Hulley's of Baslow (Defunct)

[MotCO]

My other concern about low cost operators is that they don't have the financial strength or backing which can give these niche operators some flexibility or breathing space.

And, although I do not know the territory, it seems as though there is little in the way of developing other commercial services to boost their income stream / replace the lost income from contracts confiscated.

 

[tram21]

And, although I do not know the territory, it seems as though there is little in the way of developing other commercial services to boost their income stream / replace the lost income from contracts confiscated.

They've tried before and failed. Opinions will vary, but in recent times in my opinion it was mostly their fault it failed, due to a lack of reliability (along with external factors)

 

[Bletchleyite]

They've tried before and failed. Opinions will vary, but in recent times in my opinion it was mostly their fault it failed, due to a lack of reliability (along with external factors)

The Snake was one of the more visible ones, wasn't it? Not sure why it failed though - just not enough passengers interested I think - that part of the Peak just isn't as touristy as the rest of it.

 

[tram21]

The Snake was one of the more visible ones, wasn't it? Not sure why it failed though - just not enough passengers interested I think - that part of the Peak just isn't as touristy as the rest of it.

Partially the effects of COVID, Partially not being able to commit to maintaining it due to a lack of money, drivers and buses.

Hopefully someone tries again with it in the future as it had great potential

 

[Trainman40083]

Not mine, I hasten to add!


The best case will be if they manage to satisfy the TC and the restriction is lifted straight away then it will be towards the end of July before new commercial services can start. This means nearly 4 months between the loss of the tenders (assuming they are lost, which seems to be the more likely outcome) and any potential start of a new service. They'll have to lay drivers off and park up buses for that period, then try and get things going again. I can't see that being easy.

Arguably, had DCC delayed the re-tendering to the summer this would have given more scope for Hulleys to adjust and would have given time to think about what provision they actually want, rather than simply transferring over what exists. As this doesn't appear to meet the needs of those on the routes in question I can't help but think it's all a bit of a wasted opportunity and a waste of money having to repeat the process in the not too distant future. There are still runs being dropped, but these seem to be mainly on the commercial services, not the tendered ones.

I'm not at all justifying the dropped runs when I'm saying this as some may claim, it just seems to me the timing and the way it's been done is pretty much going to make it impossible for the company to carry on without at least major changes and further upheaval to local buses. 'Suggesting' they willingly give up one or two tendered routes would have aligned what they need to resource with what they can currently manage, so would fix the short term issue. It would not block them from tendering for further work and would increase the short term viability of the company, leading to a reasonably chance for the issues to be fixed and things stabilised going forwards. As things stand I can see another emergency tender being issued in the near future to cover most if not all of their commercial network.

Would there be a tender for their commercial network? Surely someone would just register the routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

The Snake was one of the more visible ones, wasn't it? Not sure why it failed though - just not enough passengers interested I think - that part of the Peak just isn't as touristy as the rest of it.

Plus a few times the Snake Pass was closed due to bad weather or accident.

 

[Teapot42]

Would there be a tender for their commercial network? Surely someone would just register the routes.

I can't see who would. The 55 was dropped by Stagecoach as they didn't consider it commercial. The 91 (later 84, now integrated in to the 170) was similarly dropped by Stagecoach as no longer commercial. We don't know what parts of the 257 are included, but it serves similar areas to the tendered 65. The only one that might possibly be taken on commercially is the 272 by First, but there is a big question mark there as SYMCA have just confirmed they are going down the franchising path, starting in 2027, so who will register as commercial a service they may only run for just over 2 years?

Looking at the alternative operators, Derbyshire Community Transport failed so there is no 'low cost' established operator in the area. Andrews have been mentioned but I can't see them taking on significant operations when they have no current bus services. The above franchising announcement puts an end date to TM's guaranteed presence so again they are unlikely to want to register routes. High Peak and other Wellglade companies are a bit far out of the area for already marginal services to be attractive. Stagecoach won't take on services they've given up already.

