D&G Buses

[Kaliwax]

Looks like they've acquired E200 YX19 ONT. Is this the last classic enviro 200 built? As it's on a 19 plate

Another new arrival for D&G BUS

Another arrival to the D&G Fleet Is this 19 plate Enviro 200 YX19 ONT a very late E200 of its kind as from 2016 the Enviro 200 mmc started to arrive out of the road, this was ment to he 5220 but I think they realised a mistake and went with what should of been in the first place 5025...

www.flickr.com

 

[semppec]

Looks like they've acquired E200 YX19 ONT. Is this the last classic enviro 200 built? As it's on a 19 plate

Another new arrival for D&G BUS

Another arrival to the D&G Fleet Is this 19 plate Enviro 200 YX19 ONT a very late E200 of its kind as from 2016 the Enviro 200 mmc started to arrive out of the road, this was ment to he 5220 but I think they realised a mistake and went with what should of been in the first place 5025...

www.flickr.com

It's either the last one built, or last one registered. It could've been used on a private site where a reg plate wasn't needed or been in storage prior to being registered, we just don't know. I assume ADL would know

 

[sonic2009]

It's either the last one built, or last one registered. It could've been used on a private site where a reg plate wasn't needed or been in storage prior to being registered, we just don't know. I assume ADL would know

It was new to Taf Valley, West Wales in 2019, so unless they've had a deal with a leasing company to get this cheaper because it's a classic and not MMC. Doesn't it have a Euro 5 engine also?

It's not new to the Crewe area either Boughey Distribution, Wardle had it for their Staff Transport bus, which I think was only pulled recently as I've seen one of the drivers back working for D&G.


Also the new Sundays & Bank Holiday services started on Good Friday on the 31 (Crewe Depot, 2 buses) & 37 (Macclesfield Depot, 1 bus)

Travelled on a few and seem to be getting some passengers, only time will tell if the services stay.

One thing that does suprise me with the Sunday service is the dead mileage.

Empty runs to & from Northwich for both buses for both AM start and PM finish.

Same with the Macclesfield running to & from Sandbach empty.

 

[M60lad]

No surprises there as when Winchem was open there used to be regular dead runs in the evening from Altrincham back to Winchem and at one point Altrinchanm-Northwich then back to Winchem as the drivers were issued with fuel cards so they could fill up at Sainsburys.

 

[WiltsBus]

Off Topic, but is there an issue with Stoke City £4.80 tickets scanning on D&G. After visual validation it was ok. First Potteries knocked one back "If it won't scan"

 

[luke1420]

It was new to Taf Valley, West Wales in 2019, so unless they've had a deal with a leasing company to get this cheaper because it's a classic and not MMC. Doesn't it have a Euro 5 engine also?

It's not new to the Crewe area either Boughey Distribution, Wardle had it for their Staff Transport bus, which I think was only pulled recently as I've seen one of the drivers back working for D&G.


Also the new Sundays & Bank Holiday services started on Good Friday on the 31 (Crewe Depot, 2 buses) & 37 (Macclesfield Depot, 1 bus)

Travelled on a few and seem to be getting some passengers, only time will tell if the services stay.

One thing that does suprise me with the Sunday service is the dead mileage.

Empty runs to & from Northwich for both buses for both AM start and PM finish.

Same with the Macclesfield running to & from Sandbach empty.

On Sundays D&G won’t run services unless funded. If Cheshire East wont fund the first trip from Crewe to Northwich they won’t run it. The trip would run at a loss if ran commercially.

 

[semppec]

It was new to Taf Valley, West Wales in 2019, so unless they've had a deal with a leasing company to get this cheaper because it's a classic and not MMC. Doesn't it have a Euro 5 engine also?

It's not new to the Crewe area either Boughey Distribution, Wardle had it for their Staff Transport bus, which I think was only pulled recently as I've seen one of the drivers back working for D&G.


