Hulley's of Baslow

[richard13]

Considering what's happened recently and the fact that some of Hulleys fleet are now running out of Andrew's (Tideswell) yard shouldn't the former Hulleys fleet have "On Hire to Andrew's Tideswell") stickers on them.

As I understand it from above most of Hulley's fleet was leased and the lessor has agreed for Andrew's to take over the leases. So the buses are Andrew's.

The "on Hire to .." is used when the vehicle is using an O license different from that of the route registration's holder.
The bus owners legal name and address on the side probably should be changed asap.

As long as the vehicle has an MOT, an O licence and insurance that will probably do I think. Fares need a route registration and in certain cases run free for the first day / week or so until the paperwork is complete. The authorities are all good at helping as permitted.

I watched the collapse of Bournemouth Transport (Yellow Buses). Whilst the receivers were trying to sell the business as a going concern and several companies did do due diligence, but all turned away, nothing could be done. Thus it finally finished at 18:00 on Thursday with little notice. No routes were covered for the Friday, before More bus set up a slightly reduced commercial service, but keeping the Yellow bus routes and route numbers, which started Saturday. On the Friday More bus recruited over 100 drivers with full interviews and paperwork, they had spare UNI buses available and borrowed a few locally (40 needed), about 400 new road side timetables were pasted, photocopies of timetables were printed to go on the buses as hand outs and more. However it was noticed that some of the pdf files online had filenames containing dates. Some of those were made over 3 weeks earlier and so very pre-planned. It was an impressive large scale and fast action. The Bournemouth council played its part both behind the scenes and in getting the bus stop real time display system fully altered to match. Yellow bus tickets were accepted for the first week, thus clearing sold weekly tickets.

If Hulley's hasn't paid drivers for hours worked, that may be trading whilst insolvent. That is a criminal offence for which Mr Crofts may have to answer. Hours worked since the receivers took over is the receivers responsibility. The receivers only manage, they don't take ownership. Companies law is very large, complex, covers most things and is not what us ordinary people might expect. It allows unpleasant things, but certain subtle behind the scenes actions have mandatory prison sentences attached. Directors need help.

 

[SLC001]

Looking at the past accounts for Hulleys I am struggling to see how they were solvent. There was a significant 6 figure sum in trade creditors due within 12 months and I cannot see what this could be unless it was DCC subsidies brought forward. Therefore the loss of DCC work could have had serious repercussions on Hulleys balance sheet. That is, insolvent with liabilities exceeding assets. I stress that I am no accountant, but by any measure Hulleys were really struggling.

 

[AWK]

Unsurprisingly, to some of us at least, Stagecoach are well versed in all this.

They'll have been planning for today's scenario for a long time.

It's not a surprise, I was merely pointing out that it's not just as simple as finding 3 extra buses

As I understand it from above most of Hulley's fleet was leased and the lessor has agreed for Andrew's to take over the leases. So the buses are Andrew's.

And this is where it gets interesting...

Leased from whom? The most recent accounts published show an asset value for vehicles consistent with older Solos, E200s etc. It also shows lease costs due which looks about right for the 2 Evoras.

So presumably this change in ownership is a recent development. The vehicles sold, to a lessor, and leased back.

Are/were Modeldart Ltd, the parent company of Hulleys, the lessor?

The "on Hire to .." is used when the vehicle is using an O license different from that of the route registration's holder.
The bus owners legal name and address on the side probably should be changed asap.

Correct, no on hire notice assuming they are running on Andrew's discs.

A bit of A4 paper with the new legal lettering on will suffice for now.

,


As long as the vehicle has an MOT, an O licence and insurance that will probably do I think. Fares need a route registration and in certain cases run free for the first day / week or so until the paperwork is complete. The authorities are all good at helping as permitted.

Free today as registrations don't take effect until tomorrow. .

