Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[Teapot42]

So a decker was always used on certain trips, and the route/timetable was different for those to avoid the bridge? Or a decker was just on there on random trips?

Bustimes appears to have been updated already to remove Piccadilly from the stopping points. A decker was guaranteed on trips that ran to or from Lady Manners school, and was likely on other trips linked with that duty - they'd normally swap it out for another bus. That suggests Piccadilly was treated more as a 'short cut' past a traffic bottleneck than a place where passengers would actually be expected.

Plated capacities are often wildly exaggerated.

They are based on maximum payload rather than volume. That said, the 170 needs a decker for the school runs, unless there is a seating requirement then you are more likely to fit 95 kids in an Evora than 95 grown adults.

 

[markymark2000]

Bustimes appears to have been updated already to remove Piccadilly from the stopping points. A decker was guaranteed on trips that ran to or from Lady Manners school, and was likely on other trips linked with that duty - they'd normally swap it out for another bus. That suggests Piccadilly was treated more as a 'short cut' past a traffic bottleneck than a place where passengers would actually be expected.

Bustimes data hasn't been updated since the crash. Note it says underneath the timetable it was last updated 21st Feb. It's just one of a number of faults with Derbyshire County Councils Traveline entries.

170 - Bakewell - Chatsworth - Royal Hospital - Chesterfield

Hulleys of Baslow

bustimes.org

"Timetable data from the Traveline National Dataset (TNDS), 21 February 2025"

It's also worth noting that some buses are still using Piccadilly Road based off their actual tracking so not sure if drivers aren't being told to avoid the area, or whether this is not an official change (I can't see any official evidence of such a change). Example 1 Example 2

 

[Killingworth]

LK09 EKU has been decapitated under Chesterfield station this evening in a bridge strike, unfortunately.

Derbyshire Times report of incident here; https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/n...s-crashes-into-bridge-in-chesterfield-5005163

Derbyshire buses: Investigation launched after bus crashes into bridge in Chesterfield​

Hulleys of Baslow have issued a statement after a collision involving a bus in Chesterfield.
The accident took place after 6pm on Saturday, February 22, when a double decker Hulleys of Baslow bus collided with a bridge at Crow Lane in Chesterfield.
No one was injured in the incident and an investigation into the causes of the collision has been launched.

A spokesperson for Derbyshire police said: “We received reports of a bus being in collision with a bridge in Crow Lane, Chesterfield, just before 6.30pm on Saturday 22 February. No-one was injured.”

The picture shows the back of the damaged bus soon after the collision took place.

Alf Crofts, the managing director at Hulleys of Baslow said: “This is the first incident of this type in over 100 years of the Company being established, there were no passengers, nobody was injured and no other vehicles were involved."The police and Network Rail were contacted and were happy that there was no damage to the bridge. We have informed the Traffic Commissioner and we are now in the process of conducting an investigation. No further comment will be made.”

 

[AWK]

Services 55 and 170 will no longer serve Piccadilly Road.

On the 170 on journies from the Hospital there is a stop registered on Piccadilly Road, meaning that stop is - or should be - served on all trips.

That's not the case in the opposite direction where no stop is registered between the station and Spital Lane.

So if - and clearly they have given a decker hasn't been deroofed before now - Hulleys have been skipping Piccadilly Road on tips operated by a decker they've not been running the service per the registration.

Has a registration been submitted to formally re-route the 55 and 170 away from Piccadilly Road or is the "will no longer serve" just an instruction to drivers?

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

Derbyshire Times report of incident here; https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/n...s-crashes-into-bridge-in-chesterfield-5005163

"An investigation has been launched..."

Shouldn't take long. Driver was on the correct registered route. The route often has deckers on it. Only question therefore is why the company registered a service to go under a low bridge and routinely allocate deckers to it.

Yes, the driver should have seen the signs etc, but if we're to believe the above comments on this thread that drivers are told to ignore the route registration and go a different route when they have a decker then the company is equally as much to blame as the driver in my opinion for creating this risk by registering such a route and allocating deckers to it.

 

[tocguard]

It was in service, on the 170. The normal route goes under an 11'3 bridge, however when there is a double decker on the route it is supposed to take the slightly longer way which avoids this bridge. Signage near the bridge isn't great and there is no obvious overheight warning system.

It is really not an acceptable situation to register a route via a low bridge and then allocate deckers to it.

Deckers are a minority vehicle type in the fleet so there isn't much excuse to not allocate saloons. It is also worth noting that I'm informed that a school journey is allocated a decker and therefore cannot complete the registered route and serve various stops. This again is unacceptable and if it is the case that a certain known journey must be a decker, then those affected journeys should be registered away from the roads and stops it cannot serve.

