensure that they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that what they register is operable and that they can continue to operate it within the constraints imposed on registration timescales. That Hulley's have failed to do this on several occasions reflects not on the regulations, but on the competence of the operator.

 

[AWK]

As have Hulleys’ issues over the last year or so, yet you seem unable or unwilling to cut Hulleys the same level of slack. Why is that?

As Bungle has rightly reminded us to stay on topic I won't reply to the 'Arriva' aspects of this other than to say...

Both operators had driver shortages, both chose to reduce their vehicle workings to match the number of driver duties required to the number of drivers - very sensible.

One did it by giving 70 days notice, allowing the local authority to issue tenders for replacement services in a timely manner so new operators had time to prepare their own vehicles, publicity and recruit extra staff; and allowed the public to have greater certainty about what would be running and gave them time to adjust their regular commutes if needed. They provided new timetables on their website in a timely manner.

The other gave considerably less notice to the LA, and to the public I think around 10 days. They still don't have up to date timetables on their website.

There's a right way and a wrong way to manage the situation. Hulleys could have done much better in my opinion

Then the situation isn’t comparable. Making an operator run a profit-making service is a very different proposition to making an operator run a service which is heavily loss making.

Forcing any operator to run a service at a huge loss will have consequences, but these will be a lot more significant for a small operator which doesn’t have the financial resources of a big operator.

I wasn’t talking about the TC taking licences away, I was talking about the TC refusing to accept service changes when the operator has realised very quickly they’ve dropped one.

Then they should have done their homework first before registering. As I say, this isn't a one-off. The Breezer was a mess, the commercial judgement on the 6 and 55 extension clearly not thought through if they had to drop them so quickly such were the losses.

Broken record time... it is not the role of the TC to keep getting an operator who makes repeated errors with schedules and commercial judgements out of a mess entirely of their own making every time. Once is unfortunate. twice is carless, multiple times.....?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

That would require a rewriting of the Senior Traffic Commissioner's Statutory Guidance, which itself is based on the relevant legislation. That's not to say I don't think that some of it needs rethinking. For example, I think the 95% punctuality standard is unrealistic, particularly in urban areas where headway management of services may be more desirable than trying to ensure each individual bus is "on time".

Allowing operators a quick get-out when they mess up would open the flood gates for a torrent of unrealistic registrations because operators would know that if they messed up they could simply pull the plug within days. The current regulations incentivise operators to ensure that they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that what they register is operable and that they can continue to operate it within the constraints imposed on registration timescales. That Hulley's have failed to do this on several occasions reflects not on the regulations, but on the competence of the operator.

Indeed, and the process is also there to help Operators learn. By all means, get them out of the hole on the first occasion in the hope they learn from it. But repeatedly making allowances for poor judgement or non-compliance with set processes shows to me an operator who either can't or doesn't want to learn from their mistakes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

Indeed there is an argument that forcing an operator to attempt to run to a timetable has safety implications. I rode on the Sunday 257 before it was changed and the driver was having to try very hard to keep to the timings. He was very skilled, but a small miscalculation could have resulted in an accident. Allowing a change which meant such driving wasn't necessary is in the interests of all road users. You can argue all you want who is at fault, but fixing the problem should come above all else.

So, to clarify, I fully agree the TC should apply safety standards across the board, but when it comes to operational matters a bit more leeway can be given in cases where the alternative is detrimental to passengers.

I nearly replied to this last night, but couldn't structure a reply that could be considered polite...

This is probably the stupidest post I've read on this forum, or any other.

Implying, as I think you do, that if the TC didn't agree to a short notice timetable change and a driver 'bombing it' to keep up with the timetable and had an accident that would be in some part the fault of the TC is crackers.

The operator should register a realistic timetable in the first place. Again, not the first time Hulleys seem to have had this issue in recent years.

The driver should drive according to the road and traffic conditions at the time. Their only priority is on safe driving. If the timetable they have been given is unachievable they shouldn't be trying to achieve it, they should drive per the conditions and screw what the timetable says, that's for the operator to sort, not them. The Operator should register a change to the timetable in the usual manner, and in the period in between that registration being submitted and coming in to effect, the drivers should drive to the conditions in front of them not to a timetable.

If a driver is more concerned with keeping up with an unrealistic timetable than delivering a safe, comfortable journey for the people onboard the vehicle and has an accident in the process they deserve to loose their licence. Simple as.