If Hulley's hasn't paid drivers for hours worked, that may be trading whilst insolvent. That is a criminal offence for which Mr Crofts may have to answer. Hours worked since the receivers took over is the receivers responsibility. The receivers only manage, they don't take ownership. Companies law is very large, complex, covers most things and is not what us ordinary people might expect. It allows unpleasant things, but certain subtle behind the scenes actions have mandatory prison sentences attached. Directors need help.

I won't repeat them, but there are allegations online regarding company finances and monies deducted from drivers which, IF true, may well lead to criminal processes.

Agreed Receivers do not take control of the business in a legal sense, but they very much call the shots and the former owners role is reduced to essentially giving them access to everything

 

[Teapot42]

There is one possible reason why Andrews have taken on pretty much the entire fleet. It's been commented that the 110/1 tender requires a vehicle with a minimum capacity which is above what Ashbourne Community Transport currently have in their fleet.

The poster claims they have until Saturday to resolve this. I'd imagine that, should they fail, if Andrews made the next lowest bid then they could take over this route as well.

While their location isn't ideal for this, the 55 is actually commercially more attractive than the 170 I'm told.

One thing I was wondering - as they've not operated services up until now, does anyone know if Andrews are intending to become part of the Wayfarer scheme? How long would this take if so?

 

[Hyebone]

the 55 is actually commercially more attractive than the 170 I'm told.

By whom? Stagecoach Yorkshire surely would've taken it over if this was the case.

 

[duncombec]

Of note, Andrews do now have a page on their website for timetables - granted only direct copies of Derbyshire's standard PDFs, but a good move in the knowledge people will now be looking at their website for information.

 

[Teapot42]

By whom? Stagecoach Yorkshire surely would've taken it over if this was the case.

Someone who worked at Hulleys.

A service which made money for Hulleys won't necessarily make money for Stagecoach though. I don't suppose they'll turn a profit on the 170, but it can bring more people in to the Peak Sightseer over the summer. There is also an opportunity to extend it to Buxton over the summer for connections onwards to Manchester by train.

I've commented several times that a trick is being missed here for links with Chatsworth.

Of note, Andrews do now have a page on their website for timetables - granted only direct copies of Derbyshire's standard PDFs, but a good move in the knowledge people will now be looking at their website for information.

Both High Peak and Stagecoach 170 timetables are up on Bustimes. Nothing for Andrews so far, but I'd imagine that is a technology they'll take time to get up to speed with.

Nothing seems to be tracking for any operator on those services though.

 

[peterblue]

Someone who worked at Hulleys.

A service which made money for Hulleys won't necessarily make money for Stagecoach though. I don't suppose they'll turn a profit on the 170, but it can bring more people in to the Peak Sightseer over the summer. There is also an opportunity to extend it to Buxton over the summer for connections onwards to Manchester by train.

I've commented several times that a trick is being missed here for links with Chatsworth.


Both High Peak and Stagecoach 170 timetables are up on Bustimes. Nothing for Andrews so far, but I'd imagine that is a technology they'll take time to get up to speed with.

Nothing seems to be tracking for any operator on those services though.

I agree, I think there is demand for a more limited stop X70 Chesterfield - Chatsworth - Bakewell - Buxton service during the summer, perhaps every 2 hours supplementing Transpeak / the 170.

I can't see both operators (Highpeak and Stagecoach) surviving on the 170 corridor currently. I reckon we will return back to the status quo soon with one 170 per hour via Holymoorside and Chatsworth.

 

[ChrisC]

While their location isn't ideal for this, the 55 is actually commercially more attractive than the 170 I'm told.

Going back in time pre Hulleys, to when the Chesterfield to Alfreton routes were operated by Stagecoach, I remember there were two different routes. I can’t remember their numbers or exact routes but they did serve different villages. One ran out of Chesterfield similar to the current 55 route via Wingerworth and the other ran out of Chesterfield via Hasland. Combining the two routes into the current 55 created a very roundabout route with longer journey times from many of the villages into both Chesterfield and Alfreton. I remember using the via Hasland route and it didn’t seem over long and was a usable alternative to Trent Barton’s Comet. Perhaps the 55 route needs revising slightly to make journey times from some of the villages more attractive.

