Epsom to Euston (AKA "London Terminals")

[Wombat]

I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be treading old ground here, and apologise if that's the case.

Yesterday I purchased two single tickets from a machine at Epsom, from Epsom to London Euston via any permitted route. Printed on the tickets was:

From Epsom
To London Terminals

I was a bit suspicious but let it go because I had a train to catch.

The tickets didn't get us through the barriers at Vauxhall tube station but a member of staff waved us through without comment. They also didn't get us through the barriers at Euston, but a member of staff let us through after arguing half-heartedly for a couple of minutes. The crux of the argument was something like "The machine assumes that you've got an Oyster card", which he agreed was a strange assumption to make (and an incorrect one in my case). He was also unable to advise on the alternate route that we should have taken to get from Epsom to Euston without using the tube.

On the return journey today, we used our debit cards to get from Euston to Waterloo, then purchased two single tickets from Waterloo to Epsom. Printed on the tickets was:

From London Terminals
To Epsom

The price was the same as what we paid yesterday for the tickets supposedly from Epsom to Euston.

I contend that this is a bit mad. If I enter Epsom as the departure station and London Euston as the arrival station, and for some reason the tube isn't a valid route, would it not make sense to state as much? Especially as both the TfL journey planner and the NRE journey planner suggest the same route that we actually took (i.e. using the tube).

Anyway, if this is a known problem and not a weird error on my part, who do I complain to? Southern for selling me a ticket that doesn't work, or TfL for not honouring the ticket?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be treading old ground here, and apologise if that's the case.

Yesterday I purchased two single tickets from a machine at Epsom, from Epsom to London Euston via any permitted route. Printed on the tickets was:

From Epsom
To London Terminals

I was a bit suspicious but let it go because I had a train to catch.

The tickets didn't get us through the barriers at Vauxhall tube station but a member of staff waved us through without comment. They also didn't get us through the barriers at Euston, but a member of staff let us through after arguing half-heartedly for a couple of minutes. The crux of the argument was something like "The machine assumes that you've got an Oyster card", which he agreed was a strange assumption to make (and an incorrect one in my case). He was also unable to advise on the alternate route that we should have taken to get from Epsom to Euston without using the tube.

On the return journey today, we used our debit cards to get from Euston to Waterloo, then purchased two single tickets from Waterloo to Epsom. Printed on the tickets was:

From London Terminals
To Epsom

The price was the same as what we paid yesterday for the tickets supposedly from Epsom to Euston.

I contend that this is a bit mad. If I enter Epsom as the departure station and London Euston as the arrival station, and for some reason the tube isn't a valid route, would it not make sense to state as much? Especially as both the TfL journey planner and the NRE journey planner suggest the same route that we actually took (i.e. using the tube).

Anyway, if this is a known problem and not a weird error on my part, who do I complain to? Southern for selling me a ticket that doesn't work, or TfL for not honouring the ticket?

It's a bit of a complex one. Fundamentally speaking, the ticket you were sold is not designed to be used for a cross-London transfer by Tube to Euston. It is designed to be used on National Rail services to the "appropriate" London Terminals - for Epsom, these are, in alphabetical order, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Charing Cross, City Thameslink, London Bridge, Vauxhall, Victoria, Waterloo and Waterloo East.

[You can find out which these Terminals are, for any given origin station, by either using the National Rail Enquiries season ticket finder and seeing which London Terminals one is told one can use when you enter [station] to London. Alternatively you can look up the data in the large .xml file provided by the RDG on their website here (you have to sign up but it's free).]

The issue in this case is that the ticket machine didn't check whether London Euston is considered an appropriate London Terminal for an origin of Epsom before selling you a ticket to London Terminals when you asked for a ticket to Euston. Now, any reasonable person would interpret this as meaning that the ticket you were being sold was valid all the way to Euston, and that Euston is considered a London Terminal. The correct thing to have been sold, if you wanted a through ticket, would have been a ticket to Zone U1* London (or U12*, which costs the same for Epsom), which would include the National Rail journey as well as one London Underground journey within Zones 1 (and 2).

