Why aren't 'Placement'/'Dead Mileage' trips more common

[markymark2000]

As I said, I assumed that two of them were those were 38s. Arriva have decided that they can either run in service and incur an extra cost of c.15 mins and an extra four miles. You can work out the likely cost of that; whether any revenue will be gained is a moot point and they probably believe that whatever patronage may simply be abstracted from the existing 31/31W that already runs every half hour.

Or they can run them direct down the A530. I'm sure that they have looked at this and that's why they've made the decision that they did.

Have Arriva worked it out though or just ignored it? Many operators are simply too lazy to think about things like this.
In some instances it may abstract revenue, in others it may fill a gap. There isn't a set standard of 'all dead trips should run in service' or 'all dead trips shouldn't run in service'. Each dead trip has to be looked at on it's own as it's no good running 30 seconds ahead of the regular core bus. If it fills a fair sized gap in the service though, there is potential.

EDIT: I did have a look at the others that you felt I'd ignored.

Waverton to Chester - given that the regular bus service is the 41 operated by Aintree, Stagecoach perhaps feel that putting on some early morning or late evening services when they don't run the main bus service would be a bit pointless.

As for Gillmoss to Liverpool, don't know

Waverton to Chester, understandably not Waverton, it has no demand at all and the point you raise is valid but from the 'Hamburger' there is decent amount into town already on route 5. Enhancing it's early morning offering along a busyish corridor with potential demand. Running the 5 from Huntington as a full length normal trip would put 10-15 mins on a duty but starting at Sainsburys or after the 'Hamburger' would cost a few minutes, if that. 1 passenger would cover that cost.

Would there be any point in building on existing demand on an already suitably bussed corridor for what will be an irregular service?

Plus the longer you've got a driver running a registered service that was a dead run the less driving hours he's got. The economics mean in most cases it's just not worth it.

What I mean by existing demand is that you already have some passengers on a key corridor. You aren't building up a brand new route. For the instances of pre 7am-7.30 buses, there is potential here to enhance the 'early commuter' frequency at no cost.

For interpeak dead mileage, it would have to have another purpose other than 'enhancing the frequency', For example a driver shuttle or shopper bus to get demand. It'd be no use running a random dead mileage trip along a corridor of 4 buses per hour as that is pure revenue extraction from the core route. I do not support and 100% wouldn't work. Useless doing that. It has to have a positive benefit such as increased frequency at a low frequency time or providing a shopper bus link or something like that to areas which currently do not have that link.

The driving hours one depends on exactly how long running in service would take versus running dead. In some cases, it wouldn't cost much except a few minutes dwell time.

As well as the increase in day-to-day operating costs there is also the issue of providing publicity for the additional journeys. In many cities this is done by the local authority or Passenger Transport Executive (as in Manchester and the West Midlands) and they charge operators for doing the work. These charges are compulsory and include fees for changing roadside displays, service numbers on bus stop flags, printed leaflets and updating maps and posters.

In many other areas it is the responsibility of the bus operator to provide their own publicity (online, printed and at the roadside) which comes at considerable cost. A route of 30 minutes in duration could potentially cost over £1,000 just to replace the roadside publicity, and printed leaflets could run to another £1,000.

There is also the additional administrative burden of providing data for the route to the Bus Open Data Service which is a further cost, as well as recording the relevant information for the route for Bus Service Operator’s Grant and concessionary fare returns.

And also note that at many depots the trade union agreement is for all drivers to be taken out to be shown new routes. In a depot with 100 employees at around £15 per hour (which is the wages with employer’s contributions) to do route training for three hours would cost £4,500.

There is also the £60 charge for actually registering a positioning service, which may not seem much but would need paying each time a trip needed retiming. Plus the cost of the scheduler making the necessary changes.

Overall it’s entirely feasible that to create a new service to replace dead journeys could end up with a bill of upwards of £10,000 before a single passenger is even picked up.

A lot of your analysis here is based off a brand new route to brand new areas and that is fair but doesn't represent the costs in all instances.

