Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[Teapot42]

BSIP has not been well managed by DCC at all. For example, out of the 55 and 170, which route covers greater population areas? The 55. So why on earth is that only funded to be 2 hourly (1 bus) in the evening but bizarrely they are paying for an hourly 170 (2 buses)?

Don't forget the 170 is the only bus up Chatsworth Road in the evening and on Sunday. It's hard to justify a 2-hourly service on one of the main roads out of Chesterfield town centre - although for a long time Stagecoach ran a sometimes one, sometimes 2 hour service when they had the 91. Extending it through to Bakewell is maybe more questionable - that said, does it actually extend? The timetable shows hourly departures from Bakewell, but the 19:15 and 21:15 from Chesterfield Royal are shown as only running to Holymoorside. Unless they run light to Bakewell...

I wonder if a timetable is viable giving an hourly service between Holymoorside and say Clay Cross, with 2-hourly extensions to Alfreton and Bakewell? Maybe fund an extra evening run or two on the Comet between Chesterfield and Alfreton to fill some of the gaps?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2025 ==

Whilst I agree it could be seen as a waste funding peak sightseer, I believe the red route was operated commercially last season, so could be seen as a success.

I think my two objections are that while funding is maybe justified, BSIP is the wrong 'pot' and using it is taking away from services people need. The Sightseer is purely leisure, not an essential service.

The other objection is the length it was funded for - I believe you are correct that the variation of the Red bus last year was commercial, but only ran until the end of October, not until Christmas. Testing the waters as to whether an open top service would be a success doesn't need it running in to the depths of winter.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think my two objections are that while funding is maybe justified, BSIP is the wrong 'pot' and using it is taking away from services people need. The Sightseer is purely leisure, not an essential service.

The other objection is the length it was funded for - I believe you are correct that the variation of the Red bus last year was commercial, but only ran until the end of October, not until Christmas. Testing the waters as to whether an open top service would be a success doesn't need it running in to the depths of winter.

If you acknowledge that funding was justified, but not from the BSIP pot, then where do you think it should have come from? BSIP funding is for pump-priming of new or enhanced services and Capital projects, not for ongoing routine revenue support for socially necessary services.

As a reminder of the background to the Peak Sightseer I can't put it better than Roger French in his Bus & Train User blog:

I left yesterday’s blog somewhat disappointed at missing out on a Breezer open-top bus ride from Baslow over to Castleton, but the upside was it gave me more time to explore the other open-top bus route introduced this summer for Peak District tourists – Stagecoach Yorkshire’s Peak Sightseer.

This came about after Derbyshire County Council’s desire to use Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funds to kickstart an open top route was thwarted by Hulley’s of Baslow commercially registering its Breezer route within a few days of the tender invitation being issued.

When the County Council received its BSIP funding it included an objective of making more of the bus network through the National Park to improve accessibility for tourists and mitigate some of the parking challenges in the busiest part of the season. The team at Stagecoach Yorkshire had been involved in discussions with the Council, the National Park and visitor attractions in the Park including, in particular, Chatsworth House which is keen to reduce the number of visitors arriving by car as it struggles with parking availability in peak season and during Autumn events when overflow car parks are too muddy to use.

After Hulley’s registration, development work continued on a complimentary proposition which would serve areas not covered by Breezer and crucially would include a good chance of becoming commercially viable thus using BSIP funds as intended to pump prime an initiative rather than be a subsidy crutch.

An Open-top Bus Bonanza (Part 2.2 – Peak Sightseer)

Wednesday 30th August 2023 I left yesterday’s blog somewhat disappointed at missing out on a Breezer open-top bus ride from Baslow over to Castleton, but the upside was it gave me more time t…

busandtrainuser.com

 

[greenline712]

If you acknowledge that funding was justified, but not from the BSIP pot, then where do you think it should have come from? BSIP funding is for pump-priming of new or enhanced services and Capital projects, not for ongoing routine revenue support for socially necessary services.

