Hulley's of Baslow

[zkyx02]

this (under the Don't Be Stranded heading) is commendable (although it's Derbyshire County Council who should be commended):

Many operators do this though, Central Connect & Trent Barton from the tip of my tongue.

 

[tocguard]

I have been viewing this thread for a couple of weeks with interest. It is apparent there is a good mix of people here who either do, or don't have a good insight into Hulleys and the way it conducts operations. It may also be apparent to some of you what the attitude and respect of management is towards, let's just say anyone but themselves. Up to now, I have refrained from commenting but thought it prudent to reply to some of the remarks, particularly seeing as there is, perhaps, some rose-tinted views being banded about. There are some things which I will not be posting or some names I will not be revealing. It is, however, considerably easy to find out some of what I refer to, as I already know a lot of stuff is doing the rounds on various platforms and group chats.

I was persuaded to make some comments based on several reports I have received of continual unhealthy concerned obsession with particular groups from Hulleys management. For some time there has been strange statements, usually derogatory, directed towards user groups, enthusiasts and other general authorities etc. There is normally no need, rhyme or reason for these bizarre, overly concerned or quite frankly, unkind, unnecessary and unsubstantiated remarks. For some of you, this will come as no surprise, having seen previous examples of this sort of thing passed about before. The latest comes in the form of the January edition of the Hulleys newsletter. Whilst I'm obviously not going to post it, I already know it is doing the rounds. Contained within is, once again, several very strange comments made about particular groups, enthusiasts in general and rather specifically, train drivers. Whilst I may fit into that category, it looks as if the management believe that this is a forum for train drivers, mistakenly believing railforums is perhaps a closed industry forum. There is reference to train drivers as well as bus enthusiasts spreading rumours online. From my observations, I can't see anyone on here is doing anything but speculating. It does however seem to translate to Hulleys management that it is offensive rumours, worthy of writing about in the latest newsletter. This obviously is an incorrect observation and interpretation, but one in which muddies the repute of certain groups to Hulleys staff which is, if anything, rather sad. I just wanted to make people aware that what they write here is clearly being monitored by Hulleys management and either misunderstood or purposely used to deflect against real issues. Either way, as someone who is a train driver, but has absolutely no concern for Hulleys anymore, let alone have any reason to feel I would need to create rumours here, or anywhere else for that matter, it is very strange to read that a bus company management think i/we do. For what it's worth, I, like many others had a fondness for Hulleys up until some years ago, but in all honesty I lost interest when it started to become less than professional and letting people down including those close to me. At one time I could tell you what the fleet comprised of, its fleet number and reg but I couldn't even tell you any of that anymore. That said, I still take interest in transport in general but given the management style seen of late from Hulleys, they are far from deserving of the attention they believe they are receiving. I believe we all work to achieve a common goal and that is to provide the best service we can, in whatever sector we work. That is what I do day in day out without feeling the need to have regular digs at people who may otherwise see benefit in complaining about the industry, the company, my role or whatever it is that makes them feel better in themselves. I do my job to the best of my ability and go home. Any other change or management comes from above. There are companies who certainly have better management than others and that clearly shows. For us little people, we have no input on that but for the end user, the passenger, we can only hope that poorly performing companies or management are given the boot. We exist to provide a service and as front line teams, that is what we do. Beyond that is out of our hands.

Hulley's have been summoned to a Public Inquiry on 21st January.

Source: letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to the MP for Derbyshire Dales.

I can't post a screenshot of the letter due to Forum rules.

Are you able to direct where this letter can be found/viewed? I have been forwarded and seen the section in the N+P document but no such letter, thus far.

Depends what the specific issues are. Section 17 is cited in virtually all PI’s as it covers the basic ‘rules’ which operators are expected to adhere to when granted a licence. The outcome will depend on the specific issues and their responses.

As referred to above, the newsletter gives indication that the management believe they have nothing to worry about, citing that Stagecoach Chesterfield in the immediate area are much worse. The penny doesn't seem to drop that services of 2 hourly or worse absolutely HAVE to operate. Comparing yourself to an operator who operates much more frequently and where the effect of a missing bus is much less or where for the vast majority, other options are available is contemptible at best for the respect shown to passengers that have to rely on the sparse unreliable service offered by Hulleys. One can only hope that TCs see straight through such tosh.

How are you ever going to increase bus usage with that attitude? I know people who live on the 172 route who regularly can't get to jobs and appointments on time.

I have family and friends that are no longer able to use this service after it was reduced to 2.5 hourly. The times changed throughout the course of the day and for the vulnerable and/or older generation including my 90 year old great Aunt, it is simply not reliable enough to risk a 5 hour gap in service when one doesn't run, which is unfortunately still common.

