Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Are you suggesting the Traffic Commissioner has failed to follow their own rules by granting short notice dispensation for something that shouldn’t qualify?
I'm saying I'm surprised. The reason a short notice request can be made are as below. I'm not sure that poor commercial decision making falls under any of these?
The legislation sets out the circumstances which permit the traffic commissioner to waive the notice period and allow the service to start, be varied or cancelled at short notice, these are:
(a) registering or varying a service (or part of a service) which will be substantially similar to and will replace a service (or part of a service) which has ceased or is ceasing to operate. The name of the operator and registration reference of the existing service should be provided with the application
(b) varying or cancelling the registration of a standard service which is either not available to members of the general public or not regularly used by them
(c) varying or cancelling a service in response to representations from an authorised person (a traffic authority or a chief officer of police) on a matter concerning road traffic regulation or road safety. A copy of a letter from the traffic authority or police should be provided with the application
(d) registering the particulars of a new service or varying a registration to increase an existing service, in order to provide the new or augmented service for a period not exceeding 21 days, in connection with a specified event or occasion which will cause an additional demand for a service
(e) varying a registration by adjusting the timetable without significantly affecting the level of the service provided, and the adjusted timings are either:
i. no more than 10 minutes earlier or later than those in the registered timetable, or
ii. required to adapt the service to a variation in a connecting rail, ferry or air service – details of the connecting service should be provided
(f) varying the registration so as to vary or suspend the service for a period not exceeding 14 days in response to public holidays restricted to the relevant locality or holidays taken by a substantial proportion of the population in that locality
(g) where, due to circumstances which were not reasonably foreseen, you failed to make an application in sufficient time for the period of notice. You should provide full details on the application as to why it could not have been foreseen (h) register or vary a registration in order to meet an urgent and exceptional public passenger transport requirement
To accept an application at short notice a traffic commissioner must be satisfied that one of the criteria set out above is met. When applying for short notice the relevant reason must be identified with sufficient explanation to justify the application. Evidence may also be requested.
I'm saying I'm surprised. The reason a short notice request can be made are as below. I'm not sure that poor commercial decision making falls under any of these?
The legislation sets out the circumstances which permit the traffic commissioner to waive the notice period and allow the service to start, be varied or cancelled at short notice, these are:
(a) registering or varying a service (or part of a service) which will be substantially similar to and will replace a service (or part of a service) which has ceased or is ceasing to operate. The name of the operator and registration reference of the existing service should be provided with the application
(b) varying or cancelling the registration of a standard service which is either not available to members of the general public or not regularly used by them
(c) varying or cancelling a service in response to representations from an authorised person (a traffic authority or a chief officer of police) on a matter concerning road traffic regulation or road safety. A copy of a letter from the traffic authority or police should be provided with the application
(d) registering the particulars of a new service or varying a registration to increase an existing service, in order to provide the new or augmented service for a period not exceeding 21 days, in connection with a specified event or occasion which will cause an additional demand for a service
(e) varying a registration by adjusting the timetable without significantly affecting the level of the service provided, and the adjusted timings are either:
i. no more than 10 minutes earlier or later than those in the registered timetable, or
ii. required to adapt the service to a variation in a connecting rail, ferry or air service – details of the connecting service should be provided
(f) varying the registration so as to vary or suspend the service for a period not exceeding 14 days in response to public holidays restricted to the relevant locality or holidays taken by a substantial proportion of the population in that locality
(g) where, due to circumstances which were not reasonably foreseen, you failed to make an application in sufficient time for the period of notice. You should provide full details on the application as to why it could not have been foreseen (h) register or vary a registration in order to meet an urgent and exceptional public passenger transport requirement
To accept an application at short notice a traffic commissioner must be satisfied that one of the criteria set out above is met. When applying for short notice the relevant reason must be identified with sufficient explanation to justify the application. Evidence may also be requested.
But clearly they were satisfied as they accepted the registration! The Traffic Commissioners more often than not apply a pragmatic approach and use their discretion.
As others have pointed out little good would have been served by forcing Hulley’s to run something that didn’t work. Yes Hulley’s should have done better first time, but they won’t be the first to make a misjudgment and won’t be the last.
