Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[tocguard]

I am not a legal expert but there are laws about "passing off". It's why there were legal battles about Caterpillar shaped cakes.

Hulleys as a business may be in liquidation but it's brand is still an asset. If the brand fell out of use after liquidation then that's a different matter. I doubt UK North ever got permission to use the GM Buses brand, nor Go Goodwins for Little Gem. But they were both long gone when resurrected.

Ironically, for reasons unknown, Hulleys used the Television South West logo without permission according to its owners, as that is still a registered trademark.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

But presumably you can set up a company could Smith & Sons or anything else, but paint the name Hulleys on the side of the buses. Provided the legal name on the bus says Smith & Sons, then surely nothing is wrong. Unless 'Hulleys' is protected as a trademark (like 'Harrods' is).

No, as far as I understand it you couldn't trade as "Hulley's of Baslow" unless you purchased the right to do so.
But as @tocguard says it will probably only cost a nominal fee to buy the name from the administrators, and I'm sure they will be glad of the income!

 

[SCH117X]

Theres no registered trademark for Hulleys (of anywhere) so it might not be protected. There was the crazy situation in Harrogate a few years back when Transdev Blazefield rebranded the local operation as The Harrogate Bus Company. Connexions realised it had not been registered so stuck The Harrogate Bus Company on a number of their vehicles!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do you know categorically that they are using "Hulleys of Baslow"? Even if they are and not just trading as "Hulleys", I doubt the name being sold from the administrators is going to cost any more than a nominal fee.

The name probably won’t have cost much, but that’s not the point. The trading name(s) belonged to the old company and so had to be purchased from the administrators of the old company.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

But presumably you can set up a company could Smith & Sons or anything else, but paint the name Hulleys on the side of the buses.

You can trade under whatever name you want, but trade names are usually an asset of a company, whether it’s a registered trademark or not doesn’t really matter (trademarks don’t necessarily have to be registered).

It won’t have cost much though, it’s not like it is a valuable brand now!

 

[mayneway]

You can trade under whatever name you want, but trade names are usually an asset of a company, whether it’s a registered trademark or not doesn’t really matter (trademarks don’t necessarily have to be registered).

It won’t have cost much though, it’s not like it is a valuable brand now!

It would be classed as an asset of a going concern but technically Hulleys is no longer trading.
Firstly if someone decided to start using the name, would the administrators really have the time and inclination to go to court.
Secondly if it did go to court any judge would question why they were fighting over the name of a business that’s hit the buffers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

Hulleys as a business may be in liquidation but it's brand is still an asset. If the brand fell out of use after liquidation then that's a different matter. I doubt UK North ever got permission to use the GM Buses brand, nor Go Goodwins for Little Gem. But they were both long gone when resurrected.

I don’t think the owners of UK North just decided to start using the GM buses brand. The brand evolved into GM North and GM South at the spilt so while the new trading names were protected the GM buses name wasn’t so they registered it.
The little Gem name was actually used by Club Class travel before Goodwins but again it wasn’t a registered brand.

As for the Hulleys brand, I suspect any decent branding expert would argue that the chances of the brand being used again are next to none which begs the question, IF centrebus have bought the trading name what kind of value would they have put on the name?

I mean it’s a crazy scenario to want to buy the trading name of some failed bus company with not the best kind of reputation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be classed as an asset of a going concern but technically Hulleys is no longer trading.
Firstly if someone decided to start using the name, would the administrators really have the time and inclination to go to court.
Secondly if it did go to court any judge would question why they were fighting over the name of a business that’s hit the buffers.

The trading name being of a low financial value makes it more sensible to just buy it from the administrator/receiver. If you own it then nobody is coming back on you later about it. I doubt it cost them very much.

Why Centrebus want the name though, who knows. I wonder if it is because High Peak is the brand for the 50/50 joint venture between Centrebus and Wellglade? Are these routes going to be a 100% Centrebus production, do we know?