We're clearly never going to agree on this, but the fault for the unrealistic timetable lies solely with the operator. Yes, the TC could be flexible, yes the local authority could build a bus-only road through the middle of the Peak District so crazy timetables that make no allowances for other vehicles on the road. Or, shocking thought, the operator could register their service properly in the first place then none of that would be needed.

 

[Teapot42]

I'm only going to reply to this bit, as you are obviously intent on twisting my words to suit yourself in other areas.

the commercial judgement on the 6 and 55 extension clearly not thought through if they had to drop them so quickly such were the losses.

There were a combination of factors, not least the ill health of the owner not long after these services were registered. I'm not privy to the internal workings, but from what I've read and been told it was not to do with losses they were making - you don't expect new (parts of) services to make bumper profits immediately. It was more to do with scaling the business after the sale of Go Coach and to reflect a sensible management workload, plus a bit of foresight of the driver situation, which seems to have become a bit of an issue again.

I personally suspect the driver issues they are seeing could well be a result of all the rumours being spread leaving some fearful for their job and taking the decision to move just in case. Which is another point really, all the ill-informed gossip going on is just as likely to cause Hulleys financial issues as anything else.

 

[AWK]

There were a combination of factors, not least the ill health of the owner not long after these services were registered. I'm not privy to the internal workings, but from what I've read and been told it was not to do with losses they were making - you don't expect new (parts of) services to make bumper profits immediately. It was more to do with scaling the business after the sale of Go Coach and to reflect a sensible management workload, plus a bit of foresight of the driver situation, which seems to have become a bit of an issue again.

I personally suspect the driver issues they are seeing could well be a result of all the rumours being spread leaving some fearful for their job and taking the decision to move just in case. Which is another point really, all the ill-informed gossip going on is just as likely to cause Hulleys financial issues as anything else.

I must be being thick here...

The owner unfortunately suffered an illness before Christmas. Whether directly related or not a 2nd Director for the Businsss was appointed in November from within the existing staffing group, and the Go-Coach business was divested soon after. Both of which should free up more of the owners time (one company to run not two, a 2nd Director to support with the strategic management of the business).

Why then do 3 vehicles need to be removed off PVR in January to reflect a sensible management workload?

 

[Teapot42]

I must be being thick here...

The owner unfortunately suffered an illness before Christmas. Whether directly related or not a 2nd Director for the Businsss was appointed in November from within the existing staffing group, and the Go-Coach business was divested soon after. Both of which should free up more of the owners time (one company to run not two, a 2nd Director to support with the strategic management of the business).

Why then do 3 vehicles need to be removed off PVR in January to reflect a sensible management workload?

The 2nd Director was already an integral part of the team, the appointment was to help support the owner, plus I guess to have someone in position should the health issues recur. There is no less work to be done in Hulleys, and no more staff appointed, just a spreading of the workload. I'm not clear how much divesting Go Coach would reduce the workload anyway - don't forget Hulleys will now need to manage their own engineering.

While I don't have direct knowledge of this, it seems to me the decision was taken at the same time that things were stretched too thin, coupled with two of the MMCs having mechanical issues led to the decision to send them all back and scale the network to suit.

It's also very likely there are other factors in the background that are not public knowledge, and those who do know aren't in a position to post on open forums. Nothing that means the business is in danger I'm sure, but it often isn't easy to run a business based in a national park.

 

[AWK]

The 2nd Director was already an integral part of the team, the appointment was to help support the owner, plus I guess to have someone in position should the health issues recur. There is no less work to be done in Hulleys, and no more staff appointed, just a spreading of the workload. I'm not clear how much divesting Go Coach would reduce the workload anyway - don't forget Hulleys will now need to manage their own engineering.

As I said, it was a step up for Mr Smales

While I don't have direct knowledge of this, it seems to me the decision was taken at the same time that things were stretched too thin, coupled with two of the MMCs having mechanical issues led to the decision to send them all back and scale the network to suit.

I still think thats nonsense. New vehicles come with warranties, the manufacturer fixes the issues (and will usually provide you with a replacement vehicle whilst they do so).

Nothing that means the business is in danger I'm sure, but it often isn't easy to run a business based in a national park.

The Andrews and the Eades seem/seemed to cope just fine

 

[MotCO]

The 2nd Director was already an integral part of the team, the appointment was to help support the owner, plus I guess to have someone in position should the health issues recur. There is no less work to be done in Hulleys, and no more staff appointed, just a spreading of the workload. I'm not clear how much divesting Go Coach would reduce the workload anyway - don't forget Hulleys will now need to manage their own engineering.

