Not via London anomaly?

[d7]

Hello, came across a bit of a confusing one and hope someone here might have some insight.
Booking a ticket from Margate to Brighton, departing approx 10am on a Friday. I'm using Trainline here, but this is the same on the TOCs websites too.

The planner proposes the following itinerary:
Dep Margate 10:05 (Southeastern)
Arr London Victoria 11:51
Dep London Victoria 12:29 (Gatwick Express)
Arr Brighton 13:27

For that, it's trying to sell me an off-peak day single ticket at £28.30.
However, the terms of that ticket clearly state: "Not valid for travel via (changing trains or passing through) London Terminals."
This seems very odd that I would be given this itinerary and sold a ticket that doesn't seem to be valid? Is this some sort of bug with the journey planner or am I misunderstanding the restrictions?
Obviously wanting to make sure I don't get a penalty.

Grateful for any wisdom you might have!

 

[jfollows]

If you have an itinerary, it is valid regardless of the actual ticket restrictions.

If you come across someone who doesn’t realise this (https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...e/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2026.pdf)

The Routes You May Use

Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of

a particular Train Company, or on trains travelling via a certain route or routes. If no

specific route or Train Company is shown, then (subject to any time restrictions for

the type of fare you have purchased) it will be valid on:

13.1.1 any direct train service between the stations shown on your Ticket; or

13.1.2 as shown on an itinerary presented by the journey planner on

www.nationalrail.co.uk or from a Licensed Retailer in connection with the

purchase of a Ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to

that Ticket.

then pay up and get a refund later.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Just had a look using LNER's site and it offered the same itinerary, same price, and same restriction

 

[Wallsendmag]

If it's two or more TIS showing the same thing it'll be a data problem

 

[Adam Williams]

If you plan a journey like this on the forum ticketing site, it'll tell you exactly which ENRG easements it has considered.

https://enrgbrowser.com/routes/00700

Not valid for travel via (changing trains or passing through) London Terminals.
Fare route Easement 701577: Passengers travelling From Streatham Hill or Streatham Common to stations south of Crawley on Arun Valley line may travel via Clapham Junction. This Fare route easement applies in both directions.

https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701577/2026-05-26

 

[Haywain]

If you plan a journey like this on the forum ticketing site, it'll tell you exactly which ENRG easements it has considered.

https://enrgbrowser.com/routes/00700




https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701577/2026-05-26

I don't see how that easement allows travel via Victoria, so any explanation would be welcome.

 

[d7]

If you plan a journey like this on the forum ticketing site, it'll tell you exactly which ENRG easements it has considered.

https://enrgbrowser.com/routes/00700




https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701577/2026-05-26

My original journey itinerary doesn't actually show up on the forum ticketing site, and there don't seem to be an easements that would apply in this case. Cool site though, thanks!

 

[mmh]

I don't see how that easement allows travel via Victoria, so any explanation would be welcome.

Because to travel via Clapham Junction you go via Victoria first. See the second link in post #5.

 

[Adam Williams]

doesn't actually show up on the forum ticketing site

Search

 

[gray1404]

Hello, came across a bit of a confusing one and hope someone here might have some insight.
Booking a ticket from Margate to Brighton, departing approx 10am on a Friday. I'm using Trainline here, but this is the same on the TOCs websites too.

The planner proposes the following itinerary:
Dep Margate 10:05 (Southeastern)
Arr London Victoria 11:51
Dep London Victoria 12:29 (Gatwick Express)
Arr Brighton 13:27

For that, it's trying to sell me an off-peak day single ticket at £28.30.
However, the terms of that ticket clearly state: "Not valid for travel via (changing trains or passing through) London Terminals."
This seems very odd that I would be given this itinerary and sold a ticket that doesn't seem to be valid? Is this some sort of bug with the journey planner or am I misunderstanding the restrictions?
Obviously wanting to make sure I don't get a penalty.

Grateful for any wisdom you might have!

You do realise posting stuff like this on the forum will result in it getting fixed don't you.

 

[d7]

View attachment 204942

Search

View attachment 204943

Odd - I don't see that at all when searching!

 

[d7]

Got it - I misunderstood the easement.
Second leg is Gatwick Express, which runs via Clapham Junction and ends in Brighton. Easement 701577 applies, which overrides ticket restrictions.
Travel from Victoria is valid.

My goodness, that was a rollercoaster.

Thank you all for your help!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2026 ==

You do realise posting stuff like this on the forum will result in it getting fixed don't you.

Not sure I understand your point there?

 

[redreni]

Not sure I understand your point there?

Any particular words you're struggling with?

Perhaps the forum needs to implement a system where posts containing certain terms (e.g. "anomaly") can't be posted in fares without moderator approval.

 

[Adam Williams]

Realistically I'm not sure an easement as fundamentally broken as this one would've survived that long anyway.

Odd - I don't see that at all when searching!

Sometimes the journey planner needs a bit of encouragement to surface the itinerary you want - you can see the advanced options I configured to persuade it to play ball

 

[AlterEgo]

Not sure I understand your point there?