 

[38291018]

The trading name being of a low financial value makes it more sensible to just buy it from the administrator/receiver. If you own it then nobody is coming back on you later about it. I doubt it cost them much, but keeps it neater.

Why Centrebus want the name though, who knows. I wonder if it is because High Peak is the brand for the 50/50 joint venture between Centrebus and Wellglade? Are these routes going to be a 100% Centrebus production, do we know?

Not saying it's not true but does this mean that technically when centrebus highpeak contracts run out centrebus(hulleys) and highpeak can bid for the same tendered contracts meaning centrebus can take 100% of all the tendered routes of highpeak if they won the bids backstabbing wellglades 50%.

Makes no sence to me that there able to run dead from buxton for Ashbourne services but can't for matlock 14x services be better is they opened a depot in likes of chesterfield where more competing can be made than trying to win prodominantly andrews contracts which they may try keep themselves

 

[mangad]

Not saying it's not true but does this mean that technically when centrebus highpeak contracts run out centrebus(hulleys) and highpeak can bid for the same tendered contracts meaning centrebus can take 100% of all the tendered routes of highpeak if they won the bids backstabbing wellglades 50%.

Whilst it is a 50:50 joint venture, Centerbus run High Peak on a day to day basis. However I would assume when they created High Peak both parties came to an agreement on certain parts of its operations, how key decisions are made, how the company will be run, the area it covers and so on. And, quite possibly, how to end the partnership if desired.

Whilst anything is possible, it seems unlikely Centerbus would want to do something underhand that could cause problems with it's partner. If they weren't happy I would have thought the more obvious thing to do would be to try and buy Wellglade out of High Peak rather than go to the effort of trying to set up a brand new operation using the name of a now defunct rival.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

It is very curious why they'd bring back Hulleys as a brand. Extending High Peak would have had challenges but the other option would have been to extended D&G whose area isn't that far away. But they must see some element of brand value in the Hulleys name, even if it did recently have a chequered recent history.

 

[Simon75]

Not saying it's not true but does this mean that technically when centrebus highpeak contracts run out centrebus(hulleys) and highpeak can bid for the same tendered contracts meaning centrebus can take 100% of all the tendered routes of highpeak if they won the bids backstabbing wellglades 50%.

Makes no sence to me that there able to run dead from buxton for Ashbourne services but can't for matlock 14x services be better is they opened a depot in likes of chesterfield where more competing can be made than trying to win prodominantly andrews contracts which they may try keep themselves

Or could the outstation a few buses at Trentbarton's Matlock garage?

 

[SSmith2009]

I wonder if this potential expansion could be to allow Wellglade to expand their flixbus operations and base some of them at Baslow at the same time as HP using it for services?

 

[tocguard]

Not saying it's not true but does this mean that technically when centrebus highpeak contracts run out centrebus(hulleys) and highpeak can bid for the same tendered contracts meaning centrebus can take 100% of all the tendered routes of highpeak if they won the bids backstabbing wellglades 50%.

For the former Hulleys 63 and 257 routes both TM Travel and Centrebus put bids in.

For the 172 both Centrebus and Notts+Derby put bids in.

It is not uncommon for companies as their seperate entities to put bids in, even if under the same ownership, ie Wellglade, rightly or wrongly. Some people may remember that TM won the Belper route 138 but it was quickly palmed off to N+D to run.

Makes no sence to me that there able to run dead from buxton for Ashbourne services but can't for matlock 14x services be better is they opened a depot in likes of chesterfield where more competing can be made than trying to win prodominantly andrews contracts which they may try keep themselves

All depends on if there's capacity and if Wellglade wanted or agreed to use of the shared depot for buses running services registered to another company? Don't forget that the Chapel depot was closed and when the Bowers/Trent merger as High Peak happend, both former companies routes are now ran out of one depot so I wouldn't be surprised if space is tight. Running dead to Ashbourne is irrelevant as it's a High Peak route run by High Peak out of their Dove Holes depot. Don't HP stable a vehicle or two at Meadow Road anyway which will reduce cost?