Also the new Sundays & Bank Holiday services started on Good Friday on the 31 (Crewe Depot, 2 buses) & 37 (Macclesfield Depot, 1 bus)

Travelled on a few and seem to be getting some passengers, only time will tell if the services stay.

One thing that does suprise me with the Sunday service is the dead mileage.

Empty runs to & from Northwich for both buses for both AM start and PM finish.

Same with the Macclesfield running to & from Sandbach empty.

Oh yes I did hear about that, I think there's a couple drivers from Boughey's who mentioned that the bus was for sale, and yes - it is a Euro 5 based on videos I've seen.

Another thing as well that I only found out the other day is that Centrebus 578 is Euro 6, previous videos show that it was Euro 5 but I would assume it's had a conversion at some point. As to when I am unsure but interesting to see with it being a demonstrator too.

 

[markymark2000]

One thing that does suprise me with the Sunday service is the dead mileage.

Empty runs to & from Northwich for both buses for both AM start and PM finish.

Same with the Macclesfield running to & from Sandbach empty.

Common issue at D&G and the whole Centrebus group. As I put in #938, the group have no initiative at all when it comes to dead mileage and they point blank refuse to consider converting dead to live mileage. If the council won't pay for it, they won't do it. It's as simple as that. Beg beg beg for money, only run the bare minimum and nothing more.

On Sundays D&G won’t run services unless funded. If Cheshire East wont fund the first trip from Crewe to Northwich they won’t run it. The trip would run at a loss if ran commercially.

Let's be honest here, it's not just Sundays that D&G/Centrebus Group schedulers refuse to run proper placement trips, it's a regular thing!

In this instance, the placement trips aren't going to be big money spinners. When you work out the viability logically though and only consider the additional costs of running in service vs dead, rather than considering the full cost of the trip (as the dead run will already be costed into the tender bid and all of the main vehicle costs will be paid for by the tender), even if the bus carried no one, the potential losses would be tiny.

Based on the Annual Bus Stats (Bus04, table BUS04gi_mi), the average cost of operating a bus per mile in an English non Metropolitan area for the 2025 stats is £5.11 (pre BSOG grants etc) and given that to run a normal 31 versus running dead is around 2 miles extra, by DFTs figures, it would cost around £10 more.
D&G can however claim BSOG on this and the dead run from the depot to Crewe Bus Station, which they can't claim on the tender, so that will cushion some of the additional cost. Plus of course the trips will carry some people and so will almost certainly break even. Especially for the bus which arrives at Northwich at 9.20 and the bus which runs dead back from Northwich at 17.23 (the earlier start at Northwich and later finish bus may not be as busy but should break even still.

It should be said too, that there were options at their disposal which they could have taken so that taxpayers covered these additional trips. They could make an alternative bid to the Cheshire West tender including these extra runs and given the small cost difference to add these trips in, the council would probably have paid for them (though granted we don't know if they did do this, or if Cheshire West accepts alternative bids, but most authorities do). Or failing that, bump up the price very slightly on the main tender to cover the additional costs and run it as a commercial placement trip still but you are subsidising them from the tender. There are options there though. D&G and Centrebus Group would just rather be scroungers and beg for money than use even the smallest bit of initiative.

 

[SSmith2009]

Another thing as well that I only found out the other day is that Centrebus 578 is Euro 6, previous videos show that it was Euro 5 but I would assume it's had a conversion at some point. As to when I am unsure but interesting to see with it being a demonstrator too.

I believe it had the upgrade when coming to Centrebus although 578 can be heard before seeing it.

 

[Contains Nuts]

Common issue at D&G and the whole Centrebus group. As I put in #938, the group have no initiative at all when it comes to dead mileage and they point blank refuse to consider converting dead to live mileage. If the council won't pay for it, they won't do it. It's as simple as that. Beg beg beg for money, only run the bare minimum and nothing more.


Let's be honest here, it's not just Sundays that D&G/Centrebus Group schedulers refuse to run proper placement trips, it's a regular thing!

