Hulley's of Baslow

[Trainman40083]

Why would wellglade buy a loss making operator? a very unliked one at that.

Littles has a very good customer base & is a pretty highly regarded operator, I can’t imagine hulleys passengers have much good to say about them anymore.

Well, then why would any operator buy them? Why would anyone run any of their services? What will be, will be.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I'm probably not qualified to comment because I've never travelled on Hulleys, but I'm not sure they deserve all of the vitriol unleashed on here.
On frequent visits to Sheffield with work and a number of holidays near Carsington Water I have gone out to photograph their buses, and they always turn up when I'm expecting them or very shortly after.
This morning I photographed two of their vehicles in Sheffield... both arrived and departed on time, both were smartly presented and had full destination blinds etc.
I've seen and travelled on far worse operators, including the subsidiaries of big groups.
Hopefully Hulleys will survive and get through any issues they may have, but if not let us hope the staff are taken on by any subsequent operators and come through okay.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

I'm not sure they deserve all of the vitriol unleashed on here.

To be fair some Hulleys staff are complete godsends and they have some lovely evoras. However, they do have some seriously unprofessional drivers such as listening to music whilst driving in passenger services and (do call me a snob) wearing some really unprofessional clothing such as tracksuits. They also drop quite a few trips for their size per day.

Likewise I do have some issues with the stability of the network such as the recent 6/80/84/170 canumdrun in the last couple of years and the vehicle allocation isn’t great… (Optare solo on Bakewell to chesterfield via chatsworth and an mmc the long way from Bakewell to Matlock cough cough.)

At the end of the day I think Hulleys core issue is that they try to do too many routes with too few drivers, vehicles and not enough cash.

 

[tram21]

an mmc the long way from Bakewell to Matlock cough cough

Imagine my joy when '1' turned up on the 257c on an almost 3 hour trip from Glossop to Sheffield over the Snake pass

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

To be fair some Hulleys staff are complete godsends and they have some lovely evoras. However, they do have some seriously unprofessional drivers such as listening to music whilst driving in passenger services and (do call me a snob) wearing some really unprofessional clothing such as tracksuits. They also drop quite a few trips for their size per day.

Likewise I do have some issues with the stability of the network such as the recent 6/80/84/170 canumdrun in the last couple of years and the vehicle allocation isn’t great… (Optare solo on Bakewell to chesterfield via chatsworth and an mmc the long way from Bakewell to Matlock cough cough.)

At the end of the day I think Hulleys core issue is that they try to do too many routes with too few drivers, vehicles and not enough cash.

Fair comment. For many years they operated a stable network with various midlife vehicles- successfully. In more recent years they seem to run an ever expanding and changing network with batches of new vehicles which last a few months before going back to the dealership.
I can't comment on the drivers, but I have experienced drivers for other companies with portable stereos in the cab so I know the kind of thing you mean.

 

[Teapot42]

To be fair some Hulleys staff are complete godsends and they have some lovely evoras. However, they do have some seriously unprofessional drivers such as listening to music whilst driving in passenger services and (do call me a snob) wearing some really unprofessional clothing such as tracksuits. They also drop quite a few trips for their size per day.

Depends if the music is quiet or blaring out. Some countries actually play soothing music over the bus PA - I've not experienced it, but my wife often reminisces about the calming Jazz played on some Taiwanese buses.

I'd say it's more likely a smaller company will drop a higher percentage of trips. Less staff to draw on to cover absence, fewer spare vehicles to cover breakdowns. More limited in-house engineering, plus being at the back of the queue for spares won't help either.

Likewise I do have some issues with the stability of the network such as the recent 6/80/84/170 canumdrun in the last couple of years and the vehicle allocation isn’t great… (Optare solo on Bakewell to chesterfield via chatsworth and an mmc the long way from Bakewell to Matlock cough cough.)

I'd agree in a way. They should have stuck with the 84 / 170 combo as Chatsworth Road needs 2x hourly. Stagecoach haven't helped, well, Hulleys trying to fill in where Stagecoach give up maybe a fairer way to put it. The 80 was their attempt to commercially fill a gap that ended up being subsidised, the 6 was because Stagecoach were going to cancel the 5, having already considerably reduced Brampton / Ashgate services with the 2/2a were axed. When Stagecoach back-tracked on the 5 it was always doubtful the 6 would survive.