The divesting of GoCoach may also have added short term additional work of an administrative nature.

 

[AWK]

The divesting of GoCoach may also have added short term additional work of an administrative nature.

Not really. A couple of forms to fill in online for Companies House, Solicitors to instruct/read and sign documents, potentially accountants to instruct to value assets but I assume as this was a straightforward sale it was simply a reversal of the previous agreement. Certainly not enough to warrant removing 3 PVR of work.

 

[M803UYA]

Not really. A couple of forms to fill in online for Companies House, Solicitors to instruct/read and sign documents, potentially accountants to instruct to value assets but I assume as this was a straightforward sale it was simply a reversal of the previous agreement. Certainly not enough to warrant removing 3 PVR of work.

When you look on the Go Coach Hire summary on companies house and visit the 'charges' tab the following appears on both there, and Hulleys.
It is also cleared on 20/12/24 for both companies.

GO-COACHHIRE LIMITED charges - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

GO-COACHHIRE LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

The details of the charge are copied and pasted in below. I'm sure admin will come along and correct it/me if I've not done that right.....

"Persons entitled​

• Finbiz Funding Limited

Brief description​

General fixed and floating charge over all assets of the company.
Contains fixed charge.
Contains floating charge.
Floating charge covers all the property or undertaking of the company.
Contains negative pledge."

Can someone tell me what appears on the public inquiry call up for Hulleys most recently? Is either of section 26/28/155 present? Or is it just S16/S17? 16/17 permit a traffic commissioner to call an operator to public inquiry and the latter gets mentioned for financial standing. S26/155 will point to issues with registered local bus services, S28 will be maintenance failings or issues with tachographs (commonly!)

 

[AWK]

Can someone tell me what appears on the public inquiry call up for Hulleys most recently? Is either of section 26/28/155 present? Or is it just S16/S17? 16/17 permit a traffic commissioner to call an operator to public inquiry and the latter gets mentioned for financial standing. S26/155 will point to issues with registered local bus services, S28 will be maintenance failings or issues with tachographs (commonly!)

The Operator (Henry Hulley & Sons Ltd) was called under Section 17:


Public Inquiry (90305) to be held at The Public Inquiry Room (Warrington), WA3 2SH, Suite 4, Stone Cross Place, Stone Cross Lane North, Golborne, Warrington, on 21 January 2025 commencing at 10:30
Previous hearing on 17 September 2024 was adjourned.
PC0003407 SN
HENRY HULLEY & SONS LTD
Director(s): ALFRED VINCENT CROFTS
DERWENT GARAGE, CALVER ROAD, BASLOW, BAKEWELL, DE45 1RP
S17 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 17 (The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981)

Aligned, the Traffic Manager will also be subject to a separate Traffic Manager PI:

TM Public Inquiry (Case ID: 465142, Public Inquiry ID: 103100) for Mr ALFRED VINCENT CROFTS to be held at The Public Inquiry Room (Warrington), WA3 2SH, Suite 4, Stone Cross Place, Stone Cross Lane North, Golborne, Warrington, on 21 January 2025 commencing at 10:00
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009

Anyone struggling to sleep tonight who want to read Article 6 of EU Regulation 1071/2009 here you go - but essentially relates to whether the Traffic Manager is of Good Repute (which in TC speak means are they performing their duties as Transport Manager in the correct manner and following relevant procedures) - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1071-20220221

 

[M803UYA]

The Operator (Henry Hulley & Sons Ltd) was called under Section 17:


Public Inquiry (90305) to be held at The Public Inquiry Room (Warrington), WA3 2SH, Suite 4, Stone Cross Place, Stone Cross Lane North, Golborne, Warrington, on 21 January 2025 commencing at 10:30
Previous hearing on 17 September 2024 was adjourned.
PC0003407 SN
HENRY HULLEY & SONS LTD
Director(s): ALFRED VINCENT CROFTS
DERWENT GARAGE, CALVER ROAD, BASLOW, BAKEWELL, DE45 1RP
S17 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 17 (The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981)

Aligned, the Traffic Manager will also be subject to a separate Traffic Manager PI:

TM Public Inquiry (Case ID: 465142, Public Inquiry ID: 103100) for Mr ALFRED VINCENT CROFTS to be held at The Public Inquiry Room (Warrington), WA3 2SH, Suite 4, Stone Cross Place, Stone Cross Lane North, Golborne, Warrington, on 21 January 2025 commencing at 10:00
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009

Anyone struggling to sleep tonight who want to read Article 6 of EU Regulation 1071/2009 here you go - but essentially relates to whether the Traffic Manager is of Good Repute (which in TC speak means are they performing their duties as Transport Manager in the correct manner and following relevant procedures) - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1071-20220221

Thanks. Just that one. I'm beginning to wonder if it's financial standing. The original date was September and that legal charge applied by the financier was August...... that's potentially a response to being called before the commissioner on financial standing.

