Thanks for your contribution.

Its a pretty stupid and pedantic thing to argue though isn't it, that in terms of providing rail services the definition of monopoly should not discount that fact that most people could actually walk to their destination too, even those with one leg, under those definitions the term "monopoly" is completely redundant in all applications other than as John Waddingtons board game.

Not really. If we're debating whether railways should be in public ownership because they're a monopoly, it's quite right to discuss if they actually are a monopoly.
In doing so, we should be sensible as to what alternative options we look at. So whilst we don't stupidly consider walking between Leeds and Birmingham, we do consider that (e.g.) cars and coaches provide valid alternatives to trains.

No.

Other forms of transport do not affect the question of whether a rail company has a monopoly on a certain route or not.

Even if you want it to.

Yes.
Why do you think otherwise?
"What I want" is no more a factor than "what I want" than if we were discussing whether gravity exists or if cheese is a food.

If we keep going round in circles we'll never get anywhere. The thread is about train franchises. If I want to get the train to London, using the quickest route, I have to use a specific company as no other company is allowed to use that quickest route.

I could give a monkey's about alternative methods, we're discussing trains.

A monoploy isn't based upon whether there is an alternative, e.g. train or bus, it's based upon whether one organisation has complete control of a particular market, this market being a rail route between A and B.

Can other rail companies enter this market? No. It's a monopoly.

If I lived in a town were the only 3 supermarkets were tesco's, then they would have a monopoly on supermarkets in that town, although I would always have the alternative of travelling to another town to go to Morrisons. This wouldn't mean Tesco's didn't have a monopoly. After all, I would always have the alternative of not eating.

Why are you saying "want to get the train to London" rather than "want to travel to London"
If you are a trainspotter, or have a real love of trains, fair enough.

A rail route is not a market. It's a route.
People that need to travel between locations A and B are a market.

We are going round in circles. I've already mentioned that it is the quickest way to get there. That's why I want to use it. If I want to go to London by another method I will. My company pays for my travel too and the most cost effective way for them is for me to travel by train. So let's talk about trains in the train thread eh?

Now, which other train companies can I use on my train journey to get the train direct from Sheffield train station to a train station in central London?

People that are looking to travel between locations A and B via rail, is a market. They've already made their choice.

If I wanted to buy some cereal for breakfast, but there was only one place in the town that sold cereal, but for £10 a box - that would be a monopoly on cereal in that town, however, I would still have the alternative of having something else for breakfast.

I always find travelling by yacht or hang glider to be the most efficient method of travel.

Trains? Going directly from one place to another? Get stuffed.

They are absolutely fantastic if you live in one train station and work in another train station. As long as both stations are on the same line.

Exactly. Suggesting it isn't because you could walk it is one of the dumbest things I have seen posted in the sin bin.

We are not going around in circles. You have said why you prefer the train (it's quick and you think cost effective) but of course it's not the only method of travel, and therefore not a monopoly.

Now of course, if you insist there is only one possible way for you to travel, then of course we are going to get stuck on the point that there is only one possible way for you to travel.

What choice have they made? That they're looking to travel between A and B? Or that they are looking to travel to A and B via rail?



It would. It would not be a monopoly on your provision of cereal (you could, and just examples order via the internet and get it delivered, you could travel, you could ask someone to collect it for you) so it's quite a worthless analogy.

In the circumstances, there is.

I give up.

Seriously? So if you were banned from the train, it would be absolutely impossible for you to travel to London?

Like I said, I give up.

Fair enough - This shop is the only place I can get cereal from, no other companies offer it online, no shops elsewhere. It's expensive and they're the only place I can get it from. That's a monopoly. I do have the alternative not to eat cereal or to do what my mate does and eat a mars bar for breakfast.

The market is what the person choses it to be. If that choice is to travel by rail from A to B (irrespective of the reasons why) then that is the market. They aren't looking to travel by bus or by car, they've already made their minds up.

Unfortunately for them, there's only one company within this particular market, they have no competition and no competitor is bale to enter this market (a monopoly). An alternative, would be a bus or a car journey, but these are just alternatives, as is the alternative not to travel atall, they're not directly in competition.

Indeed that is a monopoly on cereal sales to you. Nothing to do with transport or this discussion though.


That's your belief? That there is a market of people that have decided to travel from A to B by rail only? I would suggest that is only a very, very small subset of the market that is people who want to travel from A to B. Train drivers.



Correct, train drivers can only travel with the current rail service provider. The wider market segment, people who just want to get from A to B, have many alternatives open to them other than choosing the train, hence that train service not being a monopoly.

There is only one more thing to say.

LOL

I wonder how many here complain about the private operators having a monopoly would welcome back a state run monopoly?

I can remember rail travel in the 80's and trust me it wasn't only Jimmy Saville that was dodgy...

Why would it go backwards in time though, how are the state owned operators coping in a private franchised monopoly world at the moment ?

Although to buck the trend of this thread, the state owned operators on a franchised line are actually in genuine competition on most of their routes - how are they coping ?

They are competing because they have to, remove that competition and we'll be back in the '70s within 5 years.