 

[JKP]

Of note, Andrews do now have a page on their website for timetables - granted only direct copies of Derbyshire's standard PDFs, but a good move in the knowledge people will now be looking at their website for information.

I see that Andrew’s have also taken on the 257 Sunday journeys during the summer.

The timetable says the 257 is only partially subsidised by DCC so are the Sunday journeys commercial?

 

[Teapot42]

I see that Andrew’s have also taken on the 257 Sunday journeys during the summer.

The timetable says the 257 is only partially subsidised by DCC so are the Sunday journeys commercial?

I was wondering about that. Due to start this weekend originally.

Sunday journeys always were commercial - it was noted that DCC were happy to subsidise High Peak to run half-hourly during the week between Glossop and New Mills, but wouldn't contribute anything towards a Sunday service.

I wonder if longer term the evening journeys will be attempted again? From memory Hulleys ran these for a short period (with BSIP money) then had to withdraw as they were unable to secure enough drivers. I'm told DCC have a long term aim to get the 257 hourly all the way through, so I suspect changes will be forthcoming once things have settled down.

I agree, I think there is demand for a more limited stop X70 Chesterfield - Chatsworth - Bakewell - Buxton service during the summer, perhaps every 2 hours supplementing Transpeak / the 170.

I can't see both operators (Highpeak and Stagecoach) surviving on the 170 corridor currently. I reckon we will return back to the status quo soon with one 170 per hour via Holymoorside and Chatsworth.

It's a tricky corridor to know how to service.

By not serving Holymoorside, Spital or the Hospital, Stagecoach are omitting some pretty significant sources of traffic, at least within Chesterfield. However, by omitting Holymoorside they will likely gain more of the Bakewell traffic as they'll offer a quicker journey.

Personally, I think if they are more interested in Chatsworth and Bakewell traffic they'd be better off omitting Chatsworth Road completely and either heading via Old Brampton or even via Cutthorpe to the Robin Hood. It's a more reliable route - Chatsworth Road can suffer really long tailbacks on nice days, made worse by the ill thought out cycle lane. Stagecoach are in a better position than High Peak to put an extra vehicle out in those circumstances though.

I did wonder also if there was scope during the summer for a service to compliment the 65, running from Buxton to Castleton.

 

[tram21]

I see that Andrew’s have also taken on the 257 Sunday journeys during the summer.

The timetable says the 257 is only partially subsidised by DCC so are the Sunday journeys commercial?

That's great, they were always very very popular over the summer with students to Ladybower

 

[Teapot42]

Going back in time pre Hulleys, to when the Chesterfield to Alfreton routes were operated by Stagecoach, I remember there were two different routes. I can’t remember their numbers or exact routes but they did serve different villages. One ran out of Chesterfield similar to the current 55 route via Wingerworth and the other ran out of Chesterfield via Hasland. Combining the two routes into the current 55 created a very roundabout route with longer journey times from many of the villages into both Chesterfield and Alfreton. I remember using the via Hasland route and it didn’t seem over long and was a usable alternative to Trent Barton’s Comet. Perhaps the 55 route needs revising slightly to make journey times from some of the villages more attractive.

It was the 55 and 56 when Hulleys took over originally. Stagecoach still run a single journey on a shortened 56 to an industrial estate in Holmewood.

As with many services, Hulleys needed to merge the two for it to be viable. The Hasland corridor is fairly well served by other services, so concentrating on Wingerworth to Clay Cross probably makes sense.

If you abandoned Hardstoft then you could cut a corner and go straight to Stonebroom. Tibshelf is served by the 1 anyway. The out and back to Morton is a bit of a pain, but unless you create a new Alfreton local service to fill in the various gaps around there it's hard to see an alternative.

 

[mayneway]

Having taken on quite a few more than they need I wonder if longer term there are plans to take on other work commercially? Based on the list given above they are also right at their limit of 40 vehicles.