 

[zkyx02]

Came across this on TikTok last night, seems they have a decker on loan from connexions.

 

[Teapot42]

Came across this on TikTok last night, seems they have a decker on loan from connexions.

That's been there a while - certainly was on site when the Streetlite arrived. Not sure if the plan is to make it ready for service or not.

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

It is really not an acceptable situation to register a route via a low bridge and then allocate deckers to it.

I wonder if someone just forgot to remove the stops on Piccadilly when the 84 and 170 were merged in to one. There is no need to have them on the registration, and not having them would give the driver the option of either route depending on traffic and vehicle type.

In this case it wasn't a school run, it was interworking with another service which required the decker for capacity.

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

Services 55 and 170 will no longer serve Piccadilly Road.

Do you have a source or some clarity on that? Most seem to still be going that way, although the odd one is using the alternative route.

Is the intention to revise the services to avoid the route (with the associated delay before it can be implemented), or have the drivers been told not to use it, even though all active buses in the fleet can pass under the bridge without problems?

 

[AWK]

It is really not an acceptable situation to register a route via a low bridge and then allocate deckers to it.

Deckers are a minority vehicle type in the fleet so there isn't much excuse to not allocate saloons. It is also worth noting that I'm informed that a school journey is allocated a decker and therefore cannot complete the registered route and serve various stops. This again is unacceptable and if it is the case that a certain known journey must be a decker, then those affected journeys should be registered away from the roads and stops it cannot serve.

Absolutely spot on.

Out of interest, has anyone seen the new date for the Hulley's PI published anywhere? I can't see it in Notices & Proceedings?

 

[mjc]

So you'd trust a 3rd party over the brands own website? If you bought a new Dyson hoover and wanted the technical spec you'd go to the website of Dave's Vacs of Chesterfield (made up name, apologies to the organisation if they actually exist!) rather than direct to the Dyson website? Or if you wanted to know BA's policy on taking a cat on a plane you'd look at some random website rather than going direct to BA. Bull.

You’re very dismissive of the other poster, and their position is perfectly reasonable. There’s no monopoly on local bus services in terms of the operator, so I think most people, including me, are more likely to ask Google about a journey they weee planning than seek out the operator first.
Your Dyson example is debatable too. Last week out washing machine packed in. I didn’t go to Hotpoint or Indesit website, I went to AO and Curry’s. I don’t think timetable is really equivalent to the detailed tech specs, if I wanted to know what vehicles the bus company ran then I’d go to their website but for the times I’d just trust the journey planner.

 

[derbybusdepot]

You’re very dismissive of the other poster, and their position is perfectly reasonable. There’s no monopoly on local bus services in terms of the operator, so I think most people, including me, are more likely to ask Google about a journey they weee planning than seek out the operator first.
Your Dyson example is debatable too. Last week out washing machine packed in. I didn’t go to Hotpoint or Indesit website, I went to AO and Curry’s. I don’t think timetable is really equivalent to the detailed tech specs, if I wanted to know what vehicles the bus company ran then I’d go to their website but for the times I’d just trust the journey planner.

To be fair I've often found timetables to be incorrect on Google, especially if they change alot, and would check the bus company website to clarify the times. As they are the ones running the service, who created the timetable, you would expect it to be correct on their website.

I do agree that Google is used by many as a first port of call to assess what bus services run near to where you are,and to where you need to go. Google maps does indeed even use realtime for some stops/services. People are quite reliant on it to some extent, but that's a different story.

Scania decker on loan from connexions was/is (YN 54 VKC) previously YRW 194. Don't think it has been used.

E400 22 should be back in use soon. Would think the deroofed e400 could be used for spares to keep/get the other e400s back on the road.

Was a bit daft having a separate route for deckers on the 170, but it's done now, and steps taken to ensure it doesn't happen again. As has been said, not a lot to investigate. Thankfully only damage is it to the bus.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

To clarify, on Sunday the change had been submitted to the council. Drivers were then asked to no longer serve piccadilly road with immediate effect until permanent changes had come into place.

On Monday changes were made to the run out sheets to ensure only E200s and Solos were allocated to every singe 170 and 55 shift and drivers asked to resume serving Piccadilly road. As far as I know the changes are still going ahead.

The Scania decker came from connexions as a loan but failed its inspection on far too many things so is due to be replaced by them at some point for something else. Although it’s been in the yard for an awfully long time now.

22 is now back on the road, 16 is now at a bodyshop and 5 is awaiting its MOT. I believe these three will be for the 257s only once they are on the road.

 

[Killingworth]

We've heard the bus hit the bridge and the bridge was undamaged. Are there any pictures of the bus? The assumption seems to be that it is now topless. Is the vehicle economically repairable with or without a top?