In this instance, the placement trips aren't going to be big money spinners. When you work out the viability logically though and only consider the additional costs of running in service vs dead, rather than considering the full cost of the trip (as the dead run will already be costed into the tender bid and all of the main vehicle costs will be paid for by the tender), even if the bus carried no one, the potential losses would be tiny.

Based on the Annual Bus Stats (Bus04, table BUS04gi_mi), the average cost of operating a bus per mile in an English non Metropolitan area for the 2025 stats is £5.11 (pre BSOG grants etc) and given that to run a normal 31 versus running dead is around 2 miles extra, by DFTs figures, it would cost around £10 more.
D&G can however claim BSOG on this and the dead run from the depot to Crewe Bus Station, which they can't claim on the tender, so that will cushion some of the additional cost. Plus of course the trips will carry some people and so will almost certainly break even. Especially for the bus which arrives at Northwich at 9.20 and the bus which runs dead back from Northwich at 17.23 (the earlier start at Northwich and later finish bus may not be as busy but should break even still.

It should be said too, that there were options at their disposal which they could have taken so that taxpayers covered these additional trips. They could make an alternative bid to the Cheshire West tender including these extra runs and given the small cost difference to add these trips in, the council would probably have paid for them (though granted we don't know if they did do this, or if Cheshire West accepts alternative bids, but most authorities do). Or failing that, bump up the price very slightly on the main tender to cover the additional costs and run it as a commercial placement trip still but you are subsidising them from the tender. There are options there though. D&G and Centrebus Group would just rather be scroungers and beg for money than use even the smallest bit of initiative.

As well as your ‘£10 more’ don’t forget to add in a departure charge from Crewe Bus Station which is around £1, plus that more time needs to be given to running in service so add about another £7 to cover the drivers’ wage at Sunday rate with employer pension and NI factored in. That is already up to £18, and no mention has been made of the massive rise in fuel costs, likely to add around another £2 to the journey, so we are now at £20. BSOG will cover maybe £2 of that £20, taking it back to £18.

So then we need to look realistically at how D&G will earn that £18 on a journey leaving Crewe at around 8am on a Sunday morning when the majority of leisure destinations and shops are closed. Taking into account the £3 fare cap and concessionary reimbursement I’d reckon the average passenger is worth about £2. That means 9 passengers need to be carried. But it’s likely that regular users will have a weekly or monthly ticket, which will mean no actual revenue on this additional journey. So realistically you may have to carry around 12 passengers just to break even. Is this realistically going to happen consistently, every Sunday and bank holiday, regardless of the weather?

While you may have your own particular negative opinion of the Centrebus group (with the constant negative rants getting rather tiresome), they are pretty much the only operator left in much of Cheshire so must be doing something right.

I’d be interested to know what professional experience and qualifications you have to judge their bus operations in the way you do.

 

[Simon75]

Off Topic, but is there an issue with Stoke City £4.80 tickets scanning on D&G. After visual validation it was ok. First Potteries knocked one back "If it won't scan"

I guess you mean the multi operator 'Smart Day' ticket !
At first I thought it a Stoke City £4.80 ticket was for the football club

 

[Simon75]

Does anyone have know how many closed contracts D&G have, and who for? I know there are some Alton Towers staff buses

 

[markymark2000]

a journey leaving Crewe at around 8am on a Sunday morning when the majority of leisure destinations and shops are closed

Why are you leaving Crewe at 8am? The journey at that time on a Sunday would be comfortable at 52-55 minutes and still get into Northwich on time for the tendered run. You could easily leave Crewe at 08:35 (the same time as the 38) and still get to Northwich with plenty of time to layover.
And how do you think staff get to shops and leisure destinations to open them for visitors? They need transport to get to work in the first place, and with the first bus isn't into Winsford isn't until 09:55 and Northwich until 10:18, that's useless for the majority of staff considering most shops open at 10am and of course staff need to be in earlier to get things ready and open up.

