Hulley's of Baslow

[AWK]

Not an option here - Hulleys are / were at the limit of the number of discs they have - so maybe that was one reason for accepting this as a short notice change?

Nope, not a valid reason. Apply for and pay for more discs!

 

[Teapot42]

Agreed, but whether the local authority supports or not, there are clear requirements for the submission/acceptance of short notice registrations/changes/cancellations as I've posted previously in this thread. Cocking up your timings or poor commercial judgement isn't a valid reason per the TCs own guidance.

I can see we aren't going to agree on this, but to me the simple facts were the timetable wasn't viable and passengers were being inconvenienced. Running a second bus wasn't an option as they were at their limit of discs, so for a passenger perspective the rational thing to do is accept the short notice change. Forcing them to run a service that didn't work for another 42 days would just inconvenience passengers more.

I do wonder if this is one of the reasons for the PI - I know performance on the Sunday 257 is one factor, but this likely didn't help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

Nope, not a valid reason. Apply for and pay for more discs!

And that can be done faster than 42 days? I'm not sure they can anyway due to depot capacity, otherwise they'd have done so by now.

As above, you seem unable to deviate from the letter of the rules for the sake of practicality. I do agree it shouldn't be the norm, but there must be another way to punish just the operator rather than also punishing passengers.

 

[AWK]

I can see we aren't going to agree on this, but to me the simple facts were the timetable wasn't viable and passengers were being inconvenienced. Running a second bus wasn't an option as they were at their limit of discs, so for a passenger perspective the rational thing to do is accept the short notice change. Forcing them to run a service that didn't work for another 42 days would just inconvenience passengers more.

Whether we agree or not is irrelevant. The rules on Operator Licencing are in place for all operators and apply equally to ensure a level playing field and state that it is the responsibility of the Operator to ensure their registrations are accurate and they run their services per the registrations.

Again, it is not the publics fault the operator registered a timetable that was wholly within the realms of fantasy. That was entirely down to the Operator, and the financial implications of introducing additional resources (vehicles, drivers, O discs, subcontracting out the work) to attempt to run per the registered timetable, or at least ensure on time departures, sits entirely with the Operator.

I do wonder if this is one of the reasons for the PI - I know performance on the Sunday 257 is one factor, but this likely didn't help.

Well, you assured us earlier in the thread that the reasons for the PI were minor and didn't need addressing urgently, so as you must know about the PI reasons to make such statements you tell me.

 

[Teapot42]

Again, it is not the publics fault the operator registered a timetable that was wholly within the realms of fantasy.

No, but if the rules were enforced as inflexibly as you'd prefer then it is the public who would suffer.

Well, you assured us earlier in the thread that the reasons for the PI were minor and didn't need addressing urgently, so as you must know about the PI reasons to make such statements you tell me.

I have been told poor performance on the Sunday 257 due to an optimistic timetable coupled with unexpected delays due to roadworks. That was addressed with a timetable change. I would surmise similar issues with the Breezer and 80, both of which Hulleys no longer operate, might also be raised, but that is a guess beyond what little I know.

 

[AWK]

No, but if the rules were enforced as inflexibly as you'd prefer then it is the public who would suffer.

But they are the rules. If Stagecoach announced today that the X17 on a Tuesday isn't making them enough money so they were cancelling the service entirely this Tuesday and every Tuesday would you be happy with that, or would you say 'you registered it, you publicised it, you run it and tough luck if you don't make enough money'

Yes, I agree passengers were inconvenienced as they had no idea if/when a bus would turn up, but that isn't the fault of the Bus Registration rules, that is the fault of the Operator who registered a ludicrous timetable to start with.

I have been told poor performance on the Sunday 257 due to an optimistic timetable coupled with unexpected delays due to roadworks. That was addressed with a timetable change. I would surmise similar issues with the Breezer and 80, both of which Hulleys no longer operate, might also be raised, but that is a guess beyond what little I know.

Let us see what is said when the PI is held then. However, there does seem to be a pattern appearing here of timetables being registered which are at best optimistic and at worst totally unrealistic.

 

[Goldfish62]

But they are the rules. If Stagecoach announced today that the X17 on a Tuesday isn't making them enough money so they were cancelling the service entirely this Tuesday and every Tuesday would you be happy with that, or would you say 'you registered it, you publicised it, you run it and tough luck if you don't make enough money'

Indeed, but it feels like some people think that Hulley's shouldn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else!

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Alright, time out folks!!! The major operator my father worked for in the 1980s timed routes by sending an inspector in a car who didn't have to stop at any of the stops..... the point being that Hulley's are far from being the first operator to produce a timetable that doesn't exactly work when you drive it in a public service bus.

 

[Goldfish62]

Alright, time out folks!!! The major operator my father worked for in the 1980s timed routes by sending an inspector in a car who didn't have to stop at any of the stops..... the point being that Hulley's are far from being the first operator to produce a timetable that doesn't exactly work when you drive it in a public service bus.

No one is suggesting that they are. Doesn't make it anymore right though.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

No one is suggesting that they are. Doesn't make it anymore right though.