This thread clearly sets out why franchising could be a good idea in some cases. A more consistent network of routes, fares etc, without constant short term/short notice changes.
However it is done the Peak District as a whole deserves a better transport network, with better clearer ticketing, and more joined up marketing. It's clear you need summer and winter timetables in some cases as there is a big contrast in demand.
The Derbyshire wayfarer is good, but what if you need to get into Sheffield first for example. You pay two bus fares. Perhaps you also need a fairer way of reimbursing operators.
Park and ride is another option that I believe has been considered for the area, but plans have never evolved.
Many operators in the area are less than ideal, not just Hulleys. Look at the state of some vehicles in the TM fleet, and the reliability of Trent services in Derby. It is an indication that something needs to be done to actually improve things - as clearly they are not improving, despite all of the bus service improvement plans which have been implemented, and have seen a fairly large investment made into the industry.
The problem with franchising is how it is being done piecemeal with no country-wide fares structure.
I've not been able to get an answer from SYMCA about this, but I worry that their franchising proposal will be negative for those of us in Chesterfield and the Peak District. No consideration seems to have been given to fares for cross-border users.
At the moment, I can travel from my house to the Royal Hallamshire using a Stagecoach day ticket. It's looking like after franchising I'll need two tickets - it isn't clear whether they will cover the 90 and X17, or X17 and 120, but either way a current, integrated option is likely to be removed. Similar is likely to apply to Hulleys routes if they get franchised. It's OK if you travel from say Bakewell to work near Sheffield Interchange, but if you need to go from Ashford in the Water to Neepsend it's a different matter.
However it is done the Peak District as a whole deserves a better transport network, with better clearer ticketing, and more joined up marketing. It's clear you need summer and winter timetables in some cases as there is a big contrast in demand.
I think also DCC need to start being more proactive. Look at the regular chaos around Curbar Edge for example, where people just dump cars wherever they can. I've given up going to Hathersage and Castleton because you can never get parked, and as there isn't a direct bus from Chesterfield it's not worth it for an afternoon out it takes so long to get there otherwise. Ban parking where it's obstructive, put in place services - which are going to have to be subsidised initially - to get people to where they want to be within the park. It would become a much nicer place to visit if you aren't always fighting traffic and spending hours trying to find a place to stop.
Getting back on thread, but a large part of the struggles Hulleys have is that, even out of season, if it's a nice day people descent in their thousands, clogging the place up. Buses stuck due to parked cars, unable to keep time because what might take 10 minutes on a normal day takes an hour. I'm sure some (hello AWK) would say they should have 20 spare buses and drivers on hand to cope, but no commercial business can make things pay that way.
Personally, I think rather than funnelling money in to the Peak Sightseer - which only adds to the congestion as the majority of users drive - they should have been developing a network to get people around and replace the need to park where it just isn't suitable.
And the park and ride you mentioned - a must, and I'm surprised no private enterprise hasn't stepped in where the council has failed as it could be a goldmine.
I think that the 66 (Chesterfield-Buxton) should be subsidised from the profit made from potential park and rides because 2 or 4 return journeys (depending on whether you count the X66 or not) is simply not enough for the route it runs
The problem with franchising is how it is being done piecemeal with no country-wide fares structure.
I've not been able to get an answer from SYMCA about this, but I worry that their franchising proposal will be negative for those of us in Chesterfield and the Peak District. No consideration seems to have been given to fares for cross-border users.
At the moment, I can travel from my house to the Royal Hallamshire using a Stagecoach day ticket. It's looking like after franchising I'll need two tickets - it isn't clear whether they will cover the 90 and X17, or X17 and 120, but either way a current, integrated option is likely to be removed. Similar is likely to apply to Hulleys routes if they get franchised. It's OK if you travel from say Bakewell to work near Sheffield Interchange, but if you need to go from Ashford in the Water to Neepsend it's a different matter.
