Hulley's of Baslow

[m79900]

This leaves Hulleys in the (hopefully temporary) situation of having no serviceable double deckers. 5 is OTR for MOT, and 16 / 22 for repairs.

Do any Hulleys routes really require deckers though? I can't imagine it's a big problem.

 

[Teapot42]

Do any Hulleys routes really require deckers though? I can't imagine it's a big problem.

The school services to Lady Manners need one. And, with Easter coming up, the 272 and even 257 can get busy at the weekend.

 

[Trainman40083]

From what I've been told everyone seems to be OK, although that's very much second hand info.

It's been in service, however they've had issues for a long time getting it to track, indeed it's a recurring problem with Hulleys E400s. I suspect the ticket machine is located such that the antennas are blocked / shielded.

It was in service, on the 170. The normal route goes under an 11'3 bridge, however when there is a double decker on the route it is supposed to take the slightly longer way which avoids this bridge. Signage near the bridge isn't great and there is no obvious overheight warning system.

This leaves Hulleys in the (hopefully temporary) situation of having no serviceable double deckers. 5 is OTR for MOT, and 16 / 22 for repairs.

I thought 16 was off the fleet now.. Tax expired end of December 2024, and MOT expires in about 6 weeks

 

[Teapot42]

I thought 16 was off the fleet now.. Tax expired end of December 2024, and MOT expires in about 6 weeks

Sorry, all I know is that it is away for repairs. I believe there were discussions at one point whether it was worth repairing but they've seemingly decided it is.

 

[zkyx02]

Signage near the bridge isn't great and there is no obvious overheight warning system.

Do they not have the Ticketer warning system?

 

[Teapot42]

Do they not have the Ticketer warning system?

It seems not. I'm not sure how much extra that costs over the base price of the system.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

Do they not have the Ticketer warning system?

Wouldn’t have worked with no GPS on the ticket machine.

 

[mayneway]

Do they not have the Ticketer warning system?

It’s not the best system!
TFGM have it on all Bee Network buses now and it’s useless. Majority of the time it goes off once you’ve passed the bridge . I certainly wouldn’t rely on it.

 

[Trainman40083]

It’s not the best system!
TFGM have it on all Bee Network buses now and it’s useless. Majority of the time it goes off once you’ve passed the bridge . I certainly wouldn’t rely on it.

There is nothing better than using ones eyes and knowing the height of your vehicle

 

[Teapot42]

There is nothing better than using ones eyes and knowing the height of your vehicle

Isn't a large point of the complex railway signal systems to minimise danger when the driver is distracted or makes a mistake?
Of course you ideally don't make those mistakes in the first place, but no matter what you are driving, technology can help mitigate errors.

 

[pjnathanail]

Isn't a large point of the complex railway signal systems to minimise danger when the driver is distracted or makes a mistake?
Of course you ideally don't make those mistakes in the first place, but no matter what you are driving, technology can help mitigate errors.

The difference there is that railway signals do not routinely show misleading indications which need to be ignored - and where a system "fails safe" and a red signal is shown even if the line ahead is clear, there is a procedure in place for the driver to talk to the signaller and gain authorisation to pass a signal at danger, rather than just driving through the red. Whereas, in the bus example, the road restriction alerts activate when a bus is proximal to a low bridge, even if the bus will not pass under it, meaning the driver often has to ignore the alerts. This dampens their sensitivity to the alert, risking them ignoring it when it is a genuine warning too.

In short, a technology / warning system is a good thing in principal, but only if it is designed in such a way that it cannot / must not / does not need to be ignored during normal operations.

 

[Trainman40083]

The difference there is that railway signals do not routinely show misleading indications which need to be ignored - and where a system "fails safe" and a red signal is shown even if the line ahead is clear, there is a procedure in place for the driver to talk to the signaller and gain authorisation to pass a signal at danger, rather than just driving through the red. Whereas, in the bus example, the road restriction alerts activate when a bus is proximal to a low bridge, even if the bus will not pass under it, meaning the driver often has to ignore the alerts. This dampens their sensitivity to the alert, risking them ignoring it when it is a genuine warning too.