Never suggested it did make it right. I'm just saying they're not the first operator to do it, whereas some of the comments on here would have you believe that they were.

 

[AWK]

Alright, time out folks!!! The major operator my father worked for in the 1980s timed routes by sending an inspector in a car who didn't have to stop at any of the stops..... the point being that Hulley's are far from being the first operator to produce a timetable that doesn't exactly work when you drive it in a public service bus.

No one is suggesting that they are. Doesn't make it anymore right though.

Indeed, not the first operator to work out timings by driving the route in car with a stop watch. Not the first operator to have the same clock-face timetable in place all day that makes no allowance for traffic conditions at different times of the day. Not the first operator to try and shoe-horn what should be a 65 minute round trip in to 55 minutes so it can be worked neatly with one bus.

Doesn't make any of it right or what a professional operator should be doing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

Never suggested it did make it right. I'm just saying they're not the first operator to do it, whereas some of the comments on here would have you believe that they were.

Forgive me for talking about Hulleys of Baslow on a, checks notes, Hulleys of Baslow thread

 

[Killingworth]

We seem to be going round in circles. All I know is that intending users of routes operated by Hulley's are getting totally confused as to what timetable is supposed to be operating today, whether a particular bus is running, and if it is will it be on time. So confused they can't plan their lives around buses so they use cars, and that means even less revenue.

All the why's and wherefore's debated here are enough to convince anyone who hasn't already done so that they must get another job, move to nearer their place of work, or get a car, but don't rely on a rural bus. Very depressing.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Indeed, not the first operator to work out timings by driving the route in car with a stop watch. Not the first operator to have the same clock-face timetable in place all day that makes no allowance for traffic conditions at different times of the day. Not the first operator to try and shoe-horn what should be a 65 minute round trip in to 55 minutes so it can be worked neatly with one bus.

Doesn't make any of it right or what a professional operator should be doing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==


Forgive me for talking about Hulleys of Baslow on a, checks notes, Hulleys of Baslow thread

I'm not disputing that you're talking about Hulley's of Baslow on a, checks notes, Hulley's of Baslow thread. . I'm just saying that, checks notes, they're not the only operator to do it whereas, checks notes, some of the comments on here would have you believe otherwise!!

 

[Omnidekkalover]

All the why's and wherefore's debated here are enough to convince anyone who hasn't already done so that they must get another job, move to nearer their place of work, or get a car, but don't rely on a rural bus. Very depressing

Absolutely. To be honest I do think that a sizeable majority of operators are guilty of making rural buses unviable as an alternative to the car. I would not always solely accuse operators but I think a lack of investment from local authorities have really hindered the potential for rural services. Combine them together and you get a recipe for an unreliable and unpredictable service on which people cannot rely upon so the service will eventually wither away and die.

Yes Hulleys, Stagecoach and DCC are equally as bad in my opinion.

 

[Flange Squeal]

We seem to be going round in circles. All I know is that intending users of routes operated by Hulley's are getting totally confused as to what timetable is supposed to be operating today, whether a particular bus is running, and if it is will it be on time. So confused they can't plan their lives around buses so they use cars, and that means even less revenue.

All the why's and wherefore's debated here are enough to convince anyone who hasn't already done so that they must get another job, move to nearer their place of work, or get a car, but don't rely on a rural bus. Very depressing.

Passengers can't even rely on Hulley's website to tell them what time a bus is even scheduled, let alone running, as two weeks on from the 13th January changes the old timetables are still online (the 6 still running an all-day service, the 55 still serving the Designer Outlet, etc). Going back through two weeks of cancellation messages on their Facebook page you'll find a 257 timetable, a message saying they've been unable to update their website, and a Service Changes poster telling you to consult the website(!) for the new times. But no further messages over the two weeks since highlighting that problem or the changes, so anyone planning a trip could well find themselves stood at the roadside totally clueless if they've made the mistake of planning their journey using the timetables on Hulley's website...

 

[Killingworth]

Passengers can't even rely on Hulley's website to tell them what time a bus is even scheduled, let alone running, as two weeks on from the 13th January changes the old timetables are still online (the 6 still running an all-day service, the 55 still serving the Designer Outlet, etc). Going back through two weeks of cancellation messages on their Facebook page you'll find a 257 timetable, a message saying they've been unable to update their website, and a Service Changes poster telling you to consult the website(!) for the new times. But no further messages over the two weeks since highlighting that problem or the changes, so anyone planning a trip could well find themselves stood at the roadside totally clueless if they've made the mistake of planning their journey using the timetables on Hulley's website...

Exactly.

"I went for the bus to get to a hospital appointment in Sheffield. I went at the usual time but it didn't come. It seems they've recently changed the timetable but there was nothing at the stop to tell me. My husband dropped everything and came to give me a lift by car. I won't be trying the bus again."

As told to me at the weekend by a supporter of public transport.

 

[Goldfish62]

Exactly.

"I went for the bus to get to a hospital appointment in Sheffield. I went at the usual time but it didn't come. It seems they've recently changed the timetable but there was nothing at the stop to tell me. My husband dropped everything and came to give me a lift by car. I won't be trying the bus again."