As well as your ‘£10 more’ don’t forget to add in a departure charge from Crewe Bus Station which is around £1, plus that more time needs to be given to running in service so add about another £7 to cover the drivers’ wage at Sunday rate with employer pension and NI factored in. That is already up to £18, and no mention has been made of the massive rise in fuel costs, likely to add around another £2 to the journey, so we are now at £20. BSOG will cover maybe £2 of that £20, taking it back to £18.

How much extra duty time are you basing your driver wage figure on as the figure looks a bit high for only counting additional costs vs running dead and only for around 20-25 minutes extra that it would take to run in service.

To go off your rounded figures (despite some unanswered questions over how you got to the figure), and to answer your question though, I do think that the journey could take 9-12 passengers in that trip. You're dealing with transporting people to 2 different town centres and 5 large supermarkets along the route, all of which have staff which need to get to work for around 9.30 And on some occasions if the bus doesn't carry 9-12 people, that's ok. It's a cheap placement trip costing around £1k per year to operate (using your figures). At worst case, it becomes a very cheap loss leader which helps to grow patronage on the other days as people see the bus as a more viable option generally. In reality though people would use it and if there are any losses, it wouldn't be near that figure

I did also present 2 options for ways that these trips could have been funded as part of the tender (alternative bid or marginally higher bid and cross subsidise) which could have been done.

they are pretty much the only operator left in much of Cheshire so must be doing something right.

Scrounging is how they are doing it and relying on being the only operator left and holding the councils to ransom. I guess that is the difference though between morally right and right for the shareholders.


I should say as well, it's not just about this Sunday morning trip. My objection is to the large amount of dead running with seemingly no initiative to running any dead mileage trips along corridors where there is demand and it would prove beneficial to the core network offering.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sorry @markymark2000 but this is one of your hobby horses. I seem to remember you berating Arriva in not running all the empty journeys in service from Winsford into Crewe despite the fact that they would simply been creating extra journeys on top of existing runs for little discernible benefit.

Essentially, the argument is that you want to run a bus in service from Crewe to Northwich in service that would otherwise run empty (and doubtless at the end of the day too). So realistically, you're going to add an extra hour to the working day of vehicles and drivers.

So even if you decide to marginally cost it, the extra to D&G is going to be another £30 in cost. They've probably looked at it and gone... it's a new Sunday service from a standing start. The early/late journeys will have a limited appeal and you're going to have to get another 11 passengers to make it worth doing?

Sometimes, it simply doesn't make sense to register dead mileage

ps driver wages would c.£15 p/h - don't know if D&G pay Sunday shift premium (?) but add on NI and ASH and you're probably looking at £20-21 per hour as an all up driver rate

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Let's be honest here, it's not just Sundays that D&G/Centrebus Group schedulers refuse to run proper placement trips, it's a regular thing!

It's got nothing to do with the schedulers, it is a commercial decision made by the owners and directors, so insulting more junior members of staff who may well be members of this forum is unfair for decisions they aren't making and don't have the authority to do so. There are lots of operators who have reached the decision that not running dead placement trips as service runs is the best solution in many circumstances for such a position against a single business.

I did also present 2 options for ways that these trips could have been funded as part of the tender (alternative bid or marginally higher bid and cross subsidise) which could have been done.

Scrounging is how they are doing it and relying on being the only operator left and holding the councils to ransom. I guess that is the difference though between morally right and right for the shareholders.

So risk making your bid less attractive by putting costs in that other operators won't do risking losing the work entirely or possibly exceeding the amount of money the council have to spend (with BSIP funds often it is about how much you can do for the money available so adding more cost to cover something the council don't want may mean nothing happens at all) or subsidise it yourself from this large amount of profit you think is available. We aren't talking about a big group like Stagecoach or Arriva, operators like D&G/Centrebus don't run with large margins that mean you can incur lots of loss making work because it is "morally right", every operator has plenty of loss making journeys (and probably a few loss making routes) that survive for various reasons but there is a limit on how many of those can exist before the financial stability of the entire business is at risk so if they add an early/late loss making service run rather than run cheaper dead you may have to remove something else that is more useful to more people.