In hindsight, it would have been best if the Old Brampton extension to the 48 had been incorporated from the start. Trying to find a way to serve there has been a major factor preventing Hulleys running a sensible service down Chatsworth Road.

Something like an MMC on the 172 (as I believe you refer to) is inevitable. It serves schools and is mostly run by just one bus. It's similar for the 63 which often has an Evora on it. A waste most of the day, but necessary for the school runs and difficult to swap out.

At the end of the day I think Hulleys core issue is that they try to do too many routes with too few drivers, vehicles and not enough cash.

I'd say they have a very difficult balance to achieve. Fewer routes with the same number of drivers and vehicles means each route needs to make more money. They already need to offer relatively high wages to attract drivers out of the urban areas. A lot of their customers are on ENCTS and we all know how poorly they get paid for them.

I'm still of the opinion that while they are by no means perfect, the alternative to Hulleys would cost the taxpayer a lot more money, or would result in service cuts elsewhere. I hope both the TC and DCC appreciate that and accept the realities of what is a far from ideal situation.

 

[Trainman40083]

Imagine my joy when '1' turned up on the 257c on an almost 3 hour trip from Glossop to Sheffield over the Snake pass

Everyone loves it when an Enviro 200MMC turns up

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

Depends if the music is quiet or blaring out. Some countries actually play soothing music over the bus PA - I've not experienced it, but my wife often reminisces about the calming Jazz played on some Taiwanese buses.

I'd say it's more likely a smaller company will drop a higher percentage of trips. Less staff to draw on to cover absence, fewer spare vehicles to cover breakdowns. More limited in-house engineering, plus being at the back of the queue for spares won't help either.


I'd agree in a way. They should have stuck with the 84 / 170 combo as Chatsworth Road needs 2x hourly. Stagecoach haven't helped, well, Hulleys trying to fill in where Stagecoach give up maybe a fairer way to put it. The 80 was their attempt to commercially fill a gap that ended up being subsidised, the 6 was because Stagecoach were going to cancel the 5, having already considerably reduced Brampton / Ashgate services with the 2/2a were axed. When Stagecoach back-tracked on the 5 it was always doubtful the 6 would survive.

In hindsight, it would have been best if the Old Brampton extension to the 48 had been incorporated from the start. Trying to find a way to serve there has been a major factor preventing Hulleys running a sensible service down Chatsworth Road.

Something like an MMC on the 172 (as I believe you refer to) is inevitable. It serves schools and is mostly run by just one bus. It's similar for the 63 which often has an Evora on it. A waste most of the day, but necessary for the school runs and difficult to swap out.


I'd say they have a very difficult balance to achieve. Fewer routes with the same number of drivers and vehicles means each route needs to make more money. They already need to offer relatively high wages to attract drivers out of the urban areas. A lot of their customers are on ENCTS and we all know how poorly they get paid for them.

I'm still of the opinion that while they are by no means perfect, the alternative to Hulleys would cost the taxpayer a lot more money, or would result in service cuts elsewhere. I hope both the TC and DCC appreciate that and accept the realities of what is a far from ideal situation.

Yes, I agree with you. The authorities may well find that out to their cost. I wish Hulleys a rosy future .Not once have I had a problem travelling on them...

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, I agree with you. The authorities may well find that out to their cost. I wish Hulleys a rosy future .Not once have I had a problem travelling on them...

So you're saying that the TC should allow Hulley's to get away with operating to lower standards than all other operators are required to by law and that DCC shouldn't complain when Hulley's fall short of their contractual standards?

 

[Trainman40083]

So you're saying that the TC should allow Hulley's to get away with operating to lower standards than all other operators are required to by law and that DCC shouldn't complain when Hulley's fall short of their contractual standards?

Maybe look at the root causes that put them and indeed other such operators in that position and agree a corrective action. Okay, you could actually get a situation where the area gets no buses at all....It could be down in adequate contract values. Insufficient or inadequate ENCTS funding, unsuitable timings for people going about their day etc.. Yes, they have less resources than big operators...It doesn't mean that big operators would take on their business.... Say DCC take the contracts off them, and can find no other operator to run them in a timely manner (at expected cost)..Are you then worse off, than now? If you had no services, is that better . Better to address the root causes of the problem.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Should think Covid, austerity and some failed adventures like the X1 and X57 hit them hard

 

[Trainman40083]

Should think Covid, austerity and some failed adventures like the X1 and X57 hit them hard

I'll tell you this, I would not want to be in business at the moment; any business. For most, the cost of operations will be far more in 2025.. Taken the recent National Insurance rises. That could cost some around £830 a year, per employee . Business will hire less staff. Existing staff might have to work harder. More self service tills in shops, more theft, higher prices, less tax to the Government, less profit, less business. Less buses in marginal territory etc.