If it's building an existing route, you would merge changes into the core network and any changes which get made there. That'd remove the majority of your costs because it's costs which would happen irrespective of the additional trip.

Where it is a brand new route, it could be a route which runs the same way 'dead' as the bus runs in service so that should be route training out the window. Some of the other costs remain and it depends on how strict a council as as to how much they would do over the operator I guess. They could, if they are pro bus, choose to waive some of the roadside publicity fees as long as other changes are already happening for existing routes or because it's in the councils benefit to make such a change as it improves the bus network reach and it's cost them.... A few grand to sort.

Bus Open Data wouldn't really cost more in most instances because the majority of companies are sorting it through one of the tech companies who charge 'per machine' so unless the bus has no ticket machine, there shouldn't be extra costs. In instances where it is 'per service' yes there may be some costs and that is understandable.

Your £1k cost of publicity would also likely be a special case. Most firms would just stick up the same leaflet on the bus stop. You can get 500 leaflets for £40. Design cost depends on a number of things. Putting them up, paying someone £100 for a day to go up the route and sort putting them up. Much lower than £1k.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Have Arriva worked it out though or just ignored it? Many operators are simply too lazy to think about things like this.
In some instances it may abstract revenue, in others it may fill a gap. There isn't a set standard of 'all dead trips should run in service' or 'all dead trips shouldn't run in service'. Each dead trip has to be looked at on it's own as it's no good running 30 seconds ahead of the regular core bus. If it fills a fair sized gap in the service though, there is potential.

Well, I can't speak for Arriva or any other operator in specific instances. However, I'd suggest that they will have looked at this as part of the planning for the closure of Crewe depot and it really doesn't take long to establish the cost of doing something. Another clue is that they do start one of the morning 6's from Leighton Hospital but one starts from Crewe itself so some thought has been undertaken.

As for the Huntington example, I'm sure that when Stagecoach relocated (and to a decidedly obscure spot), they will have looked at ways to improve the financial position

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Apologies for asking, but what exactly is a "placement/dead mileage trip" as per the thread title?

Is this effectively the bus/coach company equivalent of a railway 'ECS' (empty coaching stock) movement?

 

[markymark2000]

Apologies for asking, but what exactly is a "placement/dead mileage trip" as per the thread title?

Is this effectively the bus/coach company equivalent of a railway 'ECS' (empty coaching stock) movement?

Yes. Essentially. Buses run empty/not in service and the idea of opening up those trips to the public. The railways I think does it at times but often it's more difficult because you need a guard as well for it to work.

Well, I can't speak for Arriva or any other operator in specific instances. However, I'd suggest that they will have looked at this as part of the planning for the closure of Crewe depot and it really doesn't take long to establish the cost of doing something. Another clue is that they do start one of the morning 6's from Leighton Hospital but one starts from Crewe itself so some thought has been undertaken.

As for the Huntington example, I'm sure that when Stagecoach relocated (and to a decidedly obscure spot), they will have looked at ways to improve the financial position

You give operators far more credit than they deserve. That's all I will say.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes. Essentially. Buses run empty/not in service and the idea of opening up those trips to the public. The railways I think does it at times but often it's more difficult because you need a guard as well for it to work.


You give operators far more credit than they deserve. That's all I will say.

Why - which operators have you worked with?

Can't speak for all operators (who can?) but we've had input from First Kernow, and I have two very good friends who've worked for a number of the major groups' OpCos; they certainly look at this.

Not to say that mistakes don't get made but they do consider these things.

 

[Whisky Papa]

I remember Halifax Joint Committee (the 90s/00s operator) used to like a live positioning run, I’m guessing there was a financial benefit at that time.

So as well as numerous runs to/from their depot at the start/end of service, there was a 392 (like First’s 592) that ran Halifax to Todmorden at 7am and returned at about 5pm linked to a school service and most oddly they at one point picked up some schools work in Queensbury so ran 3 376s (like a 576) from Halifax to Queensbury at about 1430, 1435 & 1440 with no other trips for hours either side.