I struggle to see any path other than these services going out to tender.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

The Snake was one of the more visible ones, wasn't it? Not sure why it failed though - just not enough passengers interested I think - that part of the Peak just isn't as touristy as the rest of it.

It wasn't meant so much as a tourist service though, more an inter-urban one. It seemed popular, but traffic issues around Mottram made timekeeping difficult. The Snake also seems to get closed far too regularly - not so much now it's more restricted due to the landslide issues, but unfortunately drivers and riders with more ambition than talent are attracted to it.

There were also issues around reimbursement from TfGM - various stories who was to blame but regardless of that the company lost a lot of money.

Once the Mottram bypass is open it might be viable to try such a service again - assuming the franchising systems at either end permit it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wasn't meant so much as a tourist service though, more an inter-urban one.

For whom? Students? Buses are so slow away from motorways that you aren't going to have a great market for Manchester-Sheffield journeys by bus rather than by train. Transpeak to Manchester never really worked for exactly the same reason - it was (back then) basically exactly the same thing but a few miles south.

 

[Teapot42]

An operator that has had to attend 2 PIs in the last 6 months, another in 13 weeks,

Two? And strictly speaking the one in 13 weeks isn't a new one, the previous one was adjourned to give them time to address the findings.

In truth, if these services are worth keeping, bus travel is to become respectable DCC and the Government have got to find (more) money and pay the true cost.

This is my concern really. Derbyshire seem to have spend a lot of BSIP money already. I've already voiced my concerns about using it for a tourist service and another to parallel an already well served route, but there can't be much left in the pot to cover these services.

It's also notable that they created a plan which involved replacing a lot of these services with a county-wide DRT and only keeping timetabled services on core routes. Indeed I'm not sure if this wasn't part of what was presented in the BSIP bid, yet this appears to have been forgotten. No matter what your views on DRT are, it's plain the current system isn't working well either for passengers or the taxpayer so some review in to how and on what the money is spend is well overdue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once the Mottram bypass is open it might be viable to try such a service again - assuming the franchising systems at either end permit it.

I reckon if the market was really there NatEx/Flixbus would go for it that way, and that would use more suitable vehicles for such a long trip.

 

[peterblue]

Indeed, and the price conscious people (eg students) would get the Northern stopper so there's not really much of a market for end to end Snake journeys. It seems like a good idea at the time, but the more you analyse it, the business case begins to make less sense.
I recall NX also tried Manchester to Sheffield (via Woodhead) and that didn't work out either.

For whom? Students? Buses are so slow away from motorways that you aren't going to have a great market for Manchester-Sheffield journeys by bus rather than by train. Transpeak to Manchester never really worked for exactly the same reason - it was (back then) basically exactly the same thing but a few miles south.

 

[Teapot42]

For whom? Students? Buses are so slow away from motorways that you aren't going to have a great market for Manchester-Sheffield journeys by bus rather than by train.

They weren't really competing on speed, more on cost. Train prices on that corridor are a lot higher than the bus was costing, plus from memory there were a lot of disruption to the trains at the time which they tried to take advantage of.

The Sunday service was more aimed at tourists as it served Fairholmes (and Bamford at one point), but the weekday service wasn't so much. Buses also ran early and very late on some nights, aimed at commuters and those wanting a night out.

 

[Trainman40083]

For whom? Students? Buses are so slow away from motorways that you aren't going to have a great market for Manchester-Sheffield journeys by bus rather than by train. Transpeak to Manchester never really worked for exactly the same reason - it was (back then) basically exactly the same thing but a few miles south.

I seem to recall Transpeak being cut back from Manchester to Buxton, when Northern Trains started running half hourly along that section. Then COVID struck and it went back to hourly.

 

[Teapot42]

the more you analyse it, the business case begins to make less sense.

A lot depends what you take in to account. The Sheffield to Ladybower bit was 'free' if you consider it to be running the 257 hourly. Glossop to Manchester lost through buses and a fast run along the M67 / A57 while not as fast as the train could potentially attract passengers on cost. Only the short section over the Snake to link the two otherwise viable services was necessary.