Actually, the initial tranche of BSIP monies was intended for new or improved services . . . however, later tranches were permitted to be used for "ongoing revenue support". It was understood that paying for a new route where an existing route would be withdrawn was counter-intuitive . . . whether that was because Local Transport Authorities lobbied accordingly, or the DfT realised the lunacy of the initial arrangements isn't clear. Whether Derbyshire took a while to spend their initial monies, and therefore couldn't use them for revenue support, I don't know.

I daresay that there are all sorts of justifications to be resolved before BSIP monies are released, and only the DfT and the LTA will be privy to those discussions.

 

[Teapot42]

If you acknowledge that funding was justified, but not from the BSIP pot, then where do you think it should have come from? BSIP funding is for pump-priming of new or enhanced services and Capital projects, not for ongoing routine revenue support for socially necessary services.

As a reminder of the background to the Peak Sightseer I can't put it better than Roger French in his Bus & Train User blog:

When the County Council received its BSIP funding it included an objective of making more of the bus network through the National Park to improve accessibility for tourists and mitigate some of the parking challenges in the busiest part of the season. The team at Stagecoach Yorkshire had been involved in discussions with the Council, the National Park and visitor attractions in the Park including, in particular, Chatsworth House which is keen to reduce the number of visitors arriving by car as it struggles with parking availability in peak season and during Autumn events when overflow car parks are too muddy to use.

The thing is, he pretty much hits on the very reasons why I disagree with the way BSIP money was used for this service. In the initial year, the Peak Sightseer didn't do anything to improve accessibility for tourists as it didn't really serve anywhere that didn't already have a bus service. Hassop maybe, but you'd get very few tourists there. The station is only a short walk from the 170 / 218 / 257. And if anything it made parking at Chatsworth worse as it didn't offer a link anyone visiting Chatsworth would use, but Chatsworth became the parking location of choice if you wanted to travel on it.

Even last year it's arguable that the enhanced service didn't do much to improve accessibility as it paralleled existing services, albeit some journeys would need a change of bus. It's also unlikely tourists would use it as multi-operator passes weren't accepted and the only pass valid on it was the Stagecoach Gold ticket, yet very few Stagecoach services connected with it. It's almost an attraction in itself, people come to ride the open top bus rather than use it to get places. And again, as it only serves areas which suffer parking challenges there is no way it is going to reduce car dependence.

I don't know if there are any tourism-related funds available, if not then use BSIP but limit the scope and exposure. Don't extend the service past the peak tourism season and only extend funding to covering any losses the operator incurs. I personally think the opportunity was always commercially viable, but if an operator wants a fall-back of having losses covered then fair enough.

 

[Goldfish62]

The thing is, he pretty much hits on the very reasons why I disagree with the way BSIP money was used for this service. In the initial year, the Peak Sightseer didn't do anything to improve accessibility for tourists as it didn't really serve anywhere that didn't already have a bus service. Hassop maybe, but you'd get very few tourists there. The station is only a short walk from the 170 / 218 / 257. And if anything it made parking at Chatsworth worse as it didn't offer a link anyone visiting Chatsworth would use, but Chatsworth became the parking location of choice if you wanted to travel on it.

Even last year it's arguable that the enhanced service didn't do much to improve accessibility as it paralleled existing services, albeit some journeys would need a change of bus. It's also unlikely tourists would use it as multi-operator passes weren't accepted and the only pass valid on it was the Stagecoach Gold ticket, yet very few Stagecoach services connected with it. It's almost an attraction in itself, people come to ride the open top bus rather than use it to get places. And again, as it only serves areas which suffer parking challenges there is no way it is going to reduce car dependence.

I don't know if there are any tourism-related funds available, if not then use BSIP but limit the scope and exposure. Don't extend the service past the peak tourism season and only extend funding to covering any losses the operator incurs. I personally think the opportunity was always commercially viable, but if an operator wants a fall-back of having losses covered then fair enough.

I agree about the first year's service, but as pointed out by Roger the initial year's plans were stymied by Hulley's registering their own service. A service which had a wholly unrealistic schedule and which didn't operate much of the time. It's as if it was a deliberate act of sabotage.

We can all have our views on how the BSIP funding was used, but that's in the past now. Hopefully the Peak Sightseer is now an established seasonal fixture.