I should say as well, it's not just about this Sunday morning trip. My objection is to the large amount of dead running with seemingly no initiative to running any dead mileage trips along corridors where there is demand and it would prove beneficial to the core network offering.

Running dead is generally much quicker than running in service, if for no other reason than the driver needs to keep an eye out for passengers and drive slower and smoother with passengers on board (at least I know I did) so a dead run will always be slightly faster than a service run even if they follow exactly the same route (& since a dead run is coming from a depot and not trying to pick up then it is unlikely to be exactly the same). Even a few minutes of extra paid time can rack up the costs quite significantly, particularly on enhanced Sunday pay rates, far more than any revenue likely to be accrued.

Without getting into arguments with specific instances you also have to consider if the extra driving time on the front & back causes issues with the driver duties and legal driving time limits (taking it from safe to risky) meaning another driver needs to be deployed, again possibly making a route unviable. It used to be much more common to run dead runs as service runs as they could easily be removed or adjusted as operational needs changed, it is a general trend to do this less for all operators over the last 20 years, but with extended registration timelines and greater scrutiny of service reductions means once things are in it is much harder to get them out if something changes, even if it isn't being heavily used, so unless you can see a sustainable demand being built there is less draw to put something in just because.

I have had one where we had a request, looked at it and even though it would effectively run up the same road it would still cost 10-mins (at best and that was really using dead running times) on the back of a duty, as the bus had to divert into the town centre the request was for travel to rather than running round the by-pass and that was on a run that served none of the intermediate villages on the normal route and it did still cause a slight scheduling issue over the duty length of the back end which meant it wasn't possible at the time.

 

[semppec]

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/cou...council-sets-future-vision-for-transport.aspx

Cheshire East to join up with the rest of Cheshire and Warrington to help create a better transport network across Cheshire as a whole with better links to Greater Manchester & Liverpool also meaning better funding across many different aspects. This is due to the new Local Transport Plan (LTP) that they have decided to introduce.

I'm very curious to see how this ends up turning out as they say "This will be a fresh start to design a transport network around the needs of residents and businesses".
I'm unsure as to how likely this would be but something like the Bee Network, South Yorkshire People's Network or Merseytravel Metro would be interesting to see around Cheshire, this may also mean that we could see more or even new operators coming into Cheshire but don't quote me on that.

According to this media release we should start seeing changes towards May time.
The committee decision made last week means the LTP will now progress to full council for adoption in May.

 

[theshillito]

I'm unsure as to how likely this would be but something like the Bee Network, South Yorkshire People's Network or Merseytravel Metro would be interesting to see around Cheshire, this may also mean that we could see more or even new operators coming into Cheshire but don't quote me on that.

I was under the impression that integrated Cheshire and Warrington transport was the plan as part of becoming a combined authority with a (pending election) mayor, but getting started on it prior to the first mayoral election next year is a good idea. At the very least, I am hoping for ticketing to become less operator-focused, especially in areas like Crewe and Nantwich with four operators about. The Silk Town ticket shows that it's possible on a town-level, but hopefully this can be across all Cheshire and Warrington.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm unsure as to how likely this would be but something like the Bee Network, South Yorkshire People's Network or Merseytravel Metro would be interesting to see around Cheshire, this may also mean that we could see more or even new operators coming into Cheshire but don't quote me on that.

I wouldn't be getting your hopes up. The LTP doesn't use the F word (franchising) once, and only mentions operators in a freight context.

