No most people who use public transport dont have a choice between a train or a bus, they have to use one or the other depending on their circumstances.
Has anybody said that the railways are a monopoly on transport provision? I think what people have said is that there is no choice as to which train company you can go with. Which is true when most people use trains as a method to go to a specific destination for a specific time. If there were 3/4 trains all leaving the same station at the same time going to the same destinations then people would have a choice of those different train companies, in the same way that I can choose to go to Tescos, Asda, Sainsburys or my local shop, because they're all open for the vast majority of the day. The situation with the trains is like saying that I still have a choice between going to Tescos, Asda, Sainsburys or my local shop even though Asda, Sainsburys & my local shop are only open from 3am-4am each day. Yes they're their but not a realistic choice.

Because in almost all scenarios travel by train is the quickest, including bizarely, the option to travel by air when you take into account the draconian check-in procedures at airports.

I'm not overly familiar with London/Manchester but I do know almost every inch of track and motorway on the Leeds/birmingham route and to give you just one example from this week,
Leeds-Birmingham on Monday, Cross country Trains, departed 08.11, arrived 10.10, no check-in or departure procedures required
Birmingham-Leeds on Tuesday, car travel via M6, M42, M1, departed 15.50, arrived 19.10

Although I haven't calculated the cost of the car travel the rail ticket was £51, I suspect that the car travel was thereabouts too, if I'd done it in my car and charged the mileage it would have been considerably more.


Rail travel between two cities in the UK is more often than not quicker, and cheaper than any other form of travel.

And don't start to mention National Express because I'll fall of my chair laughing, the Leeds Birmingham route isn't measured by time on a clock, its measured by the dates on the calendar.

But again, why are you limiting yourself to the train and worrying that you can only use one train service provider?
To use your analogy, it's like going to a building occupied by Tesco to shop and complaining that Tesco have a monopoly on the provision of your shopping, and ignoring all other outlets.

That wasn't the point, Mintball suggest the only way to travel between London and Manchester was by Virgin - that is simply not the case.

You've got very specific now in your criteria for choice, and if you narrow down any scenario enough, you will get to the point where only one option is available.

But what you are telling me now, is that the train service is so brilliant, it causes you to dismiss the alternatives. That being the case, why are you complaining about the monopoly of train provision?

I can here the goalposts being shifted from up here...

The NHS

Perhaps you could come up with the name of the most efficient car plant in the UK that has no Union representation?
Oh no sorry you've left that thread well alone haven't you. Along with the ones on the Leeds board where you kept repeating that Leeds were poorly managed by Hetherington and needed to get rid of Webb, Burrow, Peacock etc 2 years ago.

Simply not true - there are numerous options you take on the rail network to get from one destination to another especially longer journeys. If I want to get from Leeds to Manchester I can use Northern Rail or Transpennine express/first so to say there are no options is not factually correct.

I'm not, but you asked why be specific about trains and I gave you the answer.

I have considered all of the alternatives, there is no scheduled air service between Leeds and Birmingham, there is a bus service if you have all day to complete your trip, there is the car and there is the train, I've got a bike but its just a bit too far to be able to do a days work at the end of my journey.

Of all of the options that I've considered its the train that is the quickest and most economical, but it still has a monopoly on the route, an absolute monopoly too, so privatisation of the rail services has not brought about a wonderful freedon of choice in using the railway, for all I know the rail journey may actually be achievable by Cross Country at half the price that they are charging me but as an absolute monopoly provider they have no need to be competitive with other operators.

What are comparing the NHS with? Are there any business out there that you can compere, no so a complete red herring - try again. Would you say BT is a better or worse business since privatisation, would you say performance on the railways is better since privatisation than before?

On Leeds it depends how you judge well managed - turnover profitability or performance on the field? Turnover will be down, crowds are down, they couldn't afford to rebuild the Southstand etc, yes the did win the GF - depends on how you measure success.

Keep digging

My circumstances have limited my option to the train. If taking the example of Leeds to Manchester say just for simplicity. I have no available car to use. There is no realistic bus service. A taxi is prohibitively expensive. I don't own a bike, and if I did I reckon it's well outside my cycling range. It's also a tad far to walk.
So, train it is.
I also don't think it unreasonable to talk about train travel on a thread talking about trains and the issues surrounding when people HAVE to use a train.
I don't think anyone is suggesting they have to use the train for every single journey they make or that trains are a monopoly on transport. But that train operating companies have a monopoly on the lines that they run and in many many cases there is no effective choice for train passengers. I think people's objections are to not having a choice of train companies (choice is the driver of the private sector) whilst also paying for a private company to make a profit, both through taxation and ticket prices. If the best driver of the private sector isn't available then is the private sector the best way to go in this case?

But if you haven't got hours to spare to see lots of different countryside, and want to go on a train, it is. Jerry C has just shown that getting from Leeds to Birmingham is quicker by train than by car.

Being pedantic, you're right, it isn't the only way to make that journey by train. But who in their right mind, living/working in London and needing to be in Manchester would go via Leeds?

I travel from Sheffield to London fairly regularly. I get the quickest train because the less time I spend travelling the better, so I am forced to use the only available direct route. Perhaps I should get the Cross Country service to Penzance and then travel in from there, just to prove East Mids trains don't provide the "only" service from Sheffield to London?

You gave me your reasons for choosing the train service from amongst the options of how to travel. The fact that from those options you chose the train doesn't make it a monopoly any more than the local Costcutter has a monopoly on grocery shopping because I have reasons to choose them ahead of the alternatives.