 

[Teapot42]

I agree about the first year's service, but as pointed out by Roger the initial year's plans were stymied by Hulley's registering their own service. A service which had a wholly unrealistic schedule and which didn't operate much of the time. It's as if it was a deliberate act of sabotage.

I've got to say I found what Roger wrote seemed biased towards the Stagecoach side of the argument - I've heard a different story from people connected with Hulleys around the genesis of the services. I have no idea which is the more accurate, but I don't think it's as black and white as is made out.

We can all have our views on how the BSIP funding was used, but that's in the past now. Hopefully the Peak Sightseer is now an established seasonal fixture.

Yes, and I hope both it and the services feeding it can carry on expanding. As I've said elsewhere I'd like to see a link towards Buxton to bring in traffic from the Manchester direction (as well as also offering some wonderful views), plus better integration with feeder services ticket-wise.

 

[Goldfish62]

I've got to say I found what Roger wrote seemed biased towards the Stagecoach side of the argument - I've heard a different story from people connected with Hulleys around the genesis of the services. I have no idea which is the more accurate, but I don't think it's as black and white as is made out.

Seems pretty black and white to me. Hulley's would have known full well that DCC was about to issue the tender. So they registered a service with a fantasy schedule over part of the proposed tendered route, which happened to be the part with rail connectivity (funny that), then much of the time didn't run the service. On the rare occasion the service did operate the bus didn't track and latterly Hulley's was completely silent about advising when it wasn't running.

I think Roger takes a more than reasonable stance in his blog. He made the trip specially to try the service. It didn't run and nor did Hulley's admit to it not running. Utterly hopeless.

 

[tocguard]

Don't forget the 170 is the only bus up Chatsworth Road in the evening and on Sunday. It's hard to justify a 2-hourly service on one of the main roads out of Chesterfield town centre - although for a long time Stagecoach ran a sometimes one, sometimes 2 hour service when they had the 91. Extending it through to Bakewell is maybe more questionable - that said, does it actually extend? The timetable shows hourly departures from Bakewell, but the 19:15 and 21:15 from Chesterfield Royal are shown as only running to Holymoorside. Unless they run light to Bakewell...

So what? Lots of routes in the evening don't get any service, even in built up areas. Chesterfield evening X17 services to Matlock aren't hourly, the 44 isn't hourly, the 55 isn't hourly, the comet stops at 2030, the pronto stops at 2135. There are lots of areas covered by several bus routes that don't get less than an hourly evening service or one that finishes prematurely. Not sure why you think Brampton should be any different. Then there's other well populated areas in Derbyshire too that don't get an evening service or haven't been in receipt of any BSIP. Indeed, certain operators were denied funding. The pronto was planned to run later but the council refused it. You could say maybe it was because its cross boundary but DCC have always historically been quite good about that. The 53a at night extends beyond Derbyshire into South Yorkshire and into Nottinghamshire but is still funded by DCC. There is also the 2300 service 272 on Friday and Saturday evenings Sheffield to Castleton funded by DCC BSIP.

Google shows all but 1 journey not running to Bakewell. In any case, it could be a timetable/registration error which is common with Hulleys services unfortunately.

 

[Teapot42]

Seems pretty black and white to me. Hulley's would have known full well that DCC was about to issue the tender.

If what I'm told is correct then yes, they did know, as they were in discussions with DCC themselves. They offered to forego BSIP money in exchange for the Castleton route.

The facts about how well they operated the service are a completely different argument - if what I'm told is correct, they didn't register a service to scupper the tender, a division of the routes was agreed upon. I'm sure Stagecoach would spin it differently as they missed out on BSIP money to run the service.

There are plenty of other arguments to be made, such as Stagecoach dropping local Chesterfield services to be able to resource the Sightseer. Starting both that and the Wirksworth extension of the X17 at a time when no operator had a full roster of drivers doesn't seem the best idea to me.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Derbyshire County Council has posted he following on their Facebook page…

WE'RE PUTTING FOUR DERBYSHIRE BUS SERVICES OUT FOR NEW OPERATOR

Four bus services, currently run on behalf of Derbyshire County Council, have been put out to tender to find a new operator.