As told to me at the weekend by a supporter of public transport.

But according to some here, locals don't use the services, only a handful of schoolkids and tourists do, so it doesn't matter whether they bother to run or not...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

I'm not disputing that you're talking about Hulley's of Baslow on a, checks notes, Hulley's of Baslow thread. . I'm just saying that, checks notes, they're not the only operator to do it whereas, checks notes, some of the comments on here would have you believe otherwise!!

Well, the Breezer was a particularly extreme example. Even driving a car around the route in the middle of the night at full pelt, ignoring traffic lights you'd have struggled to get near the running times of the first timetable iteration. A complete outlier among unrealistic timetables. So unrealistic it had to be an error.

Anyway, driving a car around to determine running times is so yesterday. There's plenty of freely available online data enabling the compilation of reasonably realistic schedules these days, especially for a local operator that knows the territory well.

 

[Teapot42]

But they are the rules. If Stagecoach announced today that the X17 on a Tuesday isn't making them enough money so they were cancelling the service entirely this Tuesday and every Tuesday would you be happy with that, or would you say 'you registered it, you publicised it, you run it and tough luck if you don't make enough money'

The changes were nothing to do with how much money the service was making, it was to do with being able to run to the timetable with the resources they (legally) could put on the route. The eventual cancellation could be put down to money I guess in that the bus broke down and couldn't quickly be fixed.

I'm not sure of the rules of subcontracting another operator to run an additional vehicle - would that not still come out of Hulleys discs? Either way, there aren't a lot of spare open top buses waiting to be hired.

Yes, I agree passengers were inconvenienced as they had no idea if/when a bus would turn up, but that isn't the fault of the Bus Registration rules, that is the fault of the Operator who registered a ludicrous timetable to start with.

Again you persist in assigning blame rather than resolving the problem. Maybe it's because I'm not in the bus industry that my approach would be to fix the problem first then address the root cause.

Let us see what is said when the PI is held then. However, there does seem to be a pattern appearing here of timetables being registered which are at best optimistic and at worst totally unrealistic.

Agreed. Some are (arguably misguided) attempts to provide the most service possible with the limited resources available. Hopefully the change in management will result in more realistic timetables going forwards, possibly prompted by the threat of the PI.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

"I went for the bus to get to a hospital appointment in Sheffield. I went at the usual time but it didn't come. It seems they've recently changed the timetable but there was nothing at the stop to tell me. "

Hulleys aren't responsible for updating the timetables at the stops. Indeed they've been fined in the past for trying to put up-to-date information up for their passengers.

There has been a post on their Facebook telling people to refer to the DCC timetable library. I wonder if anyone still relies on their website as it's never been great for being up to date. An issue I'm sure a lot of small operators face as employing a dedicated person to keep these things up to date is hard to justify. They did actually produce some very good timetables in the past, but I believe the person responsible had a falling out so now they'd maybe be better off just linking to the Derbyshire Bus Times site rather than trying to host their own.

 

[MotCO]

I can see we aren't going to agree on this, but to me the simple facts were the timetable wasn't viable and passengers were being inconvenienced. Running a second bus wasn't an option as they were at their limit of discs, so for a passenger perspective the rational thing to do is accept the short notice change. Forcing them to run a service that didn't work for another 42 days would just inconvenience passengers more.

A second bus would only allow a bus to leave the starting point on time. If the timetable was completely unrealistic, the bus would be late at every timing point on the route so would also be unable to comply with the timetable.

 

[AWK]

But according to some here, locals don't use the services, only a handful of schoolkids and tourists do, so it doesn't matter whether they bother to run or not...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==


Well, the Breezer was a particularly extreme example. Even driving a car around the route in the middle of the night at full pelt, ignoring traffic lights you'd have struggled to get near the running times of the first timetable iteration. A complete outlier among unrealistic timetables. So unrealistic it had to be an error.

Anyway, driving a car around to determine running times is so yesterday. There's plenty of freely available online data enabling the compilation of reasonably realistic schedules these days, especially for a local operator that knows the territory well.

The Breezer was a farce, that timetable should never have been registered, and then the confusing mess when a short notice timetable was publicised but the vehicle initially kept running to the 'old' times so you were never sure about whether it was running / at what times / and it was seemingly the first service to be dropped in the event of a staff or vehicle shortage etc etc, but this is not the only incident of poor timetabling/commercial judgement in recent years.

There was the X57 Snake service, doomed to failure from the start (once the enthusiasts had a couple of trips for the novelty value of a going on a bus over the Snake Pass...), that ran from Sheffield to Manchester, and launched in the winter during Covid restrictions using, if memory serves, 4 vehicles. Then it was extended to the Airport, apart from when it didn't run through due to late running/breakdowns. Then a registration appeared for a service from Manchester Airport to Leek and Ashborune (X1), operationally linked off the X57. Hulleys publicised it (see post #281 in this thread). That service lasted 4 (FOUR) days if memory serves before being pulled, along with many of the other changes listed in that post (#281) citing a driver shortage.

