Baldock - Blackfriars "Issued to London Terminals"

[stut]

Forgive me if I've been missing something, but...

Went into London from Baldock this morning for various dull reasons. Bought the ticket from TrainPal, was surprised how much cheaper it was than Biggleswade, but thought little of it. However, when I got the ticket up for the inspector on the train, I noticed it was a "London Terminals" ticket - not a Thameslink one.

"That's annoying," I thought, thinking I'd have to hop off and on again at FP or StP, but I thought I'd double check on BRFares. And lo and behold, this is one of the sections for Baldock - Blackfriars:



OK, so £2 difference isn't much, but unless I'm misunderstanding, does this mean London Terminals tickets are now valid through the core? Were they always? TrainPal certainly seems to think so. The barriers are Blackfriars let me through, FWIW, though that's not necessarily an endorsement.

 

[Haywain]

does this mean London Terminals tickets are now valid through the core? Were they always?

No, they are not, and never have been. Unfortunately, some (all?) journey planners are unable to distinguish which direction you are approaching a London Terminal station from, and will sell the wrong ticket. It is also the case that barriers cannot make that distinction, so a ticket may well be accepted but that will not make it valid.

 

[Watershed]

No, Blackfriars is a London Terminal but a ticket from north of London (e.g. Baldock) to London Terminals isn't valid that far. It would only be valid as far as St Pancras (or alternatively to Kings Cross or Moorgate).

This is because tickets expire when you reach the last station in your destination group, that you can reach without passing through a station outside the group. Since Farringdon isn't a London Terminal, this means that coming from the north, St Pancras is the last London Terminal you pass - hence your ticket is only valid until there.

If you want the flexibility to travel to any station in the Thameslink core, you'll want to buy a ticket to London Thameslink, which is £2 extra for this particular journey, as you've found.

TrainPal shouldn't be selling a London Terminals ticket for a journey from Baldock to Blackfriars - it could get you into quite a bit of trouble if there were RPIs checking tickets manually at the Blackfriars barriers, or onboard between St Pancras and Blackfriars (not that I've seen any onboard checks in the core myself, after countless journeys).

Unfortunately TrainPal really isn't the best app to be using and I really don't recommend it.

 

[redreni]

When I search this journey on TrainPal it

1. Offers an off-peak return for £25.60, which is the price of the London Terminals fare, and
2. Fails to tell you which station or station group the ticket will be issued to at any point before you commit to buy.

I take it from what the OP has said that the ticket was issued from Baldock to London Terminals alongside an itinerary showing Blackfriars as the final destination? Because that *would* make the ticket valid if used according to the itinerary.

At the pre-purchase stage Trainpal also gives a list of other departures on which the ticket can be used, so you could argue it is hardly a stretch to infer you are contractually entitled to go to Blackfriars on any of those trains, given the search query was Baldock to Blackfriars and the ticket was issued against an itinerary where the journey ends at Blackfriars.

I agree it's not otherwise valid and assume TrainPal will fix this when somebody sees this and makes them aware. Which probably should happen.

Somebody at TrainPal seems to be confused about Thameslink generally: they don't seem to understand the fixed walking link between St Pancras and Kings Cross, for example, and the fact you can use that link to go to Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge/Elephant & Castle from points to the north of London on a London Thameslink ticket.

 

[stut]

Correct - I did indeed input Baldock to Blackfriars (and indeed, that's what my itinerary shows) and was issued a London Terminals ticket - something that only became apparent on loading the ticket.

I would add that the snippet from BRFares above was also for a Baldock to Blackfriars itinerary. If the data source is the same used by TrainPal, I wondered if that could be a source for the confusion.

 

[bcarmicle]

BRFares doesn't validate routes, and a London Terminals ticket would be valid if there were a valid route from Baldock that went around London and entered from the south (which there is not). Trainpal on the other hand should not be offering this ticket against a route for which it is not valid.

 

[OscarH]

This is about as incompetent as you can get as an itinerary based ticket retailer. I'm almost impressed

 

[philjo]

I don’t know if it Is still the case but there were some reports in our rail users group 2-3 years ago that they had purchased single tickets to Hitchin using the TVMs at Blackfriars and the tickets printed stated London Terminals to Hitchin.