In short, a technology / warning system is a good thing in principal, but only if it is designed in such a way that it cannot / must not / does not need to be ignored during normal operations.

A nice activation of railway TPWS, bringing a train to a halt, is certainly very different to a bleep on a bus (or whatever it is)... Driver also has to sign the route, so that they know where they are, even in the dark.

 

[JKP]

Why use a mix of single and double deck vehicles on a route with a low bridge? Surely the route should always follow the route taken that the dd can use safely?

 

[Teapot42]

The difference there is that railway signals do not routinely show misleading indications which need to be ignored

They don't because that simply wouldn't be tolerated these days (although it was more common when permissive working was more widespread).

However, my point is that railway safety incorporates significant technology, so saying bus drivers don't need technology and should get it right regardless is a very odd view for a 'trainman'.

In short, a technology / warning system is a good thing in principal, but only if it is designed in such a way that it cannot / must not / does not need to be ignored during normal operations.

Yes, and that's the point, if a fraction of the effort that has gone in to railway safety over the years was put in to bus safety then the systems would be a lot more reliable. If the system doesn't work, fix it, rather than expecting drivers to be perfect.

Why use a mix of single and double deck vehicles on a route with a low bridge? Surely the route should always follow the route taken that the dd can use safely?

I'd agree to be honest - while altering the route would mean one street would then lose service, it's probably better from a planning point of view.

 

[derbybusdepot]

They don't because that simply wouldn't be tolerated these days (although it was more common when permissive working was more widespread).

However, my point is that railway safety incorporates significant technology, so saying bus drivers don't need technology and should get it right regardless is a very odd view for a 'trainman'.

Yes, and that's the point, if a fraction of the effort that has gone in to railway safety over the years was put in to bus safety then the systems would be a lot more reliable. If the system doesn't work, fix it, rather than expecting drivers to be perfect.


I'd agree to be honest - while altering the route would mean one street would then lose service, it's probably better from a planning point of view.

Or just don't use deckers on that route? Many bridge strikes happen when buses are diverted, or running empty off route. It is a little bizarre to have a bus route that varies dependant on the vehicle used on the day - I wouldn't like to have to explain the reasoning!

 

[IamTrainsYT]

Services 55 and 170 will no longer serve Piccadilly Road.

 

[Teapot42]

Or just don't use deckers on that route? Many bridge strikes happen when buses are diverted, or running empty off route. It is a little bizarre to have a bus route that varies dependant on the vehicle used on the day - I wouldn't like to have to explain the reasoning!

The 170 needs the capacity. Hard to tell as it wasn't tracking, but it also appears one Saturday evening 170 trip comes off a 272.

I'd agree it makes more sense to just avoid it completely as even before this it had caused confusion. I was once waiting at the station in the evening for a 170 and the driver must have thought he couldn't access the station at all with a 'decker as he just ran straight to New Beetwell Street.

Services 55 and 170 will no longer serve Piccadilly Road.

I'm surprised about the 55 as I don't think I've ever seen a 'decker on it. But pax numbers on Picc Road appear very low.

 

[Trainman40083]

The 170 needs the capacity. Hard to tell as it wasn't tracking, but it also appears one Saturday evening 170 trip comes off a 272.

I'd agree it makes more sense to just avoid it completely as even before this it had caused confusion. I was once waiting at the station in the evening for a 170 and the driver must have thought he couldn't access the station at all with a 'decker as he just ran straight to New Beetwell Street.


I'm surprised about the 55 as I don't think I've ever seen a 'decker on it. But pax numbers on Picc Road appear very low.

I would think the extra time for a double decker (certainly at busier times) to "avoid" the low bridge, would be about 10 minutes. Certainly more from Calow, through the town centre to the railway station, then New Beetwell Street.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

I'm surprised about the 55 as I don't think I've ever seen a 'decker on it. But pax numbers on Picc Road appear very low.

Theres a low bridge in Morton that stops deckers being used on 55s. The route was changed just for consistency so theres no reason for any hulleys buses to be going under the bridge in service, thus eliminating any chance of a repeat.