The services on a weekend to Scarborough and Skegness. Again, apart from enthusiasts going for a nice jolly I struggle to see what target market it was aiming to attract and I'd be amazed if that ever covered costs.

But they're prepared to take risks I hear you say - and indeed, I wish other operators were more willing to take risks. But there's risks, and there's blind leaps in to the dark... and if your risk doesn't work out, you must follow the regulations that apply to all operators in order to extract yourself from that situation.

Lately there's been the commercial extension to the 55 from Alfreton to the outlet pulled after a very short operating period, the 6 in Chesterfield pulled as they THOUGHT that Stagecoach were removing their service from the area - but instead of waiting for Stagecoach to register those changes then acting they jumped in with a commercial 'replacement' - which has now, at short notice, been withdrawn. The Breezer started as a knee-jerk reaction to Derbyshire CC signalling their intent to tender a BSIP-funded seasonal open top service, Hulleys quickly registering the Breezer presumably to either undermine those efforts or to try and get the funding diverted to themselves.

The current timetable for the 55 gives the same running times all day from early morning to early evening, so no allowance for peak time traffic and I would suggest therefore is unrealistic. The 170 timetable likewise.

I could go on, but I'd be accused of picking on them, so I'll stop, other than to say in a previous Public Inquiry ruling affecting another operator just over the border in Staffordshire the TC ruled that [using the] "excuse of unforeseen lack of staff as sufficient [to avoid running registered mileage]" - see https://www.route-one.net/legal/north_warwickshire_travel_director_disqualified_indefinitely/. Previous TC rulings have also found similar about citing an unforeseen shortage of vehicles given there are many options to bring in vehicles to a fleet at short notice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

The changes were nothing to do with how much money the service was making, it was to do with being able to run to the timetable with the resources they (legally) could put on the route. The eventual cancellation could be put down to money I guess in that the bus broke down and couldn't quickly be fixed.

It is down to money. They could have bought a 2nd open top, they didn't. They could have bought one of the umpteen similarly aged Tridents on the 2nd hand market and paid to have it converted to open top. They didn't. They could have applied for more discs, they didn't. They could have changed their vehicle workings to put a 2nd bus on the Breezer so at least the departures from each end were on time, they didn't. They could have gone to Ensign and hired one of their open tops, they didn't.

I'm not sure of the rules of subcontracting another operator to run an additional vehicle - would that not still come out of Hulleys discs? Either way, there aren't a lot of spare open top buses waiting to be hired.

Then run it with a closed-top bus then. Better for the passengers surely to have A bus running, rather than not running the service because your sole open topper has died?

Again you persist in assigning blame rather than resolving the problem. Maybe it's because I'm not in the bus industry that my approach would be to fix the problem first then address the root cause.

The root cause is obvious. And the way to fix the problem is to register a new timetable, then once approved after the 42 day notice period, operate it, otherwise you end up with a free for all where operators can change timetables overnight which means the public would have no clue about what service is SUPPOSED to be operating and when.

Hulleys aren't responsible for updating the timetables at the stops. Indeed they've been fined in the past for trying to put up-to-date information up for their passengers.

Nope, but they could put printed timetables on the buses, do local timetable leaflet drops through letterboxes or giving the local post office a stash etc.

There has been a post on their Facebook telling people to refer to the DCC timetable library. I wonder if anyone still relies on their website as it's never been great for being up to date. An issue I'm sure a lot of small operators face as employing a dedicated person to keep these things up to date is hard to justify. They did actually produce some very good timetables in the past, but I believe the person responsible had a falling out so now they'd maybe be better off just linking to the Derbyshire Bus Times site rather than trying to host their own.

But people should be able to rely on the company website as the definitive source of Truth. I would trust a company website more than the online journey planners as I work on the assumption the company will have got their timetables right, where as a 3rd party may have misinterpreted things. It's not hard to employ a freelancer as needed to update a website!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

A second bus would only allow a bus to leave the starting point on time. If the timetable was completely unrealistic, the bus would be late at every timing point on the route so would also be unable to comply with the timetable.

Indeed, but leaving each end on time is better than not leaving either end on time, and gives passengers waiting at the terminal point some assurance that they will be able to make their return journey rather than waiting and hoping!

 

[Teapot42]

it was seemingly the first service to be dropped in the event of a staff or vehicle shortage etc etc,

They were very clear that in the event of staff or vehicle shortages they'd rather prioritise their service network over the Breezer. Personally, I'd agree. There were other services that covered the Breezer route (albeit some trip options would need a change) whereas most of their other services have no alternative.

There was the X57 Snake service, doomed to failure from the start (once the enthusiasts had a couple of trips for the novelty value of a going on a bus over the Snake Pass...)

I used it a couple of times and it was pretty busy with people who didn't appear to be enthusiasts.