If you look at it as a Sheffield to Manchester service then no, it doesn't make sense. If you look at it as two services linked then it's more realistic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

I seem to recall Transpeak being cut back from Manchester to Buxton, when Northern Trains started running half hourly along that section. Then COVID struck and it went back to hourly.

I think Transpeak had similar issues to Snake, in that a bottleneck made it less reliable. When I lived in Manchester I used it a few times, but only once from Stockport itself. It was so much faster to jump on the train to Buxton and pick it up there. Again, if High Lane was every bypassed then I believe such a service may become viable again, but at the moment it's just too hard to resource and guarantee connections.

 

[Trainman40083]

A lot depends what you take in to account. The Sheffield to Ladybower bit was 'free' if you consider it to be running the 257 hourly. Glossop to Manchester lost through buses and a fast run along the M67 / A57 while not as fast as the train could potentially attract passengers on cost. Only the short section over the Snake to link the two otherwise viable services was necessary.

If you look at it as a Sheffield to Manchester service then no, it doesn't make sense. If you look at it as two services linked then it's more realistic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==


I think Transpeak had similar issues to Snake, in that a bottleneck made it less reliable. When I lived in Manchester I used it a few times, but only once from Stockport itself. It was so much faster to jump on the train to Buxton and pick it up there. Again, if High Lane was every bypassed then I believe such a service may become viable again, but at the moment it's just too hard to resource and guarantee connections.

About a year ago, I caught the High Peak 199 service from Buxton to Stockport..The A6 doesn't get any better, especially after Hazel Grove. In a couple of minutes, and almost in convoy, 7 Stagecoach 192s came the other way.... But talking about the Snake, yep I remember Mottram traffic.

 

[peterblue]

A lot depends what you take in to account. The Sheffield to Ladybower bit was 'free' if you consider it to be running the 257 hourly. Glossop to Manchester lost through buses and a fast run along the M67 / A57 while not as fast as the train could potentially attract passengers on cost. Only the short section over the Snake to link the two otherwise viable services was necessary.

If you look at it as a Sheffield to Manchester service then no, it doesn't make sense. If you look at it as two services linked then it's more realistic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==


I think Transpeak had similar issues to Snake, in that a bottleneck made it less reliable. When I lived in Manchester I used it a few times, but only once from Stockport itself. It was so much faster to jump on the train to Buxton and pick it up there. Again, if High Lane was every bypassed then I believe such a service may become viable again, but at the moment it's just too hard to resource and guarantee connections.

If Glossop to Manchester was such a goldmine, Stagecoach would have extended the 237, or launched their own express service before franchising. Hulleys had a supplementary X56 at the start, making Manchester to Glossop hourly. This was withdrawn almost instantly. There is some intermediary demand (e.g. Glossop to Sheffield, to Ladybower on Sundays), and some enthusiasts or those looking for a scenic ride may join occasionally, but all in all, it's pretty thin margin work at a high risk.

Slightly off topic now, but I think there's perhaps more success in a summer weekend service linking Manchester with peak district attractions eg Castleton and its caves which have poor rail access.

 

[AWK]

The Snake was one of the more visible ones, wasn't it? Not sure why it failed though - just not enough passengers interested I think - that part of the Peak just isn't as touristy as the rest of it.

Massive resource requirement, lots of dead running (Baslow to Manchester Airport out of service), massive potential for delays (Snake Pass, M67, Manchester City Centre), competitive higher frequency and shorter journey time train and launched during a global pandemic... not sure why it failed?!?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

The tenders account for at least 6 vehicles peak, more depending what aspect of the 257 is included. If it's the whole 257 that's 9, if it's just the school / college services then it's harder to tell but likely to be 7 or 8 peak.

6 vehicles (5 off peak plus the extra am/pm on the 172).

257 not involved as far as I'm aware.