The challenge for rural public transport is that the number of people needing to use it has fallen in many places to below the level where a bus is the sensible solution.

But while aggregate demand may be low, those people who do need the bus have a real and important need, which is barely met by existing services even when they run to time.

A child on the Hulleys 172 route (Matlock-Bakewell) through my village had better have parents with a car and the time to give them a lift if they want to do any post-16 education that isn't offered by the secondary schools in Matlock or Bakewell because the first bus leaves too late to get them to colleges in Chesterfield, Buxton, or Derby. Anyone living along the route looking for full-time employment is limited to a standard-hours job in either Matlock or Bakewell: first arrival and last departure leave too little margin to venture further. An outpatients appointment at the local District Hospital (on the eastern edge of Chesterfield) might only need 94 minutes on three buses (vs 30 mins by car), if you happen to land a 1045 appointment and all the connections work. But if you have a 1400 appointment, you'll need to leave my village at 1045: 195 minutes of travel and waiting. And hope you are finished in time to catch the last possible return trip of the day at 1559 - again three buses, with just four minutes of leeway for one of the changes.

Despite £47m of BSIP money, Derbyshire CC (DCC) don't appear to have come up with any viable future model for meeting sparse rural demand, nor have I seen any encouraging results from other authorities. If Hulleys were to cease operation, I am not at all sure what DCC would be able to afford in their place.

Is everyone involved in procuring rural public transport just hoping to muddle through, praying that the current precarious provision won't collapse until they have retired?

I used to live on this route and still have family and friends in the area. As a kid I would use the service regularly, I used the evening services too, that no longer exist, on a fairly regular basis too. I do believe the hours of operation are a barrier to more people using the service, but that's not something specific to this route. It would be nice to see standalone ad-hoc tenders issued to provide additional journeys covering several routes particularly in the evening, even if only Fri/Sat evenings when they are more likely to be used. This is something I've suggested be looked at as a use of BSIP funding. There are many routes where the frequency is unattractive or even unusable for most people. If an additional journey or 2 were able to be provided, it could well mean someone uses a bus earlier in the day as they would have an option of a later bus to return instead of snubbing the whole idea because the option simply isn't there. There are also the opportunities with even a single evening bus one way or the other to make gong out affordable as opposed to needing a taxi both ways or hassling others for a lift. Indeed, when Hulleys ran the 2315 journey on the 172, it did carry a good handful of passengers on a regular basis particularly at the weekend, in the week not so much. I believe that is the downfall of funding services all week that are only likely to be used/of use a few of those days per week.

Similarly to what you have suggested, I was one of those kids that went to college and the 172 timetable did not allow for me to be able to get to any college in the nearby vicinity. I was fortunate that my mum was able to drive me to the nearest bus stop the college bus would pick up at on her way to work. Ironically, she only worked in Bakewell, to fairly normal hours but was too unable to take the bus to work as it simply didn't arrive early enough.

The 172 is a Derbyshire County Council contract so it is the Council who have decided the level of service not Hulleys.

Please be assured that Hulleys have most definitely levied changes including the many reductions to this route mid way through contract terms, quoting various reasons for wanting to do so. Some of these reasons were supposed increased reliability, as well as reducing services to take on the 80 for example. This puts DCC in a difficult position and have seemingly usually agreed to such changes, naively believing it is for the greater good. The longer term state as we are all aware of, is much different.

The problem that Hulleys have created for the 172 is that they have systematically tailored the timetable to not suit other bidders besides themselves. As was always the case, the route since pretty much forever has had 2 buses operating at any one time. This provided a decent level of service. What Hulleys have done is effectively made it a 1 bus operation through the middle of the day, but seeing as it requires 2 buses at school times as the route serves 3 schools and peak times buses are at either end, it logistically isn't something other operators can easily take on. At last tender round, it did create interest from 2 other companies besides Hulleys, and it must be said that they were the least economical bid of the 3. Unfortunately one of the operators found themselves in a driver shortage situation, the other appeared to be testing the water and any other potential operators put off by the complication of the timetable. The easiest option would be for DCC to retender the route as a full time 2 bus service to attract the most interest. A FOI request revealed that the cost paid to Hulleys for the 172 was in excess of £205k per year, which considering the level of service being offered, is extremely poor value for money. The situation has quite literally allowed Hulleys to offer the most minimal service that is probably possible, for the most money probably possible. I will not name the identity of the correspondence I had with someone high up at DCC, but it was quite clear they personally were particularly fed up of Hulleys excuses and that also in the case of the 172, they felt the price being paid was the equivalent of what should be a much better service offering and in comparison to other services was effectively a sum being paid for 2 buses operating all day long.