Two theories here. Andrews are willing to take on more of Hulley’s work IF enough drivers move over. I doubt Andrews has the staff to get involved in the Hulley’s work so is waiting to see how many staff stay.

Other theory is that some of the buses are financed and need work doing before moving on - Andrews could have been asked to bring buses up to a ‘returnable or resalable’ standard which could explain why so many are there.

Considering what's happened recently and the fact that some of Hulleys fleet are now running out of Andrew's (Tideswell) yard shouldn't the former Hulleys fleet have "On Hire to Andrew's Tideswell") stickers on them.

Also when times permits obviously the Hulleys name will disappear of the vehicles and Andrew's transfers will be put on them.

They won’t have on hire notices because they are not on hire.
They are all running on Andrews ops discs and I’d imagine paper legals have been added to each bus today but in any case they have 28 days to update the legals on the buses.

 

[markymark2000]

Both High Peak and Stagecoach 170 timetables are up on Bustimes. Nothing for Andrews so far, but I'd imagine that is a technology they'll take time to get up to speed with.

Nothing seems to be tracking for any operator on those services though.

High Peak and Stagecoach were quick to update their open data entries yesterday (well done to them) and so data got picked up by Bustimes last night/this morning.

Andrews don't current have any open data available but yes, hopefully this will be resolved swiftly. In the meantime though, I'd hope that Derbyshire Council can sort out their Traveline entries and update the operator codes to Andrews/Ashbourne Community Transport, this will then feed into bustimes so routes show up under the correct operator.

 

[SCH117X]

A list of the vehicle disposals has been posted on Facebook - all to Andrews except ADL Enviro200 no.8 and the two Volvo B8RLE MCV Evora's 12 and 21 which have gone to Connexions, Optare Solo no.18 to TM Travel, Optare Solo No.25 no information

 

[mayneway]

Does make me wonder why Limburg pulled out at the last minute. I remember years ago when Glossop operator Speedwell dropped the commercial 394’s and DCC awarded it to Smiths of Marple which surprised many people and then at the 11th hour they pulled out just like Limburg with High peak picking it up.

 

[43055]

High Peak have just announced on Facebook they have decided to withdraw the 170

High Peak Buses Announces Withdrawal from 170 Service

High Peak Buses, an independent operator based in the High Peak, regrets to announce that we will no longer be proceeding with plans to operate the 170 service between Bakewell and Chesterfield, originally scheduled to commence on Thursday, 27th March 2025.

It had been our intention to replace the existing Hulleys service which has ceased to operate, ensuring continuity for passengers by serving both Hollymoorside and providing a direct link to Chesterfield Hospital. We had planned to provide local employment opportunities for Hulleys' drivers, with the longer-term vision of operating from Baslow to maintain stable local employment.

Despite being the first operator to be granted short-notice approval by Derbyshire County Council, subsequent approval was also granted to Stagecoach for a competing registration of the service. Stagecoach's version does not align with the existing Hulleys service, omitting key connections such as Hollymoorside and Chesterfield Hospital.

David Brookes, Managing Director of High Peak Buses, expressed his disappointment: "It’s disappointing that it has come to this. The service we had planned was designed to ensure vital community links were maintained, and it’s surprising that a competing registration for a service that does not provide these connections has been granted. The route cannot sustain two operators, and as a local operator, we are not prepared to engage in a bus war with Stagecoach—a company backed by an international investment fund. We regret having no other option but to withdraw our service."

 

[robbob700]

High Peak have posted an update on their website. They have withdrawn from the 170 route.

170 Bakewell - Chesterfield Royal Hospital Date: Thursday 27th March 2025​

High Peak Buses Announces Withdrawal from 170 Service

High Peak Buses, an independent operator based in the High Peak, regrets to announce that we will no longer be proceeding with plans to operate the 170 service between Bakewell and Chesterfield, originally scheduled to commence on Thursday, 27th March 2025.