I say these services ran, when I went to catch one of those 392s, hoping for a rare ride on a MCW Metrobus, the bus just flew past still blinded for the school run, so they clearly never actually expected to pick anyone up.

Yes, the Halifax JOC 392 was linked to a Walsden to Crossley Heath School (near King Cross) contract, my son was using it at the time. At one stage it had been operated by First Calderline from Halifax garage, but their placement trips ran empty, simply to save time as "dead" journeys were allocated 2/3 of the service running time. Thus Todmorden to Halifax was allowed 30 min dead as against 45 min in service. There were several dead journeys between the two towns as Todmorden garage operated slightly more of the services (then 590-3) than the timetable suggests it should have done, including the 2300 into Halifax which ran back empty.

Todmorden also operated works contracts to the Volex factory in the town, and two of these involved lengthy dead runs out to Milnrow and Castleton. I was a T&GWU shop steward for a while during my years there, and I was horrified to one day find that these journeys had suddenly been registered so the fuel duty rebate could be claimed! I made it quite clear that I thought this was sharp practice at best, but a faretable was duly produced and one afternoon I noticed the journeys appeared on a GMPTE bus stop timetable at the Summit Inn. Needless to say, not a single passenger was ever carried between then and the date the factory closed a year or two later.

 

[markymark2000]

Why - which operators have you worked with?

That's for me to know.

Can't speak for all operators (who can?) but we've had input from First Kernow, and I have two very good friends who've worked for a number of the major groups' OpCos; they certainly look at this.

Not to say that mistakes don't get made but they do consider these things.

I think it is fair to say some operators think of things but I certainly wouldn't say that this applies to the majority who see dead mileage as just part and parcel of the job and work it into costings rather than trying to overcome it. This is proven time and time again with some of the distances which operators go not in service each day.

 

[RustySpoons]

You always do a big weekly shop on a Saturday afternoon, but you nip in to the same supermarket which is off your usual commute home on the odd weekday after work to pick up a bottle of milk. You don't do this every day, just very occasionally. You wouldn't go out of your way every single day to go to the supermarket on the off chance when there's no need. It'd be a waste of time, money, effort, etc. You'd just go straight home.

In the same way a bus operator wouldn't run an irregular service via a set route where there's little demand just to get a bus from the depot to the starting point of a route. Yes sometimes there may be a passenger who'd use the service, in the same way you may need a bottle of milk in the (slightly tenuous) analogy above, but it's just not worth it. You've previously mentioned they could build on existing demand, but there'd be little point. If it's an early positioning journey then there'd be little demand. If it's during the day/peak hours then an irregular single journey wouldn't make any difference.

I don't know what work you do/have done with bus operators, but if you have worked with them and suggested such a thing and they haven't pursued it then I'd take that as a sign it isn't viable. If you haven't worked with any bus operators then suggesting it on an internet forum is probably the wrong audience. If you were just posting to see if it would work before approaching operators, then I think the general consensus is that in the real world it wouldn't.

 

[Stan Drews]

Yes. Essentially. Buses run empty/not in service and the idea of opening up those trips to the public. The railways I think does it at times but often it's more difficult because you need a guard as well for it to work.


You give operators far more credit than they deserve. That's all I will say.

So, because it’s often more difficult on the railways, they stick to ECS operation, but despite being given numerous reasons why bus operators stick with running ‘dead’, you’re still banging about it, and now you resort to insulting bus operators!
You asked a question, to which you received many answers. Now, it’s time to let it go!

 

[markymark2000]

So, because it’s often more difficult on the railways, they stick to ECS operation, but despite being given numerous reasons why bus operators stick with running ‘dead’, you’re still banging about it, and now you resort to insulting bus operators!
You asked a question, to which you received many answers. Now, it’s time to let it go!

I insult bus operators on the daily. This is nothing new.

Regarding the original point, I will leave it because it's going around in circles. There is evidence of where it works and is popular and so I will stick to that rather than the constant naysayers. It's no wonder the industry is doomed to failure with so much negativity around the potential of improving services for passengers.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That's for me to know.