For those that believe DCC are that proactive at protecting and seting service levels, take a look at contracted services that Hulleys do not run and hl never have. What you will find is that the timetables are probably unchanged or very similar to what was in place a decade or two ago. Changes are usually led by operator persuasion. One of the worst examples of Hulleys running down a service is what is left of the 63. When Hulleys first got their hands on the 63/64 from TM, it was a 2 bus working, clockface hourly journeys from 7am to 7pm. Many route changes, bodges, messing about and now whats left is a very poor excuse of a service that is practically unusable. The 172 has been going the same way. The 178 to Over Haddon and Monyash was withdrawn to suit Hulleys at the time. If the management were able to sit still and operate a consistently reliable and stable network as per the previous management, it is likely the company would have a much better reputation, operate much more reliably, be able to retain staff and have kept a steady flow of tender money coming in from DCC just like every other operator does. Instead, no one knows what will change next week, staff leave as quick as they arrive, the service levels never improve, only reduce whilst the management continually want to spread the company as thinly as possible over poorly thought out new ventures. The end result is huge passenger suffering and dissatisfaction, a bad rep and a jeopardised future.

Many operators do this though, Central Connect & Trent Barton from the tip of my tongue.

Yes, nothing to commend companies for at all, as stated, it's a condition of the BSIP agreement that DCC and the operators signed off. If anything, it gives a greater excuse not to run a last bus.

 

[pjnathanail]

I have been viewing this thread for a couple of weeks with interest. It is apparent there is a good mix of people here who either do, or don't have a good insight into Hulleys and the way it conducts operations. It may also be apparent to some of you what the attitude and respect of management is towards, let's just say anyone but themselves. Up to now, I have refrained from commenting but thought it prudent to reply to some of the remarks, particularly seeing as there is, perhaps, some rose-tinted views being banded about. There are some things which I will not be posting or some names I will not be revealing. It is, however, considerably easy to find out some of what I refer to, as I already know a lot of stuff is doing the rounds on various platforms and group chats.

I was persuaded to make some comments based on several reports I have received of continual unhealthy concerned obsession with particular groups from Hulleys management. For some time there has been strange statements, usually derogatory, directed towards user groups, enthusiasts and other general authorities etc. There is normally no need, rhyme or reason for these bizarre, overly concerned or quite frankly, unkind, unnecessary and unsubstantiated remarks. For some of you, this will come as no surprise, having seen previous examples of this sort of thing passed about before. The latest comes in the form of the January edition of the Hulleys newsletter. Whilst I'm obviously not going to post it, I already know it is doing the rounds. Contained within is, once again, several very strange comments made about particular groups, enthusiasts in general and rather specifically, train drivers. Whilst I may fit into that category, it looks as if the management believe that this is a forum for train drivers, mistakenly believing railforums is perhaps a closed industry forum. There is reference to train drivers as well as bus enthusiasts spreading rumours online. From my observations, I can't see anyone on here is doing anything but speculating. It does however seem to translate to Hulleys management that it is offensive rumours, worthy of writing about in the latest newsletter. This obviously is an incorrect observation and interpretation, but one in which muddies the repute of certain groups to Hulleys staff which is, if anything, rather sad. I just wanted to make people aware that what they write here is clearly being monitored by Hulleys management and either misunderstood or purposely used to deflect against real issues. Either way, as someone who is a train driver, but has absolutely no concern for Hulleys anymore, let alone have any reason to feel I would need to create rumours here, or anywhere else for that matter, it is very strange to read that a bus company management think i/we do. For what it's worth, I, like many others had a fondness for Hulleys up until some years ago, but in all honesty I lost interest when it started to become less than professional and letting people down including those close to me. At one time I could tell you what the fleet comprised of, its fleet number and reg but I couldn't even tell you any of that anymore. That said, I still take interest in transport in general but given the management style seen of late from Hulleys, they are far from deserving of the attention they believe they are receiving. I believe we all work to achieve a common goal and that is to provide the best service we can, in whatever sector we work. That is what I do day in day out without feeling the need to have regular digs at people who may otherwise see benefit in complaining about the industry, the company, my role or whatever it is that makes them feel better in themselves. I do my job to the best of my ability and go home. Any other change or management comes from above. There are companies who certainly have better management than others and that clearly shows. For us little people, we have no input on that but for the end user, the passenger, we can only hope that poorly performing companies or management are given the boot. We exist to provide a service and as front line teams, that is what we do. Beyond that is out of our hands.


Are you able to direct where this letter can be found/viewed? I have been forwarded and seen the section in the N+P document but no such letter, thus far.