I think also DCC need to start being more proactive. Look at the regular chaos around Curbar Edge for example, where people just dump cars wherever they can. I've given up going to Hathersage and Castleton because you can never get parked, and as there isn't a direct bus from Chesterfield it's not worth it for an afternoon out it takes so long to get there otherwise. Ban parking where it's obstructive, put in place services - which are going to have to be subsidised initially - to get people to where they want to be within the park. It would become a much nicer place to visit if you aren't always fighting traffic and spending hours trying to find a place to stop.
Getting back on thread, but a large part of the struggles Hulleys have is that, even out of season, if it's a nice day people descent in their thousands, clogging the place up. Buses stuck due to parked cars, unable to keep time because what might take 10 minutes on a normal day takes an hour. I'm sure some (hello AWK) would say they should have 20 spare buses and drivers on hand to cope, but no commercial business can make things pay that way.
Personally, I think rather than funnelling money in to the Peak Sightseer - which only adds to the congestion as the majority of users drive - they should have been developing a network to get people around and replace the need to park where it just isn't suitable.
And the park and ride you mentioned - a must, and I'm surprised no private enterprise hasn't stepped in where the council has failed as it could be a goldmine.
I think you could quite easily incorporate peak sightseer into a park and ride scheme. As you say Chatsworth house is effectively being used as the car park for most users, rather than attracting people to use the bus to access the area.
And the park and ride you mentioned - a must, and I'm surprised no private enterprise hasn't stepped in where the council has failed as it could be a goldmine.
Whilst I agree it would be a good idea and something needs to be done to reduce the number of cars in the Peak District, I have also seen Mam Tor car park half empty whilst cars line the road outside where there's double yellow lines. If people won't pay for the parking that is there, I'm not convinced they'll pay for a Park and Ride service.
I think that the 66 (Chesterfield-Buxton) should be subsidised from the profit made from potential park and rides because 2 or 4 return journeys (depending on whether you count the X66 or not) is simply not enough for the route it runs
Chesterfield to Buxton seems to be a route that is hard to make work. When I first moved to the area it was run by GJ Holmes - my wife actually used it to commute to work at Eyam Hall when that was run by the National Trust. Then Hulleys got the contract for it, but numbers were just too low to make it work. Various things were tried, but in the end it has just become a positioning move for the 65.
Personally, I think the attempt to extend the 170 to Buxton should have got more support. From memory they tried two ways, first the more direct option up the A6, but they couldn't stop anywhere between Bakewell and Buxton, presumably to avoid competition with the 65 and Transpeak? The alternative where they ran via the 171 route then up the A515 just took far too long. It was good for a day out to experience the trip, but was never going to be a commercial option.
Especially now the 170 has become the Holymoorside bus, I'd love to see them bring back the X70, run that via Chatsworth rather than the 170, then on to Buxton. That would make Chesterfield a more attractive link to Chatsworth - it takes almost as long from Chesterfield Station to Chatsworth on the 170 as it does from Sheffield on the 218 at the moment. It would also put a bit more margin in to the 170 for recovery.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Whilst I agree it would be a good idea and something needs to be done to reduce the number of cars in the Peak District, I have also seen Mam Tor car park half empty whilst cars line the road outside where there's double yellow lines. If people won't pay for the parking that is there, I'm not convinced they'll pay for a Park and Ride service.
Never seen that personally - I aim to use that when I'm in the area as it's free to me as an NT member, but very rarely can I get in.
However, the crux of what I'm saying is you give people no option. Ban parking where it's daft to park, enforce it by towing cars. They'll soon get the message.
I know this sounds a bit classist, but you could even have a tiered scheme. You can parking the villages - Castleton, Hathersage etc, for a premium. Then there would be car parks inside the park but towards the edges for a modest price, then ones outside in places like Chesterfield, Chapel, Leek, Macclesfield etc, which are the cheapest to park in. That would only work on the basis that those who insist on driving in to the park subsidise those would are prepared to park outside and use the bus, but it would also need an extensive and frequent network of buses running in to the evening to work.
I think that the 66 (Chesterfield-Buxton) should be subsidised from the profit made from potential park and rides because 2 or 4 return journeys (depending on whether you count the X66 or not) is simply not enough for the route it runs
I've ridden the 66 and X66 a number of times in both directions. Every single trip I've done on the X66 I've been the sole passenger, and on the 66, the only other passengers exclusively boarded and alighted on common sections with the 65.