The problem at the heart of the matter here is that you were misled about the validity of the ticket you were sold. This being said, I don't think you would have had a legal case against London Underground had made you pay an additional fare upon entry/exit, or even if they had issued you with a Penalty Fare, let alone prosecuted you. This is because you simply didn't hold a contract at all with London Underground - the ticket was purely with the (National Rail) train companies. So in this case your recourse would be against the retailer who missold you the ticket.

This is a substantially different position from when a retailer issues an itinerary validating a ticket along a route which it is claimed it is not ordinarily valid along (e.g. as an extreme hypothetical example allowing an Epsom to London ticket to be used via Exeter). In that case, if you experienced problems travelling as per the itinerary, it is not a case against the retailer but rather against the train company. That's because you already hold a contract with all the TOCs, as per the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and the retailer is appointed as their agent. The TOCs can't embroil you in a dispute as to what a lawfully appointed agent has done on their behalf.

 

[30907]

NRE shows a £3 higher fare to Euston (but doesn't suggests two tickets are needed), but BRFares only lists the London Terminals one. Something amiss here?
BTW there is a theoretical NR-only route via Clapham Jn and Willesden Jn.

 

[yorkie]

BR Fares lists both fares:

• http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EPS&dest=0790&tkt=SDS to Zone U12 London (valid to any LU/DLR station in Zones 1-2)
• http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EPS&dest=1072&tkt=SDS to London Terminals (valid to London Terminals by National Rail routes only)

The problem is that the machine does not recognise that you want to take the Underground.

The machine could make it clearer, but this is not very straightforward to do.

A journey planner should display the correct fares. Some machines have a journey planning mode (e.g. LNER's)

The Contactless/Oyster PAYG fares are:

• To London Euston (National Rail inc Overground; ie. not via LU) £5.10 off peak / £7.20 peak
• To Euston Underground station £6.60 off peak / £8.90 peak

 

[Saperstein]

NRE shows a £3 higher fare to Euston (but doesn't suggests two tickets are needed), but BRFares only lists the London Terminals one. Something amiss here?
BTW there is a theoretical NR-only route via Clapham Jn and Willesden Jn.

Does the NR-only route include London Overground?

Otherwise unless the Milton Keynes Southern service calls at Willesden Junction (mine didn’t do others?) it’s a trip up to somewhere like Wembley Central and then back into London Euston.

its confusing sometimes with LO / TfL rail ect not knowing who owns what and what is considered NR.

 

[yorkie]

Does the NR-only route include London Overground?

Otherwise unless the Milton Keynes Southern service calls at Willesden Junction (mine didn’t do others?) it’s a trip up to somewhere like Wembley Central and then back into London Euston.

its confusing sometimes with LO / TfL rail ect not knowing who owns what and what is considered NR.

Yes; the absolute cheapest way to do the journey to Euston (avoiding walks) is to travel via Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction, using PAYG.

LO is treated as either TfL or NR, whichever it the cheapest. (LO is a NR TOC but is also a TfL concession)

A more sensible alternative on NR only fares is via Blackfriars into St Pancras; the walk to Euston is relatively pleasant via the back streets.

 

[30907]

BR Fares lists both fares:

• http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EPS&dest=0790&tkt=SDS to Zone U12 London (valid to any LU/DLR station in Zones 1-2)

Thanks, I thought it must exist - I tried "London Zones 1-2" which is more intuitive

 

[yorkie]

Thanks, I thought it must exist - I tried "London Zones 1-2" which is more intuitive

No worries.

That's a Travelcard destination; the origin station would need to be within the relevant Zones too.

 

[Wombat]

Thank you all for your comments! Is it reasonable, then, for me to suggest to Southern that they need to do something to their ticket machines to prevent them from thinking that Euston is an appropriate London Terminal when travelling from Epsom? I was prepared to argue the toss for a while (we got to Euston an hour early) but I can imagine that a less politely insistent person might have ended up in a disadvantageous position. I don't think that providing a ticket which is invalid on the obvious (and recommended) routes is at all appropriate.

BR Fares lists both fares:

• http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EPS&dest=0790&tkt=SDS to Zone U12 London (valid to any LU/DLR station in Zones 1-2)
• http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EPS&dest=1072&tkt=SDS to London Terminals (valid to London Terminals by National Rail routes only)

The problem is that the machine does not recognise that you want to take the Underground.

The machine could make it clearer, but this is not very straightforward to do.