As referred to above, the newsletter gives indication that the management believe they have nothing to worry about, citing that Stagecoach Chesterfield in the immediate area are much worse. The penny doesn't seem to drop that services of 2 hourly or worse absolutely HAVE to operate. Comparing yourself to an operator who operates much more frequently and where the effect of a missing bus is much less or where for the vast majority, other options are available is contemptible at best for the respect shown to passengers that have to rely on the sparse unreliable service offered by Hulleys. One can only hope that TCs see straight through such tosh.


I have family and friends that are no longer able to use this service after it was reduced to 2.5 hourly. The times changed throughout the course of the day and for the vulnerable and/or older generation including my 90 year old great Aunt, it is simply not reliable enough to risk a 5 hour gap in service when one doesn't run, which is unfortunately still common.


I used to live on this route and still have family and friends in the area. As a kid I would use the service regularly, I used the evening services too, that no longer exist, on a fairly regular basis too. I do believe the hours of operation are a barrier to more people using the service, but that's not something specific to this route. It would be nice to see standalone ad-hoc tenders issued to provide additional journeys covering several routes particularly in the evening, even if only Fri/Sat evenings when they are more likely to be used. This is something I've suggested be looked at as a use of BSIP funding. There are many routes where the frequency is unattractive or even unusable for most people. If an additional journey or 2 were able to be provided, it could well mean someone uses a bus earlier in the day as they would have an option of a later bus to return instead of snubbing the whole idea because the option simply isn't there. There are also the opportunities with even a single evening bus one way or the other to make gong out affordable as opposed to needing a taxi both ways or hassling others for a lift. Indeed, when Hulleys ran the 2315 journey on the 172, it did carry a good handful of passengers on a regular basis particularly at the weekend, in the week not so much. I believe that is the downfall of funding services all week that are only likely to be used/of use a few of those days per week.

Similarly to what you have suggested, I was one of those kids that went to college and the 172 timetable did not allow for me to be able to get to any college in the nearby vicinity. I was fortunate that my mum was able to drive me to the nearest bus stop the college bus would pick up at on her way to work. Ironically, she only worked in Bakewell, to fairly normal hours but was too unable to take the bus to work as it simply didn't arrive early enough.


Please be assured that Hulleys have most definitely levied changes including the many reductions to this route mid way through contract terms, quoting various reasons for wanting to do so. Some of these reasons were supposed increased reliability, as well as reducing services to take on the 80 for example. This puts DCC in a difficult position and have seemingly usually agreed to such changes, naively believing it is for the greater good. The longer term state as we are all aware of, is much different.

The problem that Hulleys have created for the 172 is that they have systematically tailored the timetable to not suit other bidders besides themselves. As was always the case, the route since pretty much forever has had 2 buses operating at any one time. This provided a decent level of service. What Hulleys have done is effectively made it a 1 bus operation through the middle of the day, but seeing as it requires 2 buses at school times as the route serves 3 schools and peak times buses are at either end, it logistically isn't something other operators can easily take on. At last tender round, it did create interest from 2 other companies besides Hulleys, and it must be said that they were the least economical bid of the 3. Unfortunately one of the operators found themselves in a driver shortage situation, the other appeared to be testing the water and any other potential operators put off by the complication of the timetable. The easiest option would be for DCC to retender the route as a full time 2 bus service to attract the most interest. A FOI request revealed that the cost paid to Hulleys for the 172 was in excess of £205k per year, which considering the level of service being offered, is extremely poor value for money. The situation has quite literally allowed Hulleys to offer the most minimal service that is probably possible, for the most money probably possible. I will not name the identity of the correspondence I had with someone high up at DCC, but it was quite clear they personally were particularly fed up of Hulleys excuses and that also in the case of the 172, they felt the price being paid was the equivalent of what should be a much better service offering and in comparison to other services was effectively a sum being paid for 2 buses operating all day long.

For those that believe DCC are that proactive at protecting and seting service levels, take a look at contracted services that Hulleys do not run and hl never have. What you will find is that the timetables are probably unchanged or very similar to what was in place a decade or two ago. Changes are usually led by operator persuasion. One of the worst examples of Hulleys running down a service is what is left of the 63. When Hulleys first got their hands on the 63/64 from TM, it was a 2 bus working, clockface hourly journeys from 7am to 7pm. Many route changes, bodges, messing about and now whats left is a very poor excuse of a service that is practically unusable. The 172 has been going the same way. The 178 to Over Haddon and Monyash was withdrawn to suit Hulleys at the time. If the management were able to sit still and operate a consistently reliable and stable network as per the previous management, it is likely the company would have a much better reputation, operate much more reliably, be able to retain staff and have kept a steady flow of tender money coming in from DCC just like every other operator does. Instead, no one knows what will change next week, staff leave as quick as they arrive, the service levels never improve, only reduce whilst the management continually want to spread the company as thinly as possible over poorly thought out new ventures. The end result is huge passenger suffering and dissatisfaction, a bad rep and a jeopardised future.


