Hulley's of Baslow

[Omnidekkalover]

They mention an intention to have a base at Baslow

I don’t see that happening soon as I think (correct me if I’m wrong) Andrews will be quite happy to run some tendered work for a while and Stagecoach probably won’t budge on the 170

 

[Goldfish62]

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!)

I'd expect nothing else of Mr Peddle.

 

[mayneway]

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.

Speedwell gave up the commercial 394 before they ceased trading (they didn’t go bust), think they hoped to continue running it with financial support but it went out to tender after a campaign by local councillors and as I say it was awarded to Smiths who pulled out at the 11th hour, but your probably right, high peak registered it commercially so no tendered service was required.

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!)

I disagree. It’s a true breakdown of the reasons High peak is withdrawing its plans to operate the 170 commercially.
If High peak did receive a short notice agreement first to run the 170 commercially it begs the question, why has DCC approved a second from stagecoach?

And yes I fully get that DCC can’t stop stagecoach registering it commercially but they could refuse the short notice request, the chances are stagecoach May have run a free service, but then again knowing High peaks intentions could simply have left well alone.

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.

Exactly!
DCC have done the dirty on High peak and all the people left high and dry in the area’s that stagecoach won’t serve.

Could potentially leave egg on DCC’s face if after a couple of months Stagecoach decide it’s not commercially viable, (remember, big companies have differing ideas on what should be commercial and what shouldn’t) and withdraw it.

I know High Peak are short of drivers anyway but I wonder how many Hulley’s drivers have made the move to High peak?

 

[Teapot42]

DCC have done the dirty on High peak and all the people left high and dry in the area’s that stagecoach won’t serve.

Another thing that may have been missed - the Hulleys 170 didn't just serve Lady Manners, it also served Brookside school. The 8:36 ex Holymoorside and the 15:39 from the school tie in perfectly with school hours. Again, Stagecoach don't replicate that and I can see even more parents driving their kids down to school, in an area that already suffers badly from congestion around school times.

 

[Djb1]

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.

I wonder if it has something to do with Andrews other DCC contracts - a few directly overlap the 257 / 173 and it may have been possible to merge the contracts for better utilisation.

 

[mayneway]

I wonder if it has something to do with Andrews other DCC contracts - a few directly overlap the 257 / 173 and it may have been possible to merge the contracts for better utilisation.

Could be a number of reasons. Potentially non of the Hulley’s drivers were interested in moving over, or maybe they couldn’t secure suitable vehicle's. Just seems strange they would agree, DCC would them advertise them taking services on only for them to drop them.

 

[Goldfish62]

This is now the third time I've stated this. Neither High Peak nor Stagecoach replicated exactly what Hulley's 170 offered.

If DCC had refused support for Stagecoach then they'd be accused of denying a Sunday service to the whole route. If they'd refused support for High Peak they'd be accused of denying a service to Holymoorside.

The best thing to do: support both registrations and expect one operator to blink first, which is exactly what has happened. Negotiations can now take place on potential deminimis funding to fill in the gaps on the one service that is left.

Suggesting that DCC has done the dirty on High Peak is absolute waddle. Peddle has always been one the biggest supporters of unfettered deregulation so I have no sympathy for his crocodile tears because on this occasion things have not gone right for him.

 

[mayneway]

Suggesting that DCC has done the dirty on High Peak is absolute waddle. Peddle has always been one the biggest supporters of unfettered deregulation so I have no sympathy for his crocodile tears because on this occasion things have not gone right for him.

You seem to have a real axe to grind with Peddle??

Perhaps DCC could have brought both parties together to reach a compromise, instead if Stagecoach do throw it in after a few months with the ‘not commercially viable’ line or request some form of subsidy it has the potential to explode on DCC.

 

[Travelmonkey]

You seem to have a real axe to grind with Peddle??

Perhaps DCC could have brought both parties together to reach a compromise, instead if Stagecoach do throw it in after a few months with the ‘not commercially viable’ line or request some form of subsidy it has the potential to explode on DCC.

