No but in the case of the 55, it appears that some communities are now without any bus service. This should have been covered by an emergency short term contract. Councils have the obligation to consider providing socially necessary bus services. With an hourly all day plus evening service I cannot see why DCC has not stepped in. Any contract could have been invited then not let if an operator agreed to run commercially. The same applies to the 271/272 where there is now no peak service into Sheffield from Castleton and a severe reduction in the number of journeys over the day.
There are any number of villages/hamlets across Derbyshire (and beyond) that don't have a bus service. That in itself is not a reason to issue an emergency tender.
There has to be a social need - kids to get to a primary school in a neighbouring village etc with no suitable alternative. If such conditions exist I'm sure DCC will be putting out an emergency tender, if not already. If those conditions don't exist then it's a commercial venture should anyone wish to take it on.
Likewise the 271/272. Agree there is no bus in to Sheffield from Castleton before 9am now, but is there a demand for one? Other places on the route - Hope, Bamford, Hathersage have a train service. Just because a service, or in this case part of a service, has been withdrawn does not mean it HAS to be replaced. It MAY be replaced if any operator thinks it is a worthwhile commercial venture or if DCC think there is a social necessity to replace some or all of the dropped mileage on a contracted basis
Tendered work was being sorted anyway. As for commercial, you can ask around and try to nudge operators to take on something. It's amazing how many changes are made to buses as a result of council or councillor requests (without payment, just a general request to make a change to a commercial route).
Isn't part of the 55 funded too? If so there is funding there and DCC can dangle a carrot offering that funding to someone else. 170 BSIP trips are gone so again there is funded trips there which DCC could negotiate with operators to see if anyone is able or willing to take something on which includes those night journeys.
55 gets BSIP funding for evening and Sunday enhancements (provision of a service above what is commercially viable)
How do you know those conversations aren't taking place? Just because nothing has been confirmed yet doesn't mean nothing is happening. Maybe DCC are waiting to see what happens with the commercial aspects of the 55 and 170 before seeking an operator for the BSIP element?
Didn't the 6 carry school kids? In which case surely there is a need there for DCC to find an alternative as it's school transport.
Is it the only service from those villages/areas to the schools? If so, then I'd agree an emergency tender for that element will probably be forthcoming, or conversation with an operator running a parallel service (if any exist) to see if the two services can be merged together. It's not area I know that well geographically.
The communications from DCC are shocking. They could have very easily said 'we are working with operators' or 'we are in discussions with operators about alternative provision'. If operators are still planning their response (perhaps First with the 271/272), it's best to say that rather than causing passengers to excessively worry about whether they will ever get a bus service again. And even if all of those discussions hit a brick wall and all operators said they couldn't/wouldn't run it, at least the council has done something rather than just saying 'thats a commercial route, nothing to do with us' which is an extremely poor way of dealing with things. And probably one of the worst responses from any council that I have seen in relation to a bus operator of such size ceasing trading. We've seen plenty of operators cease operating before, including commercial routes at risk. Other authorities have dealt with the situations seemingly far better than Derbyshire have.
Commercial services are neither DCCs responsibility or remit. They are, rightly, keeping out of Commercial decisions and updating once they know what's happening. DCCs focus has to be on the tendered element.
Yes, they put a streetlite on it today and it looked dangerously overcrowded
www.facebook.com
I'd not pay too much attention to loadings today given the number of missing trips its likely those that were running were very overloaded
I'd be amazed if Derbyshire doesn't have a transport co ordinating department, and at least one officer that can operate a telephone/send an email and have conversations with interested operators.
They do, but commercial service provision and negotiating that is not their remit
There’s clearly a lot going on.
Suggestions by a driver that a number of assets have transferred to the dormant ‘modeldart’ company which has led to the ‘protest’ in Hulley’s yard today.
It seems from comments it wasn’t to stop buses entering or leaving but to stop the owner leaving.
What a mess!
That's an interesting one...
Modeldart Ltd is the owner of Henry Hulley & Sons Ltd. Alf Crofts is the sole owner of Modeldart Ltd.
Whilst in theory it is perfectly possible for vehicles to have been "sold" from Hulley's to Modeldart, that will have had to have happened before lunchtime yesterday when Receivers (a company called Leonard Curtis) took over management of the business.
Anyone with a bit of spare time on their hands want to run the registrations of the Hulley's vehicles that operated today through the DVLA website to see of any recent changes of keeper are recorded...?
However, as the proprietor of both businesses (Hulley's and Modeldart) is the same person and IF monies owed include to HMRC and assets that could be sold to raise monies to pay off some of the debts to HMRC I believe it is possible that the "sale" of those vehicles could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to avoid paying tax and be forcefully returned to the ownership of Hulley's. I may be wrong on that However but I'm sure I recall a similar case when that happened.