I believe the current PVR is 17, so it could well drop to single figures - worst case less than half what it is now, and well below what they've demonstrated they can resource.

Very true, I guess the question is how much of an impact the future failure of the operator will have. I can't see any of their services being viable commercially with another operator, so that will mean more subsidy DCC need to find. It's far from an ideal situation, but I can't help but think the timing, while likely not intentional, is possibly the worst it could be for Hulleys and I wonder if DCC have considered the knock-on impact.

Not strictly true. DCC will have to find an alternative where there is a social need. That could be in the form of a couple of DRT schemes for example rather than replacing like for like. I would be surprised if a Chesterfield - Bakewell at least couldn't be made commercially viable even if at a reduced frequency to what Hulleys operate. Indeed, during the summer months I'm sure Stagecoach would jump at the chance of an hourly feeder from Chesterfield on to the Peak Sightseer...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

Two? And strictly speaking the one in 13 weeks isn't a new one, the previous one was adjourned to give them time to address the findings.

It's all the same hearing, not separate hearings, just with adjournments in. However, what ever the outcome of the current hearing I wouldn't be surprised if another hearing was called to examine the issues that led to the recent bridge bash.

This is my concern really. Derbyshire seem to have spend a lot of BSIP money already. I've already voiced my concerns about using it for a tourist service and another to parallel an already well served route, but there can't be much left in the pot to cover these services.

BSIP is there to "pump prime" new services which have a good chance of becoming established commercial ventures, for schemes that lead to local "wealth creation"/opening up access to employment and to meet environmental challenges. I'd suggest the Peak Sightseer has a strong chance of the former, has undoubtedly brought additional tourists in to the area who spend in the cafes at shops, and is doing something to try and reduce the number of cars coming in to the National Park.

It's also notable that they created a plan which involved replacing a lot of these services with a county-wide DRT and only keeping timetabled services on core routes. Indeed I'm not sure if this wasn't part of what was presented in the BSIP bid, yet this appears to have been forgotten. No matter what your views on DRT are, it's plain the current system isn't working well either for passengers or the taxpayer so some review in to how and on what the money is spend is well overdue.

DRT is a good tool in some cases, but as anyone who reads Roger French's blog will know, it's not a golden bullet particularly if it's not thought through well

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

I can't see who would. The 55 was dropped by Stagecoach as they didn't consider it commercial. The 91 (later 84, now integrated in to the 170) was similarly dropped by Stagecoach as no longer commercial.

Times change though. I don't know the detail, but perfectly possible the 55 and 84 were dropped by Stagecoach not because they were not commercially viable, but because they could get better returns by deploying those resources elsewhere. A fresh appraisal may change they view. They may take a decision to run them at a marginal return to stop other operators getting a foothold in the area too.

We don't know what parts of the 257 are included, but it serves similar areas to the tendered 65. The only one that might possibly be taken on commercially is the 272 by First, but there is a big question mark there as SYMCA have just confirmed they are going down the franchising path, starting in 2027, so who will register as commercial a service they may only run for just over 2 years?

257 is part funding for certain bits of trips to plug gaps in provision as far as I know.

It is also very different from the 65 being the only bus out of Sheffield on the A57, only bus through Ladybower and Bamford etc.

I'd happily take on a commercial service which would make me money whether for 2 weeks or 2 years. Again for someone like First, Stagecoach or Wellglade (TM) who could easily pull in 2 vehicles from their existing fleets there's really no cost associated to this other than fuel and drivers pay.

Looking at the alternative operators, Derbyshire Community Transport failed so there is no 'low cost' established operator in the area.

TM Travel and Notts & Derby are both low cost units.

Andrews have been mentioned but I can't see them taking on significant operations when they have no current bus services. The above franchising announcement puts an end date to TM's guaranteed presence so again they are unlikely to want to register routes.

Nonsense. Two years is a long time in the industry IF the SY franchising goes ahead from that date. It'd make operators wary about investing in new vehicles true, but absolutely won't stop them using what they've already got to make some money whilst they still can!