They are:
63 - Matlock, Clay Cross, Chesterfield.
110/111 - Matlock, Wirksworth, Ashbourne
172 - Matlock, Winster, Bakewell
173/178 - Bakewell, Shutts Lane, Tideswell, Castleton

The decision has been taken after a long period of reliability and service issues from the current operator. This isn't a decision we have taken lightly and we have tried very hard to proactively support the existing operator.

We agree it is not acceptable for passengers to be left at bus stops missing vital appointments, unable to get updates on services, and then missing parts of routes, which has been the case.

We’ve therefore been left with no choice but to take this decisive action to try to improve things. Whilst the council hasn't paid for services that haven't run, we want people to have the confidence to get back on the bus.

So we are now looking for new operators for all four of these services. We expect that the current operator will continue running them until someone new can take over, which we hope will happen in the next couple of weeks.

We also hope that by not running these services, the current operator will be able to concentrate on the services that they run commercially (without county council funding), as we understand there are also problems with reliability on these buses. We do know that the existing operator has tried hard to improve their performance and serve residents, which is what we all want to do – and we will continue to support all operators in delivering this.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BQmzzTrmQ/

 

[zkyx02]

Seems hulleys are losing DCC contracts, the 63, 110/111, 172, 173/8 are all up for emergency tender…

Derbyshire County Council

WE'RE PUTTING FOUR DERBYSHIRE BUS SERVICES OUT FOR NEW OPERATOR Four bus services, currently run on behalf of Derbyshire County Council, have been put out to tender to find a new operator. They...

www.facebook.com

^the link above is to a post from ‘Derbyshire county council’ on Facebook explaining why a new operator is needed.

 

[38291018]

I see most those going either wellglade as matlock depot i think someone metions can hold 3 more buses so 172 and 63 then taking 110/111 as ashborne depot all under notts derby or stagecoach as they have a big presence in matlock with local routes out chesterfield.

173 is interesting for wellglade as I doubt would happen bc it's the council and they don't think to save money but they could add the loop to either the sixes (trentbarton) or 218 (TM) (hourly) as bith currently end in Bakewell. Only other services terminating in Bakewell atm is hullys I think which they obviously are trying move away from.

that then leaves the 178 which is catleton to Bakewell probably high peak unless stagecoach want a bigger presence there out chesterfield?

 

[m79900]

I reckon these'll either go to Stagecoach or High Peak. Probably the former as Stonegravels has a lot of spare diesels following the delivery of Yutongs. I doubt Wellglade would touch them. It's a shame for Hulleys though, but hopefully it'll mean they can put in a good service on their other routes.

 

[sytransport]

I see most those going either wellglade as matlock depot i think someone metions can hold 3 more buses so 172 and 63 then taking 110/111 as ashborne depot all under notts derby or stagecoach as they have a big presence in matlock with local routes out chesterfield.

173 is interesting for wellglade as I doubt would happen bc it's the council and they don't think to save money but they could add the loop to either the sixes (trentbarton) or 218 (TM) (hourly) as bith currently end in Bakewell. Only other services terminating in Bakewell atm is hullys I think which they obviously are trying move away from.

that then leaves the 178 which is catleton to Bakewell probably high peak unless stagecoach want a bigger presence there out chesterfield?

I wouldn’t rule out First going for the 173/178 tenders branching off the 272, I guess we’ll see.

 

[Trainman40083]

I see most those going either wellglade as matlock depot i think someone metions can hold 3 more buses so 172 and 63 then taking 110/111 as ashborne depot all under notts derby or stagecoach as they have a big presence in matlock with local routes out chesterfield.

173 is interesting for wellglade as I doubt would happen bc it's the council and they don't think to save money but they could add the loop to either the sixes (trentbarton) or 218 (TM) (hourly) as bith currently end in Bakewell. Only other services terminating in Bakewell atm is hullys I think which they obviously are trying move away from.

that then leaves the 178 which is catleton to Bakewell probably high peak unless stagecoach want a bigger presence there out chesterfield?