 

[38291018]

All depends on if there's capacity and if Wellglade wanted or agreed to use of the shared depot for buses running services registered to another company? Don't forget that the Chapel depot was closed and when the Bowers/Trent merger as High Peak happend, both former companies routes are now ran out of one depot so I wouldn't be surprised if space is tight. Running dead to Ashbourne is irrelevant as it's a High Peak route run by High Peak out of their Dove Holes depot. Don't HP stable a vehicle or two at Meadow Road anyway which will reduce cost?

That makes sence and with the Ashbourne thing I was just trying to say how they manage to run dead from dove holes to Ashbourne but won't be running dead dove holes to matlock. As for Meadow Road I could be wrong but I think it's just 1 bus they keep there for tanspeak, not the 113/114 Ashbourne-Derby/belper routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

I wonder if this potential expansion could be to allow Wellglade to expand their flixbus operations and base some of them at Baslow at the same time as HP using it for services?

Why would you run flix out of baslow. TM already run some out of halfway unless I'm wrong, and I dont know if they do currently but some could start at chesterfield as well as sheffield whereas baslow would only really do chesterfield. Can't really see flix services starting in the peaks like bakewell and matlock to likes of London or other big cities. If they wanted buxton they would use dove holes anyway although again I don't know why a flix service would go there either but I guess anything is possible

 

[Simon75]

For the former Hulleys 63 and 257 routes both TM Travel and Centrebus put bids in.

For the 172 both Centrebus and Notts+Derby put bids in.

It is not uncommon for companies as their seperate entities to put bids in, even if under the same ownership, ie Wellglade, rightly or wrongly. Some people may remember that TM won the Belper route 138 but it was quickly palmed off to N+D to run.


All depends on if there's capacity and if Wellglade wanted or agreed to use of the shared depot for buses running services registered to another company? Don't forget that the Chapel depot was closed and when the Bowers/Trent merger as High Peak happend, both former companies routes are now ran out of one depot so I wouldn't be surprised if space is tight. Running dead to Ashbourne is irrelevant as it's a High Peak route run by High Peak out of their Dove Holes depot. Don't HP stable a vehicle or two at Meadow Road anyway which will reduce cost?

Yes 1 Transpeak bus

 

[ACBest]

There are two Transpeak vehicles outstationed at Derby Meadow Road overnight.

 

[Goldfish62]

It is very curious why they'd bring back Hulleys as a brand. Extending High Peak would have had challenges but the other option would have been to extended D&G whose area isn't that far away. But they must see some element of brand value in the Hulleys name, even if it did recently have a chequered recent history.

It's the alleged bringing back of the Hulley's name that I'm far from convinced about. Why do it? Locals are only just regaining their confidence to start using buses again after the Hulley's debacle. Reintroducing a name that's so synonymous with poor service in recent memories would be a strange move.

 

[Hyebone]

Or could the outstation a few buses at Trentbarton's Matlock garage?

You're not getting any more vehicles in there, it's tiny!

 

[ChrisC]

It's the alleged bringing back of the Hulley's name that I'm far from convinced about. Why do it? Locals are only just regaining their confidence to start using buses again after the Hulley's debacle. Reintroducing a name that's so synonymous with poor service in recent memories would be a strange move.

The 140/141/142/143 routes have never been operated by Hulley‘s, but it’s the same here regarding locals having confidence in using the buses. From what I’ve heard Stagecoach Chesterfield have made a good job of running a reliable service on these routes over these last few months. These routes have had so many different operators over the years and need some stability. The Alfreton-Crich-Matlock route really could do with a more regular clock face timetable. Even if it only runs every 2 hours it needs to run to a timetable which can easily be remembered without the huge gaps in the afternoon.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

There are a lot of comments on here that appear to be criticising the company for plans that have been entirely invented on here as if they are official statements, the only people who know the strategic plans for Baslow are the directors of the company and as far as I know they aren't talking to anyone else about it.