This is exactly correct. The X66 is a great connection for an enthusiast like me wanting to cross the peaks into Greater Manchester early in a morning; otherwise, both routes are simply to get the vehicles into position for the 65
Never seen that personally - I aim to use that when I'm in the area as it's free to me as an NT member, but very rarely can I get in.
However, the crux of what I'm saying is you give people no option. Ban parking where it's daft to park, enforce it by towing cars. They'll soon get the message.
Unfortunately it's not isolated behaviour. It's common in the Lake District as well (which arguably has a far better bus service than the Peak District), and there's regular stories about people blocking the roads at Dovestones, at Dunham Massey. Trouble is, enforcement is next to zero. And whilst I like the idea of towing away vehicles, it would take an awful lot of vehicles to tow them all away!
This is exactly correct. The X66 is a great connection for an enthusiast like me wanting to cross the peaks into Greater Manchester early in a morning; otherwise, both routes are simply to get the vehicles into position for the 65
The daft thing is I'd love there to be a bus from Chesterfield to Manchester. The train is stupidly expensive, even for one person, and driving in to Manchester itself is a hassle. The cost of parking is subjective I guess, but to me £10-12 a day isn't that bad, but if I could spend that much on a return bus fare I think I would.
A few times recently I've driven to New Mills Newtown and got the train from there, but I notice even they have started charging for parking, and last time I did it (going to a seminar, so in the morning peak) a 2-car 150 turned up and let's just say even the Japanese train pushers would have had a job getting any more people in.
As with everything, building a passenger base and finding a timetable that worked with the various bottlenecks would be the real challenge. At the time the X57 was running I did wonder if a companion service from Chesterfield to the airport would work, then become an X57 for the run in to Manchester and on to Sheffield.
As with everything, building a passenger base and finding a timetable that worked with the various bottlenecks would be the real challenge. At the time the X57 was running I did wonder if a companion service from Chesterfield to the airport would work, then become an X57 for the run in to Manchester and on to Sheffield.
I think there are enough people who want to travel between Chesterfield (and the surrounding area) and Manchester, or would more often if there was a better service. How to convert them to bus passengers is another issue. Of course it would need to be more akin to the Transpeak of old (when it still served Manchester) with dedicated vehicles with better seating.
The biggest issue would come around New Mills, Disley and in particular High Lane, all of which really need a bypass but I can't see them ever getting one. Maybe a better option would be (as I've proposed elsewhere on this board) would be a parkway style station near the end of the Chapel bypass, and a bus link to there. It would need integrated ticketing to make it viable unfortunately, and we don't seem able to think that big in this country.
As an aside, I've highlighted before the number of Chinese students from Manchester who come to Chatsworth. Why no one has tapped in to that market I don't know. Even if it was just a bus from Buxton to Chatsworth so they could get the train there rather than to Sheffield to use the 218.
a large part of the struggles Hulleys have is that, even out of season, if it's a nice day people descent in their thousands, clogging the place up. Buses stuck due to parked cars, unable to keep time because what might take 10 minutes on a normal day takes an hour.
Hulleys certainly don't help themselves with their poor communication, but this is the crux of the matter. Given the nature of the Peak District it's a difficult market to cater for. Even in January if it's nice weather you'll get a deluge of tourists and they're either parking inappropriately or, even if they get the bus, the sheer volume of passengers slows everything down. And even in July you'll not see a soul if it is bucketing it down.
This is where the Peak District is different to the Lake District. The Peaks are a 45-minute drive from Manchester, Sheffield, and Derby and so people will travel on a whim if they wake up and it is sunny. The Lakes are more like a two hour drive from the big cities and so you don't get the random spikes quite so much.
It makes planning a service a nightmare as a result. Even with a summer/winter timetable, a sunny day has the capacity to wreak absolute havoc on any sort of timetable. Especially with the way so many car drivers seemingly leave their brains at home when they travel to Hathersage or Castleton.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like on Sundays that doesn't go to the Railway Station?