The main problems the X57 suffered from were congestion around Mottram making it difficult to run reliably, and some issues with TfGM. I don't know the truth of what happened there, both sides blame the other, but Hulleys did lose a fair chunk of money as a result. It's a link I think has potential, but with the current uncertainty around Snake Pass maybe not one that will reappear any time soon.

a service from Manchester Airport to Leek and Ashborune (X1), operationally linked off the X57. Hulleys publicised it (see post #281 in this thread). That service lasted 4 (FOUR) days if memory serves before being pulled, along with many of the other changes listed in that post (#281) citing a driver shortage.

I think it was three days. I'd planned to give it a week to settle down before having a ride...

What I was told is they'd signed drivers to be able to operate it, then several just didn't turn up - got jobs elsewhere and didn't even let Hulleys know they weren't going to turn up. That was around the time of the worst shortages from memory, so while I agree it was messy, at least they took decisive action to fix things rather than letting it drag on for the 42 days needed to register a change you seem to prefer.

The services on a weekend to Scarborough and Skegness. Again, apart from enthusiasts going for a nice jolly I struggle to see what target market it was aiming to attract and I'd be amazed if that ever covered costs.

Agreed. I wouldn't have minded a day out to the seaside, but I'm not sitting that long on an Evora.

My take on this is that Hulleys are quite active in the local enthusiast scene, and several of the drivers are enthusiasts themselves. Maybe this was just something a bit different, get paid for a day out at the seaside. See if there was a market and build on it if so.

The Breezer started as a knee-jerk reaction to Derbyshire CC signalling their intent to tender a BSIP-funded seasonal open top service, Hulleys quickly registering the Breezer presumably to either undermine those efforts or to try and get the funding diverted to themselves.

I'd be interested to know the actual background to that. I was told Hulleys were part of those discussions and an agreement was made that they take one route commercially while Stagecoach got BSIP for the other. Indeed, the Breezer offered the £2 capped fare, while the Peak Sightseer despite getting funding falls outside any ticketing arrangements.

It is down to money. They could have bought a 2nd open top, they didn't. They could have bought one of the umpteen similarly aged Tridents on the 2nd hand market and paid to have it converted to open top. They didn't. They could have applied for more discs, they didn't. They could have changed their vehicle workings to put a 2nd bus on the Breezer so at least the departures from each end were on time, they didn't. They could have gone to Ensign and hired one of their open tops, they didn't.

As mentioned, they can't get more discs with their current depot. It's not big enough to hold sufficient vehicles. All your options are depending on them either cutting other services to allow a second bus on the Breezer, or setting up a second depot so they could get more discs. The former would surely take the same registration time as altering the Breezer timetable, the latter would take much longer.

Then run it with a closed-top bus then. Better for the passengers surely to have A bus running, rather than not running the service because your sole open topper has died?

They did, until the registration could be cancelled.

The root cause is obvious. And the way to fix the problem is to register a new timetable, then once approved after the 42 day notice period, operate it, otherwise you end up with a free for all where operators can change timetables overnight which means the public would have no clue about what service is SUPPOSED to be operating and when.

Doesn't matter how obvious the root cause, throwing your hands up and saying you can't fix a problem for 6 weeks helps no-one. I agree that a free for all is not desirable, but these have all been cases which arose very shortly after the service started running. An inexperienced team can make mistakes like this, saying they can't fix them promptly doesn't help. Even if the public know when it's supposed to be running, if it can't realistically run to those times it needs fixing and fast. A quick change followed by reliable running is going to help (and retain) passengers much more than knowing you can't possibly run as advertised but can't change for 6 weeks, and day to day reliability being a factor of road conditions only.

But people should be able to rely on the company website as the definitive source of Truth.

How many do? I certainly wouldn't, be that Stagecoach or Hulleys.

 

[MotCO]

Indeed, but leaving each end on time is better than not leaving either end on time, and gives passengers waiting at the terminal point some assurance that they will be able to make their return journey rather than waiting and hoping!

Actually, on reflection I think it's worse than that. I think you would need three buses to operate the timetable so that a bus would always leave each end on time.

 

[Flange Squeal]

How many do? I certainly wouldn't, be that Stagecoach or Hulleys.

If I'm looking to travel by bus, the operator's website is the place I go for the most up to date information. I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect the operator to be the source of the most accurate information about their own product, and surely I can't be the only one that goes to the operator to find out about their services?! You even said in a previous post that "Hulleys aren't responsible for updating the timetables at the stops", which gives even more reason not to rely on third parties for accurate information.

 

[Trainman40083]

If I'm looking to travel by bus, the operator's website is the place I go for the most up to date information. I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect the operator to be the source of the most accurate information about their own product, and surely I can't be the only one that goes to the operator to find out about their services?! You even said in a previous post that "Hulleys aren't responsible for updating the timetables at the stops", which gives even more reason not to rely on third parties for accurate information.

Makes you wonder how many bus stops there are around the country, still with flags, where no bus service operates.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Makes you wonder how many bus stops there are around the country, still with flags, where no bus service operates.

Answer = a lot.

In my locality, many of the rural bus services were replaced by Demand Responsive Transport so there are plenty including about 200m from my house. In the nearby Chew Valley, even before DRT came about, there were plenty of services that were axed with one stop that still enjoys a 1985 era Badgerline logo.