I was under the impression that integrated Cheshire and Warrington transport was the plan as part of becoming a combined authority with a (pending election) mayor, but getting started on it prior to the first mayoral election next year is a good idea. At the very least, I am hoping for ticketing to become less operator-focused, especially in areas like Crewe and Nantwich with four operators about. The Silk Town ticket shows that it's possible on a town-level, but hopefully this can be across all Cheshire and Warrington.

I think that's the more likely outcome in more ticketing interavailability.

 

[markymark2000]

It's got nothing to do with the schedulers, it is a commercial decision made by the owners and directors,

Fair comment, I apologise. I did state further up in the quoted post that it's a group issue and I agree that I should have just repeated that.

So risk making your bid less attractive by putting costs in that other operators won't do risking losing the work entirely or possibly exceeding the amount of money the council have to spend

If this was another area then this is a risk granted, but these tenders are pretty much D&Gs guaranteed even by adding in a little bit of extra cost.

I have had one where we had a request, looked at it and even though it would effectively run up the same road it would still cost 10-mins (at best and that was really using dead running times) on the back of a duty, as the bus had to divert into the town centre the request was for travel to rather than running round the by-pass and that was on a run that served none of the intermediate villages on the normal route and it did still cause a slight scheduling issue over the duty length of the back end which meant it wasn't possible at the time.

Some fair arguments and I agree where the bus is diverting off too much, it does add time, and this was one of the things I raised when another user brought up about the late 37s extending to Crewe rather than running dead (albeit in an ideal world, such a change would be welcome, the much extended journey time would likely tip the viability).

I've much experience in the scheduling area and so I know the challenges that can be faced. Given all of the knowledge that I have, combined with the information you have shared, I remain of the stance though that there are still many instances whereby the group could and should be replacing dead mileage with live, and I remain of the stance that a number of instances could be done and then make some profit on that overall. Whether that be through on bus revenue each day, or through weekly/monthly ticket sales which increase as a result of improved timetables (albeit this sort of revenue is harder to link to a specific trip or enhancement).

 

[33117]

A driver mate of mine based at macc who's from wilmslow is saying that the local bus user groups round her have kicked up holy hell about the #312 going.

An idea he had which could possibly work out is bin the #150 as it's running about empty a lot of the time. So reinstate the #312 but extend it beyond handforth dean tesco & send it into cheadle village.

That way it could at least linkup with TFGM services.

 

[Simon75]

I should say as well, it's not just about this Sunday morning trip. My objection is to the large amount of dead running with seemingly no initiative to running any dead mileage trips along corridors where there is demand and it would prove beneficial to the core network offering.

The 38 i believe is run by 1 garage(not sure which) but could be run by both Crewe and Macclesfield
The 42 i think is run by Macclesfield now, but Crewe would be bd mire logical. The closure of the Wicham outstation was unexpected, but the the decision would have a logical explanation

 

[Martin1988]

How long does it take D&G to run empty to/from Sandbach and Crewe via the M6 compared to running in service via Haslington and Winterley?

 

[luke1420]

The 38 i believe is run by 1 garage(not sure which) but could be run by both Crewe and Macclesfield
The 42 i think is run by Macclesfield now, but Crewe would be bd mire logical. The closure of the Wicham outstation was unexpected, but the the decision would have a logical explanation

The majority of 38’s are ran by Crewe however Macclesfield run some late journeys M-F, one round trip after 19:00 on Saturday and on Sundays it split one bus from Crewe one from Macc.

Out of the 3 buses that operate the 42 two are ran by Macc and one is ran by Crewe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

How long does it take D&G to run empty to/from Sandbach and Crewe via the M6 compared to running in service via Haslington and Winterley?

Given 15 minuets to run dead from Sandbach common to Crewe depot via Haslington bypass which is the official dead route, it takes 28 minuets to do in service plus the extra 10minuets from Crewe bus station back to the depot.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Given 15 minuets to run dead from Sandbach common to Crewe depot via Haslington bypass which is the official dead route, it takes 28 minuets to do in service plus the extra 10minuets from Crewe bus station back to the depot.