I was meaning something a bit more frequent, and timed to connect with the trains. I'd forgotten about the 58 as it seems a little pointless. And from the times I've seen it, poorly used.
A surprising number of High Peak services don't go past the railway station/Sylvan Park. It's not a long walk from the railway station to the market place but it's certainly an annoying one up the hill.
(Edit: they do serve the stops by the crescent, so you don't even have to walk that far)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like on Sundays that doesn't go to the Railway Station?
I was meaning something a bit more frequent, and timed to connect with the trains. I'd forgotten about the 58 as it seems a little pointless. And from the times I've seen it, poorly used.
Whilst it's strictly true that the Sunday 58 doesn't serve the stops directly outside / opposite the railway station, the nearest stop is no more than 200 yards away, and thus probably closer than the potential pax live to their local station when starting out on such a journey.
You're right that rail/bus connectivity is near zero, but that's true in so many cases!
"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.
The other thing that bothers me about that specific story is - wasn't the "enhanced partnership" scheme was supposed to limit timetable changes in Sheffield to one or two dates a year, clearly advertised through all the operators and the PTE?
Even if that were not the case, a timetable change advertised only through Facebook (and still, as I write this, not even up to date on the operator's own website!) is very poor.
As an aside, I've highlighted before the number of Chinese students from Manchester who come to Chatsworth. Why no one has tapped in to that market I don't know. Even if it was just a bus from Buxton to Chatsworth so they could get the train there rather than to Sheffield to use the 218.
The Chinese market into the Peak District is boosted by their social media highlighting other attractions like the Derwent reservoirs and the Edges. They come from the Sheffield side too and they aren't all students. Not always well equipped but that doesn't faze them.
They tend to use Google maps for navigation across the ground and for train and bus times. They can arrive at Dore from the Manchester direction to catch the 218 from there to Chatsworth. Last summer they sussed out the open top services which matched up well with trains at Bamford and Hope.
The Chinese market into the Peak District is boosted by their social media highlighting other attractions like the Derwent reservoirs and the Edges. They come from the Sheffield side too and they aren't all students. Not always well equipped but that doesn't faze them.
They tend to use Google maps for navigation across the ground and for train and bus times. They can arrive at Dore from the Manchester direction to catch the 218 from there to Chatsworth. Last summer they sussed out the open top services which matched up well with trains at Bamford and Hope.
I've been banging on about bus companies manipulating Google Maps for ages - you put on a service that is fastest then that's what it will suggest. I'm not sure if any have cottoned on, certainly not around here.
I believe the route most use (Manchester to Sheffield then doubling back to Dore) is strictly speaking not valid - how many get in trouble for it is another question.
Still, if I was an operator focussed on the Peak District with several services already passing close to the other attractions you mention, then I'd certainly be trying to tap in to that market by linking Buxton and / or New Mills with Bakewell, Baslow (as an interchange point) and Chatsworth.
Of course, the moment might already have passed - various government policy designed to deter overseas students has resulted in a considerable reduction in Chinese students this year. Quite why anyone thinks killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is a good idea just to be able to manipulate immigration numbers I don't know...
I think there are enough people who want to travel between Chesterfield (and the surrounding area) and Manchester, or would more often if there was a better service. How to convert them to bus passengers is another issue. Of course it would need to be more akin to the Transpeak of old (when it still served Manchester) with dedicated vehicles with better seating.
The biggest issue would come around New Mills, Disley and in particular High Lane, all of which really need a bypass but I can't see them ever getting one. Maybe a better option would be (as I've proposed elsewhere on this board) would be a parkway style station near the end of the Chapel bypass, and a bus link to there. It would need integrated ticketing to make it viable unfortunately, and we don't seem able to think that big in this country.
As an aside, I've highlighted before the number of Chinese students from Manchester who come to Chatsworth. Why no one has tapped in to that market I don't know. Even if it was just a bus from Buxton to Chatsworth so they could get the train there rather than to Sheffield to use the 218.