There have been a number of suggestions/questions being thrown around and whilst I don't know the companies view of them I can make a couple of stabs at probably reasonings as someone with experience in this type of decision making process:

1. Why not run them from Dove Holes like the Ashbourne contracts?
I can see two possible reasonings here. Ashbourne is much closer, in driving time at least, to Dove Holes than Matlock is - most operators will have a maximum distance from the depot for the closest point on a route to make it viable (driver swaps and dead time) which will be different to furthest from the depot a service reaches, Ashbourne is clearly within it but Matlock probably isn't and I believe one of the routes in this package is Nether Heage - Belper - Alfreton which is even further away. Baslow to Alfreton & Belper is fairly similar to Dove Holes to Ashbourne in travel time in that sense. I'm jot sure if High Peak have ever tried to bid for work in the Matlock area before but they haven't won anything that far away.
Secondly possible Dove Holes is struggling for capacity, not just vehicle parking but driver availability (the proximity of Manchester & the Bee Network may be unbalancing the driver supply in the area at the moment and until it settles down it may cause problems).

2. Why not use the TrentBarton Garage in Matlock?
As far as I can tell because there isn't one, they may park some buses in the yard of the old depot which is now an MoT centre but they don't have a garage just an outstation so it doesn't have the facilities to provide the support that may be needed by High Peak. That will work for TB, it can be easily supported by Belper distance wise but it is a little different supporting such from Dove Holes. Also from previous public statements and actions TrentBarton seem quite keen to keep themselves seperate from other businesses, even within the Wellglade group - the TransPeak buses in Derby are parked in the Notts & Derby section of the depot not the TB one and when there are issues it is N&D who provide the support. There is also the issue of whether Wellglade would agree to parking buses in their depots to operate contracts they could have won by their own 100% business to run from the same site.

3. Why not pick a different depot site in a place I think is better potential (like Chesterfield)?
Is there somewhere better available? Do you know of a suitable site, already set up to take the specialist infrastructure needed for a depot (like fuel tanks), with existing use permissions ready to be activated in little more than a month? I don't and I assume High Peak don't but may well have had an existing arrangement ready to go dating back to when Hulleys collapsed and they would have been identifying sites to cover the work if they had managed to gain it which they could bring forward.
The value of a depot is only if it is in use, the longer it stays unused the harder it will be to re-activate particularly when it is like Baslow and surrounded by houses as residents will get used to no bus depot and then object if someone tries to start operating again after a year even if the site had been so for decades before. People are assuming the depot was picked after the contracts were gained, it is just as possible that the contracts were only bid for because the depot was available making operation viable.

There is also quite a bit of speculation about what the future plans are for the site that justifies the opening of it, whilst this overstates the level of strategic planning that probably exists (they have an available site and available contracts which are close enough to be a viable bid) I can think up several possible future ideas that may influence the idea that a depot in that area is attractive:
a. South Yorkshire Franchising. There are two cross boundary services that are operated by South Yorkshire depots that TSY may not want to take on. The 218 operated by TM from Halfway & the 272 part-operated by First. The former effectively passes the depot site whilst the later will be Sheffield ended journeys for which Baslow is slightly more convenient to cover than Dove Holes and at least one of those vehicle workings are unlikely to be able to be switched to Castleton ended due to a large school flow into Hope (it is also complicated for Dove Holes to maintain deckers, it has only had a single vehicle for a short period of time in recent imes, but I assume Baslow could since Hulleys did).
b. Reducing pressure on Dove Holes. Ashbourne is not much different in travel time to Baslow as Dove Holes so moving the 113 & 114 could reduce pressures on Dove Holes without adding massive extra staff costs.
c. Further tendered opportunities. The other former Hulleys routes may still have a year on their contracts but I refer you to my comment about a depot site only really being valuable if it is operating so having something up and running means it may allow High Peak to be price competitive with Andrews. There are also other contracts in the Alfreton, Chesterfield & Matlock areas generally that this depot site opens up as feasible which previously wouldn't have been due to the distance from Dove Holes.
d. Other commercial opportunities. I'm sure many of us could think of route links that don't exist that we think should, or improved service levels in this area that such extra depot capacity could allow. Just improving the top end of the TP where so much demand is could be assisted with a depot at the Bakewell/Matlock end though I doubt High Peak would want to move the core route of one of their high profile brands out of their main depot where it can be managed more closely.

