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?