Do all the Matlock area Stagecoach services work in every day, from Chesterfield depot? One issue that does affect usage of some services, is that when there is bad weather, such as High Peak can't easily work services like the 113/114 because of snow and ice at the Buxton end. Yet where the users are, there are fewer weather related issues.
Yes, no other option. I don't think it's happened recently, but the road between Chesterfield and Matlock can get blocked fairly easily by snow. Not that if affects these services, but when it's very windy they operate the X17 with single deckers due to open sections here as well.
They will most certainly work as stand-alone services. No point rewriting loads of rotas and other services timetables for what may only be a few months.
I would, for the reasons above and 272 timetable isn't clockface which makes interworking difficult, plus First use deckers on 272 and I'm not sure you can get a decker round the 173 route (I'm sure there's a bridge somewhere, but can't remember where)
I fear quite the opposite... tendered work is guaranteed income (as long as you actually run the mileage!). You're not dependant on good weather bringing the tourists out, or loosing revenue during school holidays etc.
170 evening and Sunday journeys subsidised as is the diversion in to Hollymoorside as far as I know.
No, it's over 200k per annum. After discussion with DCC Highways and transport leader, this was felt far too high for the level of service provided and the equivalent of 2 buses being "on the road" running a service, so to speak. Obviously the 172 used to utilise 2 buses at all times until the current owner started reducing things to the point of barely being usable, 63 the same. What is different with the 172 is that it still needs 2 buses in the morning and evening peak as well as for school purposes, so manipulating the timetable to its current form probably didn't help attract as many bidders as would have, had it been a straight 2 bus working. That said, TM and Andews both had more competitive bids but were unable to commit to the commencement date which therefore led to the most expensive tender being awarded.
This has only come from the management not DCC. The same could also be said of the newsletter sent round that said that DCC would be offering a letter of support at the inquiry which was again, propaganda.
Absolutely. I'll be generous and say the company management appears to be giving out some contradicting information...
Indeed, and normally having had contracts taken off you for poor performance makes you ineligible to bid for contracts in future for a certain period.
This doesn't come as a surprise one bit. The locals are so fed up at school buses frequently being cancelled, sections of routes being skipped and journeys running too early. Nobody can contact the company so they've gone far above that and made reports to the traffic commissioner.
Maybe so on a more intensive service. This is one that runs every 2 and a half hours. I've already given a competitive example from the same operator and one from an operator who's overheads are much higher but in both cases the cost per bus per mile is significantly cheaper. I've also already stated that it was the most expensive tender bid (there was suggestion that putting a high bid in was done on purpose as a no lose situation so they'd either reap the money or be able to concentrate on, at the time, taking on additional work such as the 80 after not long having took on the 91[84]). I've also said that it was the view of DCC that it was the equivalent of the funding they would expect to pay for 2 buses operating a route like that, based on like for like number of journeys, the length of route etc. If you know the route, you'd know that under the previous owner, it ran partially hourly in the day on a part commercial basis so it only goes to prove that new management wanted where possible to reduce it's resources for effectively the same money which is similarly what they also did with the 63 that also ran hourly in the day partially with a 2nd bus and yet now too runs at less than 2 hourly. There's running down a bus service for poor use but it's quite another to do it for greed and to persuade the tendering authority that by doing so, and withdrawing other routes (171, 178 to Over Haddon & Monyash) you can "help out" taking on stagecoach's discarded routes which is absolutely what was happening, and now it's come back to bite. If you still dispute any of it, as a Derbyshire resident, I'm sure the leader of the Transport team at DCC will find some time to sit down with you if you so wish, as she did with me.
Really?
Especially with the existence of the Peak Sightseer. With both the Red & Blue routes it provides an excellent link between them to allow you to do both routes in one day; i used it a couple of times last summer.
Many (most? all?) 80s interwork with the 120k. That's over 2h30 running time end to end. Adding another hour and a bit seems excessive. Not impossible, but a long route with a lot of delay potential and a long way from their nearest depot.
Are school buses frequently cancelled? From my observations, school buses are the one thing they seem to go out of their way to ensure operate.
