High Peak Discussion

[markymark2000]

I do think tho if it was marketed a bit better or a few changes was made Transpeak could be a alot better service.
For example if trentbarton promoted it there end as they own half of high peak

In my opinion, the service needs some kind of ticket acceptance at the Trent Barton end. Full cross ticket acceptance needed with the 6.1 given the TP and 6.1 complement each other to run half hourly Derby-Bakewell. Plus then have the ZigZag accepted on TP as far as Bakewell (part of the cross ticket acceptence), then ZigZagPlus permits travel as far as Buxton.

Any passengers between Belper and Bakewell are financially penalised depending on which bus they get on despite the fact HP is 50% owned by the same people who own TrentBarton. This puts your everyday passengers off travelling and so negatively affects patronage on both 6.1 and HP services (since if people wanted to travel and timing work out that they need to pay for High Peak one way, but Trent Barton on the return, they aren't likely to travel because costs would be too high, especially on a regular basis).
Between Belper and Derby, it gives both HP and TB potential to promote '5 buses per hour Belper to Derby thanks to the new partnership' which is a great selling point and great advert for passengers.

Sadly though, I can't see this happening. Too much like common sense and takes too much commercial initiative for High Peak and TrentBarton (HP is just plodding on with minimal care for anything, as proven by the fact the 272 started months ago, and they still haven't sorted the timetable out to either reduce dead mileage nor to add in the Bradwell-Castleton journey which is apparently running but there is no proof bar a notice on the website. And TrentBarton aren't much better, they haven't introduced anything really new in years and seem to just be happily plodding).

 

[Trainman40083]

I do think tho if it was marketed a bit better or a few changes was made Transpeak could be a alot better service.
For example if trentbarton promoted it there end as they own half of high peak but then again I guess that will take numbers of the sixes which they probably won't do or even again rebrand transpeak under the sixes brand and either extend sixes from bakewell to buxton even if it uses some highpeak drivers for the leg to keep costs down? Or highpeak runs a few journeys kind of like how nottsderby used to have a ilkeston flyer bus (Scania 600) and did a few runs or how trent used to run along side arriva for the x38 or stagcoach for pronto as the current transpeak route to matlock from derby is only about 10mins quicker than the 6.1
Or if they could incorporate into the sixes running as at the moment there's 4 routes which gives a derby belper 15min frequency if they added the transpeak in so it counts as 5 routes so 12mins derby belper frequency so every30ish minutes there's a bus to matlock (except still run along the A6 kind of like a 6.1x) if there's enough passenger usage as not only it could pick up more passengers from derby to belper to help usage of transpeak
I was curious tho do alot people use it between cromford and belper along the A6 through whatstandwell and ambergate where the 6.1 don't serve?

Just a correction. Trentbarton do not own half of High Peak. They are both separate companies within Wellglade Holdings.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

In my opinion, the service needs some kind of ticket acceptance at the Trent Barton end. Full cross ticket acceptance needed with the 6.1 given the TP and 6.1 complement each other to run half hourly Derby-Bakewell. Plus then have the ZigZag accepted on TP as far as Bakewell (part of the cross ticket acceptence), then ZigZagPlus permits travel as far as Buxton.


Sadly though, I can't see this happening. Too much like common sense and takes too much commercial initiative for High Peak and TrentBarton (HP is just plodding on with minimal care for anything, as proven by the fact the 272 started months ago, and they still haven't sorted the timetable out to either reduce dead mileage nor to add in the Bradwell-Castleton journey which is apparently running but there is no proof bar a notice on the website. And TrentBarton aren't much better, they haven't introduced anything really new in years and seem to just be happily plodding).

Wellglade won't offer ticket acceptance between companies they fully own (Notts & Derby & TM Travel don't accept any type of Zig Zag do they?) as Trent Barton basically seem to refuse to acknowledge they are part of a group at all (Kinch are treated almost like a sub-brand of Trent now) so the likelihood of getting them to agree to add High Peak is unlikely (they won't even accept High Peak staff passes).