 

[Hyebone]

We've heard the bus hit the bridge and the bridge was undamaged. Are there any pictures of the bus? The assumption seems to be that it is now topless. Is the vehicle economically repairable with or without a top?

I've seen a photo on someone else's phone. The roof has been completely removed

 

[Teapot42]

To clarify, on Sunday the change had been submitted to the council. Drivers were then asked to no longer serve piccadilly road with immediate effect until permanent changes had come into place.

On Monday changes were made to the run out sheets to ensure only E200s and Solos were allocated to every singe 170 and 55 shift and drivers asked to resume serving Piccadilly road. As far as I know the changes are still going ahead.

Thanks for the clarification, understandable that the official route is being followed with this change. A shame the 55 can't be kept on that route but maybe consistency is better.

What is happening with the LMS service? Isn't an E200 too small for the required capacity? Is there a reason the Evoras and the loan Scania can't go under the bridge?

22 is now back on the road, 16 is now at a bodyshop and 5 is awaiting its MOT. I believe these three will be for the 257s only once they are on the road.

Doesn't the 257 interwork with some 170 journeys? Or are steps being put in place to alter this?

How much damage was there to 16? And has a decision been made on 10 yet?

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

I've seen a photo on someone else's phone. The roof has been completely removed

I'd heard that, but it wasn't clear from the rather poor photo the local rag used. As the bridge is 3' lower than the clearance needed for an E400 I wonder if it even cleared the seats.

As an aside, would Stagecoach be interested in it? Newer than a lot of their Peak Sightseer open tops, although of course it depends how much damage was caused as to whether a conversion is viable.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

What is happening with the LMS service?

I’ve not seen it first hand but it’s been on E200s all week and apparently carries all the kids.

Doesn't the 257 interwork with some 170 journeys? Or are steps being put in place to alter this?

No, the 257s are on their own shifts. 3 buses, 3 drivers, keep the same bus all day.

How much damage was there to 16?

Haven’t actually seen it but apparently the step was completely caved in

And has a decision been made on 10 yet?

That’s being repaired in baslow as its only minor damage

 

[AWK]

To clarify, on Sunday the change had been submitted to the council. Drivers were then asked to no longer serve piccadilly road with immediate effect until permanent changes had come into place.
On Monday changes were made to the run out sheets to ensure only E200s and Solos were allocated to every singe 170 and 55 shift and drivers asked to resume serving Piccadilly road. As far as I know the changes are still going ahead.

Which begs the question why wasn't any of that done before the accident?

The Scania decker came from connexions as a loan but failed its inspection on far too many things so is due to be replaced by them at some point for something else. Although it’s been in the yard for an awfully long time now.

Gather the red Solo has gone back to Connexions too?

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

I'd heard that, but it wasn't clear from the rather poor photo the local rag used. As the bridge is 3' lower than the clearance needed for an E400 I wonder if it even cleared the seats.

Did the bus hit the bridge then stop, in which case damage will be just to the front dome/first window bay, or did it pass right under?

At 3 foot taller than the bridge if it went straight under it won't just be the roof that's off, it will now be a single decker!

In either case, given its a 15 year old ex London motor it'll be one a one way trip to the local scrap yard.

As an aside, would Stagecoach be interested in it? Newer than a lot of their Peak Sightseer open tops, although of course it depends how much damage was caused as to whether a conversion is viable.

Absolutely not, 16 year old, from London so will be well hammered and depending on the above it'll be far too damaged to even bother with.

They brought an E400 over to Chesterfield from Manchester that had bashed a substantial tree branch with a view to converting that to open top but it had much more damage than met the eye so was scrapped.

 

[liamf656]

Correct me if I've misunderstood but it seems from these posts that Hulleys have been allocating a decker to a service which involves a low bridge!? That's one thing, but then instructing drivers to routinely go off the registered route to suit the vehicle type is another. Is this another thing that's going to be picked up on the PI?

Does anyone have any recent info on the adjournment of the PI and whether there is a new date for this?

 

[Trainman40083]

Which begs the question why wasn't any of that done before the accident?

Gather the red Solo has gone back to Connexions too?

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


Did the bus hit the bridge then stop, in which case damage will be just to the front dome/first window bay, or did it pass right under?

At 3 foot taller than the bridge if it went straight under it won't just be the roof that's off, it will now be a single decker!

In either case, given its a 15 year old ex London motor it'll be one a one way trip to the local scrap yard.

Absolutely not, 16 year old, from London so will be well hammered and depending on the above it'll be far too damaged to even bother with.

They brought an E400 over to Chesterfield from Manchester that had bashed a substantial tree branch with a view to converting that to open top but it had much more damage than met the eye so was scrapped.