It was more a rhetorical question than expecting an answer as to whom. More that you have worked extensively in the industry?

I think it is fair to say some operators think of things but I certainly wouldn't say that this applies to the majority who see dead mileage as just part and parcel of the job and work it into costings rather than trying to overcome it. This is proven time and time again with some of the distances which operators go not in service each day.

My experience is that operators do look at these. I can point to any number of examples where it does happen - the Faverdale to Darlington extensions being one such that I highlighted.

Going back to the Winforsd example, Arriva has looked at this given how the 6 is timetabled. They probably did look at the cost of running vehicles in service to Crewe as a 31, and they know (as do you) that it is going to cost £x. That bit is easier; it's working out the opportunity cost of not doing it is much more difficult to assess.

 

[Contains Nuts]

I insult bus operators on the daily. This is nothing new.

Is this really a productive thing to do? I doubt you will get far in life with this attitude.

 

[markymark2000]

Is this really a productive thing to do? I doubt you will get far in life with this attitude.

If they do things right, they get praise, do things wrong, you don't get praise. I'd go too off topic if I gave more details.

 

[Eyersey468]

There's a difference between giving constructive feedback and being insulting though

 

[Deerfold]

Yes, the Halifax JOC 392 was linked to a Walsden to Crossley Heath School (near King Cross) contract, my son was using it at the time. At one stage it had been operated by First Calderline from Halifax garage, but their placement trips ran empty, simply to save time as "dead" journeys were allocated 2/3 of the service running time. Thus Todmorden to Halifax was allowed 30 min dead as against 45 min in service. There were several dead journeys between the two towns as Todmorden garage operated slightly more of the services (then 590-3) than the timetable suggests it should have done, including the 2300 into Halifax which ran back empty.

Todmorden also operated works contracts to the Volex factory in the town, and two of these involved lengthy dead runs out to Milnrow and Castleton. I was a T&GWU shop steward for a while during my years there, and I was horrified to one day find that these journeys had suddenly been registered so the fuel duty rebate could be claimed! I made it quite clear that I thought this was sharp practice at best, but a faretable was duly produced and one afternoon I noticed the journeys appeared on a GMPTE bus stop timetable at the Summit Inn. Needless to say, not a single passenger was ever carried between then and the date the factory closed a year or two later.

At one point they ran half a dozen 392s in each direction, all covering different parts of the route, not all in the same direction in the morning and afternoon.

 

[MotCO]

What I mean by existing demand is that you already have some passengers on a key corridor. You aren't building up a brand new route. For the instances of pre 7am-7.30 buses, there is potential here to enhance the 'early commuter' frequency at no cost.

For interpeak dead mileage, it would have to have another purpose other than 'enhancing the frequency', For example a driver shuttle or shopper bus to get demand. It'd be no use running a random dead mileage trip along a corridor of 4 buses per hour as that is pure revenue extraction from the core route. I do not support and 100% wouldn't work. Useless doing that. It has to have a positive benefit such as increased frequency at a low frequency time or providing a shopper bus link or something like that to areas which currently do not have that link.

The driving hours one depends on exactly how long running in service would take versus running dead. In some cases, it wouldn't cost much except a few minutes dwell time.

How about running some services as 'express routes'? That would reduce the overall journey time and may be more attractive to some existing and new customers.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How about running some services as 'express routes'? That would reduce the overall journey time and may be more attractive to some existing and new customers.

This has been done at times but it depends. Back in the day, there were a number of early morning and late evening journeys between Darlington and Middlesbrough that were placement journeys.

I guess the issue is that if they run express, how useful will they actually be. Often you're talking that these are quite early i.e. before 0700 and from a peripheral location (as many depots are now located on industrial estates) and will by definition miss out a load of stops.

Back in the day, there were quite a few of these odd services that were clearly placement journeys that were registered just to get the Fuel Duty Rebate.