In regards to the 272 you have to give people time to review a new service (& receive feedback and there was very quickly some clear feedback on improvements over what was inherited) and then allow for notice periods and fixed change dates which limit when you can make changes (Derbyshire traditionally have about half a dozen, Easter then July are the relevant pair for the period mentioned, South Yorkshire only have 2 at Easter & September but councils may give some flexibility when dealing with cross boundary services to align one with other). There wasn't enough time after taking over the service to hit the Easter change date with properly considered improvements so the service will see changes from the next available one. Hulleys apparently had been picking up in Bradwell on that first trip without advertising it for years, it is the sort of thing that only becomes public after a change like this happens. There isn't a lot that can be done around the dead runs to/from Sheffield easily, if you run in service you are just duplicating existing journeys of First (or Stagecoach on the 65 if you try to come in from Buxton) which may create responses you don't want and/or if you try to avoid them by delaying/advancing timings you step over duty length matters and need an extra duty that isn't currently needed and pushes costs up more than you may gain by running a trip early or late. Sometimes a dead run is more cost effective than a service run even when travelling some distance.

 

[markymark2000]

Wellglade won't offer ticket acceptance between companies they fully own (Notts & Derby & TM Travel don't accept any type of Zig Zag do they?) as Trent Barton basically seem to refuse to acknowledge they are part of a group at all (Kinch are treated almost like a sub-brand of Trent now) so the likelihood of getting them to agree to add High Peak is unlikely (they won't even accept High Peak staff passes).

How very daft. So it's just yet another bus operator who is sticking up barriers for the public to travel by bus.

In regards to the 272

The basic issue of the 07:36 trip which apparently starts in Bradwell, this could have been registered as soon as they realised they were doing it and then registered it short notice under the reason that they are replacing a similar service with Hulleys ceasing trading (the same reasons they registered the whole 271/272 service). They could have done it and didn't need to wait for any of the fixed change dates. They are choosing not to because it's effort.

Larger changes, agreed they may need more time, but by now, I'd have expected something. Even if it's just minor timetable changes (as I highly doubt Hulleys timetable was perfect)

There isn't a lot that can be done around the dead runs to/from Sheffield easily, if you run in service you are just duplicating existing journeys of First (or Stagecoach on the 65 if you try to come in from Buxton) which may create responses you don't want and/or if you try to avoid them by delaying/advancing timings you step over duty length matters and need an extra duty that isn't currently needed and pushes costs up more than you may gain by running a trip early or late. Sometimes a dead run is more cost effective than a service run even when travelling some distance.

Duplicating over existing journeys shouldn't matter now that any ticket acceptance partnership is down the swanny. When the registration comes in, High Peak should be maximising their potential on the service and ignoring any partnership timetable that was in place previously. Given the dead run will almost certainly be following the 272 route anyway, journey time difference would be limited to diverting to serve Bamford Turning Circle, and any time spend picking up/dropping off passengers. Any good scheduler will be giving padding anyway to the dead run to ensure that the bus can leave on time from it's first stop, so in the end, the time difference shouldn't be too massive.

 

[Trainman40083]

Worth adding that Notts and Derby do accept Mango on SOME of their services, but not as part of the daily cap.

 

[Redmike]

Is there a reason that High Peak usually run Skyline branded buses on the 272 when there are often fleet livery Citaros on the Skyline 199 route?

 

[ALEMASTER]

Is there a reason that High Peak usually run Skyline branded buses on the 272 when there are often fleet livery Citaros on the Skyline 199 route?

The Sheffield City Centre low emissions zone - buses must be Euro 6 or better to avoid paying a £50 charge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2025 ==

In my opinion, the service needs some kind of ticket acceptance at the Trent Barton end. Full cross ticket acceptance needed with the 6.1 given the TP and 6.1 complement each other to run half hourly Derby-Bakewell. Plus then have the ZigZag accepted on TP as far as Bakewell (part of the cross ticket acceptence), then ZigZagPlus permits travel as far as Buxton.