 

[Kite159]

Such a thing can be avoided if the powers that be did away with London Thameslink as a destination and allowed London Terminal tickets to be used from the north to the London terminal stations south of Farringdon (and vice versa allowing use of St Pancras for holders of London Terminal tickets from the south). Basically making Farringdon a London Terminal in terms of tickets.

Although I doubt such a thing will be done as it reduce revenue, especially if someone is allowed to travel to St Pancras from say Woking at the same cost as to Waterloo.

 

[MikeWh]

especially if someone is allowed to travel to St Pancras from say Woking at the same cost as to Waterloo.

That's exactly what they're allowed to do from Surbiton using PAYG.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

"I put it to you, [Mr/Ms Witness for the Prosecution], that if a passenger is sold a ticket for a specific route by a TOC ticket office (includes TVMs, obvs) or is given validity information from Br fares, information for which is taken from the industry's own fares database, the passenger is entitled to regard it as valid irrespecitve of other views including those of ticket inspectors. Under consumer protection legislation, when conflicting prices and terms are offered, pre purchase, the passenger is entitled to make use of the most advantageous one. By extension, that includes refunds if they have paid more.

[Turning to Judge/Magistrate] Accordingly, i submit that there is no case to answer here as, in fact, no law has been broken (by the passenger, at least)."

It is wholly within the ability of the rail industry to put a stop to this kind of thing!

 

[Haywain]

"I put it to you, [Mr/Ms Witness for the Prosecution], that if a passenger is sold a ticket for a specific route by a TOC ticket office (includes TVMs, obvs) or is given validity information from Br fares, information for which is taken from the industry's own fares database, the passenger is entitled to regard it as valid irrespecitve of other views including those of ticket inspectors. Under consumer protection legislation, when conflicting prices and terms are offered, pre purchase, the passenger is entitled to make use of the most advantageous one. By extension, that includes refunds if they have paid more.

[Turning to Judge/Magistrate] Accordingly, i submit that there is no case to answer here as, in fact, no law has been broken (by the passenger, at least)."

It is wholly within the ability of the rail industry to put a stop to this kind of thing!

Mythical court proceeding carry no weight in reality.

 

[redreni]

"I put it to you, [Mr/Ms Witness for the Prosecution], that if a passenger is sold a ticket for a specific route by a TOC ticket office (includes TVMs, obvs) or is given validity information from Br fares, information for which is taken from the industry's own fares database, the passenger is entitled to regard it as valid irrespecitve of other views including those of ticket inspectors. Under consumer protection legislation, when conflicting prices and terms are offered, pre purchase, the passenger is entitled to make use of the most advantageous one. By extension, that includes refunds if they have paid more.

[Turning to Judge/Magistrate] Accordingly, i submit that there is no case to answer here as, in fact, no law has been broken (by the passenger, at least)."

It is wholly within the ability of the rail industry to put a stop to this kind of thing!

This has got nothing to do with BRFares. BRFares didn't sell the ticket against an itinerary travelling by a non-permitted route. BRFares also carries a prominent disclaimer saying prior knowledge of rail ticketing is assumed.

It is the information provided by TrainPal that made the ticket valid to Blackfriars in these specific circumstances. It's an interesting question how far this might have gone if the OP had encountered an RPI after St Pancras (e.g. at Blackfriars) and been booked for this.

I would expect RPIs to realise that they can't penalty fare somebody or report them for prosecution if they're travelling in line with an itinerary against which they bought their ticket. If for some reason they didn't realise that then I would expect each person who looked at the case at each stage to realise that.

I wish I could say I was confident it wouldn't come before a Magistrates' Court. It is difficult to see a prosecution actually going ahead - if it got that far then it would surely be one of those cases where the prosecution realises at an alarmingly late stage that it has no case and so offers no evidence? Of course, many people would succumb to the intimidation before it reached that point, which is in my view the main problem with the revenue protection system as it stands.

 

[Watershed]

I would expect RPIs to realise that they can't penalty fare somebody or report them for prosecution if they're travelling in line with an itinerary against which they bought their ticket. If for some reason they didn't realise that then I would expect each person who looked at the case at each stage to realise that.