There used to be a service between Lincoln-Mansfield-Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester
The X67 Lincman jointly operated by East Midland/Hulley’s was a limited stop service running approx every 2 hours, there was even a Friday and Sunday mid evening service aimed at students.
The then recently privatised Chesterfield Transport Limited ran a more direct route on Saturdays for a couple of years 1987/8 in the run up to Christmas between Chesterfield and Manchester. Numbered 467 it regularly required duplicate vehicles!
The introduction of an hourly all day, every day direct train service between Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester around 1990 with newish air conditioned trains* probably killed off any significant demand for bus travel between Chesterfield and Manchester.
* The same class 158 units are still plying their trade on this route 30 years later!
There used to be a service between Lincoln-Mansfield-Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester
The X67 Lincman jointly operated by East Midland/Hulley’s was a limited stop service running approx every 2 hours, there was even a Friday and Sunday mid evening service aimed at students.
Indeed, had I known at the time it was still operating when I moved to Stockport in 1997 I could have taken advantage. What I didn't realise is that it continued in a form until 2010 at least as far as Tideswell.
The introduction of an hourly all day, every day direct train service between Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester around 1990 with newish air conditioned trains* probably killed off any significant demand for bus travel between Chesterfield and Manchester.
I'd venture the opinion that ticket prices then were maybe more attractive back then. At £31.40 for an off-peak return, and as the route often suffers bad overcrowding, maybe there would be scope to try again?
It might not even be so bad against the train as you'd think - Google is telling me that if I set off now and travelled via the Airport it would take 1h45 to drive it, 10 minutes more than the fastest route. You don't tend to be able to make up much time on this route in a car as you always get stuck behind a lorry, so a bus would only have to factor in time for stopping. Say 2h or 2h15, while an hour longer than from station to station, depending where it started you could save much of that at either end.
Indeed, had I known at the time it was still operating when I moved to Stockport in 1997 I could have taken advantage. What I didn't realise is that it continued in a form until 2010 at least as far as Tideswell.
I'd venture the opinion that ticket prices then were maybe more attractive back then. At £31.40 for an off-peak return, and as the route often suffers bad overcrowding, maybe there would be scope to try again?
It might not even be so bad against the train as you'd think - Google is telling me that if I set off now and travelled via the Airport it would take 1h45 to drive it, 10 minutes more than the fastest route. You don't tend to be able to make up much time on this route in a car as you always get stuck behind a lorry, so a bus would only have to factor in time for stopping. Say 2h or 2h15, while an hour longer than from station to station, depending where it started you could save much of that at either end.
And are still one of the more comfortable trains to travel on in this country...
The X67 used to divert off the A623 to serve Eyam, Litton and Tideswell, and of course back in the day the Chapel by pass hadn’t been built so used to operate via Chapel en le Frith town centre and Whaley Bridge.
I guess with the £2/£3 bus fare cap we currently have plus free travel for pensioners (it was half fare back then) then loadings (but not necessarily revenue) would be decent?
In the dying days of the X67 the route was extended to Liverpool on certain days of the week and some journeys terminated at New Mills Bus Station with ‘connections suggested’ (but no through ticketing) by train towards Manchester.
The X67 used to divert off the A623 to serve Eyam, Litton and Tideswell, and of course back in the day the Chapel by pass hadn’t been built so used to operate via Chapel en le Frith town centre and Whaley Bridge.
I guess that's the question, how many nearby places do you include on the route, at the expense of the running time. Some could be picked up via connections off services like the 65 and 173, but you'd lose the passengers who prefer a direct service.
I guess with the £2/£3 bus fare cap we currently have plus free travel for pensioners (it was half fare back then) then loadings (but not necessarily revenue) would be decent?
I think even at something like £10 return (as Hulleys tried on the X98/99) you'd still get a decent loading. Capped it would really depend how much the operator was paid, and for ENCTS the whole scheme needs revisiting to make services that pensioners would use viable for operators to run.
In the dying days of the X67 the route was extended to Liverpool on certain days of the week and some journeys terminated at New Mills Bus Station with ‘connections suggested’ (but no through ticketing) by train towards Manchester.