Definitely no point in going via the unpredictable M6 given the A534 is national speed limit.

 

[Martin1988]

Given 15 minuets to run dead from Sandbach common to Crewe depot via Haslington bypass which is the official dead route, it takes 28 minuets to do in service plus the extra 10minuets from Crewe bus station back to the depot.

Thanks for explaining. With this in mind I can see why D&G may opt to run dead rather than in service.

 

[markymark2000]

Given 15 minuets to run dead from Sandbach common to Crewe depot via Haslington bypass which is the official dead route, it takes 28 minuets to do in service plus the extra 10minuets from Crewe bus station back to the depot.

Depends on the time. It can be as low as 21 minutes between Sandbach and Crewe in service (17:45 from Northwich & 18:30/19:15 from Macclesfield). And 10 minutes from the bus station to the depot is overstating it, especially at the sort of time most dead runs happen when the actual time is around 6 minutes. This is based off the fact that as of the 18:55 trip, the estimated timings only give 4 minutes from the bus station to the train station in service, and the depot is only 2 minutes from there. And that is based on in service which as Dwarfer says in service you are driving more steady and cautiously, so dead.

Given most dead runs would be earlier in the morning and later in the evening when traffic is lighter, using times in your own timetables, I've already for the timings down from 38 minutes to 28 minutes for the dead run. 13 minutes extra in service vs dead. Only thing to consider with the Sandbach to Crewe dead runs is that they are useless if they are just going to have a 37/38 at the same time as 2 buses following eachother is no good for anyone.

 

[luke1420]

Depends on the time. It can be as low as 21 minutes between Sandbach and Crewe in service (17:45 from Northwich & 18:30/19:15 from Macclesfield). And 10 minutes from the bus station to the depot is overstating it, especially at the sort of time most dead runs happen when the actual time is around 6 minutes. This is based off the fact that as of the 18:55 trip, the estimated timings only give 4 minutes from the bus station to the train station in service, and the depot is only 2 minutes from there. And that is based on in service which as Dwarfer says in service you are driving more steady and cautiously, so dead.

Given most dead runs would be earlier in the morning and later in the evening when traffic is lighter, using times in your own timetables, I've already for the timings down from 38 minutes to 28 minutes for the dead run. 13 minutes extra in service vs dead. Only thing to consider with the Sandbach to Crewe dead runs is that they are useless if they are just going to have a 37/38 at the same time as 2 buses following eachother is no good for anyone.

The dead running time is the same regardless of time of day, all dead runs between Crewe depot and the bus station are given 10minuets to complete.

In the current Monday to Friday timetable on the 37 it doesn’t involve any dead runs between Sandbach Common and Crewe depot. On Saturday there are two dead runs from Sandbach in the evening, and all 37’s between Sandbach and Crewe are given 28mins running time on a Saturday.

The exception to all of this is the 37 short which are run by Macclesfield, I think we can all agree extending that last run to Crewe would be ridiculous considering it would then be running dead all the way back to Macc.

 

[Statto]

Some of the know it all's on here should be running a bus company themselves, instead of being a keyboard warrior, i'm sure they'd make millions with there demands.

 

[Simon75]

Ive often wondered for years, why there never been a service from Winsford to Macclesfield via Holmes Chapel ? I guess not the demand for one

 

[Jase_in_CW]

Ive often wondered for years, why there never been a service from Winsford to Macclesfield via Holmes Chapel ? I guess not the demand for one

Probably not but if it did it would overlap with the 37 (Winsford - Middlewich), 42 (Middlewich - congleton) and 38 (congleton- Macclesfield) with only the through routes being unique. An individual more talented than me could perhaps devise a clever inter working that improves connectivity throughout? A Northwich- Macclesfield via Holmes Chapel operated many moons ago.

I quite like the idea of alternate routings of Northwich - Winsford eg via Rudheath and Middlewich or Hartford and Whitegate!