Baslow isn't a big site so only one or two of these would get the depot to the sort of capacity that will leave the site at a comfortable capacity (around 15 vehicles, the reported work is unlikely to require more than 6 vehicles to be based there initially).

 

[Teapot42]

It's the alleged bringing back of the Hulley's name that I'm far from convinced about. Why do it? Locals are only just regaining their confidence to start using buses again after the Hulley's debacle. Reintroducing a name that's so synonymous with poor service in recent memories would be a strange move.

Don't forget that the services in question were not operated by Hulleys, so there might be less concern amongst passengers. Indeed during DCT times, Hulleys actually helped out by loaning a vehicle to keep them going. It's likely a year before any expansion via future contracts, giving time to re-establish the brand credentials.

But, in general, it seems an odd decision and a pointless one. Why not choose Silver Service? Or just keep the existing brand?

 

[Goldfish62]

Don't forget that the services in question were not operated by Hulleys, so there might be less concern amongst passengers.

What a very strange comment. Of course the services in question were operated by Hulley's. That's as much a fact as day is day and night is night.

Have you read the damning report by the TC on Hulley's and their Transport Manager?

 

[Teapot42]

3. Why not pick a different depot site in a place I think is better potential (like Chesterfield)?
...
Baslow isn't a big site so only one or two of these would get the depot to the sort of capacity that will leave the site at a comfortable capacity (around 15 vehicles, the reported work is unlikely to require more than 6 vehicles to be based there initially).

As I've said elsewhere, this is likely a short term thing initially, with a depot available and services to be bid for. Longer term I'd be surprised if they didn't relocate, but that would need a solid core of services building up to make such viable.

The bigger question on future plans would hinge on whether it is actually Centrebus pushing in to new territory, or High Peak expanding their operation. The latter would make a depot in this area beneficial to some existing services as well as opening up driver recruitment to a wider catchment area.

In terms of services, don't forget there is also the 65 which this depot would be well placed to service (if Centrebus and not HP), and I can see potential to extend the 218 to Buxton to capture Chatsworth traffic from Manchester (by rail)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

What a very strange comment. Of course the services in question were operated by Hulley's.

Care to detail when the 14x services were last operated by Hulleys?

And then maybe edit your last comment.

 

[tocguard]

The 140/141/142/143 routes have never been operated by Hulley‘s,

Care to detail when the 14x services were last operated by Hulleys?

Although not in their current numbers, Hulleys certainly operated several Crich services in the early 90s at the very least out to Ripley and Heage, and for a while a 144 service which ran as a shuttle from Whatstandwell station to Crich.

2. Why not use the TrentBarton Garage in Matlock?
As far as I can tell because there isn't one

Really? There's at least 4 sixes vehicles and the little sixes based in the garage. Also used to be home to a Transpeak excel. The whole building is still owned by Trent and parts rented to two other businesses.

 

[Trainman40083]

Although not in their current numbers, Hulleys certainly operated several Crich services in the early 90s at the very least out to Ripley and Heage, and for a while a 144 service which ran as a shuttle from Whatstandwell station to Crich.



Really? There's at least 4 sixes vehicles and the little sixes based in the garage. Also used to be home to a Transpeak excel. The whole building is still owned by Trent and parts rented to two other businesses.

Still owned by Wellglade Holdings

 

[Goldfish62]

Care to detail when the 14x services were last operated by Hulleys?

And then maybe edit your last comment.

Hulley's poor reputation extended beyond the services they operated so no, I won't be editing my comment.

 

[Teapot42]

Hulley's poor reputation extended beyond the services they operated so no, I won't be editing my comment.