High Peak and other Wellglade companies are a bit far out of the area for already marginal services to be attractive. Stagecoach won't take on services they've given up already.

TM used to run services to Derby from their base in Sheffield. Stagecoach used to run to Bradford from their depot in Barnsley. If the money is there you can cover the dead mileage costs.

Stagecoach have taken back work they'd previously lost/dropped if the circumstances are right

 

[psmith2023]

Would a x17 to Bakewell work selected ones only go Matlock bus station extend every 2 hours to start see the demand of there demand look again

 

[AWK]

Would a x17 to Bakewell work selected ones only go Matlock bus station extend every 2 hours to start see the demand of there demand look again

Unlikely given the X17 is shortly to go over to electric operation and that additional mileage may be too much,.and the journey time from Chesterfield to Bakewell via Matlock wouldn't be that attractive.

However, the Gold specification Scania deckers the new electrics release on a Chesterfield to Bakewell service with possible extensions on to Buxton could be worth a dabble...

 

[psmith2023]

Would only need 2 buses as well

 

[Teapot42]

Would a x17 to Bakewell work selected ones only go Matlock bus station extend every 2 hours to start see the demand of there demand look again

There are already Matlock to Bakewell buses so I can't see a lot of scope in extending the X17 that way. It's already (IMO) been extended too far and can suffer delays at peak times and weekends. They never reinstated the 20 minute frequency in the evening peaks and there have been a few occasions recently where there has been a big gap leaving Sheffield when commuters would be wanting to travel, or beforehand pushing the pensioners even more on to the buses commuters use. Saturdays are regularly a complete mess.

That also doesn't really answer the need for a bus up the Chatsworth Road corridor and to Holymoorside, nor the Chesterfield to Chatsworth link.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

257 not involved as far as I'm aware.

DCC don't list it on the notice they put out, but I've seen related documents where it is listed. Clarity would be useful - maybe I should take the minute and submit an FOI request?

Not strictly true. DCC will have to find an alternative where there is a social need. That could be in the form of a couple of DRT schemes for example rather than replacing like for like. I would be surprised if a Chesterfield - Bakewell at least couldn't be made commercially viable even if at a reduced frequency to what Hulleys operate. Indeed, during the summer months I'm sure Stagecoach would jump at the chance of an hourly feeder from Chesterfield on to the Peak Sightseer...

There is definitely a viable service if you cherry-pick bits; whether overall provision is viable year-round I'm less sure. Even if it went tendered I'd hope it would be at fairly low cost to the council.

DRT is a good tool in some cases, but as anyone who reads Roger French's blog will know, it's not a golden bullet particularly if it's not thought through well

No, I can't say I'm a massive fan. It's harder to control when you will travel, plus many of the people who use these services are less conversant with the technology. If the fares issues could be resolved I wonder whether some sort of feeder network which only serves the villages and connects with higher frequency services on the main routes could work better. As you wouldn't need to factor in the time to go in to the main towns you could run a more frequent service around the smaller settlements with the same resources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==


Times change though. I don't know the detail, but perfectly possible the 55 and 84 were dropped by Stagecoach not because they were not commercially viable, but because they could get better returns by deploying those resources elsewhere.

I don't know much about the 55 as it's not my area. It was originally two services, the 55 and 56. Hulleys merged them in to one.

Several options were proposed for the 91, none were really sensible and the 45 minute frequency they ran towards the end was too complicated for many to follow. I'm pretty sure the resources weren't deployed elsewhere. While they have increased the frequency of a few services recently, I believe this was just reversing cuts due to covid. More services on this side of Chesterfield were cut since the 91 was dropped, I'd say it's unlikely they would bring it back when they are pulling further out of the area.

257 is part funding for certain bits of trips to plug gaps in provision as far as I know.

It is also very different from the 65 being the only bus out of Sheffield on the A57, only bus through Ladybower and Bamford etc.