The trouble is, in respect of Trentbarton and the 6.1, is the service only had about 5 minutes in Bakewell and it interworks with the 6.4 then 6X when it gets back to Derby. Think the 63 requires a big bus (school traffic). Could High Peak accommodate more services. Depot/vehicle constraint? Will all come down to who has buses and drivers. Maybe to be able to run some routes, an operator might want to swap out other routes, that are more distant from their base.

 

[SLC001]

Let's hope that this helps relieve the pressure on Hulleys commercial services and indeed the company's finances. Furthermore, the Traffic Commissioner may be happier following 2 previous PIs.

 

[38291018]

Other than the route 6 (2 journeys to and from chesterfield) do they have any fully commercial routes or they all part or fully subsided?

 

[Trainman40083]

Other than the route 6 (2 journeys to and from chesterfield) do they have any fully commercial routes or they all part or fully subsided?

Isn't the 55 commercial?

 

[SLC001]

And indeed 170. DCC suggested that if they dropped their subsidy for this route, Hulleys would simply stop serving the hospital. Implication is that 170 is partially subsidised.

 

[38291018]

Isn't the 55 commercial?

Thought it was partly DCC but may be wrong

 

[Trainman40083]

Memory question. .Did the 170/X70 route carry more passengers overall ,than just the 170 on it's own. It seemed quick using the X70, if you didn't fancy a tour of Wadshelf and Chatsworth, effectively offering a journey time similar to a car.

 

[tom1649]

Isn't the 55 commercial?

It's partly DCC.

 

[tocguard]

55 and 170 bar a few funded evening journeys, and the 272/272 working is commercial. The 257 is messy as the base timetable on a roughly 2 hourly basis is tendered but had some commercial journeys mixed in. The tender document shows the 257 as included.

If TM have the resources, the 257 would work well for them already operating the 218. Chance of interworking/break facilitating. First could also return to Bakewell, in similar circumstances they stepped in for the 80.

173 used to be ran by Stagecoach in the past but could easily be ran by High Peak, could even amalgamate the 62 to it.

TM went for 172 last time it was up and won but was unable to commit resources at the time. Stagecoach with its increased presence in Matlock could take this and have a good mix of vehicles for which something like an e200 is required on the school journeys at least.

110/111 most likely would work well for Notts and Derby. Not sure what space there is at Ashbourne but Derby isn't far a run at all to Ashbourne. Matlock depot has or did have space for an additional vehicle, previously been home to a TM bus when they operated the route formally as the 411, and prior to that a TP excel was based there.

Finally the 63 is most likely suited to Stagecoach as it effectively starts in Chesterfield and finishes on the main road back to Chesterfield. That said, the 63 could do with a rewrite to make it a better frequency. Stagecoach used to have the route and ran it to Kelstedge where it connected with the 17. Bar the school journeys, binning off the Chesterfield section that doesn't really leave anywhere unserved (except a very small section of Wingerworth who have access to other regular services a very short walk away) you could operate a reliable consistent 2 hourly service Matlock to Clay Cross, looping to North Wingfield, Hepthorne Lane and even taking in the loop around the outer edge of Holmgate that hasn't seen a bus since the 150 stopped going round. If it were to run Kelstedge (with connection) to Clay Cross, you'd probably get an hourly service in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2025 ==

Memory question. .Did the 170/X70 route carry more passengers overall ,than just the 170 on it's own. It seemed quick using the X70, if you didn't fancy a tour of Wadshelf and Chatsworth, effectively offering a journey time similar to a car.

Couldn't answer regarding passenger numbers but Bakewell to Chesterfield certainly cries out for a direct service. The 170 was always said to only pick up on average 4 passengers a month in Old Brampton so you can see why after all the messing about, it has gone. But why on earth you wouldn't run the 170 two hourly and the X70 two hourly to provide a combined hourly service end to end but offering alternating fast and slower journeys seems strange to me. How many people have been put off a journey to Bakewell on the bus or continue to be because of the extended journey times? Same happened when the 171 was bodged with the 172. The journey time for people from the 172 route suddenly found their journey extended by over 25 minutes while a lengthy double run up to Middleton takes place. For half the 172 route, it effectively doubles their journey time to Bakewell. Not only that but as a result of it, the timetabled journeys were unnecessarily scheduled to 1hr 5min meaning it was an excuse to cut the frequency too, from 2 hourly to 2.5 hourly. It can be done in less than an hour as Hulleys regularly prove with their early running!