Definitely would have been a good comunity show to put on a QBS (partnership agreement), I can see Stagecoach wanting subsidiary after a small period, I've had beef with Peddle's firms before (Corby Centrebus) but you have to move on. Ultimately its 2 operators and High Peak rightly don't want to risk it against the bigger Stagecoach.

 

[Teapot42]

Perhaps DCC could have brought both parties together to reach a compromise, instead if Stagecoach do throw it in after a few months with the ‘not commercially viable’ line or request some form of subsidy it has the potential to explode on DCC.

I hope that should Stagecoach go after a subsidy that DCC do a full tendering process for the route, rather than bunging them some cash. It's only fair as I'm sure other operators would be interested and Stagecoach won't necessarily be the cheapest.

 

[Travelmonkey]

I hope that should Stagecoach go after a subsidy that DCC do a full tendering process for the route, rather than bunging them some cash. It's only fair as I'm sure other operators would be interested and Stagecoach won't necessarily be the cheapest.

I have the feeling they will stand by the "commercial" to not subsidise, the 55 stands non catered for with that line.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

The Andrews of Tideswell timetables are now on bustimes

 

[Observer]

At this point would it not be better for a seperate thread for Andrews and the continuation of the Hulleys fleet?

 

[m79900]

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.
so?

That's good. Could you direct me to this information please?

 

[AWK]

I disagree. It’s a true breakdown of the reasons High peak is withdrawing its plans to operate the 170 commercially.
If High peak did receive a short notice agreement first to run the 170 commercially it begs the question, why has DCC approved a second from stagecoach?

Because the two different registrations offered different things, they were not 'like for like' and DCC have no right or ability to interfere with commercial registations:

High Peak's registration serves Calow and Holymoorside, which Stagecoach's doesnt.

Stagecoach's registration covers a school which High Peaks didn't, and provides a commercial Sunday service which High Peaks didn't.

By your logic, DCC should have refused to support a registration which provided a schools coverage and a Sunday service?

Both registrations were supported by DCC presumably on the basis the 2 separate ones covered all elements of the 170 DCC would like to be covered.

Exactly!
DCC have done the dirty on High peak and all the people left high and dry in the area’s that stagecoach won’t serve.

The only people who have left Holymoorside and Calow village without a service are Hulleys and now High Peak

Could potentially leave egg on DCC’s face if after a couple of months Stagecoach decide it’s not commercially viable, (remember, big companies have differing ideas on what should be commercial and what shouldn’t) and withdraw it.

That's the same with any commercial provision. How will it leave egg on DCC's face when they've been very clear (rightly) that they gave no say over commercial provision.

I know High Peak are short of drivers anyway but I wonder how many Hulley’s drivers have made the move to High peak?

Some to Stagecoach, most to Andrews I'm told

Definitely would have been a good comunity show to put on a QBS (partnership agreement), I can see Stagecoach wanting subsidiary after a small period, I've had beef with Peddle's firms before (Corby Centrebus) but you have to move on. Ultimately its 2 operators and High Peak rightly don't want to risk it against the bigger Stagecoach.

Such agreements take months to put in place. The priority at the minute is to get buses on the streets.

I hope that should Stagecoach go after a subsidy that DCC do a full tendering process for the route, rather than bunging them some cash. It's only fair as I'm sure other operators would be interested and Stagecoach won't necessarily be the cheapest.

You can not "bung them some cash" other than de minimis payment below a certain threshold (£200k I think, but don't quote me)

 

[Teapot42]

That's good. Could you direct me to this information please?

If you are a member of the Hulleys Enthusiasts Facebook group then it's posted on there. As it's a member-only group I can't post a link to it.

 

[Djb1]

The Andrews of Tideswell timetables are now on bustimes

They are also on their own website with some differences on the 257, which i suspect will interwork the 178

https://www.andrews-of-tideswell.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/257-Andrews-Group.pdf

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Any updates on 'the siege of Baslow'?