A journey planner should display the correct fares. Some machines have a journey planning mode (e.g. LNER's)

The Contactless/Oyster PAYG fares are:

• To London Euston (National Rail inc Overground; ie. not via LU) £5.10 off peak / £7.20 peak
• To Euston Underground station £6.60 off peak / £8.90 peak

Just to confuse matters, the cost of each ticket from Epsom to "London Terminals" was £5.10, which includes the discount from a Two Together railcard (it even states "Adult standard class with Two Together railcard" on the ticket). The journey was off peak. I've no doubt that your comments above are correct, but none of the values quoted appear to be 1.5 times more than £5.10.

 

[yorkie]

Thank you all for your comments! Is it reasonable, then, for me to suggest to Southern that they need to do something to their ticket machines to prevent them from thinking that Euston is an appropriate London Terminal when travelling from Epsom?

Not quite; you can get there without using LU.

I was prepared to argue the toss for a while (we got to Euston an hour early) but I can imagine that a less politely insistent person might have ended up in a disadvantageous position. I don't think that providing a ticket which is invalid on the obvious (and recommended) routes is at all appropriate.

LU staff could have given you a Penalty Fare (such is our unfair legislation that we have in this country, which burdens the passenger)

Just to confuse matters, the cost of each ticket from Epsom to "London Terminals" was £5.10, which includes the discount from a Two Together railcard (it even states "Adult standard class with Two Together railcard" on the ticket). The journey was off peak. I've no doubt that your comments above are correct, but none of the values quoted appear to be 1.5 times more than £5.10.

You can look up the fares at www.brfares.com with your Railcard discount applied, e.g. http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=EUS&dest=EPS&grpo=1072&rlc=2TR&tkt=SDS

When I was training for the Ticket Office, Railcard discounts were deduction of 34% and then round up to the nearest 5p if necessary. ....

So you get £5.082 which gets rounded to £5.10

 

[Wombat]

Thanks yorkie. You're right: your second link that I quoted corresponds to (roughly) 1.5 times the price I paid with the railcard.

I take your point that it's possible to get to Euston using NR-only routes. I'm not satisfied that it's made sufficiently (or indeed at all) clear to the ticket purchaser that their ticket is NR-only, so I will raise the point with Southern in the expectation that I will be fobbed off with anti-passenger nonsense.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks yorkie. You're right: your second link that I quoted corresponds to (roughly) 1.5 times the price I paid with the railcard.

I take your point that it's possible to get to Euston using NR-only routes. I'm not satisfied that it's made sufficiently (or indeed at all) clear to the ticket purchaser that their ticket is NR-only, so I will raise the point with Southern in the expectation that I will be fobbed off with anti-passenger nonsense.

I think the problem is that it is difficult to communicate this effectively without the use of a journey planner.

This is probably the reason that some newer TVMs for certain operators default to planning a journey and then offering valid fares, rather than allow someone to buy a ticket without really understanding that the ticket is only valid on National Rail services and not on the Underground.

You can highlight the problem to SWR but you are not entitled to recieve anything as you made the journey all the way to Euston Underground station on the ticket held, and weren't required to pay extra by LU staff to use their services.

You also have to take care when using the TfL single fare finder; the results for London Euston are rather different to Euston Underground.

I don't think the problem will ever be satisfactorily resolved unless there is fares harmony between LU and NR services, by getting rid of the additional charge to mix 'modes', which is incredibly unlikely to ever happen, at least not unless there is an incredibly radical change in policy regarding fares, and more subsidy from taxpayers.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yorkie - interesting you should say that about newer machines because the ones at Epsom are brand new ones; they've all been replaced in the past few months and the floor still shows signs of the outlines of the old ones.

Not that I ever use them - I always go to the ticket office myself...

 

[Wombat]

I think the problem is that it is difficult to communicate this effectively without the use of a journey planner.

This is probably the reason that some newer TVMs for certain operators default to planning a journey and then offering valid fares, rather than allow someone to buy a ticket without really understanding that the ticket is only valid on National Rail services and not on the Underground.

Couldn't they just provide some clear options?:

* £10.70 (via underground)
* £7.70 (not via underground)
* Whatever else for the Southern-only service which is cheaper for some unspecified reason.