Any passengers between Belper and Bakewell are financially penalised depending on which bus they get on despite the fact HP is 50% owned by the same people who own TrentBarton. This puts your everyday passengers off travelling and so negatively affects patronage on both 6.1 and HP services (since if people wanted to travel and timing work out that they need to pay for High Peak one way, but Trent Barton on the return, they aren't likely to travel because costs would be too high, especially on a regular basis).
Between Belper and Derby, it gives both HP and TB potential to promote '5 buses per hour Belper to Derby thanks to the new partnership' which is a great selling point and great advert for passengers.

Sadly though, I can't see this happening. Too much like common sense and takes too much commercial initiative for High Peak and TrentBarton (HP is just plodding on with minimal care for anything, as proven by the fact the 272 started months ago, and they still haven't sorted the timetable out to either reduce dead mileage nor to add in the Bradwell-Castleton journey which is apparently running but there is no proof bar a notice on the website. And TrentBarton aren't much better, they haven't introduced anything really new in years and seem to just be happily plodding).

The Derbyshire Wayfarer does that job - unlimited travel on any bus, regardless of operator. Of course the subsidised £3 single fare cap is distorting the value for money on such products at the moment. The Wayfarer is £9 for a day ticket or £25 for a weekly ticket. https://www.sytravelmaster.com/derbyshire

 

[Llandudno]

Is there a reason that High Peak usually run Skyline branded buses on the 272 when there are often fleet livery Citaros on the Skyline 199 route?

Rumour has it that High Peak are reopening the former Hulley’s depot at Baslow in November and the High Peak journeys on the 272 will be operated from there so unlikely to see Skyline vehicles allocated to the 272 when Baslow reopens?

 

[Redmike]

The Sheffield City Centre low emissions zone - buses must be Euro 6 or better to avoid paying a £50 charge.

Of course. Thank you that makes sense

 

[ALEMASTER]

Rumour has it that High Peak are reopening the former Hulley’s depot at Baslow in November and the High Peak journeys on the 272 will be operated from there so unlikely to see Skyline vehicles allocated to the 272 when Baslow reopens?

Ive seen that rumour but nothing more. They have reportedly won tenders for routes from Matlock via Crich that Stagecoach currently operate and it looks like they have eyes on expansion so it would make sense i suppose.

 

[Trainman40083]

Is there a reason that High Peak usually run Skyline branded buses on the 272 when there are often fleet livery Citaros on the Skyline 199 route?

I was told that the Citaros were picking up emission zones fines in Sheffield, despite being converted to Euro 6. Maybe it was easier to just run buses that were built as Euro 6. Hence you got all the fairly new Skyline Enviro 200MMCs on the 271/272.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2025 ==

Ive seen that rumour but nothing more. They have reportedly won tenders for routes from Matlock via Crich that Stagecoach currently operate and it looks like they have eyes on expansion so it would make sense i suppose.

I still expect them to work the 110/111/113/114 in time, in the case of the 110/111 depends on a tender win first.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Rumour has it that High Peak are reopening the former Hulley’s depot at Baslow in November and the High Peak journeys on the 272 will be operated from there so unlikely to see Skyline vehicles allocated to the 272 when Baslow reopens?

The 272 timetable changed in July and that change included making it most efficient to run it from Dove Holes, the bus starts & finishes at the Castleton end and there is a driver swap at Castleton during the day as well, so it won't be moving depot anytime soon.

I was told that the Citaros were picking up emission zones fines in Sheffield, despite being converted to Euro 6. Maybe it was easier to just run buses that were built as Euro 6. Hence you got all the fairly new Skyline Enviro 200MMCs on the 271/272.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2025 ==

I understand the issue was that although the vehicles had the conversion work done for Greater Manchester because Manchester never actually introduced their scheme not all the official paperwork and back office systems were set-up. I assume such things are being set up but these things tend to take some time to feed through the official bureaucracy to ensure the vehicles don't attract fines.

I still expect them to work the 110/111/113/114 in time, in the case of the 110/111 depends on a tender win first.