 

[mangad]

Answer = a lot.

In my locality, many of the rural bus services were replaced by Demand Responsive Transport so there are plenty including about 200m from my house. In the nearby Chew Valley, even before DRT came about, there were plenty of services that were axed with one stop that still enjoys a 1985 era Badgerline logo.

And there's more than a few bus stops in Greater Manchester that say "Not In Use". Some even have bus shelters. And there's a bus stop near the top of Mam Tor in Derbyshire that - until last year - hadn't had a bus for over a decade.

 

[AWK]

What I was told is they'd signed drivers to be able to operate it, then several just didn't turn up - got jobs elsewhere and didn't even let Hulleys know they weren't going to turn up. That was around the time of the worst shortages from memory, so while I agree it was messy, at least they took decisive action to fix things rather than letting it drag on for the 42 days needed to register a change you seem to prefer.

Doesn't matter how obvious the root cause, throwing your hands up and saying you can't fix a problem for 6 weeks helps no-one. I agree that a free for all is not desirable, but these have all been cases which arose very shortly after the service started running. An inexperienced team can make mistakes like this, saying they can't fix them promptly doesn't help. Even if the public know when it's supposed to be running, if it can't realistically run to those times it needs fixing and fast. A quick change followed by reliable running is going to help (and retain) passengers much more than knowing you can't possibly run as advertised but can't change for 6 weeks, and day to day reliability being a factor of road conditions only.

The 42 day notice period is there precisely to protect the public. That 42 day period gives the operator time to do their own publicity, for the local authority to update the timetable displays, for third party journey planners such as travelline to get the timetables on to their systems, where it's a service linked to a rail timetable (such as the buses to Leeds Bradford Airport etc) for National Rail to add the timetable to their journey planners etc. The very essence of that period is to give people certainty about what timetable is in operation on the date they are looking to travel.

Allowing operators to change services at little to no notice does not benefit the passengers. If I announced today online that I service I operate will be running a totally different timetable from tomorrow how will the passengers get that information unless they see my post? The bus stops won't show the correct timetables (printed or on the electronic screens), the online journey planners won't show the new timetable, and if I'm Hulleys my own website won't even show the new timetable!

The premise is simple - you register a timetable, that is published in advance, you operate it. The fix is also obvious - if you've screwed up your timetable (which is entirely the operators fault) you introduce extra resources in an attempt to deliver it whilst you work through the notice period (required for the reasons above) to change it. If you've been daft enough to register a new service without checking the timetable is workable and that uses up the remaining 'spare' capacity on your O-licence without seeking to extend that to give yourself some wriggle room you're beyond naïve.

As mentioned, they can't get more discs with their current depot. It's not big enough to hold sufficient vehicles. All your options are depending on them either cutting other services to allow a second bus on the Breezer, or setting up a second depot so they could get more discs. The former would surely take the same registration time as altering the Breezer timetable, the latter would take much longer.

Then find a local farmer who will allow you to park 2 vehicles in the corner of his land, or a local haulage company, hell even see if the Chatsworth Estate can rent you a bit of land and register it as an outstation. The process to add more O-discs to your licence or register a new Operating Centre is done online and processed usually in very quick time provided the request isn't unusual (adding a couple of O-licences or a local 2nd base is usually waved straight through, increasing your licence from 19 discs to 919 or adding an OC at the opposite end of the county will usually require further information to be given).

They did, until the registration could be cancelled.

They were very clear that in the event of staff or vehicle shortages they'd rather prioritise their service network over the Breezer. Personally, I'd agree. There were other services that covered the Breezer route (albeit some trip options would need a change) whereas most of their other services have no alternative.

It can't be both (that they ran it until the registration was cancelled and they dropped it as required to allow other services to run). The reality, based on my own observations including going out to Baslow on 3 occasions to ride it, was that as soon as they realised the timetable was unworkable it ran less times than it didn't. Indeed, on one occasion I was stood on New Beetwell Street in Chesterfield waiting for the 170 out to Baslow to pick up The Breezer when a Facebook message popped up from Hulleys announcing the Breezer wasn't running at all that day to the open top breaking down. Imagine my surprise then when 5 mins later the open top appeared as the 170 to Bakewell I was waiting for.

And the fact there are other services that cover chunks of the Breezer route is irrelevant. It was an open top service designed largely for day-trippers between Baslow and Castleton, not to provide local links between Castleton and Hope for example. Many people made special trips out purely to catch the service - including Industry legend Roger French who wrote a very good blog on his experiences here - https://busandtrainuser.com/2023/08/29/an-open-top-bus-bonanza-part-2-1-the-peak-district-breezer/ - indeed, his experience in his blog was on the date I was stood in Chesterfield looking at said Trident. Roger's post also gives the background to the introduction of the service as I documented earlier (as does the opening of his follow up blog the next day - https://busandtrainuser.com/2023/08/30/an-open-top-bus-bonanza-part-2-2-peak-sightseer/ - if you've not read them before, I suggest you have a read), and if you knew Roger, or were involved in the industry and knew of Roger, you'd know that he is on top of his facts or won't publish them.