For those who aren't aware - financial standing is the money the company must have freely available, and not 'spent' to demonstrate to the traffic commissioners that they can maintain their fleet.

Should there be more insomniacs among us, this little series of documents might be beneficial.

https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...s-statutory-guidance-and-statutory-directions

Especially this one. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nance-march-2019/statutory-document-2-finance - I have reproduced a bit of the document below.

Financial standing is not a one-off requirement to be met when applying for an operator’s licence and then from time to time (for example, when a continuation fee becomes payable), it is a continuing requirement which must be met throughout the life of the licence 2013/048 Jane Townsend. This can be shown by an average balance or through capital and reserves over the period (see 2010/081 Natalie Hunt trading as Wild Stretch Limousines – ‘novel’ approaches to the calculation of available finance have been rejected by the Upper Tribunal).

“Available” is defined as: “capable of being used, at one’s disposal, within one’s reach, obtainable or easy to get”. The leading case (1992/D41 JJ Adam (Haulage) Ltd ) poses three questions:

• how much money can the operator find if the need arises?
• How quickly can he find it?
• Where will it come from?

Financial resources must be at the disposal of or within the reach of the operator so if the operator must first ask someone else to transfer the money then it is not available 2011/036 LWB Ltd – the Upper Tribunal indicated that money in an account requiring more than 30 days’ notice, is not available). The Upper Tribunal has drawn a distinction between funds that are actually available to ensure the establishment and proper administration of the business to those financial resources that are technically available.

With some of the decisions Hulleys are taking, regarding their routes and the fleet composition that does point to cashflow issues (vehicles turn over a lot in the fleet and are shifted on, especially high value ones), routes are starting and stopping frequently. So, if cashflow is an issue, that'll eventually affect the reserves available. I recall mentioning the company seemed to be burning a lot of cash in previous posts on this thread. Eventually, there comes a point where someone says 'enough'. Be it the bank, or the traffic commissioner.

What isn't known is how Alf Crofts funded the purchase of Hulleys from the Eades and I doubt it's ever being revealed (and it's not our business to know tbh). There's various ways you can do this. Say you own a house - that's collateral for any bank loan if there's enough money in the property to start with. There's venture capitalists...... sleeping partners...... etc. But if there's a bank loan in place being serviced that'll also require paying. It seems that a holding company was created around the time of the business purchase. He is definitely braver than I am in buying a deep rural bus operation and trying to expand it. I've said before bus services are the one thing I'd never entertain as a business proposition!

 

[Goldfish62]

Thanks. Just that one. I'm beginning to wonder if it's financial standing. The original date was September and that legal charge applied by the financier was August...... that's potentially a response to being called before the commissioner on financial standing.

For those who aren't aware - financial standing is the money the company must have freely available, and not 'spent' to demonstrate to the traffic commissioners that they can maintain their fleet.

Should there be more insomniacs among us, this little series of documents might be beneficial.

https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...s-statutory-guidance-and-statutory-directions

Especially this one. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nance-march-2019/statutory-document-2-finance - I have reproduced a bit of the document below.

It's puzzled me since the PI was announced that people were asserting that it was to do with the operation of their local bus services, especially claiming that it was a minor matter. PIs are not called for minor matters and s17 of the PPV Act 1981 is nothing to do with operation of local bus services!

 

[AWK]

It's puzzled me since the PI was announced that people were asserting that it was to do with the operation of their local bus services, especially claiming that it was a minor matter. PIs are not called for minor matters and s17 of the PPV Act 1981 is nothing to do with operation of local bus services!

Indeed so!

The PI against the Traffic Manager (Mr Crofts) to asses repute could however be indicative of a look at how the services are operated - or perhaps should I say how they are registered and whether the Traffic Manager is discharging their duties around adherence with the registration and compliance standards?

 

[Goldfish62]

The PI against the Traffic Manager (Mr Crofts) to asses repute could however be indicative of a look at how the services are operated - or perhaps should I say how they are registered and whether the Traffic Manager is discharging their duties around adherence with the registration and compliance standards?