Where it becomes the only bus out of Sheffield is where housing starts to become quite sparse though. I also wonder if it's commercial at hourly, or if it would need to drop back to 2-hourly to become viable.

I can see ways the 257 might become more viable, but only if run by the same operator as the 173 / 272. If alternate hours ran via Bradwell then you could cut that loop off the 272 and use it and the 173 to feed passengers in. Then you could also cut the out and back to Eyam as the Bradwell variant would naturally go that way. Harder to work if integrated ticketing isn't available though.

TM Travel and Notts & Derby are both low cost units.

I wasn't really considering them in the area, but then as you mention elsewhere I don't really have a good feeling for tolerance to dead mileage when considering how viable a service can be. Also, aren't TM short of vehicles and drivers themselves?

 

[AWK]

DCC don't list it on the notice they put out, but I've seen related documents where it is listed. Clarity would be useful - maybe I should take the minute and submit an FOI request?

Go for it. You won't get a response for 28 days and it'd be quicker just to email DCC and ask them to send you the tender documents

There is definitely a viable service if you cherry-pick bits; whether overall provision is viable year-round I'm less sure. Even if it went tendered I'd hope it would be at fairly low cost to the council.

Many areas have different provision at peak season. Stagecoach in the Lake District springs to mind where a core network operates year round with several service frequency enhancements and additional provision between Easter and October (appeox). Likewise in places such as Blackpool and Skegness where service levels and PVR increase over the summer. The same could work here - Chesterfield to Baslow every 2 hours during the winter stepping up to hourly during the summer perhaps. Patronage isn't the same all year round so why is the timetable?

Several options were proposed for the 91, none were really sensible and the 45 minute frequency they ran towards the end was too complicated for many to follow. I'm pretty sure the resources weren't deployed elsewhere. While they have increased the frequency of a few services recently, I believe this was just reversing cuts due to covid. More services on this side of Chesterfield were cut since the 91 was dropped, I'd say it's unlikely they would bring it back when they are pulling further out of the area.

The 45 minute frequency I presume being a 1 bus operation? So to run it every 30 mins would have required double the resource (and thus double the cost) for not much more if any income and thus that was provably the difference between viable and not viable.

Stagecoach pulling out of the area? Really??

Where it becomes the only bus out of Sheffield is where housing starts to become quite sparse though. I also wonder if it's commercial at hourly, or if it would need to drop back to 2-hourly to become viable.

As above, depends on time of the year. If it takes enough during the summer to sustain a 60 minute frequency year round then fine. If not, drop the frequency in the winter.

I can see ways the 257 might become more viable, but only if run by the same operator as the 173 / 272. If alternate hours ran via Bradwell then you could cut that loop off the 272 and use it and the 173 to feed passengers in. Then you could also cut the out and back to Eyam as the Bradwell variant would naturally go that way. Harder to work if integrated ticketing isn't available though.

Too complicated and feeder services/connections put people off due to the risk of the connection missing.

272 works well, leave it alone.

I wasn't really considering them in the area, but then as you mention elsewhere I don't really have a good feeling for tolerance to dead mileage when considering how viable a service can be. Also, aren't TM short of vehicles and drivers themselves?

Don't know, but Wellglade can take the hit to buy a few second hand vehicles in if needed, and I'm sure TM could recruit some of those drivers from Hulley you suggested earlier would be made redundant

 

[Teapot42]

There have been a couple of recent FOI requests for details of tendered services in Derbyshire

Derbyshire subsidised bus services - a Freedom of Information request to Derbyshire County Council

Dear Derbysbire County Council, Please can you provide a table listing all bus services which are subsidised by yourselves detailing the route number, where the service runs from and to, the current operator of the service, the cost of the tender per annum, when the tender was started and when...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

Bus Service Contracts - a Freedom of Information request to Derbyshire County Council

I would like information on current contracts held by the council with Bus Companies for the provision of bus services. Please let me know for each current live contract: - the service number - the operator - the contract start date - the contract end date - the value of the contract Yours...

www.whatdotheyknow.com

The response suggests contract values are considered commercially sensitive and won't be divulged. There is an interesting comment that vehicle age is to be no more than 10 years as of the contract start date - not clear if this applied to all contracts, but certainly would be one area where Hulleys would have fallen down.