 

[Goldfish62]

Maybe look at the root causes that put them and indeed other such operators in that position and agree a corrective action. Okay, you could actually get a situation where the area gets no buses at all....It could be down in adequate contract values. Insufficient or inadequate ENCTS funding, unsuitable timings for people going about their day etc.. Yes, they have less resources than big operators...It doesn't mean that big operators would take on their business.... Say DCC take the contracts off them, and can find no other operator to run them in a timely manner (at expected cost)..Are you then worse off, than now? If you had no services, is that better . Better to address the root causes of the problem.

You don't think all that is already taken into consideration?

It takes a lot for an operator to be called to a PI. A lot of opportunities for remedy are given before it gets to that stage. It's very much the last resort when all else fails to remedy a situation.

The PI isn't to determine whether DCC should remove the contracts. That's a completely separate contractual matter outside the remit of the TC.

We don't even know why the TC has called the operator to the PI. It might be for not operating registered services, or for maintenance, financial standing, or something else. Whatever course of action, if any, is taken it will have nothing to do with DCC and entirely the decision of the TC in accordance with the relevant regulations concerning bus operations.

 

[Simon75]

Would the depot be any use to another operator?

 

[MotCO]

Well, then why would any operator buy them? Why would anyone run any of their services? What will be, will be.

Is it more likely that, if Hulleys was required to reduce its fleet numbers and unable to run all its routes, that another company would step in to run those routes? If so, who would take them on?

 

[m79900]

Is it more likely that, if Hulleys was required to reduce its fleet numbers and unable to run all its routes, that another company would step in to run those routes? If so, who would take them on?

I feel like they'd keep running the Bakewell centric routes, and let others go. I could see Stagecoach taking the 63, High Peak taking the 110/111, and potentially Trent taking the 55, as it runs parallel to the northern half of the Comet, which gets very busy, so it'd make sense to further tap into it.

 

[Trainman40083]

I feel like they'd keep running the Bakewell centric routes, and let others go. I could see Stagecoach taking the 63, High Peak taking the 110/111, and potentially Trent taking the 55, as it runs parallel to the northern half of the Comet, which gets very busy, so it'd make sense to further tap into it.

Surely for that to happen, it would need to make a profit, else why else use resources?

 

[Omnidekkalover]

DCC steps in with emergency funding since all routes mentioned are at in part subsidised

 

[tram21]

Surely for that to happen, it would need to make a profit, else why else use resources?

I would think the 55 makes a profit, or would do with a larger company. I can see trentbarton taking the 55, but the 55 only.

Notts+Derby seems to enjoy expansion nowadays, so I can see them taking on a few subsidised routes

 

[Trainman40083]

I would think the 55 makes a profit, or would do with a larger company. I can see trentbarton taking the 55, but the 55 only.

Notts+Derby seems to enjoy expansion nowadays, so I can see them taking on a few subsidised routes

I remember the days when Trent pulled out of most of their services between Alfreton and Chesterfield. Not convinced about the profit though .

 

[IamTrainsYT]

Would the depot be any use to another operator?

Can we stop selling off hulleys’ routes and assets? They’re going nowhere anytime soon!
A lot of whats been said on here is nothing short of industry wibble. I can’t name a single thing thats been said on this thread that has turned out to be true?!

We don't even know why the TC has called the operator to the PI.

It’s regarding the poor provision of services last winter. Proof of significant improvements exists and apparently Derbyshire County Council will be providing a positive testimony at the enquiry so theres not a lot to worry about.

 

[MotCO]

Can we stop selling off hulleys’ routes and assets? They’re going nowhere anytime soon!
A lot of whats been said on here is nothing short of industry wibble. I can’t name a single thing thats been said on this thread that has turned out to be true?!

Did we ever find out what lay behind the conscious uncoupling of Go-Coach from Hulleys?

 

[Goldfish62]

It’s regarding the poor provision of services last winter. Proof of significant improvements exists and apparently Derbyshire County Council will be providing a positive testimony at the enquiry so theres not a lot to worry about.

Thanks. Yes, if positive sustained improvements are evident it's usually the proverbial slapped wrist at most, or even no action.