 

[GusB]

Ok, time out! It's possible to have differences of opinion without resorting to personal insults. Please keep the discussion civil. Thanks.

 

[miklcct]

Often you're talking that these are quite early i.e. before 0700 and from a peripheral location (as many depots are now located on industrial estates) and will by definition miss out a load of stops.

This will be good for commuters as residential estates are also located in peripheral location as well. Such buses first run an express from the peripheral location to carry commuters into the city centre, then work inside the city, and return in the evening peak as an express.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This will be good for commuters as residential estates are also located in peripheral location as well. Such buses first run an express from the peripheral location to carry commuters into the city centre, then work inside the city, and return in the evening peak as an express.

There may be the odd opportunity but in reality, industrial estates tend to be located very much in a zoned area away from residential, and vehicles may be travelling to another peripheral location to begin their days work.

As I explained earlier, Arriva NE have a Darlington to Catterick (via Richmond) service with a few journeys that start at the depot in Faverdale. That makes sense and provides a couple of extra journeys down West Auckland Road with no diversionary mileage. There are also some vehicles that run directly out of service to Catterick from Faverdale. They could be registered as expresses but for the limited housing they pass and the early hour they run, it's just not worth registering.

There will, of course, be some opportunities but often, operators assess it isn't worth the hassle.

 

[PeterC]

To those of us brought up in the days of centrally located bus garages the amount of modern placement milage does, at first sight, appear perverse. However buses are now seldom likely to be operating from depots close to the line of route so we lose the short workings at the start and end of day.

 

[miklcct]

However buses are now seldom likely to be operating from depots close to the line of route so we lose the short workings at the start and end of day.

This doesn't happen in Bournemouth and Poole. For example, there are a lot of short workings terminating at Castlepoint, just next to the Yellow Bus Garage, while in morebus, the depots are located close to the main termini. On the routes X3 and X6, all but one bus start and end the day of working in form of Ringwood short working as the depot is located in Ringwood, and the exception is due to increased layover / temporary road construction forcing an additional bus compared to the original roster.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This doesn't happen in Bournemouth and Poole. For example, there are a lot of short workings terminating at Castlepoint, just next to the Yellow Bus Garage, while in morebus, the depots are located close to the main termini. On the routes X3 and X6, all but one bus start and end the day of working in form of Ringwood short working as the depot is located in Ringwood, and the exception is due to increased layover / temporary road construction forcing an additional bus compared to the original roster.

Although, of course, there was a historic issue in that H&D's Bournemouth depot burnt down in 1976 so services were concentrated out of Poole depot and that meant a lot of clever scheduling in the local area. It's now so long in the past and so many changes have occurred, it's difficult to really spot it now.

 

[Simon75]

Arriva Wales 12 (run from Rhyl garage, in the town centre), Rhyl to Llandudno, have 3 positioning journeys as X12
1 early Rhyl to Colwyn Bay (as the 1st 12 journey towards Rhyl commences Colwyn Bay, and 1 early evening journey Colwyn Bay to Rhyl and a late Llandudno to Rhyl journey

First Potteries run a few early/evening from Hanley to Adderley Green garage, which pasts the Bentilee estate.
There were more early mornings/late evening journeys, but now are withdrawn

 

[RT4038]

To those of us brought up in the days of centrally located bus garages the amount of modern placement milage does, at first sight, appear perverse. However buses are now seldom likely to be operating from depots close to the line of route so we lose the short workings at the start and end of day.

I am not sure that is particularly correct. Very much depends on individual circumstances. If you are referring to the London situation, this is more because a conscious decision was taken to eliminate short workings to avoid confusion to passengers - an expensive decision not really replicated in the commercial provinces.

 

[Roger1973]

I'm also surprised that, with seemingly fewer depots and presumably longer garage runs, some positioning journeys aren't 'livened up'. For example, Metrobus of Orpington used to run many routes starting from Bromley North, and you often used to see a string of buses going down the A21 to Bromley. It would have been great if some of those could have been an 'express route' from Green Street Green to Bromley to support the 358 or old 402.