I feel quite strongly about this because, as ForTheLoveOf suggests, I could have theoretically been smacked with a penalty fare for actions which I think any sane person would regard as reasonable. I realise that this is highly unlikely but I really don't think that I should have to argue with the gate line staff as a routine part of my journey.

You can highlight the problem to SWR but you are not entitled to recieve anything as you made the journey all the way to Euston Underground station on the ticket held, and weren't required to pay extra by LU staff to use their services.

Oh yes, agreed, I'm not expecting compensation. I'm aware that I underpaid and will even cough up the extra if they insist, but I would like to ask Southern to explain why they're selling tickets which are invalid on the obvious routes. I understand that it may be a fiendishly complex problem but I don't accept that it's reasonable for them to say "Oh, well, **** it" and throw the burden onto the unsuspecting passenger. Essentially, I expect nothing to come of it, but I want to make them do some work even if it's just dispatching a few boilerplate letters which don't answer the question.

 

[yorkie]

Couldn't they just provide some clear options?:

* £10.70 (via underground)
* £7.70 (not via underground)
* Whatever else for the Southern-only service which is cheaper for some unspecified reason.

I feel quite strongly about this because, as ForTheLoveOf suggests, I could have theoretically been smacked with a penalty fare for actions which I think any sane person would regard as reasonable. I realise that this is highly unlikely but I really don't think that I should have to argue with the gate line staff as a routine part of my journey.

This is a radical proposal; can I suggest creating a new thread with these proposals as it's really a whole new topic in its own right (unless you want this thread to evolve into that).

Oh yes, agreed, I'm not expecting compensation. I'm aware that I underpaid and will even cough up the extra if they insist,

You didn't encounter an LU ticket inspector, so you are not required to cough up extra now!

but I would like to ask Southern to explain why they're selling tickets which are invalid on the obvious routes.

I guess the question is whether or not it is reasonable to expect a National Rail ticket to include the use of London Underground services or not.

I can see reasons for and against, but in our current setup it's considered to be a different 'mode' of transport, similar to the situations in towns like Manchester and Newcastle.

Notwithstanding any inter-available routes, of course.

I understand that it may be a fiendishly complex problem but I don't accept that it's reasonable for them to say "Oh, well, **** it" and throw the burden onto the unsuspecting passenger. Essentially, I expect nothing to come of it, but I want to make them do some work even if it's just dispatching a few boilerplate letters which don't answer the question.

Unfortunately we need to be careful what we wish for; there is a real risk that tickets will be further restricted in order to comply with this request, for example for tickets from Epsom to require travel only to Waterloo/Victoria (and maybe some others) and for this to be printed on the ticket.

That isn't the outcome we want, but if the question is worded in the wrong way, that is the 'solution' the rail industry will come up with.

 

[Wombat]

This is a radical proposal; can I suggest creating a new thread with these proposals as it's really a whole new topic in its own right (unless you want this thread to evolve into that).

I seem to have stumbled into dangerous territory that I am unprepared for! Well, you know far more about this stuff than I do, so I'll cheerfully take your word for it about the radical proposal. I'm happy for this thread to turn into that discussion, or equally happy for it to be moved into the "speculative nonsense" category if that's what it is. I would, however, like to say (with no ill feeling towards yorkie, who is unfailingly helpful) that we're in a very dark place when the provision of sensible options to passengers constitutes a radical proposal.

I guess the question is whether or not it is reasonable to expect a National Rail ticket to include the use of London Underground services or not.

I can see reasons for and against, but in our current setup it's considered to be a different 'mode' of transport, similar to the situations in towns like Manchester and Newcastle.

Notwithstanding any inter-available routes, of course.

My opening gambit is that it's reasonable.

A bit of context: the overall journey was Epsom to Macclesfield. I booked the journey from Euston to Macclesfield purely out of habit: I had an Epsom-London season ticket (including LU travelcard) for years, so I would use that to get to Euston. I no longer have the season ticket but old habits die hard. If I had booked the full Epsom-Macclesfield journey, it would have included a hop on the Victoria line to get from Vauxhall to Euston, and I'm reasonably certain that I've undertaken that journey without issue.

Bottom line: I contend that if the obvious journey includes LU services, that ticket should be offered at the appropriate price with alternative non-LU services offered with clearly stated restrictions. In some cases (possibly including this one) the non-LU options may be so silly that it doesn't make sense to offer them outside the ticket office.