Nobody has disputed that Crosscountry trains have a monopoly on the direct train service between Birmingham and Leeds. What has been pointed out is that there are other options to travel other than by train, and for that reason that rail service provider is not a monopoly.

Put it this way: if Crosscountry believed they had a monopoly and started charging £1000 for a return fare and changed the carriages to cattle trucks, would commuters faced with a monopolised transport service continue to use it? Or would they choose alternative options, and indeed further alternative options such as express coach services (for example) appear also?

The rest of the world. It's 2nd only to Ireland in terms of efficiency including the private sector run national healthcare systems.


Yes, the US healthcare system. That came 17th out of 19 systems examined.


I would say BT are roughly the same as they were before privatisation. Fine while everything works, a pain in the backside otherwise. But yet that is a completely different argument anyway, since there is competition and choice in telephone/broadband provision. You talk about red herrings and then bring up a great big fat juicy red one.
The railways are better since having billions of pounds of public money pumped into the infrastructure. Whichever company just changes the logos on the rolling stock and TUPE's the employees every few years appears to be largely irrelevant.


Well Leeds have consistently run at a profit, and consistently won on the pitch. Yes they could afford the South Stand, they couldn't get the planning permission for the stand they wanted.
You have consistently criticised the most profitable and most successful rugby league club in the northern hemisphere for both on and off-field failings for many years now. Maybe, as they keep making a profit, keep investing in facilities, and keep winning trophies, just maybe you've got this one wrong.
You know, like the most efficient car plant not having union representation.

Again, a very specific set of circumstances that lead you to choose the train but do not make the train a monopoly.
You have quite deliberately chosen not to own a car or motorbike - a choice you made. The facilities are there for you to travel by those methods, you have just chosen not to us them.

By the way, a taxi is £82 one way, £147 return, I agree that's quite expensive.
The coach service between Leeds and Manchester takes 65 minutes. Why do you regard that as unrealistic?

Are there really circumstances where the only way to travel is by train? We still haven't come up with any. We have come up with reasons why rail travel might be preferable, but no cases where someone has to travel by train and it's their only method of travel.

Jerry Chicken has said that for him the quickest way of getting from Leeds to Birmingham is by car. He hasn't said it's the only way of getting from Leeds to Birmingham. Whether it is the quickest will depend on where in Leeds you travel from and where you're going to in Birmingham, and also probably what time of day you travel. Other factors will also come in to play when judging cost effectiveness, for example it's likely to be much cheaper per person if four people are making the journey by car.

No rail provider has a monopoly on transport between Leeds and Birmingham.

The fact that you choose to use the train does not mean a train provider has a monopoly on travel between Leeds and Sheffield either.

I'm not sure that not having access to a car is a very specific set of circumstances to be honest, even if I did the same journey would involve 2 sets of inner city travelling in Leeds & Manchester.
I haven't chosen not to own a car, I do own one. It's still not the best way to make that journey, that is by train. That coach service is not suitable either, the only one that would get me there in time to begin work is at about 3am.
Nobody is saying that the trains have a monopoly on travelling, just that the train companies have an effective monopoly on travelling on a train.
I'm not entirely sure why you keep insisting that whenever someone comes up with circumstances as to when train travel is the only choice those are dismissed as "specific circumstances" and then say there are no cases where somebody has to travel by train.
In fact I'm not sure why you've twisted the argument round to whether travelling by train is the best way or not to be honest.

Earlier you said "I have no available car to use" now, you are saying you do own a car.....but you just choose to make it unavailable?

Nobody is disputing which is the best service. But whether a particular service is the only service.

I haven't twisted the argument to "whether travelling by train is the best way or not to be honest" I have challenged the argument that a rail service provider has a monopoly on the provision of transport.

No. I did not say that.

As you perfectly well know.

As I said: shifting of the goalposts.





Not directly, you couldn't. You'd have to travel for longer and in a way that is far from the most convenient. And frankly, only an idiot or someone with no time considerations or actually wanting to travel by as many trains as possible etc would do so.

Next!



Oh, it's a hoot.



He didn't, did he?





It's just such a dreadful pity that you had to introduce that red herring yourself in order to 'challenge' it.

OK Mintball, you're right. We're actually debating whether Sainsburys/Virgin have a monopoly on shopping/travelling in Sainsburys/Virgin. We're not debating whether Sainsburys/Virgin have a monopoly on grocery supply/travel.
A very valid debate indeed!

I own a car. I never said I didn't. The misses uses the car sometimes (basically whenever she wants

)

No I don't think anybody actually was disputing that until you created an argument all of your own.
People were disputing whether trains should be in public ownership or run by private companies. Not whether going by train was the best way of making a journey. Or that trains had a monopoly over the entire transport network, just that train operating companies often have an effective monopoly on the lines/services that they run, in the same bus companies often do.

I haven't said that. The point is that for quickest, and most practical, [utrain[/u journeys, the provider on that route does.

If all the fuss about Virgin being a decent service and nice trains is right, I'd love to use that on my journey to London, but I can't because EMT have the best route to themselves. There is no competition on that specific route.

Which is entirely irrelevant because there are no circumstances in which the train is the only available method of transport.



See my earlier post about alternative methods of transport.

....and the reason given to put the train services in public ownership being the idea that they were a monopoly and had no competition. As we have seen, they are not a monopoly and do have competition.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.