TFL don't like this sort of thing - it causes (as they see it) confusion to the public if there are occasional (say) 119's running between Green Street Green and Bromley, it generates work and complaints for them when there's a schedule change that means those depot journeys change, or more so when (as did happen with the 119) Metrobus decided to move the route to Croydon depot (to balance work after tender changes) or it gets re-tendered to another operator who has a base somewhere else.

Added to which, almost all depot runs are not at real peak times (although there might just be a few cases in the outer suburbs where there's a peak based on getting to jobs in central London rather than jobs in Bromley etc), and the extra few minutes per journey to run in service will - over a number of routes - add up to more driver time which has got to be paid for. And potentially make the difference between some duties working within drivers' hours limits and not, so that means another duty (and therefore driver employed) here and there.

In fact, dead running from one end to the other in the reverse commute direction is a great way to cut the peak vehicle requirement of a route.

Wow, that is quite an extreme example. I know that happens quite a bit in Manchester and it's bonkers.

there are a handful of London routes that do it, especially if TFL specify (say) a 5 minute frequency in peak direction and a 6 - 7 minute frequency the other way.

On the face of it, yes it can seem daft, but as miklcct says, if by doing that, you get some buses back to the other end that bit quicker, just at the tightest spot of the peaks, it can save needing another bus (or two) on the route. A chunk of cost is around the purchase / finance / lease of each 'peak vehicle' and then licensing and garaging it. Is it worth that cost, for a bus that might be in service 3 or 4 hours a day, plus the additional driver time, simply to spread the same 'against peak flow' passengers between more journeys?

Sometimes in scheduling (which I have done but like others, I'm not going to say exactly where and when) it does work out more cost effective overall to do something that on the face of it appears to add cost with a bit of 'inefficient' dead running - either to save a peak vehicle, or to make the difference whether a critical duty can be done within drivers' hours or not.

In one schedule I did, I split one late evening town centre - terminus - town centre journey at the outer terminus end, with the 'late duty' bus running back dead from terminus to depot, and a 'night duty' bus running out dead from depot to do the journey back (simply not running the inward journey wasn't an option.) Yes, this looked silly and cost a bit of unproductive time and dead mileage. But the 'rational' alternative would have needed one more night duty every day from that depot, paid at night driver rate.

The perfect timetable doesn't always make a good vehicle schedule, the perfect vehicle schedule doesn't always make a good duty schedule, and the perfect duty schedule doesn't always make a good rota.

 

[markymark2000]

there are a handful of London routes that do it, especially if TFL specify (say) a 5 minute frequency in peak direction and a 6 - 7 minute frequency the other way.

On the face of it, yes it can seem daft, but as miklcct says, if by doing that, you get some buses back to the other end that bit quicker, just at the tightest spot of the peaks, it can save needing another bus (or two) on the route. A chunk of cost is around the purchase / finance / lease of each 'peak vehicle' and then licensing and garaging it. Is it worth that cost, for a bus that might be in service 3 or 4 hours a day, plus the additional driver time, simply to spread the same 'against peak flow' passengers between more journeys?

Sometimes in scheduling (which I have done but like others, I'm not going to say exactly where and when) it does work out more cost effective overall to do something that on the face of it appears to add cost with a bit of 'inefficient' dead running - either to save a peak vehicle, or to make the difference whether a critical duty can be done within drivers' hours or not.

It's bonkers but can make some sense at times. Some dead miles can't be avoided and you will never be able to rid all of the dead mileage. The dead end to end trips sometimes can save huge amounts of time, again, it's down to a case by case basis. Some could maybe be avoided with short trips put on if it's absolutely needed or a counter peak flow express bus. It's possible though that could cause some more issues. Wouldn't work in TFL land because of their stance on short trips.

In one schedule I did, I split one late evening town centre - terminus - town centre journey at the outer terminus end, with the 'late duty' bus running back dead from terminus to depot, and a 'night duty' bus running out dead from depot to do the journey back (simply not running the inward journey wasn't an option.) Yes, this looked silly and cost a bit of unproductive time and dead mileage. But the 'rational' alternative would have needed one more night duty every day from that depot, paid at night driver rate.

