The 55 shares very little of the route with anything Stagecoach runs, even the Comet has little in common. It's easy to justify as nothing else serves Wingerworth, Pilsley, Hardstoft or Stonebroom. Even parts of Birdholme it's the only service. In the case of the X1, as there isn't much between Macclesfield and Leek it's hard not to have significant overlap.
Absolutely, which is why I said it was an extreme example - it clearly duplicates other services but only in part; for much of it, it is serving it's own market and needs. That's the shades of grey that we were referring to. With the X1, the level of duplication was much clearer so I think we're in violent agreement.
I mentioned the Chelmsford example where the council is continuing to pay for a service that is exactly the same as the TMS commercial service. What their reasoning is, I don't know, but it isn't the only example where a council hasn't necessarily withdrawn a tender because of a commercial offering.
Within Sheffield there is a decent number of houses it covers. Beyond? It's the only service to Bamford - whether they need an hourly service depends on your views on serving rural communities. As with much of what we are discussing here, on a nice day better than hourly would not go amiss. Bakewell to Hathersage? I'm not sure of the benefits of it being hourly. Hathersage has the 272, Grindleford gets the 65, as does Eyam. Baslow to Bakewell is well covered. Personally, I'd have run every other service via Bradwell (as per some school runs) and coordinated with the 173 and 272 to give a better service for that end of the Hope Valley.
I think that's the difference between what "should" happen and the reality of the situation. It was a tendered service (275) and not able to wash its face financially. Therefore, it's unlikely that an hourly headway would improve the sustainability, even if hourly rural services are deemed laudable or even essential.
I remember being shocked when I went back to GM recently how much rail fares had increased since I lived there. Maybe a cheaper bus would appeal more? Unfortunately, as above I suspect it would appeal more to those with plenty of time on their hands who travel for nothing. Buses, of course, should be able to compete with railways end-to-end as stations aren't always that conveniently placed.
Indeed - where buses and trains run parallel, it is usually the poor location of stations that is the main differentiator. However, most people tend to gravitate to the train and Glossop station is central as is Piccadilly.
None of us fully understood the longer term implications of Covid in terms of price rises and issues around getting and keeping staff. Of course, had it carried on much longer there would have been the fuel price shock from the invasion of Ukraine. However, you are right to infer they were being unduly optimistic there.
I think the whole idea was overly optimistic and that was probably the issue with lots of Hulley's plans. The timings were too keen and it was a huge financial commitment on a service through hitherto unserved markets.
As you say, there were other factors that they might have
reasonably underestimated such as the availability of drivers - a mix of losing foreign drivers during Covid, some retiring early as they adjusted to not working/built up funds, and a drop in the inward supply of new drivers as training was paused.