 

[Teapot42]

So you're saying that the TC should allow Hulley's to get away with operating to lower standards than all other operators are required to by law and that DCC shouldn't complain when Hulley's fall short of their contractual standards?

If it was persistent and nothing was done to address the issues then of course action should be taken. As improvements have been made and things are much better than they were then there is less reason to impact an otherwise viable business.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

Did we ever find out what lay behind the conscious uncoupling of Go-Coach from Hulleys?

I'm told health issues affecting the owner lead to a decision to reduce the size of the operation.

 

[Goldfish62]

If it was persistent and nothing was done to address the issues then of course action should be taken. As improvements have been made and things are much better than they were then there is less reason to impact an otherwise viable business.

Which I've agreed with in the post directly above yours!

 

[IamTrainsYT]

Did we ever find out what lay behind the conscious uncoupling of Go-Coach from Hulleys?

theres been a large amount of tension between go coach and hulleys since day 1. From what I last heard (and this was a while ago) alf (the MD of hulleys) was paying for go coach in instalments. He unfortunately suffered a stroke and was hospitalised for a long period of time, during which he missed one of the payments which is when austin began the process of attempting to re-commandeer go coach for “breach of contract”. There were a lot of childish arguments going on and eventually it was settled in a more grown up way (mutually splitting as it was no good for alfs health) and they remained on okay-ish terms. although it looks like the childishness never ended with the notice that the traffic office at go coach put out…

That being said, the sole reason the E200mmcs are being withdrawn is down to their unpopularity with most of the staff and passengers. They’re awful buses to drive, riddled with problems that brand new buses shouldn’t have and not a single person was unhappy when it was announced.

 

[Teapot42]

Which I've agreed with in the post directly above yours!

I'm sure you are aware posts don't always refresh immediately. Your post had not appeared when I started replying, no need to be difficult about it, crossed posts aren't exactly the end of the world.

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm sure you are aware posts don't always refresh immediately. Your post had not appeared when I started replying, no need to be difficult about it, crossed posts aren't exactly the end of the world.

No worries!

 

[AWK]

Whilst illness is unfortunate and I wish Alf a good recovery, it's not a promising sign if no one else in the business is able to manage the finances in the owners absence.

Also, in my experience, cutting commercial mileage that reduces PVR by 3 (I think) at considerably less than the standard notice period is also not generally a sign of all being rosey. Not sure I buy the argument about the E200MMCs being that dire given the sheer number in use with both major and independent operators, and if they were the true issue why not purchase other vehicles to replace them (plenty of 'classic' E200s on the 2nd hand market) rather than cutting PVR to allow them to leave the fleet.

Genuinely interested to know why a short notice registration to cut commercial mileage (the 6 and the 55 extension) was approved when such requests should normally follow the standard notice period (42 days) and indeed not sticking to that period has been the reason other operators have been called to PIs in the past

 

[Omnidekkalover]

I guess it will just be a game of wait and see

 

[IamTrainsYT]

it's not a promising sign if no one else in the business is able to manage the finances in the owners absence.

I don’t have a single idea on running businesses so i’m only going off what i’ve been told but I was under the impression that go coach was alfs own purchase. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected but I 100% do know that other people at hulleys can and do manage the finances.

and if they were the true issue why not purchase other vehicles to replace them

Replacements for the final 3 are yet to be sourced, hence why they haven’t left yet.

rather than cutting PVR to allow them to leave the fleet.

The service changes weren’t made to get rid of the mmcs, it was a decision made afterwards. The routes/trips that were withdrawn were all commercial services that were running at a loss and had been for some time. the decision was ultimately made to cut them mainly so it reduced the amount of drivers and buses required per day in order to increase reliability further but also to cut costs where money was being spent unnecessarily. (As you are probably aware theres nationwide issues with Bus Driver shortages & Bus parts shortages) so by having the same amount of buses but less required for service it allows more spare vehicles which could potentially have affected a service running in the past if enough buses were VOR. The size of the hulleys fleet has not changed. MMCs 1 & 30 left and solo 18 & Decker 22 arrived in their place.

Genuinely interested to know why a short notice registration to cut commercial mileage (the 6 and the 55 extension) was approved when such requests should normally follow the standard notice period (42 days)

It was short notice, but not as short notice as you think. unfortunately with it being done just before Christmas/new year period it was all processed by Derbyshire County Council very late. I think it ended up being about 30 days but I couldn’t tell you for certain!