How many do? I certainly wouldn't, be that Stagecoach or Hulleys.

So you'd trust a 3rd party over the brands own website? If you bought a new Dyson hoover and wanted the technical spec you'd go to the website of Dave's Vacs of Chesterfield (made up name, apologies to the organisation if they actually exist!) rather than direct to the Dyson website? Or if you wanted to know BA's policy on taking a cat on a plane you'd look at some random website rather than going direct to BA. Bull.

 

[John HG1]

Makes you wonder how many bus stops there are around the country, still with flags, where no bus service operates.

There's one near me in Harrogate that still has a timetable for an hourly service to the hospital. Waiting time would be even longer than at A&E as it hasn't operated for at least 4 years. I've told North Yorkshire Council about this a couple of times but nothing has been done. Still, NYC want to take more responsibility for public transport, so that will get sorted then. Hang on, whose responsibility is it at the moment......

 

[greenline712]

I write this from the position of being involved with registering local bus services back in 1986, and continuing that involvement, on and off, until I retired in 2020.

I'm not sure where this "42 days notice" has come from in many posts noted above. The current rule is 70 days notice for the submission of any registration. This initial submission is sent to the relevent local transport authority, usually the County Council, or Councils if the route crosses a county boundary. If there has been no contact with or from the LTA within 28 days, then the registration can be forwarded to the Traffic Commissioners office in Leeds, who simply accept it (having determined that the registration is correct). In areas with Unitary authorities, they act as the LTA, so somewhere like Berkshire may require the registration to be submitted to several authorities. In the case of an Enhanced Partnership, such as Hertfordshire, that county acts as the receiving agent, and accepts the registration.

The intention of this initial 28 days is to permit the LTA to determine if they need to step in to maintain a service "in the public interest" . . . in other words, a time for consideration. This also allows for websites to be updated and roadside timetables to be prepared and posted. I'll also just make the point that not all operators have staff skilled enough to alter / update / amend websites . . . it's not as easy as it might seem to tech-savvy youngsters; in 2009-2013 I ran a small local network of routes, and had to rely on a third-party to update my website . . .sometimes it got very close to "new times day" before it was ready!!

In practice, if a "vanilla" registration is submitted (non-contentious, perhaps a minor timetable change), the LTA will contact the operator and give the OK. In such a case, the go-date might be brought forward, if all agree it is correct to do so. It is always possible to circumvent the waiting period by submitting the appropriate form to the TC; in such cases a letter of support would be required from the LTA, explaining the extenuating circumstances. It is NOT a given that this would be accepted, but it's pretty rare for it not to be accepted.

In the past, the TC has been less than forgiving if the notice period was shortened just because the tendering authority was tardy in issuing a contract . . . they should always be issued in time to allow the paperwork to be completed. Sometimes operators have been tardy in submitting the registration . . . in such cases the initial week or so might have to be run "free". And yes . . . I too have forgotten to cancel registrations . . . oversights do happen, y'know!

With regard to setting up an outstation . . . in the case of borrowing a corner of another operators yard, this would probably be quicker than borrowing a corner of a farmyard! However, the application process might be easier, but that doesn't necessarily mean that approval would come quickly. It also very much depends on the status of the operator concerned . . .if they have a poor MOT pass rate, then it might take much longer. Similarly, the application for an extra couple of discs isn't a given . . . again, the status of the operator will be taken into account.

I ddon't know the Hulley's operation in any sort of detail . . . and neither do I know (or indeed, I suspect, do any of the posters on here) of any discussions thay may have taken place with Derbyshire CC. I do know that, on occasions, any LTA will be pragmatic in accepting (and supporting) short-notice changes to registrations . . . if the alternative might be full closure of an operator, then supporting their efforts in maintaining the business is the bigger picture. Remember that full closure would result in drivers and engineers losing their jobs, as well as passengers being stranded . . . sometimes posters would do well in remembering that.

 

[AWK]

I write this from the position of being involved with registering local bus services back in 1986, and continuing that involvement, on and off, until I retired in 2020.

I'm not sure where this "42 days notice" has come from in many posts noted above. The current rule is 70 days notice for the submission of any registration. This initial submission is sent to the relevent local transport authority, usually the County Council, or Councils if the route crosses a county boundary. If there has been no contact with or from the LTA within 28 days, then the registration can be forwarded to the Traffic Commissioners office in Leeds, who simply accept it (having determined that the registration is correct). In areas with Unitary authorities, they act as the LTA, so somewhere like Berkshire may require the registration to be submitted to several authorities. In the case of an Enhanced Partnership, such as Hertfordshire, that county acts as the receiving agent, and accepts the registration.

The 42 day period is the minimum notice you must give the Traffic Commissioner, per https://www.gov.uk/run-local-bus-service/how-to-register

"You must tell the local authority in England or the local council in Scotland that you’re starting a bus service. You must do this 28 days before you apply to the traffic commissioner.

Apply to the traffic commissioner at least 42 days before your service starts - or 56 days before if your service is in Wales."