The 113 & 114 will be moving to Baslow alongside the newly won contracts in October though they will remain with High Peak liveried vehicles as the vehicle requirement for those contracts is different to those for the new contracts so they should be able to be kept seperate.

Since the 110/111 aren't High Peak services currently that is entirely for the future though I'm sure the operator would love to win them next time they are retendered.

 

[liamf656]

Is there a reason that High Peak usually run Skyline branded buses on the 272 when there are often fleet livery Citaros on the Skyline 199 route?

High Peak don't seem to take livery branding seriously at all. I constantly saw the Buxton Buzz/Skyline livery Citaros on Transpeak and Transpeak livery vehicles elsewhere. I think at this point they may as well debrand everything

Rumour has it that High Peak are reopening the former Hulley’s depot at Baslow in November and the High Peak journeys on the 272 will be operated from there so unlikely to see Skyline vehicles allocated to the 272 when Baslow reopens?

The rumours of Baslow reopening are indeed true. They are hiring for drivers based out of there and they have won the tender for 140, 141, 142, 143 and 319

One thing I have heard is that the Hulleys name is being revived for these contracts, which in my opinion would be a very strange move if true, considering the reputation Hulleys have earnt themselves in the past five years

 

[Trainman40083]

The 272 timetable changed in July and that change included making it most efficient to run it from Dove Holes, the bus starts & finishes at the Castleton end and there is a driver swap at Castleton during the day as well, so it won't be moving depot anytime soon.


I understand the issue was that although the vehicles had the conversion work done for Greater Manchester because Manchester never actually introduced their scheme not all the official paperwork and back office systems were set-up. I assume such things are being set up but these things tend to take some time to feed through the official bureaucracy to ensure the vehicles don't attract fines.


The 113 & 114 will be moving to Baslow alongside the newly won contracts in October though they will remain with High Peak liveried vehicles as the vehicle requirement for those contracts is different to those for the new contracts so they should be able to be kept seperate.

Since the 110/111 aren't High Peak services currently that is entirely for the future though I'm sure the operator would love to win them next time they are retendered.

Solo SR 297 is just fine on the 114. No need to even paint it.

 

[chessie]

I went past the Baslow depot yesterday, theres definately lots of activity going off in there now

 

[Flange Squeal]

Rumour has it that High Peak are reopening the former Hulley’s depot at Baslow in November and the High Peak journeys on the 272 will be operated from there so unlikely to see Skyline vehicles allocated to the 272 when Baslow reopens?

There is talk on this subject in the Hulley's of Baslow thread, starting from post 2,481 (7 September) that may be of interest:

Hulley's of Baslow

It was a blame game. How many times on social media did Alf or whoever was doing the social media apologise on behalf of the company? I can tell you the answer was very very low if at all. He wouldn’t accept any responsibility for short comings at all and that was a big factor in why users of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[markymark2000]

The Derbyshire Wayfarer does that job - unlimited travel on any bus, regardless of operator. Of course the subsidised £3 single fare cap is distorting the value for money on such products at the moment. The Wayfarer is £9 for a day ticket or £25 for a weekly ticket. https://www.sytravelmaster.com/derbyshire

Still a hefty financial penalty for passengers when instead High Peak and TrentBarton should just work together on ticket acceptance.

 

[Llandudno]

Still a hefty financial penalty for passengers when instead High Peak and TrentBarton should just work together on ticket acceptance.

There are two buses per hour between Cromford - Matlock - Bakewell
TransPeak operated by High Peak - roughly hourly
6.1 operated by TrentBarton - hourly

At 0800 both buses run together between Cromford and Bakewell then nothing for an hour.
The buses regularly overtake each other along the A6, but many passengers don’t board the first bus that comes because their day return or season ticket is not valid on the first bus that comes!

No inter available ticketing despite the fact Wellglade Group own TrentBarton and are part owners of High Peak!

However, there are numerous timetable cases at bus stops along the route with full timetable information provided by TrentBarton for both services, but no mention of other services provided by Andrew’s or Stagecoach etc!