You appear to be deluded. You stated the services in question were operated by Hulleys. Maybe in the dim and distant past, not for many years which was my point. Trying to twist your words to mean something else isn't exactly helping.

Your claim that they were and it was as clear as day is what is a strange comment, not my original remark.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Really? There's at least 4 sixes vehicles and the little sixes based in the garage. Also used to be home to a Transpeak excel. The whole building is still owned by Trent and parts rented to two other businesses.

A garage implies a full depot with engineering and managers based on site, as I said what Matlock is is an outstation not a 'garage' so my point about it not being a suitable site stands. It is irrelevant who owns the buildings but what they are being used for and what facilities are available - the buildings appear to be used by non-bus businesses (an MoT centre and a auto parts retailer) so aren't available to use. Trent can use Matlock as an outstation as Belper can provide the support needed but it is too far from Dove Holes, and the proposed bus workings don't return to or anywhere near Buxton, to do that so access to a certain level of facilities would be needed (as Notts & Derby supply at Derby which High Peak use as an outstation) that the Matlock site doesn't appear to be able to offer. It also assumes that there is space to double the number of buses parked there and that Trent would want to share, neither of which can be assumed.

 

[Trainman40083]

A garage implies a full depot with engineering and managers based on site, as I said what Matlock is is an outstation not a 'garage' so my point about it not being a suitable site stands. It is irrelevant who owns the buildings but what they are being used for and what facilities are available - the buildings appear to be used by non-bus businesses (an MoT centre and a auto parts retailer) so aren't available to use. Trent can use Matlock as an outstation as Belper can provide the support needed but it is too far from Dove Holes, and the proposed bus workings don't return to or anywhere near Buxton, to do that so access to a certain level of facilities would be needed (as Notts & Derby supply at Derby which High Peak use as an outstation) that the Matlock site doesn't appear to be able to offer. It also assumes that there is space to double the number of buses parked there and that Trent would want to share, neither of which can be assumed.

The former Matlock depot is now in two parts. One side is certainly a car tyre facility. The side nearest the bus station accommodated a few Trentbarton Sixes. There is used to be a mobile library. I would have thought Matlock and Belper had the same facilities..... basically just a driver rest room, but no maintenance facilities. All maintenance is done at Derby.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The former Matlock depot is now in two parts. One side is certainly a car tyre facility. The side nearest the bus station accommodated a few Trentbarton Sixes. There is used to be a mobile library. I would have thought Matlock and Belper had the same facilities..... basically just a driver rest room, but no maintenance facilities. All maintenance is done at Derby.

I believe that's correct. The half nearest Darley Dale has been sublet (or sold?) for more years than I can recall. The other shed (nearest town) is still used by TB with 4/5 vehicles (looks like 4 from the sixes timetable). Like Belper, it is nothing more than a running shed with limited staff welfare and no maintenance/fuelling facilities. I assume they might have been in the half that is now a tyre depot - Belper also had maintenance facilities which are also now used by a tyre/exhaust firm.

I agree with @Dwarfer1979 that using Matlock wouldn't appear to make much sense for these new routes, and they probably can't fit what they want in there anyway.

 

[Trainman40083]

I believe that's correct. The half nearest Darley Dale has been sublet (or sold?) for more years than I can recall. The other shed (nearest town) is still used by TB with 4/5 vehicles (looks like 4 from the sixes timetable). Like Belper, it is nothing more than a running shed with limited staff welfare and no maintenance/fuelling facilities. I assume they might have been in the half that is now a tyre depot - Belper also had maintenance facilities which are also now used by a tyre/exhaust firm.

I agree with @Dwarfer1979 that using Matlock wouldn't appear to make much sense for these new routes, and they probably can't fit what they want in there anyway.

The last time I went round Matlock garage, both parts were open. Leyland Leopard chassis were in store in the part of the depot used by the tyre company, awaiting bodying by Willowbrook. I would think all the depots are owned by Wellglade Holdings

 

[reuwar]

Looks like the job description has been altered slightly