 

[Russel]

Why use a mix of single and double deck vehicles on a route with a low bridge? Surely the route should always follow the route taken that the dd can use safely?

Good point there, it was clearly an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Killingworth]

Isn't there something in the agreements to operate the 272 that it must be a double decker - and now compliant with Sheffield's CAZ regulations?

 

[derbybusdepot]

Good point there, it was clearly an accident waiting to happen.

So a decker was always used on certain trips, and the route/timetable was different for those to avoid the bridge? Or a decker was just on there on random trips?

 

[philthetube]

It was in service, on the 170. The normal route goes under an 11'3 bridge, however when there is a double decker on the route it is supposed to take the slightly longer way which avoids this bridge. Signage near the bridge isn't great and there is no obvious overheight warning system.

this sound like an accident waiting to happen, any sort of safety case would not allow this

 

[Russel]

So a decker was always used on certain trips, and the route/timetable was different for those to avoid the bridge? Or a decker was just on there on random trips?

No idea, I was commenting on the information posted in this thread that suggests the route varies depending on the bus type...

If this is correct, then I'm surprised said incident didn't happen sooner.

 

[derbybusdepot]

No idea, I was commenting on the information posted in this thread that suggests the route varies depending on the bus type...

If this is correct, then I'm surprised said incident didn't happen sooner.

Sorry it was a general reply to the thread, not just to your comment that I quoted. My mistake.

At least no one was injured, and if the routes are now being altered to avoid said low bridge, it looks as though swift action has been taken to avoid a repeat occurrence.

 

[Teapot42]

I would think the extra time for a double decker (certainly at busier times) to "avoid" the low bridge, would be about 10 minutes. Certainly more from Calow, through the town centre to the railway station, then New Beetwell Street.

Yes, I wonder if the council are still planning the new road up through Travis Perkins yard, or if, like most positive improvements they've proposed, it has been dropped.

As you say, from the railway station it's not that much different, although having to turn in to Spital Lane rather than cross from Piccadilly adds a small delay to both the bus and traffic going up Hady Hill. The other way does add a few minutes even when things aren't busy, but in the peaks it's not a good route at all.

It's a shame they dropped the 84 to be honest, as having the 170 just going to the station then the 84 handling Hady and Spital was a better solution IMO.

Theres a low bridge in Morton that stops deckers being used on 55s. The route was changed just for consistency so theres no reason for any hulleys buses to be going under the bridge in service, thus eliminating any chance of a repeat.

Ah, that makes sense. I'd argue that someone needs to go under the bridge if you want to serve Piccadilly, and the 55 would be the most obvious if it can't have deckers for other reasons.

Isn't there something in the agreements to operate the 272 that it must be a double decker - and now compliant with Sheffield's CAZ regulations?

If there is then it's frequently not met. It's common for the Evoras to be on that route.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

I'd argue that someone needs to go under the bridge if you want to serve Piccadilly, and the 55 would be the most obvious if it can't have deckers for other reasons.

Nobody really uses the bus on that small stretch of road and even if they want to, theres a bus stop at the end that will now be served in place

If there is then it's frequently not met. It's common for the Evoras to be on that route.

The Evoras hold more passengers (95) as opposed to the deckers (80)

 

[ChrisC]

The school services to Lady Manners need one. And, with Easter coming up, the 272 and even 257 can get busy at the weekend.

The 170 which leaves Bakewell for Chesterfield at 1600 and comes from Lady Manners School isn‘t a pleasant journey for day visitors returning home from Bakewell. There wasn’t a problem when buses between Bakewell and Chesterfield were more frequent because it could easily be avoided by getting the 1530 or 1630. Now it’s the only bus at just the time people want to return from a day out. Terrible on busy summer days.

 

[Hyebone]

The Evoras hold more passengers (95) as opposed to the deckers (80)

That decker isn't holding any passengers currently

 

[Goldfish62]

The Evoras hold more passengers (95) as opposed to the deckers (80)

Plated capacities are often wildly exaggerated.