 

[Skipness]

I noted the DCC announcement with interest being a former driver in the Matlock/Bakewell area. Times have changed considerably since then, especially with regard to evening services. Long gone are the days when Matlock saw a 22.30 departure (22.40 on Saturdays)

 

[MotCO]

What is the PVR of the routes being retendered? What is the impact of the loss of these routes on Hulley's financial viability, given that these tendered routes would have made a contribution to their overheads?

 

[tocguard]

What is the PVR of the routes being retendered? What is the impact of the loss of these routes on Hulley's financial viability, given that these tendered routes would have made a contribution to their overheads?

63 - 1
110/111 - 2
172 - 2
173/178 - 1

Apparently you should not cross-subsidise tender/commercial work but I guess we will soon see as when I've worked out the tender award money paid for the 172, there is certainly a considerable profit margin after deducting operational costs such as maximum fuel, wage, wear and tear.

Given the prolonged unreliability, even to the commercial work, what % of passengers have simply given up? Can the 55 sustainably run three buses and the 170 two buses commercially?

 

[Teapot42]

173 is interesting for wellglade as I doubt would happen bc it's the council and they don't think to save money but they could add the loop to either the sixes (trentbarton) or 218 (TM) (hourly) as bith currently end in Bakewell.

You can rule out adding the 173 on to a 218 duty. Not only does it struggle with timekeeping anyway, it's often run by a double decker and there is a low bridge on the route.

Adding to the 6.1 is a possibility, but they'd need to be careful with vehicle allocations. The Cressbrook runs really need a Solo.

that then leaves the 178 which is catleton to Bakewell probably high peak unless stagecoach want a bigger presence there out chesterfield?

The 178 is the Bakewell Town service and is currently interworked with the 170. It's 10 minutes end to end - unless it can be interworked with another service the only logical approach would be to stay as-is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2025 ==

63 - 1
110/111 - 2
172 - 2
173/178 - 1

Apparently you should not cross-subsidise tender/commercial work but I guess we will soon see as when I've worked out the tender award money paid for the 172, there is certainly a considerable profit margin after deducting operational costs such as maximum fuel, wage, wear and tear.

You've raised the tender for the 172 several times on various platforms. Out of interest, do you know if this is a fixed amount, or are Hulleys paid per journey operated? If the latter than maybe the fact the award was based on two buses in service means they aren't being paid the full amount with the lower frequency timetable currently in effect?

The 178 seems to be worked off the 170 now, rather than being part of the 173. Therefore that's an extra bus, although if the 172 went back to two buses you could probably tack it on that fairly easily.

 

[m79900]

110/111 most likely would work well for Notts and Derby. Not sure what space there is at Ashbourne but Derby isn't far a run at all to Ashbourne. Matlock depot has or did have space for an additional vehicle, previously been home to a TM bus when they operated the route formally as the 411, and prior to that a TP excel was based there.

I think these would work better for Stagecoach (as it adds to the Matlock network) or High Peak (as it 'completes the circle' with the TP,442,113/4), but this is a possibility. It seems quite far from any other N&D routes to me.

 

[Teapot42]

Memory question. .Did the 170/X70 route carry more passengers overall ,than just the 170 on it's own. It seemed quick using the X70, if you didn't fancy a tour of Wadshelf and Chatsworth, effectively offering a journey time similar to a car.

It's a complicated question to be honest. When I used the X70 it seemed well loaded. Certainly the recent development of routing the 170 via Holymoorside makes it less attractive to through passengers, and the loss of the 2x hourly up Chatsworth Road hasn't helped numbers either.

From my perspective, I found it more useful to be able to drop on to either the 170 or X70 to get home from Bakewell, and use the bus less now connections are less sure. Whether that flexibility gained enough passengers to merit 2x hourly is debatable. Maybe Saturdays and Summer Holidays there is an argument for an uplift.

 

[cnjb8]

As it's only an emergency tender I wouldn't be surprised if operators didn't bother interworking them into their existing network, obviously depending on how long the tenders are for