Good point - ultimately any institutional mismanagement of service registrations lands fairly and squarely at the door of the Transport Manager even if they personally are not the one who deals with registrations on a day-to-day basis.

It's a brave person who is both the MD and the TM of a company! It removes the all-important scope for checks and balances that are needed to ensure that commercial and operational decisions are compliant with all relevant regulations and standards.

 

[AWK]

Good point - ultimately any institutional mismanagement of service registrations lands fairly and squarely at the door of the Transport Manager even if they personally are not the one who deals with registrations on a day-to-day basis.

It's a brave person who is both the MD and the TM of a company! It removes the all-important scope for checks and balances that are needed to ensure that commercial and operational decisions are compliant with all relevant regulations and standards.

Absolutely. It's not uncommon in one-man-band (owner operator) type companies for the same person to be owner and TM. It's quite unusual for a company of this size to do so, or at the very least not have a 2nd named TM on the licence in my experience. It's quite normal for someone other than the TM to complete the paperwork, but the TM has ultimate responsibility for ensuring it has been done so correctly (and assure themselves that what is proposed in terms of timetables and routes is achievable).

 

[Goldfish62]

Absolutely. It's not uncommon in one-man-band (owner operator) type companies for the same person to be owner and TM. It's quite unusual for a company of this size to do so, or at the very least not have a 2nd named TM on the licence in my experience. It's quite normal for someone other than the TM to complete the paperwork, but the TM has ultimate responsibility for ensuring it has been done so correctly (and assure themselves that what is proposed in terms of timetables and routes is achievable).

Yes. I do occasional casual work for a one-man-band who has three vehicles and even then it's quite a workload to run the company and make money to keep it afloat, plus carry out all the statutory duties required of a TM.

 

[Teapot42]

It's puzzled me since the PI was announced that people were asserting that it was to do with the operation of their local bus services, especially claiming that it was a minor matter. PIs are not called for minor matters and s17 of the PPV Act 1981 is nothing to do with operation of local bus services!

The PI was called as a result of poor timekeeping on certain services. That was addressed on the Sunday 257 which has since been withdrawn anyway. I believe the 80 was also one of them but that's also gone. That is where the description of them being minor came in to it - the issues had been addressed by either revising the timetable or pulling out of the service.

Are the two PIs linked, or separate? Also, I'm not familiar with how these things work, but if Hulleys were being called for financial standing, and at the point it was called Go Coach had the same owner, was there a risk of them also being called? I know the businesses are separate, but would there not be a way to move assets between the two to ensure neither was exposed for long enough to trigger a PI?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

What isn't known is how Alf Crofts funded the purchase of Hulleys from the Eades and I doubt it's ever being revealed (and it's not our business to know tbh).

I've wondered that as well. My theory is he won the lottery and decided he wanted to run his own bus company.

Slightly more seriously, there must have been a decent pot of money to go at, as well as the cost of buying the business (assuming it was a one-off and not in on going instalments) there was money in the bank to keep things like the X70 and X57 going. I'm not sure how the rules governing cross-subsidising services work, but I'd imagine there would have to be a defined pot for them rather than just being able to use up any excess from tenders etc.

 

[Goldfish62]

The PI was called as a result of poor timekeeping on certain services. That was addressed on the Sunday 257 which has since been withdrawn anyway. I believe the 80 was also one of them but that's also gone. That is where the description of them being minor came in to it - the issues had been addressed by either revising the timetable or pulling out of the service.

The PI has been called under s17 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. If it was in respect of punctuality on registered services then reference in the call-up notice would have been made to to s26 of the Transport Act 1985.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

Are the two PIs linked, or separate? Also, I'm not familiar with how these things work, but if Hulleys were being called for financial standing, and at the point it was called Go Coach had the same owner, was there a risk of them also being called? I know the businesses are separate, but would there not be a way to move assets between the two to ensure neither was exposed for long enough to trigger a PI?

There are two separate Public Inquiries - one for the operator Henry Hulley and Sons Ltd, and the other, a Transport Manager public inquiry for Alf Crofts. In the former instance the TC is considering regulatory action against the company while in the latter instance he is considering action against the Transport Manager, who happens to be Alf Crofts. It could result in action against both, or one but not the other, or neither.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

I've wondered that as well. My theory is he won the lottery and decided he wanted to run his own bus company.

Maybe so!

 

[M803UYA]

The PI was called as a result of poor timekeeping on certain services.

If the public inquiry has been called for the reason you say, we would see S26 on the call up - but it is not there.