 

[yorkie]

I seem to have stumbled into dangerous territory that I am unprepared for! Well, you know far more about this stuff than I do, so I'll cheerfully take your word for it about the radical proposal. I'm happy for this thread to turn into that discussion, or equally happy for it to be moved into the "speculative nonsense" category if that's what it is. I would, however, like to say (with no ill feeling towards yorkie, who is unfailingly helpful) that we're in a very dark place when the provision of sensible options to passengers constitutes a radical proposal.

Ok basically you are asking if the routeing for tickets to London can be changed to "Not via Underground". This route does already exist, but only for certain cross-London flows.

But how far do you take it? Would you apply this to all fares within the London area?

What routeing would you apply to a ticket from Aylesbury to London Terminals? This is a National Rail priced ticket; it's valid on the Metropolitan Line as far as Baker Street because that's an inter-available route. Do you route this "Not via Underground" on the basis that it's not valid beyond Marylebone/Baker Street to places like Waterloo? If so, might that cause some staff to think the ticket did not allow travel on the Met? Might a passenger be refused break of journey at Harrow on the Hill as a result of this change?

Liverpool Street to Stratford is an inter-available route, so what do you do about all flows valid into Liverpool Street?

Being realistic, there is no way this particular solution can be viable in my opinion.

So what's left? Well, tickets could be restricted to specific terminals. That's what some people at RDG reportedly want to do. But would that work from Richmond, Reading etc? What would be printed on those tickets? How could you print something that fits on a ticket and preserves existing validity (bearing in mind Richmond to Euston has a long standing permitted route via Willesden Jn)?

If those options don't exist, what else can we do? Forbid tickets to be issued without an itinerary? If so, the queues to use some ticket vending machines (TVMs) could become very long and it could frustrate regular passengers.

I am up for hearing good solutions but I can't think of any that don't result in the loss of passenger rights.

I can think of solutions that would be viable if there was no premium to use LU services, but any such solutions would be unacceptable to Government because it would reduce farebox income and therefore require more subsidy.

A bit of context: the overall journey was Epsom to Macclesfield. I booked the journey from Euston to Macclesfield purely out of habit: I had an Epsom-London season ticket (including LU travelcard) for years, so I would use that to get to Euston. I no longer have the season ticket but old habits die hard. If I had booked the full Epsom-Macclesfield journey, it would have included a hop on the Victoria line to get from Vauxhall to Euston, and I'm reasonably certain that I've undertaken that journey without issue.

If it was a flexible ticket, you could have asked the ticket office for an overdistance excess, priced at only £5.55 each for an Off Peak Return.

Bottom line: I contend that if the obvious journey includes LU services, that ticket should be offered at the appropriate price with alternative non-LU services offered with clearly stated restrictions.

What are the obvious journeys for Waterloo to Reading, Victoria to Reading, Paddington to Banbury, Euston to Leamington Spa, etc?

If the answer is "well that's a difficult question to answer", then you see where I am coming from!

In some cases (possibly including this one) the non-LU options may be so silly that it doesn't make sense to offer them outside the ticket office.

Is this a proposal to bar the sale of some tickets (which ones) at TVMs? If so, how would this be achieved?

Again it's an interesting idea in theory, but in practice... I don't see how?

 

[Wombat]

I don't think I'm equipped to answer questions about Aylesbury and the like so I'm clueless when it comes to the above. I may be expressing myself poorly, though. Sticking with my Epsom to Euston example because I'm familiar with it, these appear to be my options today:

* £10.70 (via underground)
* £7.70 (not via underground)
* A Southern service that I didn't pay attention to

I'm not proposing that any of those journeys or their prices should be changed, or that any regulations should change (or at least, I don't think I am), I'm suggesting that since the second option precludes the use of the underground, it would be helpful if the ticket machine stated as much. I think I'm talking about a change of wording on the machine, not a fundamental restructure of the ticketing system.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't think I'm equipped to answer questions about Aylesbury and the like so I'm clueless when it comes to the above. I may be expressing myself poorly, though. Sticking with my Epsom to Euston example because I'm familiar with it, these appear to be my options today:

* £10.70 (via underground)
* £7.70 (not via underground)
* A Southern service that I didn't pay attention to

I'm not proposing that any of those journeys or their prices should be changed, or that any regulations should change (or at least, I don't think I am), I'm suggesting that since the second option precludes the use of the underground, it would be helpful if the ticket machine stated as much. I think I'm talking about a change of wording on the machine, not a fundamental restructure of the ticketing system.