In some ways that makes sense - the worst delays are beyond New Mills. If Northern could sort out the Buxton line and get half-hourly trains running reliably to a decent length then there is an argument that extending in to Manchester is less necessary, although I'd still think going direct to the Airport would be popular. While the 199 does go there, it goes via Stockport which adds a lot of journey time.
I think that the 66 (Chesterfield-Buxton) should be subsidised from the profit made from potential park and rides because 2 or 4 return journeys (depending on whether you count the X66 or not) is simply not enough for the route it runs
The 66/X66 exists solely as commercial positioning trips for the 65 so Stagecoach came claim BSOG for the mileage instead of dead running.
If there was a demand for a more regular service from Chesterfield to Buxton someone would be operating it (several have tried and given up) or the local authority would fund it on a social needs basis.
The 66/X66 exists solely as commercial positioning trips for the 65 so Stagecoach came claim BSOG for the mileage instead of dead running.
If there was a demand for a more regular service from Chesterfield to Buxton someone would be operating it (several have tried and given up) or the local authority would fund it on a social needs basis.
Hulleys certainly don't help themselves with their poor communication, but this is the crux of the matter. Given the nature of the Peak District it's a difficult market to cater for. Even in January if it's nice weather you'll get a deluge of tourists and they're either parking inappropriately or, even if they get the bus, the sheer volume of passengers slows everything down. And even in July you'll not see a soul if it is bucketing it down.
This is where the Peak District is different to the Lake District. The Peaks are a 45-minute drive from Manchester, Sheffield, and Derby and so people will travel on a whim if they wake up and it is sunny. The Lakes are more like a two hour drive from the big cities and so you don't get the random spikes quite so much.
It makes planning a service a nightmare as a result. Even with a summer/winter timetable, a sunny day has the capacity to wreak absolute havoc on any sort of timetable. Especially with the way so many car drivers seemingly leave their brains at home when they travel to Hathersage or Castleton.
I have to disagree slightly. When writing timetables, and I've written many, you factor for 'reasonable expectations'.
For example, on one route a town had a market day every Wednesday and every other Friday. No traffic the rest of the time, but on market days it was crackers. We did 3 or 4 timing runs (I'm that old this is pre-Google maps!) on a market day and from that worked out our Monday to Friday timetable, as it wasn't practical to have a Wednesdays and every other Friday timetable! The result being on most market days the service ran to time, on exceptional traffic days it ran a bit late, and on non-Market days the bus waited for around 5 mins at the timing point in the town and took it steady to ensure on time departures from the next timing points.
We did it that way to demonstrate to the TC that we had factored in reasonable expectations, and whilst there may be delays on odd days we could justify them as being abnormal.
Ignoring the Breezer debarkle totally, I'm afraid I don't see the above been applied in Hulleys timetables. Look at the 55 and 170. The 55 has the same departure, arrival and intermediate times between Calow and Alfreron from 0857 to 1857, and vice versa from 0630 to 1530. I don't drive through Chesterfield that often, but when I do at peak times there's always congestion. These times imply the same congestion is present at 0830 as it is at 1230 and 1630 which I struggle to believe.
The 170 timetable likewise runs to the same times between approx 0700 and 1800, and the Saturday running times are the same as the Monday to Friday times. From my experience traffic around Baslow, Chatsworth and Bakewell is worse on a Saturday than during the week.
Whilst I appreciate the traffic in the Peaks can be entirely dependent on the weather, I would argue that Hulleys timings seem to be based on 'best case' earhet than what could be reasonably be expected.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think so, as did TM and others before that. But then there were regular buses from Sheffield to Worksop and Sheffield to Grimsby, Meadowhall to Nottingham, Leeds to Barnsley etc etc all of which no longer exist as car usage increased and travel patterns change. Just because something (sort of) worked before Covid doesn't mean it will now.
Controversial view (unlike me I know)... Covid allowed some operators to get rid of some underperforming routes they'd probably been looking to drop for years but couldn't due to the usual petitions and MPs faigning outrage!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But clearly they were satisfied as they accepted the registration! The Traffic Commissioners more often than not apply a pragmatic approach and use their discretion.