The (rather badly formatted) list is here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2025 ==

The same could work here - Chesterfield to Baslow every 2 hours during the winter stepping up to hourly during the summer perhaps.

I'd suggest that it's only really weekdays you'd maybe consider dropping to two-hourly. Saturdays can be very busy, providing the weather is OK.

To be honest, even 2x hourly worked fairly well for most of the year at the weekend, with the 170 running the slow route and the X70 being more direct.

Out of season I'd probably only run ever other bus via Chatsworth - the shop there is still open as it's popular with walkers even when the house is closed. I'd go as far as saying that weekends all year as well as school holidays, a Chesterfield to Chatsworth to Buxton service at least every 2 hours would work. With Chesterfield to Chatsworth to Bakewell on the opposite hours.

The 45 minute frequency I presume being a 1 bus operation?

Yes. Previously it was tagged on to other services which made the half-hour operation more viable. That's also a further thing that made it less 'useful' - it shares the lower half of Chatsworth Road with the 90, but the 45 minute frequency didn't allow a very well coordinated service on that stretch.

I personally think there are options to make it more viable, mainly by avoiding the out and back to Holymoorside.

Stagecoach pulling out of the area? Really??

The Brampton / Walton / Ashgate area of Chesterfield used to have several Stagecoach routes serving it. The 2/2a were mostly axed (a small part remains in the 38 which is frankly pointless), the 91 went to Hulleys and the 90 was mangled around to try and replace other parts of the 2/2a. The commuter runs on the X17 were lost as well. And that's in recent memory - there were more services going not too far back.

So not pulling out, but certainly pulling back.

Too complicated and feeder services/connections put people off due to the risk of the connection missing.

Is it any more complicated than DRT? And if the connections are often enough it's less of a risk. Upgrade facilities at the meeting points so at least there is somewhere decent to wait. I'm sure most would prefer a 1 hour wait if they missed a connection compared to 2.5 hours as it the case currently.

272 works well, leave it alone.

Not totally convinced. Since the changed to it only calling at Bradwell in one way per journey it's not as good a service for anyone who lives there. Routing a 257 that way gives at least one direct bus every 2 hours to Sheffield, same as now, and better connecting opportunities, plus reduces the running time so there is more recovery margin.

 

[AWK]

I'd suggest that it's only really weekdays you'd maybe consider dropping to two-hourly. Saturdays can be very busy, providing the weather is OK.

To be honest, even 2x hourly worked fairly well for most of the year at the weekend, with the 170 running the slow route and the X70 being more direct.

Out of season I'd probably only run ever other bus via Chatsworth - the shop there is still open as it's popular with walkers even when the house is closed. I'd go as far as saying that weekends all year as well as school holidays, a Chesterfield to Chatsworth to Buxton service at least every 2 hours would work. With Chesterfield to Chatsworth to Bakewell on the opposite hours.


Yes. Previously it was tagged on to other services which made the half-hour operation more viable. That's also a further thing that made it less 'useful' - it shares the lower half of Chatsworth Road with the 90, but the 45 minute frequency didn't allow a very well coordinated service on that stretch.

I personally think there are options to make it more viable, mainly by avoiding the out and back to Holymoorside.

I'm confused by the above. At present the 170 is hourly. To make it viable Hulleys have included the Holymoorside service in to the 170 via a detour off the main route as presumably the 170 needs that income to be viable and an out and back service to Holymoorside can't stand on its own viably. That seems a compromise to me, making one viable route out of what were 2 marginal services. Does the 10 or so additional minutes required to go via Holymoorside put end to end passengers off, I'd suspect no. Does that detour give Holymoorside residents better access to leisure at Chatsworth and employment and shopping in Bakewell, yes. A good solution that makes the best use of resources.