It had been our intention to replace the existing Hulleys service which has ceased to operate, ensuring continuity for passengers by serving both Hollymoorside and providing a direct link to Chesterfield Hospital. We had planned to provide local employment opportunities for Hulleys' drivers, with the longer-term vision of operating from Baslow to maintain stable local employment.

Despite being the first operator to be granted short-notice approval by Derbyshire County Council, subsequent approval was also granted to Stagecoach for a competing registration of the service. Stagecoach's version does not align with the existing Hulleys service, omitting key connections such as Hollymoorside and Chesterfield Hospital.

David Brookes, Managing Director of High Peak Buses, expressed his disappointment: "It’s disappointing that it has come to this. The service we had planned was designed to ensure vital community links were maintained, and it’s surprising that a competing registration for a service that does not provide these connections has been granted. The route cannot sustain two operators, and as a local operator, we are not prepared to engage in a bus war with Stagecoach—a company backed by an international investment fund. We regret having no other option but to withdraw our service."

 

[JKP]

High Peak have just announced on Facebook they have decided to withdraw the 170

Very sensible. The onus is now on DCC to be proactive and discuss with Stagecoach what is required to serve Holymoorside and possibly the Hospital which is what should have been in the first place,

 

[tram21]

Very sensible. The onus is now on DCC to be proactive and discuss with Stagecoach what is required to serve Holymoorside and possibly the Hospital which is what should have been in the first place,

I hope so. I think there was capacity for both operators, its a shame that High Peak have pulled out, but I can see why

 

[Teapot42]

High Peak have just announced on Facebook they have decided to withdraw the 170

Not surprising unfortunately. The Stagecoach registration seems very disruptive to anyone attempting to provide a service for the areas of Chesterfield that they have decided not to serve.

One question for those who know these things - would DCC be permitted to tender a service to Holymoorside, considering it shares much of the route with the commercial 170? If not, could BSIP money be used to fill this gap?

 

[Hyebone]

So much for that bus war!

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Stagecoach are probably very happy at that news

 

[JKP]

Not surprising unfortunately. The Stagecoach registration seems very disruptive to anyone attempting to provide a service for the areas of Chesterfield that they have decided not to serve.

One question for those who know these things - would DCC be permitted to tender a service to Holymoorside, considering it shares much of the route with the commercial 170? If not, could BSIP money be used to fill this gap?

Yes if it was deemed socially necessary. Would be better though to negotiate with Stagecoach and agree a de minimis payment

 

[peterblue]

High Peak have just announced on Facebook they have decided to withdraw the 170

Can't say I'm surprised

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unlike the very professional message from Stagecoach's manager, that comes across as a childish moan, though, given that they know full well the law wouldn't allow them to be prioritised - registrations are not determined on merit.

(This exact same kind of moan was often issued from Peddle-owned MK Metro - I guess nothing has changed!)

 

[Teapot42]

Stagecoach are probably very happy at that news

Maybe, surely there will be more pressure on them now to provide something for the areas they dropped from their registration.

As an aside, I wonder what the implications are for High Peak registering the 272. They mention an intention to have a base at Baslow - which would have made the 272 a bit more viable than run from Dove Holes.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Does make me wonder why Limburg pulled out at the last minute. I remember years ago when Glossop operator Speedwell dropped the commercial 394’s and DCC awarded it to Smiths of Marple which surprised many people and then at the 11th hour they pulled out just like Limburg with High peak picking it up.

When Speedwell went bust, High Peak took the 394 on commercially and ran it as such for several years before escalating costs required it to return to a supported form. DCC may have issued a tender just in case but wouldn't have been able to award as an operator indicated an intention to run commercially so it wasn't exactly the same situation.

 

[Teapot42]

... they know full well the law wouldn't allow them to be prioritised - registrations are not determined on merit.

It's been mentioned on here that emergency registrations should be determined on priority though - and if High Peak got in first it's not surprising they are a bit annoyed that a second registration was also supported / permitted.