Yes, nothing to commend companies for at all, as stated, it's a condition of the BSIP agreement that DCC and the operators signed off. If anything, it gives a greater excuse not to run a last bus.

Just a small point of clarification on your very final sentence. The Central Connect scheme is network-wide (covering their East Midlands, East of England and Essex & Herts operations), and pre-dates the Derbyshire BSIP scheme. It also covers all Central Connect cancellations, not just last buses. Similarly, although Trent Barton do not formalise their taxi refund scheme in the same was that Central Connect do, it also pre-dates the Derbyshire BSIP scheme, covers their entire network, and covers all cancellations, insofar as I have had success with obtaining refunds from customer services for taxis taken when all kinds of buses were cancelled, including ones operated by their Kinchbus subsidiary in Loughborough. Trent Barton of course also have their formalised no quibble money back guarantee scheme as well, which is unique in the industry and very positive. So those two operators in particular go well beyond the BSIP commitment.

 

[Goldfish62]

Are you able to direct where this letter can be found/viewed? I have been forwarded and seen the section in the N+P document but no such letter, thus far.

If you're in the Derbyshire Dales constituency I'm sure the MP will be able to send you a copy.

As I said, I can't post the letter here because quoting the text from what would be a screenshot is not possible due to Forum rules on accessibility. However, what it basically says is that in response to complaints received from users the DVSA conducted an investigation into Hulley's services on May 2024 and that together with further evidence has led the TC to summon the company to a public inquiry. Due to it now being a legal matter no further details of the case are being given out prior to the hearing.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

...A FOI request revealed that the cost paid to Hulleys for the 172 was in excess of £205k per year...

Is the answer to this request in the public domain? If so, a link would be really useful.

 

[tocguard]

Is the answer to this request in the public domain? If so, a link would be really useful.

Unfortunately it is not something publicly published, such as on a Web page. I have copied the relevant wording from the council reply below, which was part of a three-fold question:

Please see the below Freedom of Information Act 2000 response:

1. Cost 201,284.20 per year.

Start date 02/10/22

Review date 02/10/25

Youlegrave – Middleton section (route 171) de minimis payment of £4,400 is still applicable, review date October 2025.

 You are of course welcome to make any FOI request to a Public authority, spending public money.

Rather interestingly the impending service changes lists the reversal of the 178 Shutts Lane circular service being absorbed into the 173 Castleton service. I can't see that it makes any operational difference whatsoever and in theory should be the easiest service to provide. Without this being misconstrued as spreading rumours, one wonders if this is DCC suggesting the 173 be returned to its previous format ready for retender as they are due this year. The only complication is the newly elected Mayor for whom will assume responsibility for bus services. At this stage it isn't clear what direction this will go in but early days could be a reasonable assumption individual councils will continue to administer tenders, particularly those due this year, until a plan for transport is put in place buses. Claire Ward is however, aware of the issues with the 172 service specifically, as well as Hulleys in general, as a result of the council needing to communicate with the Mayor's office.

 

[Trainman40083]

Unfortunately it is not something publicly published, such as on a Web page. I have copied the relevant wording from the council reply below, which was part of a three-fold question:

Please see the below Freedom of Information Act 2000 response:

1. Cost 201,284.20 per year.

Start date 02/10/22

Review date 02/10/25

Youlegrave – Middleton section (route 171) de minimis payment of £4,400 is still applicable, review date October 2025.

 You are of course welcome to make any FOI request to a Public authority, spending public money.

Rather interestingly the impending service changes lists the reversal of the 178 Shutts Lane circular service being absorbed into the 173 Castleton service. I can't see that it makes any operational difference whatsoever and in theory should be the easiest service to provide. Without this being misconstrued as spreading rumours, one wonders if this is DCC suggesting the 173 be returned to its previous format ready for retender as they are due this year. The only complication is the newly elected Mayor for whom will assume responsibility for bus services. At this stage it isn't clear what direction this will go in but early days could be a reasonable assumption individual councils will continue to administer tenders, particularly those due this year, until a plan for transport is put in place buses. Claire Ward is however, aware of the issues with the 172 service specifically, as well as Hulleys in general, as a result of the council needing to communicate with the Mayor's office.

Did the Shutts Lane service not once link into the 170 service?