If not dedicated school services then public services that people still rely on for school. From what I see on Facebook people are regularly driving out to pick their children up because the bus has failed them. I've not checked any tracking on vehicles yet but it very much seems plausible.
From what I've seen they have actually dropped commercial mileage to ensure services which serve schools and colleges actually run. They don't have any dedicated school services any more.
Very true... and remember, that this is "bus man" that has been in charge. Not one of those awful bean counters or graduate types!
Why on earth would they want a presence in Matlock?
Could you expand on this a bit further? Bustimes shows three, 017 and 018 to Lady Manners School, and 025 to Hope College. However, in the former case, the school don't show the 018 at all and show the 017 as "257 (017)" on their timetables. Similarly, Hope Valley show the 025, but as "(025) 257". In each case, these seem to run at slightly different times to the main service timetable - are these scheduled duplicates generally operating under the main number? Phantom services that should be removed from Open Data uploads? Services that were standalone that are now included in a retimed main service and something hasn't synchronised? Derbyshire are one of the many authorities who (not entirely unreasonably) keep their closed-door information closed.
I wouldn't be so sure. In my experience, children are less keen to get to school than they are to come home. At the start of the academic year, there were a spate of reports of buses not turning up on one particular school flow. This soon stopped when a parent ranted in a local passenger group, only to be responded to by the driver who was only too keen to inform said parent that the children deliberately waited for him to leave... Oddly, no complaints ever seemed to be received about the journey home.
I believe these were all incorporated in to the 173 and 257 rather than remaining as stand-alone services. The data just hasn't been cleaned up. If you look at the tracking during the time these services should be running nothing is tracking under these numbers, and enough services are running that there wouldn't be buses available if they were running untracked.
Kids are also known to dally and lose track of time. If you know your parent will come and pick you up then it's easy enough to claim the bus didn't come or left early.
These routes are not from Hulleys open data (it's too buggy for bustimes to use), this data is from the Traveline database with the entries inputted by Derbyshire County Council. For some unknown reason, Derbyshire council never removed the entries and has just left them there to misinform the public. Hulleys isn't the only operator to suffer with this.
No, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. Tenders are submitted, an award is made, but then there is also a standstill period (minimum 8 working days) before it can be made public, in the event that a losing bidder makes a challenge.
Very much the latter. Bids will go in, probably already have gone in and they will be quickly reviewed and the successful Operator informed. The tender will say what the anticipated start date is - probably Monday - and you will be instructed not to bid if you can't meet that requirement
Standstill period not always required for emergency tenders such as this, especially where there is a schools element, priority is rightly on getting a replacement operator in place immediately. I've know emergency contracts be awarded at 4pm one day and start the following morning.
Annoyingly, I wrote that then deleted it when re-writing what I said (and forgot to put it back in)!
Not that quickly! Tenders in by 28th March to commence operation on 6th April (In practice 7th as none of the services runs on Sunday)
i have no detailed local knowledge. My point was that - depending on a number of factors - a bus can easily cost £200k per annum. ’A service that runs every 2 and a half hours‘ isn’t really the point! If a Bus is working intensively, irrespective of service frequency, perhaps with high mileage and a high driver requirement, then that figure of £200k can be reached! If on the other hand the bus works for half an hour then sits for two hours, so has low mileage and in-built driver breaks, then it is likely to be rather less than £200k.
In some ways that is slightly perplexing. Unless DCC have knowledge of something we don't then I struggle to see the need to set the timetable quite so tight. It works against smaller operators such as Andrews who could do with a bit more time to put things in place. Indeed I'd imagine even a larger operator would appreciate more than a week to move vehicles, rearrange rosters and hire drivers.
I was posting on detailed local knowledge, and with having met with DCCs head of transport and their view. I wouldn't post without knowing the facts and figures. It's only 230 miles of daily operation. 6 journeys each way. 07.20 - 18.30.
Unless it's changed, DCC always had an option to the operator of either. You could submit a lower bid whereby you'd keep the revenue or a higher bid and not keep it.
That does surprise me, given the genuine concerns about how long Hulleys can/will last I thought they'd move quicker than that to ensure no gaps in provision were Hulleys to fail within the next 3 weeks