 

[M60lad]

What's the reason for High Peak omitting Bradwell on most if not all of their 272 journeys yet First manage to go round on theirs?

 

[Ballyheigue]

What's the reason for High Peak omitting Bradwell on most if not all of their 272 journeys yet First manage to go round on theirs?

Probably not enough demand to justify the diversion (possibly leading to an additional vehicle needed?) and to be honest it's nice to have a few faster journeys.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

What's the reason for High Peak omitting Bradwell on most if not all of their 272 journeys yet First manage to go round on theirs?

Probably not enough demand to justify the diversion (possibly leading to an additional vehicle needed?) and to be honest it's nice to have a few faster journeys.

It has long been the case that Bradwell was only ever served by alternate journeys, in the past the share of the timetable meant a different operator did it in different directions as a bus that ran direct in one direction ran via Bradwell in the other which balanced running times but I think meant 4 buses had to be deployed across the two operators whereas it appears only 3 are needed now. This wasn't an issue whilst there was some form of ticket acceptance between operators but since First stopped that it probably makes more sense for one operator to largely serve the village entirely so it appears that with the recent change that rebalanced who did what First are covering it in both directions (and it appears that Bradwell is served in both directions by the same round trip rather than alternating which also creates that single operator coverage). I don't think the provision to Bradwell has actually got materially worse but it is just the balance of workings that has significantly altered - it was probably a choice by whoever designed the timetable to concentrate the village onto a single operators journeys.

 

[swinny1990]

Hulleys livery preview

 

[Llandudno]

Let’s hope they have sufficient drivers, lots of trips dropped at High Peak, Dove Holes recently due to ‘driver sickness…’

 

[reuwar]

Just found this: https://www.highpeakbuses.com/hulleys/

Welcome aboard your new Hulleys services, brought to you by High Peak Buses.

We will be running services in the Crich area commencing 6th October 2025 and we look forward to meeting you.

 

[Teapot42]

Any idea where the buses for this venture will be sourced? There don't seem to be enough in the High Peak fleet to spare 4.

Do they cascade from both Centrebus and Wellglade? If the latter I believe some MMCs have been off for painting / refresh, but they don't seem to have a lot of spares themselves reading on here.

 

[43055]

Any idea where the buses for this venture will be sourced? There don't seem to be enough in the High Peak fleet to spare 4.

Do they cascade from both Centrebus and Wellglade? If the latter I believe some MMCs have been off for painting / refresh, but they don't seem to have a lot of spares themselves reading on here.

There is a picture on Facebook of a 75 plate Enviro 200 MMC in the new livery with a fleet number of 5209.

 

[swinny1990]

I believe they have got some more buses

 

[Teapot42]

There is a picture on Facebook of a 75 plate Enviro 200 MMC in the new livery with a fleet number of 5209.

They've sourced new MMCs for a 12 month tender where they also need to fund setting up a depot? A tender where they must have under-bid the incumbent who are using decade-old E200s on the route and who already have an established depot about the same distance away?

I guess the positive interpretation is they are happy to take a loss at this stage to get established in the area.

 

[Trainman40083]

Any idea where the buses for this venture will be sourced? There don't seem to be enough in the High Peak fleet to spare 4.

Do they cascade from both Centrebus and Wellglade? If the latter I believe some MMCs have been off for painting / refresh, but they don't seem to have a lot of spares themselves reading on here.

I can't recall Wellglade providing any buses to High Peak since the initial transfer at formation

 

[Dwarfer1979]

They've sourced new MMCs for a 12 month tender where they also need to fund setting up a depot? A tender where they must have under-bid the incumbent who are using decade-old E200s on the route and who already have an established depot about the same distance away?

I guess the positive interpretation is they are happy to take a loss at this stage to get established in the area.

Or they have diverted some buses already on order for fleet replacement, operating from an established depot site that needs less work to set up than a entirely new site and won the contracts off a big group operator, so likely with higher base costs than a lower cost operator like High Peak, operating equally remotely so without the benefit of reduced operating costs that geography may have given so there is no reason to assume a lower than normal bid would have been successful.