I think the issue that Yorkie is alluding to is that it would be a very difficult thing to determine when "not Underground" is a useful route to specify. There are many journeys where it would not be possible to do this without reducing the number of available routes. So are you saying that we should only make things clearer where doing so doesn't reduce the available routes, and that for other cases we leave things unsimplified?

 

[Wombat]

I think the issue that Yorkie is alluding to is that it would be a very difficult thing to determine when "not Underground" is a useful route to specify.

Oh, I see. I will take your collective word for it! I find this very confusing, though. I've checked, and my previous trip (Epsom to Macclesfield, booked with Virgin) was Epsom -> Waterloo -> Euston (via tube) -> Macclesfield. I didn't explicitly state that I wanted to use the tube so there's clearly a recognition there by some computer system that the tube is involved as part of the optimal route. But when I buy a ticket for a subset of that journey (Epsom -> Euston) that recognition appears not to exist.

In my head, where everything is nice and simple and unaffected by the annoyances of reality, it would work like this:

a) I ask for a ticket from Epsom to Euston
b) The computer finds the quickest ticket (via Underground) and offers it to me priced at £10.70.
c) The computer also finds a cheaper ticket (not via Underground) and offers it to me priced at £7.70. The "Not Underground" restriction can be usefully made known to me because the computer is aware that it's already offered me a "via Underground" ticket.
d) The computer also finds a ticket via Exeter but doesn't offer it to me because it's more expensive and longer.

Conversely, when I buy a ticket from Disley to Stockport, I don't need to be given a "Not Underground" restriction because there isn't a cheaper or faster alternative that involves the tube.

I concede in advance that the cheery little picture in my head almost certainly does not align with the reality!

There are many journeys where it would not be possible to do this without reducing the number of available routes. So are you saying that we should only make things clearer where doing so doesn't reduce the available routes, and that for other cases we leave things unsimplified?

I think I'm saying that we should add options by offering the user an opportunity to buy a ticket that permits using the underground in addition to the two options currently offered, which don't permit use of the Underground. I mean, that third option already exists - you can buy a ticket to Zone U12, as Yorkie states above - but it's not presented to the user when they select Euston as their destination.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Oh, I see. I will take your collective word for it! I find this very confusing, though. I've checked, and my previous trip (Epsom to Macclesfield, booked with Virgin) was Epsom -> Waterloo -> Euston (via tube) -> Macclesfield. I didn't explicitly state that I wanted to use the tube so there's clearly a recognition there by some computer system that the tube is involved as part of the optimal route. But when I buy a ticket for a subset of that journey (Epsom -> Euston) that recognition appears not to exist.

The difference here is that it is the handling of "appropriate London Terminals" that the ticket machine has not been correctly programmed for. The same problem would exist if you had bought a ticket from Macclesfield to Waterloo - the same kind of ticket machine would have sold you a ticket to London Terminals, which isn't then valid to Waterloo via the Underground. But I agree that checks need to be implemented on ticket machines so that people don't, in effect, select one destination but get sold a ticket to another station without warning. It wouldn't even be very difficult - simply cross-reference the list of appropriate London Terminals against the selected London Terminal and offer a ticket to London Terminals if it's an appropriate Terminal, or a ticket to Zone U1(2) if it isn't.

In my head, where everything is nice and simple and unaffected by the annoyances of reality, it would work like this:

a) I ask for a ticket from Epsom to Euston
b) The computer finds the quickest ticket (via Underground) and offers it to me priced at £10.70.
c) The computer also finds a cheaper ticket (not via Underground) and offers it to me priced at £7.70. The "Not Underground" restriction can be usefully made known to me because the computer is aware that it's already offered me a "via Underground" ticket.
d) The computer also finds a ticket via Exeter but doesn't offer it to me because it's more expensive and longer.

Conversely, when I buy a ticket from Disley to Stockport, I don't need to be given a "Not Underground" restriction because there isn't a cheaper or faster alternative that involves the tube.