I wish I could say I was confident it wouldn't come before a Magistrates' Court. It is difficult to see a prosecution actually going ahead - if it got that far then it would surely be one of those cases where the prosecution realises at an alarmingly late stage that it has no case and so offers no evidence?

Unfortunately I wouldn't hold out any hope of any of the decision-makers at any stage (RPI, case worker, prosecutor) understanding the legal principle at stake here. They will just look at the facts at face value - a passenger with a London Terminals ticket allegedly "overtravelled" - and proceed on that basis.

Of course, many people would succumb to the intimidation before it reached that point, which is in my view the main problem with the revenue protection system as it stands.

Agreed.

 

[redreni]

If the prosecutor doesn't appreciate the legal principle at stake, they're in the wrong job, I would say. And they haven't learnt the lessons directly relevant to them that the Post Office Horizon scandal should have made glaringly obvious.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

Unfortunately, some (all?) journey planners are unable to distinguish which direction you are approaching a London Terminal station from, and will sell the wrong ticket

I'd agree about a ticket machine, but surely any journey planner would know this and not to prevent it - bugs excepted of course - is a big problem. It's never been possible to sell a ticket with only the data provided by the industry. The words have to be turned into software as well

 

[yorkie]

Forgive me if I've been missing something, but...

Went into London from Baldock this morning for various dull reasons. Bought the ticket from TrainPal, was surprised how much cheaper it was than Biggleswade, but thought little of it. However, when I got the ticket up for the inspector on the train, I noticed it was a "London Terminals" ticket - not a Thameslink one.

"That's annoying," I thought, thinking I'd have to hop off and on again at FP or StP, but I thought I'd double check on BRFares. And lo and behold, this is one of the sections for Baldock - Blackfriars:



OK, so £2 difference isn't much, but unless I'm misunderstanding, does this mean London Terminals tickets are now valid through the core? Were they always? TrainPal certainly seems to think so. The barriers are Blackfriars let me through, FWIW, though that's not necessarily an endorsement.

While all retail systems can - and do - make mistakes occasionally due to the complexity of the system, TrainPal suffers far more than most.

Trainpal wanted to work with the forum; I met them a few years ago and was very unimpressed, and we chose to partner with Raileasy/Trainsplit instead.

If you are happy to be threatened with (or even issued) excess fares, penalty fares and even prosecution by train companies, and argue your case that you are merely following an itinerary from an accredited retailer, then by all means continue to use TrainPal for future purchases.

I take it from what the OP has said that the ticket was issued from Baldock to London Terminals alongside an itinerary showing Blackfriars as the final destination? Because that *would* make the ticket valid if used according to the itinerary...

I completely agree.

This means that if a penalty fare is issued or a threat of prosecution is made, the passenger is absolutely entitled to argue that the original ticket should be accepted and that any dispute is between the train company and the retailer and of no concern to the customer.

I don't know if Trainpal would contact a TOC to admit it was their fault and to make it clear that the TOC should drop any charges or threat of prosecution against a customer. I do know that if it happened with the forum's booking site, the customer could be confident that would happen.

However, either way, this can be a time-consuming, frustrating and stressful experience for customers, especially those who aren't sure on how to fight for their rights.

I only use Trainpal if I am absolutely confident of asserting my rights and am prepared to go through any potential hassle. It's a lot less stressful to use the forum's site.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That's exactly what they're allowed to do from Surbiton using PAYG.

No you're not. As soon as you pass the London terminals (whether Waterloo or City Thameslink) you are charged the TOC+TfL fare, which is higher than plain TOC Z6 to Z1, and a lot higher than a Z6 to Z1 TfL-only fare.

 

[MikeWh]

No you're not. As soon as you pass the London terminals (whether Waterloo or City Thameslink) you are charged the TOC+TfL fare, which is higher than plain TOC Z6 to Z1, and a lot higher than a Z6 to Z1 TfL-only fare.

I'm sorry but this isn't true. If you change to the Underground at Waterloo then you are correct, but if you travel via Waterloo East and London Bridge then the same fares apply as Waterloo. You can also change at Wimbledon onto Thameslink.