The Brampton / Walton / Ashgate area of Chesterfield used to have several Stagecoach routes serving it. The 2/2a were mostly axed (a small part remains in the 38 which is frankly pointless), the 91 went to Hulleys and the 90 was mangled around to try and replace other parts of the 2/2a. The commuter runs on the X17 were lost as well. And that's in recent memory - there were more services going not too far back.

So not pulling out, but certainly pulling back.

The usual rule of thumb... if it made money, people would run it. Stagecoach are presumably happy that the level of service matches the demand. Hulleys, TM, anyone else could go on those routes if they thought there was money to be made. They haven't...

Is it any more complicated than DRT? And if the connections are often enough it's less of a risk. Upgrade facilities at the meeting points so at least there is somewhere decent to wait. I'm sure most would prefer a 1 hour wait if they missed a connection compared to 2.5 hours as it the case currently.

Yes, a DRT would be door to door. Changing buses, standing in a bus shelter in all weather, in the darkness for anything more than a few minutes is not an attractive proposition for many.

Not totally convinced. Since the changed to it only calling at Bradwell in one way per journey it's not as good a service for anyone who lives there. Routing a 257 that way gives at least one direct bus every 2 hours to Sheffield, same as now, and better connecting opportunities, plus reduces the running time so there is more recovery margin.

Again, this makes the best use of resources and matches demand to provision. If the demand was there for all trips to run that way they would. Trying to timetable two very different routes to provide a common headway through one village would be practically impossible I'd think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

DRT is generally not great for tourists, though, and a reasonable amount of the custom there is or has the potential to be tourists.

 

[AWK]

DRT is generally not great for tourists, though, and a reasonable amount of the custom there is or has the potential to be tourists.

Not suggesting it is. Core services for the core routes along the main roads, to the tourist hotspots, to the schools etc, DRT to fill the gaps in.

 

[MotCO]

If the tender prices come in too high, or there are no bidders, could DCC operate the routes themselves via an arms-length operator? Aren't Councils now able to run bus services under recent legislation?

 

[AWK]

If the tender prices come in too high, or there are no bidders, could DCC operate the routes themselves via an arms-length operator? Aren't Councils now able to run bus services under recent legislation?

I don't know if DCC have an in house transport unit, I'd assume they do for SEND provision etc. So yes, it's a possible, however given the school flows on some of these services I don't think an 12 seater Ford Transit would cut it!

 

[MotCO]

I don't know if DCC have an in house transport unit, I'd assume they do for SEND provision etc. So yes, it's a possible, however given the school flows on some of these services I don't think an 12 seater Ford Transit would cut it!

No, but Hulleys may have a few buses spare . If not, rent from Dawsons, Mistral etc.

 

[Jimmi]

Indeed, and the price conscious people (eg students) would get the Northern stopper so there's not really much of a market for end to end Snake journeys. It seems like a good idea at the time, but the more you analyse it, the business case begins to make less sense.
I recall NX also tried Manchester to Sheffield (via Woodhead) and that didn't work out either.

From my experiences of using the service at least, it was largely used by ENCTS pass holders, the low reimbursement rates are often cited as reasons for cuts/failures to a service, especially when it was only really largely picking up within Sheffield, Glossop and Manchester City Centre, services like these often seem to struggle, the Snake X57 very much reminded me of Transdev's CityZap service between Leeds and Manchester, again another largely used by ENCTS pass holders with limited stops to pick up any further custom to make it viable and depot/base pretty far away from the route, think it only lasted around 7 months.

 

[m79900]

DRT is generally not great for tourists, though, and a reasonable amount of the custom there is or has the potential to be tourists.

Agree. And I think that most locals would be more likely to travel on a public, timetabled, 'big bus' route over the perceived hassle of phoning up the DRT operator (which many will likely be unaware of) and booking.