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, train 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.