Essentially this is a public forum and the fare is a clear anomaly - and will therefore be fixed very soon, as pricing managers watch this space.

The first rule of Loophole Club is...

 

[d7]

You can certainly all have your own opinions on whether this should or shouldn't be discussed and/or fixed.
I was trying to figure out if I'd end up getting fined at Victoria, as it stands, I won't. That'll do me.

 

[Adam Williams]

if I'd end up getting fined at Victoria

You shouldn't. Whether you will (or get reported for prosecution) is another matter...

 

[talldave]

You can certainly all have your own opinions on whether this should or shouldn't be discussed and/or fixed.
I was trying to figure out if I'd end up getting fined at Victoria, as it stands, I won't. That'll do me.

Book quickly!!

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

As that ticket doesn't have a cross-london (+) mark, might the gate line at Victoria reject it anyway, regardless of the easement?

 

[Harratt4]

You do realise posting stuff like this on the forum will result in it getting fixed don't you.

A first time poster, as the OP is/was probably does not, no. They are probably worried that despite being told in black and white by the railway that they can do something, they will still be handed a PFN or get reported for prosecution and receive letters demanding £100+ settlements or face a criminal record if they do so. If you are wondering why they might think this, go peruse the disputes and prosecutions section.

 

[d7]

A first time poster, as the OP is/was probably does not, no. They are probably worried that despite being told something in black and white by the railway that they can do something, they will still be handed a PFN or get reported for prosecution and receive letters demanding £100+ settlements or face a criminal record if they do so. If you are wondering why they might think this, go peruse the disputes and prosecutions section.

I appreciate this. Thank you. I should've really expected a little bit of toxicity from a forum such as this. My own naivety I suppose.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

I think it will be that Streatham Common (for instance) is a via location not an origin or destination, so it traps many more journeys than expected. There are also problems at the "Arun Valley" (or not) end. At work RDG had already enquired about a different journey affected by this easement before this thread started so I think it's not long for this world anyway.

I think there's a difference between overlooked bargains and clear nonsense, and avoiding dealing with the nonsense gives a false sense of security while putting passengers (retailers customers is my concern here) in harm's way, even though their journeys should be accepted anyway.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the point is - if you find loophole tickets, for your own benefit...don't talk about them in public. This gets the loophole closed more often than not and this will be to your own disadvantage.

Tickets purchased from an accredited retailer alongside an itinerary are always valid when using that itinerary, for future reference. This doesn't mean you won't encounter issues though; staff are often not well trained. This poster has had a penalty fare and was reported for prosecution separately for using a valid ticket alongside an itinerary: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mg11-for-journey-with-itinerary.299576/

If you do come across any bother then this forum has a Disputes section which can help with formulating an appeal or defence to legal action.

 

[d7]

if you find loophole tickets, for your own benefit

That wasn't my point. At all. It is actually cheaper to buy other advanced tickets at similar times for the same journey I mentioned. I wasn't posting as means of saying LOOK EVERYONE THIS IS A BARGAIN.

I enquired if anyone knew why I was being sold an off-peak ticket on a route that seemed to conflict with the ticket's restrictions. A couple of helpful people in this thread have explained why, and that's great.

That's all it was. You call this a loophole, I call it a confusing mess that adds stress to customers that needs to disappear.

 

[Haywain]

Because to travel via Clapham Junction you go via Victoria first. See the second link in post #5.

Still not obvious to me.

 

[blimmo]

Still not obvious to me.

AIUI the easement text doesn't allow travel via Victoria but the electronic implementation of that easement is broken. It just requires the route to go via Clapham Junction then allows the route restriction to be ignored, thereby allowing travel via Victoria.

 

[Adam Williams]

I appreciate this. Thank you. I should've really expected a little bit of toxicity from a forum such as this. My own naivety I suppose.

For what it's worth, I don't think you did anything wrong by posting about this here, and I'd (personally, selfishly) rather know about it for when customers inevitably ask what's going on.

I enjoy a good loophole as much as anyone else in this section - but as @ThisIsSurbiton notes, it's already gotten attention, so it's not like it's really done any harm.

The root cause here of course is that the industry is hopeless at validating data, and doesn't know what a test environment is. Routeing guide changes get YOLO'd out the door without a second thought; and seemingly without evaluating the impact on the most important implementations in use by TIS suppliers. You can very quickly get a sense of the quality of work being carried out here by skimming through the NRG updates thread that @kieron used to maintain. A very sorry state of affairs.

 

[akm]

Still not obvious to me.

see the link that Adam posted https://enrgbrowser.com/easements/701577/2026-05-26 - specifically "then the journey can be considered valid, ignoring location-based restrictions from the fare's route code"

 

[Adam Williams]

Sorry, I ordinarily would've done more in the way of explaining than just dumping the easement link and running away; trying to do about 20 different things at once today

 

[tumbledown]

So if not for this journey, for what is the easement designed?