Admittedly I've been out of the industry longer than you but my interpretation is that the notification to the local authority (assuming they give the go-ahead almost immediately) and the notification to DVSA can happen at the same time, thus the minimum period is 42 days, it doesn't always run to the full 70.

The intention of this initial 28 days is to permit the LTA to determine if they need to step in to maintain a service "in the public interest" . . . in other words, a time for consideration. This also allows for websites to be updated and roadside timetables to be prepared and posted. I'll also just make the point that not all operators have staff skilled enough to alter / update / amend websites . . . it's not as easy as it might seem to tech-savvy youngsters; in 2009-2013 I ran a small local network of routes, and had to rely on a third-party to update my website . . .sometimes it got very close to "new times day" before it was ready!!

But it's not impossible, and with respect Hulley's operation covers 19 vehicles so I dare say is a bit more than a couple of local routes. If funding resource to keep the website updated is tricky then just get the timetable page removed and put links to the LA instead. But putting a social media post out for short notice service changes saying 'see our website' for new timetables knowing full well those new timetables aren't there (and still aren't there!)

In practice, if a "vanilla" registration is submitted (non-contentious, perhaps a minor timetable change), the LTA will contact the operator and give the OK. In such a case, the go-date might be brought forward, if all agree it is correct to do so. It is always possible to circumvent the waiting period by submitting the appropriate form to the TC; in such cases a letter of support would be required from the LTA, explaining the extenuating circumstances. It is NOT a given that this would be accepted, but it's pretty rare for it not to be accepted.

Again I may be out of touch, but I thought that only applied for LA tendered work. For commercial services the short-notice rules don't apply unless for the very specific reasons I've posted up thread listed on DVSA website. Poor commercial judgement is not a reason for agreeing to a short notice change.

In the past, the TC has been less than forgiving if the notice period was shortened just because the tendering authority was tardy in issuing a contract . . . they should always be issued in time to allow the paperwork to be completed. Sometimes operators have been tardy in submitting the registration . . . in such cases the initial week or so might have to be run "free". And yes . . . I too have forgotten to cancel registrations . . . oversights do happen, y'know!

With regard to setting up an outstation . . . in the case of borrowing a corner of another operators yard, this would probably be quicker than borrowing a corner of a farmyard! However, the application process might be easier, but that doesn't necessarily mean that approval would come quickly. It also very much depends on the status of the operator concerned . . .if they have a poor MOT pass rate, then it might take much longer. Similarly, the application for an extra couple of discs isn't a given . . . again, the status of the operator will be taken into account.

Accepted, but it's not beyond possible and I'm working on the assumption that Hulleys have excellent records in that regards based on the lack of any previous PIs for those issues

I ddon't know the Hulley's operation in any sort of detail . . . and neither do I know (or indeed, I suspect, do any of the posters on here) of any discussions thay may have taken place with Derbyshire CC. I do know that, on occasions, any LTA will be pragmatic in accepting (and supporting) short-notice changes to registrations . . . if the alternative might be full closure of an operator, then supporting their efforts in maintaining the business is the bigger picture. Remember that full closure would result in drivers and engineers losing their jobs, as well as passengers being stranded . . . sometimes posters would do well in remembering that.

I accept that, but again in my time in the industry the Local Authority was there to aid and assist, but to do so equally, so if one company is struggling due to poor commercial decisions it is not the role of the LA to offer practical support/favours to that operator they don't provide to other operators on their patch.

 

[Leedsbusman]

The 42 day period is the minimum notice you must give the Traffic Commissioner, per https://www.gov.uk/run-local-bus-service/how-to-register

"You must tell the local authority in England or the local council in Scotland that you’re starting a bus service. You must do this 28 days before you apply to the traffic commissioner.

Apply to the traffic commissioner at least 42 days before your service starts - or 56 days before if your service is in Wales."

Admittedly I've been out of the industry longer than you but my interpretation is that the notification to the local authority (assuming they give the go-ahead almost immediately) and the notification to DVSA can happen at the same time, thus the minimum period is 42 days, it doesn't always run to the full 70.

But it's not impossible, and with respect Hulley's operation covers 19 vehicles so I dare say is a bit more than a couple of local routes. If funding resource to keep the website updated is tricky then just get the timetable page removed and put links to the LA instead. But putting a social media post out for short notice service changes saying 'see our website' for new timetables knowing full well those new timetables aren't there (and still aren't there!)

Again I may be out of touch, but I thought that only applied for LA tendered work. For commercial services the short-notice rules don't apply unless for the very specific reasons I've posted up thread listed on DVSA website. Poor commercial judgement is not a reason for agreeing to a short notice change.

Accepted, but it's not beyond possible and I'm working on the assumption that Hulleys have excellent records in that regards based on the lack of any previous PIs for those issues

I accept that, but again in my time in the industry the Local Authority was there to aid and assist, but to do so equally, so if one company is struggling due to poor commercial decisions it is not the role of the LA to offer practical support/favours to that operator they don't provide to other operators on their patch.

Are you suggesting the Traffic Commissioner has failed to follow their own rules by granting short notice dispensation for something that shouldn’t qualify?