The perfect timetable doesn't always make a good vehicle schedule, the perfect vehicle schedule doesn't always make a good duty schedule, and the perfect duty schedule doesn't always make a good rota.

There are a lot of missing information there which we don't know and that prevent me from making a fair comment on the scenario. That said, it certainly sounds interesting that if you didn't do things that way, it would cost you an additional night duty. There can't be many situations where that is the case.

Arriva Wales 12 (run from Rhyl garage, in the town centre), Rhyl to Llandudno, have 3 positioning journeys as X12
1 early Rhyl to Colwyn Bay (as the 1st 12 journey towards Rhyl commences Colwyn Bay, and 1 early evening journey Colwyn Bay to Rhyl and a late Llandudno to Rhyl journey

The 11X as well to Holywell and 11F returning runs pretty fast back from Holywell to Rhyl (normal routes from Rhyl to Holywell)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It just seems apparent, and in answer to the title of the question/thread, that there ARE instances where it does happen but the circumstances have to be right in that unless you have no diversionary mileage, then any additional time/cost is unlikely to be recouped. Hence why vehicles are sent directly out of service from Winsford depot to Crewe as even an extra 10-15 mins/4 miles simply won't be recouped and especially where an existing service pattern is probably adequate.

Likewise, there probably are some instances where it might be possible but perhaps it's regarded as too restrictive so the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

In Stroud, they have placement journeys on service 69 (stop giggling at the back) to Tetbury as that route runs right past the Stagecoach depot so they start/finish there. They could start/finish in the town centre but the likelihood of punters at 0600 in Stroud to Tetbury or 1915 the other way is perhaps limited!

 

[Simon75]

The example of Arriva Winsford, the 38 Crewe to Macclesfield is now run by Winsford (was Macclesfield)
You also have the first Macclesfield to Crewe, at 5.55am runs dead from Winsford (20 miles) and last one arrives Macclesfield 12.30am , running dead back to Winsford
There hasn't (as I'm aware) ever buses from Macclesfield to Winsford.
But then again at both times of the day, wouldn't be the demand

 

[markymark2000]

It just seems apparent, and in answer to the title of the question/thread, that there ARE instances where it does happen but the circumstances have to be right in that unless you have no diversionary mileage, then any additional time/cost is unlikely to be recouped. Hence why vehicles are sent directly out of service from Winsford depot to Crewe as even an extra 10-15 mins/4 miles simply won't be recouped and especially where an existing service pattern is probably adequate.

Likewise, there probably are some instances where it might be possible but perhaps it's regarded as too restrictive so the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

In Stroud, they have placement journeys on service 69 (stop giggling at the back) to Tetbury as that route runs right past the Stagecoach depot so they start/finish there. They could start/finish in the town centre but the likelihood of punters at 0600 in Stroud to Tetbury or 1915 the other way is perhaps limited!

Or is it just a few areas have thought about these things.

Winsford to Crewe 15 minutes/4 miles would be recouped a lot easier than some of the other dead mileage routes which run. There are variables and as i've consistently said, it would have to be a case by case basis. I do believe though that there are a number of cases where dead mileage trip should be put in, especially where the trip runs at a time or near a place which have demand.

The example of Arriva Winsford, the 38 Crewe to Macclesfield is now run by Winsford (was Macclesfield)
You also have the first Macclesfield to Crewe, at 5.55am runs dead from Winsford (20 miles) and last one arrives Macclesfield 12.30am , running dead back to Winsford
There hasn't (as I'm aware) ever buses from Macclesfield to Winsford.
But then again at both times of the day, wouldn't be the demand

I can't see a single person making trips along that dead route with the possible exception of the morning trip from Congleton to Macclesfield. Would get people to Macc for the first train but even that will be an extremely niche market. The rest of the route is way off the 'core' network so even the imaginary passengers wouldn't use it.