 

[tocguard]

Did the Shutts Lane service not once link into the 170 service?

Correct, yes it has been both historically a 178 loop with many journeys then continuing as a 170 but also more recently just a 170 throughout with the 178 number dropped. The Shutts Lane service is commercial, as is much of the 170 (evenings/Sundays excepted).

Returning the tendered 173 to its previous format is why I'm thinking it is DCC untying this arrangement.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

Unfortunately it is not something publicly published, such as on a Web page.

Thanks for the info. For FOI future requests, I would strongly recommend WhatDoTheyKnow - they do a great job of handling the to and fro of FOI requests, and requests made via their site (and responses) are findable by others.

 

[Goldfish62]

Unfortunately it is not something publicly published, such as on a Web page. I have copied the relevant wording from the council reply below, which was part of a three-fold question:

Please see the below Freedom of Information Act 2000 response:

It's a legal requirement that organisations proactively publish all FOI responses.

 

[tocguard]

It's a legal requirement that organisations proactively publish all FOI responses.

I'm not sure, maybe you know more than me about that. If that's true then it will be published somewhere. Do you know where it will be then I can link it unless you are able to find it?

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm not sure, maybe you know more than me about that. If that's true then it will be published somewhere. Do you know where it will be then I can link it unless you are able to find it?

Yes, I can assure you that it's a legal obligation to publish all responses.

In this case the usual place you'd expect to find responses would be on the council website.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Derbyshire cc have released a summary of the Hulleys changes

 

[Llandudno]

It’s now 7.10pm on Thursday 9 January and all these bus times/routes changing from this coming Monday 13 January.

There are no details of any of the new timetables on either the Hulley’s or Derbyshire CC websites!

In fact the DCC timetable section of the website is still advertising the £2 bus fare cap!

 

[Trainman40083]

It’s now 7.10pm on Thursday 9 January and all these bus times/routes changing from this coming Monday 13 January.

There are no details of any of the new timetables on either the Hulley’s or Derbyshire CC websites!

In fact the DCC timetable section of the website is still advertising the £2 bus fare cap!

If you go into forthcoming bus service changes on the DCC, they are listed as is the Stagecoach 48.

 

[Llandudno]

If you go into forthcoming bus service changes on the DCC, they are listed as is the Stagecoach 48.

As far as I can see in the forthcoming changes section on DCC website it lists which services are changing, but there are no timetables, so pretty useless really…!

 

[Trainman40083]

As far as I can see in the forthcoming changes section on DCC website it lists which services are changing, but there are no timetables, so pretty useless really…!

Maybe because it was very short notice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As far as I can see in the forthcoming changes section on DCC website it lists which services are changing, but there are no timetables, so pretty useless really…!

Short notice and Christmas.

 

[RT4038]

The problem that Hulleys have created for the 172 is that they have systematically tailored the timetable to not suit other bidders besides themselves. As was always the case, the route since pretty much forever has had 2 buses operating at any one time. This provided a decent level of service. What Hulleys have done is effectively made it a 1 bus operation through the middle of the day, but seeing as it requires 2 buses at school times as the route serves 3 schools and peak times buses are at either end, it logistically isn't something other operators can easily take on. At last tender round, it did create interest from 2 other companies besides Hulleys, and it must be said that they were the least economical bid of the 3. Unfortunately one of the operators found themselves in a driver shortage situation, the other appeared to be testing the water and any other potential operators put off by the complication of the timetable. The easiest option would be for DCC to retender the route as a full time 2 bus service to attract the most interest. A FOI request revealed that the cost paid to Hulleys for the 172 was in excess of £205k per year, which considering the level of service being offered, is extremely poor value for money. The situation has quite literally allowed Hulleys to offer the most minimal service that is probably possible, for the most money probably possible. I will not name the identity of the correspondence I had with someone high up at DCC, but it was quite clear they personally were particularly fed up of Hulleys excuses and that also in the case of the 172, they felt the price being paid was the equivalent of what should be a much better service offering and in comparison to other services was effectively a sum being paid for 2 buses operating all day long.

I think you may be a little out of touch here. In my county of residence (not that far from Derbyshire, and fairly similar), a bus running 7am-7pm Mon-Sat would cost about £200k per annum (excluding fares). The other bus, working in morning and afternoon Mon-Sat at least £125k pa, if not slightly more. Total £325k per annum. I don't know the 172 well, aside from its rurality, but £120k pa (£392 per day) in fares/reimbursements sounds pretty good to me, and £205k price from Hulleys is not unreasonable.