I concede in advance that the cheery little picture in my head almost certainly does not align with the reality!

Unfortunately, as you can see, it's complex enough for one journey - imagine the amount of time it would take to manually work this out for every single combination of origin and London Terminal!

I think I'm saying that we should add options by offering the user an opportunity to buy a ticket that permits using the underground in addition to the two options currently offered, which don't permit use of the Underground. I mean, that third option already exists - you can buy a ticket to Zone U12, as Yorkie states above - but it's not presented to the user when they select Euston as their destination.

We are in agreement over this then! But again, the issue persists that, if you went with the same approach for somewhere like Stratford, labelling the fare to London Terminals as "not Underground" would quite possibly lead to problems using this ticket on the Central Line, which is and long has been a valid route.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

my previous trip (Epsom to Macclesfield, booked with Virgin) was Epsom -> Waterloo -> Euston (via tube) -> Macclesfield.

Another way of looking at this, is what do you specify if you wish to split at Euston?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I may be missing the point here, but right back at the beginning, when the OP bought their single tickets from Epsom to London Terminals, what did they ask for as their destination? If they asked (at Epsom) for a ticket to Euston, then surely they should have been sold a ticket which would cover that journey (i.e Epsom - U12)? But if they asked for a ticket to London, then a ticket to their appropriate terminal station (i.e. a ticket to London Terminals) would have been correct?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I may be missing the point here, but right back at the beginning, when the OP bought their single tickets from Epsom to London Terminals, what did they ask for as their destination? If they asked (at Epsom) for a ticket to Euston, then surely they should have been sold a ticket which would cover that journey (i.e Epsom - U12)? But if they asked for a ticket to London, then a ticket to their appropriate terminal station (i.e. a ticket to London Terminals) would have been correct?

The OP selected Euston as the destination. But then the ticket machine decided that this meant that selling a ticket to London Terminals was appropriate, when it quite clearly isn't for the journey the OP intended to make.

 

[Wombat]

We are in agreement over this then! But again, the issue persists that, if you went with the same approach for somewhere like Stratford, labelling the fare to London Terminals as "not Underground" would quite possibly lead to problems using this ticket on the Central Line, which is and long has been a valid route.

Oh, so there are tickets that are valid for some bits of the underground but not others? I can see that that would be fiddly. I think I'm going to go away before any more of my brain leaks out of my ears - I'm glad it's not my job to make sense of all this stuff!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The OP selected Euston as the destination. But then the ticket machine decided that this meant that selling a ticket to London Terminals was appropriate, when it quite clearly isn't for the journey the OP intended to make.

And that is because it's possible to do Epsom - Euston entirely on NR services, rather than using the Underground - despite the fact that a non-railway-savvy person would go to Vauxhall or Victoria and then take the Underground across - so the default ticket offered should be for the 'obvious: journey using the Underground?

Thanks - I think that I understand now.

 

[si404]

Is the problem here not the misleading term "London Terminals"? It seems to even have confused the ticket machines (by giving tickets for non-valid terminals as if they were valid - which, even if you stay off the Underground, not all of them are).

Obviously Euston is a London Terminal, but from Epsom it's not a valid one, even though you can avoid the Underground to get there.

 

[SickyNicky]

Obviously Euston is a London Terminal, but from Epsom it's not a valid one, even though you can avoid the Underground to get there.

Are you sure? I would imagine that via Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction is a Permitted Route.

 

[Haywain]

Are you sure? I would imagine that via Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction is a Permitted Route.

National Rail Enquiries suggests that it is, offering an itinerary requiring only the £7.70 ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Oh, so there are tickets that are valid for some bits of the underground but not others? I can see that that would be fiddly. I think I'm going to go away before any more of my brain leaks out of my ears - I'm glad it's not my job to make sense of all this stuff!

Yes - these are interavailable routes. There are several of these and most are due to historic agreements or changes. With the section from Amersham to Harrow-on-the-Hill there is even the unusual situation that National Rail services run on an entirely London Underground owned and run route, so interavailability is essential to provide a reasonable service at all! As you can see, it's easy enough to say that what the ticket machine did was stupid for your journey, but it's difficult to create a general set of rules that would work for all stations to London.