 

[AWK]

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

Agreed. There needs to be proof of demand however. Both Stagecoach and Hulleys previously ran dedicated services for Holymoorside. Both failed to be viable.

 

[m79900]

If you are a member of the Hulleys Enthusiasts Facebook group then it's posted on there. As it's a member-only group I can't post a link to it.

Fair do's.

 

[AWK]

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.

Sold as a job lot (with the exception of the Evoras which command a higher price).

Andrew's bought the lot, will work out which ones are the better ones and, over time, offload the rest

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?

I suspect its a condition of DCCs tenders that the Operator will sell and accept their ticketing products. I'm sure DCC will work with the operator to put things in place

 

[Russel]

Seen a comment in the Hulleys enthusiasts group on Facebook that Go-Coach claimed ownership of the fleet and it was them who sold the fleet on to Andrews...

Any truth in this or is it the usual social media nonsense?

 

[BusesOfTheNW]

Interestingly the Andrews timetable appears to be better than the Hulleys one (earlier, later and pretty much consistently hourly)
I do wonder whether the 257 is partially commercial (like it was with Hulleys) or if it is now entirely tendered

 

[Hyebone]

Seen a comment in the Hulleys enthusiasts group on Facebook that Go-Coach claimed ownership of the fleet and it was them who sold the fleet on to Andrews...

Any truth in this or is it the usual social media nonsense?

Sounds like rubbish to me. Happy to be corrected however

 

[mayneway]

Seen a comment in the Hulleys enthusiasts group on Facebook that Go-Coach claimed ownership of the fleet and it was them who sold the fleet on to Andrews...

Any truth in this or is it the usual social media nonsense?

There’s a lot of stuff being banded about at the moment.

Some very worrying comments if true.

 

[MadMarsupial]

Sold as a job lot (with the exception of the Evoras which command a higher price).

Andrew's bought the lot, will work out which ones are the better ones and, over time, offload the rest

I suspect its a condition of DCCs tenders that the Operator will sell and accept their ticketing products. I'm sure DCC will work with the operator to put things in place

I am sure it is a condition. A few years back High Peak decided they would pull out of the Wayfarer but they still had to accept it for services/timings with DCC funding. Confused everyone and they soon re-entered the Wayfarer "fold"

 

[JKP]

Interestingly the Andrews timetable appears to be better than the Hulleys one (earlier, later and pretty much consistently hourly)
I do wonder whether the 257 is partially commercial (like it was with Hulleys) or if it is now entirely tendered

The 257 on the Andrew’s website differs from what was being displayed earlier in the day and from that shown on Bus Times. This is not helpful. Which one is correct? Has a revised registration been made? The new timetable shows an hourly service all day on Mondays to Saturdays but there is no longer mention of a Sunday service.

As it is not to DCC format, I would suggest that the 257 timetable now shown is principally commercial possibly with some subsidy for journeys vis Bradwell as with Hulley’s.

 

[Russel]

There’s a lot of stuff being banded about at the moment.

Some very worrying comments if true.

Yes, certainly.

Though we're not going to know for sure until the dust settles I guess.

 

[MotCO]

Seen a comment in the Hulleys enthusiasts group on Facebook that Go-Coach claimed ownership of the fleet and it was them who sold the fleet on to Andrews...

Any truth in this or is it the usual social media nonsense?

When Go-Coach was taken over, Go-Coach seemed to have assumed responsibility for major maintenance, and buses were often swapped between the two fleets. So was the ownership of Hulley's fleet transferred to Go-Coach at that time, maybe to give Hulleys some cash flow? Some of the E200s hired by Hulleys found their way to Go-Coach (and Metrobus) a month or so back.

 

[SLC001]

I believe 2 ex Hulleys buses are out tonight leaving Bakewell at 7pm. I don't have details, probably preserved vehicles. It is a sensitive moment up there, there are some fond memories of the firm and this is a celebration. Folks are upset.