I used to live on this route and still have family and friends in the area. As a kid I would use the service regularly, I used the evening services too, that no longer exist, on a fairly regular basis too. I do believe the hours of operation are a barrier to more people using the service, but that's not something specific to this route. It would be nice to see standalone ad-hoc tenders issued to provide additional journeys covering several routes particularly in the evening, even if only Fri/Sat evenings when they are more likely to be used. This is something I've suggested be looked at as a use of BSIP funding. There are many routes where the frequency is unattractive or even unusable for most people. If an additional journey or 2 were able to be provided, it could well mean someone uses a bus earlier in the day as they would have an option of a later bus to return instead of snubbing the whole idea because the option simply isn't there. There are also the opportunities with even a single evening bus one way or the other to make gong out affordable as opposed to needing a taxi both ways or hassling others for a lift. Indeed, when Hulleys ran the 2315 journey on the 172, it did carry a good handful of passengers on a regular basis particularly at the weekend, in the week not so much. I believe that is the downfall of funding services all week that are only likely to be used/of use a few of those days per week.

Running a bus at night would be disproportionately expensive, requiring an additional driver (which from what I have read Hulleys do not have plenty of) and hardly any additional passengers. The economics just don't stack up - maybe another £65k per annum? I am not doubting your reasoning, but someone has got to pay for the additional costs - either Derbyshire CC or the passengers (at £100 a ticket!). Unlike the railways, there is no financial open house for the buses.

 

[Trainman40083]

I think you may be a little out of touch here. In my county of residence (not that far from Derbyshire, and fairly similar), a bus running 7am-7pm Mon-Sat would cost about £200k per annum (excluding fares). The other bus, working in morning and afternoon Mon-Sat at least £125k pa, if not slightly more. Total £325k per annum. I don't know the 172 well, aside from its rurality, but £120k pa (£392 per day) in fares/reimbursements sounds pretty good to me, and £205k price from Hulleys is not unreasonable.


Running a bus at night would be disproportionately expensive, requiring an additional driver (which from what I have read Hulleys do not have plenty of) and hardly any additional passengers. The economics just don't stack up - maybe another £65k per annum? I am not doubting your reasoning, but someone has got to pay for the additional costs - either Derbyshire CC or the passengers (at £100 a ticket!). Unlike the railways, there is no financial open house for the buses.

Certainly between £30 and £50 an hour. ENCTS remuneration won't be great either.

 

[RT4038]

Certainly between £30 and £50 an hour. ENCTS remuneration won't be great either.

Quite. I suspect the poster has inadvertently stumbled on a reason that Hulley's have been struggling - far from 'extremely poor value for money', I suspect that the £205k is too low. £392 average per day in fares/reimbursement seems quite heroic (depends whether the scholars are revenue to operator or not, and how many). In view of the staffing issues, sounds like they are not paying enough, probably because the revenue/subsidy is not enough.......

 

[Trainman40083]

Quite. I suspect the poster has inadvertently stumbled on a reason that Hulley's have been struggling - far from 'extremely poor value for money', I suspect that the £205k is too low. £392 average per day in fares/reimbursement seems quite heroic (depends whether the scholars are revenue to operator or not, and how many). In view of the staffing issues, sounds like they are not paying enough, probably because the revenue/subsidy is not enough.......

Who knows? What I would think is that post COVID, running public transport has become a lot harder. Can any operator win enough new customers to replace those who no longer use the bus? I would think we have generations of people now, for whom, the bus is not first choice of travel mode . Many have grown up going everywhere by car. In some areas, all I hear is "I'll get a Uber". Add in, say older people, even with ENCTS passes. For many of them, the reason they went somewhere on the bus may have gone. No reason why they are not online shopping, banking etc, which may see them travel less.

 

[richardderby]

Short notice and Christmas.

DCC must of been listening as the new timetables for Hulleys are uploaded... https://www.derbysbus.info/times/tt_121_200.htm

 

[tocguard]

Quite. I suspect the poster has inadvertently stumbled on a reason that Hulley's have been struggling - far from 'extremely poor value for money', I suspect that the £205k is too low. £392 average per day in fares/reimbursement seems quite heroic (depends whether the scholars are revenue to operator or not, and how many). In view of the staffing issues, sounds like they are not paying enough, probably because the revenue/subsidy is not enough.......

Poor value for money relates to not just the monetary value but the quality service offered. Unless you believe the service quality of running early, sometimes excessive, and missing sections of route out represent good value regardless of the cost, there is something wrong?