As others have pointed out little good would have been served by forcing Hulley’s to run something that didn’t work. Yes Hulley’s should have done better first time, but they won’t be the first to make a misjudgment and won’t be the last.
Indeed, and there are circumstances - such as during the pandemic - where that pragmatism and discretion, applied equally, is needed.
My issue - and I admit I'm a dinosaur - is that short notice changes and going down the asking for discretion route should be for exceptional circumstances - an emergency road closure due to a landslide with lengthy diversion which is going to last months and means your timetable needs to change; another operator going pop and you re-routing one of your services so a village you previously bypassed still has a service. That's where pragmatism and discretion should be used in my view. The TCs have always been clear that,.particularly for commercial mileage, poorer than expected returns are not a valid reason for short notice submissions.
I'm afraid it appears to be normal business for Hulley’s to ask for such pragmatism and discretion for issues that could have been forsee. The Breezer timetable farse, entirely the Operators fault and my 7 year old great Nephew could have told them was farcical and totally unachievable. Changed under short notice. The dropping of the commercial section of the 55 between Alfreton and the Designer Outlet done under short notice. The cancellation of all bar 2 trips on the commercially operated service 6 done under short notice and resulting in DCC having to quickly find another Operator to provide a (very) partial replacement. The latter 2 changes we're told were to either stem commercial losses and/or allow some vehicles to leave the fleet and/or to match driver availability to duties.
Compare that to Arriva Yorkshire. A basket case as anyone in/interested in the Industry knows. What was once the highest performing NBC Operator is now a laughing stock. No investment, can't recruit staff, can't retain the staff they already had, and their 'flagship' depot and HQ are literally falling down. They too have reduced frequencies on some routes and cancelled 3 others (WYMCA tenders) to also match their available resources to their commitments.
They engaged the MCA in the background from, I believe, October so they could start the process of tendering replacement services, did some comms on social media and on vehicles in November to prepare passengers for what was coming, registered the changes in mid-Novrmber and implemented them over 42 days later in January. During the period between announcing the changes and implementing them they continued to loose money, either through lost revenue or paying agency drivers inflated rates to cover services, but handled these commercial changes in what I deem to be the normal process, as opposed to relying on discretion.
Yes I hear you cry, Arrica is a multinational and losses don't make that much of an impact compared to organisations like Hulley’s. True. But I don't believe we should be treating multinationals and small independents differently from a regulatoy point of view. It should be the same rules, same judgement, same pragmatism and flexibility whether you operate 1 vehicle or 1000 vehicles. No one surely suggests we should allow independent operators leeway on vehicle safety standards and hold the big boys to much higher safety standards, so why does the argument appear to be that certain operators should be allowed to repeatedly rely on discretion and favours rather than following the same registration and compliance requirements that others have to follow?
If there was a demand for a more regular service from Chesterfield to Buxton someone would be operating it (several have tried and given up) or the local authority would fund it on a social needs basis.
I wonder if the lack of such a service is partly due to ENCTS. It's a popular area to retire to, and during weekdays the most common passengers would be pensioners who fancy a day out. The fact ENCTS remunerates so poorly makes such services harder to run commercially, and catering for pensioners who in the main could drive instead doesn't come under social needs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They did extend the 170 to Buxton during Covid. Two options, one direct via the A6, one via Middleton and the A515. I used the latter one time when I was trying to get to Glossop to meet the X57 and it was well used despite the slow route.
They did also run the 66 for a period, but under contract to DCC.
I wonder if the lack of such a service is partly due to ENCTS. It's a popular area to retire to, and during weekdays the most common passengers would be pensioners who fancy a day out. The fact ENCTS remunerates so poorly makes such services harder to run commercially, and catering for pensioners who in the main could drive instead doesn't come under social needs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They did extend the 170 to Buxton during Covid. Two options, one direct via the A6, one via Middleton and the A515. I used the latter one time when I was trying to get to Glossop to meet the X57 and it was well used despite the slow route.
They did also run the 66 for a period, but under contract to DCC.
Absolutely, many rural areas/services face the same problem - there are 'bums on seats', but those bums contribute very little income to make the service viable
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