Now an Enviro 400 single decker would be a sight to see. I remember single decker Atlanteans, even a Bristol VR.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Correct me if I've misunderstood but it seems from these posts that Hulleys have been allocating a decker to a service which involves a low bridge!? That's one thing, but then instructing drivers to routinely go off the registered route to suit the vehicle type is another. Is this another thing that's going to be picked up on the PI?

Without seeing the registration, how can we be sure that there isn't an alternative route registered? Just because Bus Times shows the route via Piccadilly, there could be a variation to the route in the registration that says something along the lines of "some journeys may operate between Chesterfield Station and Spital Lane via Rother Way and Hady Hill". That would cover any instance of the bus needing to deviate in the event of not being able to go under the bridge.

Can we stop jumping to conclusions without being able to see the facts in black and white first?

 

[liamf656]

Without seeing the registration, how can we be sure that there isn't an alternative route registered? Just because Bus Times shows the route via Piccadilly, there could be a variation to the route in the registration that says something along the lines of "some journeys may operate between Chesterfield Station and Spital Lane via Rother Way and Hady Hill". That would cover any instance of the bus needing to deviate in the event of not being able to go under the bridge.

Of course that could be the case, hence why I was questioning it rather than "jumping to conclusions", but thanks for your reply.

 

[Teapot42]

Without seeing the registration, how can we be sure that there isn't an alternative route registered?

How do we go about seeing the registration?

Looking on the dft website, there isn't anything obvious that suggests alternatives, but it does give Clayton Street as a calling point - which means the bus shouldn't have been on Piccadilly.

170

BODS

data.bus-data.dft.gov.uk

It also gives 1 minute between there and the railway station - which is only possible in a helicopter!

 

[WibbleWobble]

How do we go about seeing the registration?

You either have to visit the Traffic Commissioners' Offices in Leeds or request a copy (for a fee) to be sent to you - enquiries@otc.gov.uk / 0300 123 9000. You'll need to know the registration number for the service.

 

[markymark2000]

How do we go about seeing the registration?

Looking on the dft website, there isn't anything obvious that suggests alternatives, but it does give Clayton Street as a calling point - which means the bus shouldn't have been on Piccadilly.

170

BODS

data.bus-data.dft.gov.uk

It also gives 1 minute between there and the railway station - which is only possible in a helicopter!

Don't base it off their bus open data dataset. It's got more holes in it than a sieve.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Streetlite and scania are finally tracking

 

[Goldfish62]

Does anyone have any recent info on the adjournment of the PI and whether there is a new date for this?

I was told 4th March, but I have no way of verifying that.

 

[Hyebone]

It's got more holes in it than a sieve.

Here's another I've spotted. There's no way it does a u-turn on a main road just to serve that stop...

 

[markymark2000]

Here's another I've spotted. There's no way it does a u-turn on a main road just to serve that stop...

View attachment 175427

I presume your screenshot above is from Bustimes? Is so that is a Derbyshire County Council issue with their Traveline entry as Bustimes doesn't use Hulleys open data. Firstly because they had old datasets active until very recently (which would have made a mess if they were still available), and secondly because the newer dataset (done via Ticketer) is also really poor with stops missing all over the place and sometimes wrong stops being used.

Take the 257 for example. The DFT Bus Open Data page (link here) shows the data in the dataset (albeit not in the most user friendly way). The first stop is Sheffield Interchange then the next stop is Manchester Road/Lawson Road. Traveline data (seen on bustimes. Link here) shows 10 stops between these two points. Even taking into account Traveline data isn't amazing, that's quite a few stops missing just on one route, one one small section. It's really really bad. The worrying thing now though is that as Hulleys data comes from Ticketer, if the data is wrong on Bus open data, it's also wrong on the ticket machine meaning drivers will be being misinformed on any stop lists.

 

[chessie]

Has the 170 or 55 ever been officially routed via Piccadilly Road? Theres certainly no bus stop on Piccadilly and I have never seen either route advertised as serving this area on any public timetable eg at a bus stop or on the Derbyshire website

Incorrectly or not I have always assumed they use this route as the quickest route to the train station/hospital in one direction to avoid traffic in the other

 

[tocguard]

Has the 170 or 55 ever been officially routed via Piccadilly Road? Theres certainly no bus stop on Piccadilly and I have never seen either route advertised as serving this area on any public timetable eg at a bus stop or on the Derbyshire website

Incorrectly or not I have always assumed they use this route as the quickest route to the train station/hospital in one direction to avoid traffic in the other

The road is Hail and Ride from its former 78 route days. A token bus stop has been placed in each direction online for the purposes of being able to show the road is actually served. 170 has disappeared though and only shows 55 now.

 

[AWK]

I was told 4th March, but I have no way of verifying that.

Any one from here going?