On cost basis alone, I can only relay to you what the DCC conversation went like. It was felt, to DCC that the cost was equivalent of 2 buses running the service full time rather than the current timetable provision. Similar to the 110/111 as the only other example of a tendered Hulleys route I can think of that uses 2 buses throughout. The tender cost of that is similar to what is being paid for the 172. Without requesting info on payments made for all tenders and and comparing cost per mile it would be difficult to conclude the true value on cost basis alone. For reference though, as part of the FOI response, it was noted that 2 other operators for the route had put in lower bids but were unable to meet the start date, one due to vehicle sourcing and one due to a driver shortage at the time. Rather commendably they declined their winning tender rather than struggle, which is more than can be said for current operator whereby adverts are plentiful despite pay being on a par and in fact better than at least one other local operator. Cost aside, the service offered is extremely poor and I believe this is what DCC were all to aware of when citing it was poor value for money.

 

[Stan Drews]

Poor value for money relates to not just the monetary value but the quality service offered. Unless you believe the service quality of running early, sometimes excessive, and missing sections of route out represent good value regardless of the cost, there is something wrong?

On cost basis alone, I can only relay to you what the DCC conversation went like. It was felt, to DCC that the cost was equivalent of 2 buses running the service full time rather than the current timetable provision. Similar to the 110/111 as the only other example of a tendered Hulleys route I can think of that uses 2 buses throughout. The tender cost of that is similar to what is being paid for the 172. Without requesting info on payments made for all tenders and and comparing cost per mile it would be difficult to conclude the true value on cost basis alone. For reference though, as part of the FOI response, it was noted that 2 other operators for the route had put in lower bids but were unable to meet the start date, one due to vehicle sourcing and one due to a driver shortage at the time. Rather commendably they declined their winning tender rather than struggle, which is more than can be said for current operator whereby adverts are plentiful despite pay being on a par and in fact better than at least one other local operator. Cost aside, the service offered is extremely poor and I believe this is what DCC were all to aware of when citing it was poor value for money.

Many local authorities are completely out of touch with the current cost of operating buses. I had another transport authority thinking that just over £100k was about right for supporting a 7-7 service 6 days a week.
That can then lead to them preparing reports for committees that are somewhat misleading.

 

[RT4038]

Many local authorities are completely out of touch with the current cost of operating buses. I had another transport authority thinking that just over £100k was about right for supporting a 7-7 service 6 days a week.
That can then lead to them preparing reports for committees that are somewhat misleading.

It is not unusual for operators, particularly smaller operators, to not understand the costs when tendering for work either!

Poor value for money relates to not just the monetary value but the quality service offered. Unless you believe the service quality of running early, sometimes excessive, and missing sections of route out represent good value regardless of the cost, there is something wrong?

On cost basis alone, I can only relay to you what the DCC conversation went like. It was felt, to DCC that the cost was equivalent of 2 buses running the service full time rather than the current timetable provision. Similar to the 110/111 as the only other example of a tendered Hulleys route I can think of that uses 2 buses throughout. The tender cost of that is similar to what is being paid for the 172. Without requesting info on payments made for all tenders and and comparing cost per mile it would be difficult to conclude the true value on cost basis alone. For reference though, as part of the FOI response, it was noted that 2 other operators for the route had put in lower bids but were unable to meet the start date, one due to vehicle sourcing and one due to a driver shortage at the time. Rather commendably they declined their winning tender rather than struggle, which is more than can be said for current operator whereby adverts are plentiful despite pay being on a par and in fact better than at least one other local operator. Cost aside, the service offered is extremely poor and I believe this is what DCC were all to aware of when citing it was poor value for money.

I am not doubting what you are saying, it just appears that the prices are too low for a sustainable, good operation. The other 2 operators have not actually run the service for the price tendered (maybe they realised it was too low but gave other excuses?) so it is unknown how good their service would be or how long they would be able to run before asking for more money? If what you are saying about the service quality is correct, presumably Derbyshire CC are penalising the operator for every infraction of early running, missed route, missed trip etc., so they are not paying anything like £205k anyway.

 

[Stan Drews]

It is not unusual for operators, particularly smaller operators, to not understand the costs when tendering for work either!

Yes, when you see the prices that some contracts go for, I’d certainly agree with that.

 

[DDB]

How many people in Hathersage rely on a bus? Beyond tourists and school children I would say few, I know thats not the point but lets put things in perspective the bus would cart fresh air otherwise

Hathersage is lucky as it has a train station the smaller villages on the route are less fortunate.

 

[Goldfish62]

Hathersage is lucky as it has a train station the smaller villages on the route are less fortunate.

And given the operator is Northern it has the misfortune of having both unreliable train and bus services.

 

[Trainman40083]

And given the operator is Northern it has the misfortune of having both unreliable train and bus services.

Trouble with Northern is, that by being the operator that tends to serve most stations, it has least priority.