Would the WAT/CLJ - VXH section of the journey count as a journey by 'tube, DLR or train', using maltese cross cross-London validity?
No, the only National Rail legs which count as part of the cross-London transfer are those made on interavailable routes, for example the Thameslink core and certain Overground routes.
In this case, the OP has to travel to Waterloo, as you can't BOJ at CLJ on an advance, nor could you use the argument that the CLJ-WAT portion of the journey is part of the maltese cross journey, not the booked advance, since CLJ is drop-off only. But if the WAT-VXH leg is interpreted as part of the 'cross london maltese cross connection' then I don't think there's any requirement to travel from WAT to Tottenham Hale that way.
The WAT-VXH leg in this example is simply part of the journey, it does not fall under the cross-London rules. Because almost all SWR services are reservable nowadays, the booked train would be shown on the ticket and so the OP is legally speaking tied to it. In practice of course it's another matter.
But to bring up a different example, I once had a Winchester-Cambridge advance routed via Clapham Junction, Victoria and Tottenham Hale - presumably the CLJ-VIC national rail journey was part of the maltese cross ride, not a booked train as part of the advance
It was not part of the Maltese cross for the reasons described above. The Maltese cross section of a journey, and whether or not a train is a 'booked'/reserved leg of an Advance, are two independent things. All four combinations are possible, as shown by the examples I've given below:
| Leg is a 'cross London transfer'/part of the Maltese cross journey | Leg is not a 'cross London transfer'/part of the Maltese cross journey |
| Leg is a reserved train | A reservable Thameslink service through the Thameslink core (e.g. Cambridge-Brighton) | An SWR train between Waterloo and Vauxhall |
| Leg is an unreserved train (so any 'appropriate connecting service' could be used) | A non-reservable Thameslink service through the Thameslink core (e.g. Welwyn Garden City-Sevenoaks) | A Southern 'metro' service between Victoria and Clapham Junction (not one bound for the coast) |
meaning that I think I could've also travelled to Tottenham Hale via Vauxhall if I wanted to, on this ticket.
You can take any 'appropriate connecting service' for the parts of an Advance where no service is shown on the ticket (or accompanying mandatory reservations). Whether or not it would be 'appropriate' to go via Vauxhall is a fair question but since journey planners offer it, perhaps even by default in some cases, I don't see why not.
However, does the algorithm in the journey planner know this? Does it view short hops like CLJ-VIC, CLJ-VXH or WAT-VXH as a booked service you have to take, or a maltese cross connection?
See above.
If the former, then by that logic any national rail journey between designated NR/Tube interchanges on an advance single is valid, as long as it's not circuitous, which would make it possible to avoid London Terminals on quite a lot of cross-London advances even if the journey planner sends you via central London.
NR legs between designated interchanges can be taken for non-reserved portions of the journey if they are 'appropriate connecting service'. Whether or not it's circuitous isn't relevant but rather whether they follow a permitted route (which would mean they would be offered by a journey planner).
Which is easy enough on Trainsplit but not so easy on most other ticketing sites.
Let's say I have a (totally random) advance from Cambridge to Woking, routed Cambridge - London Bridge - Waterloo East - Waterloo - Woking, with a maltese cross. The first and last leg would have to stick to the itinerary as it starts/ends outside London and BOJ isn't allowed. But even though the Southeastern hop from LBG to Waterloo via WAE is using National Rail, and is part of the itinerary, it's a maltese cross journey (which is flexible, even on advances)
It's not a Maltese cross journey. But the portion from Finsbury Park to London Bridge is also a Maltese cross journey and isn't flexible because it would be shown on your ticket. As per the example above, just because something is a Maltese cross journey doesn't mean that you can ignore what's printed on your ticket - legally speaking, at least.
meaning that I don't think there's any need to stick to the booked SE service on this leg - I could even the tube if I wanted to.
You need to stick to whichever legs are shown on your ticket. If a SE service is shown (because it's reservable) then you need to stick to it. If none is shown then you can use any 'appropriate connecting service'.
If I'm wrong, and you do have to stick to the booked SE train, then I don't see the point of offering the maltese cross on such tickets if you anyway can't make any use of it.
The Maltese cross is defined at a fares data level. It means that journey planners will be able to validate and thus sell tickets with an itinerary that includes the Underground for example. The presence of a Maltese cross does not require the use of the Tube. Many tickets exist where it is equally valid and plausible to use the Underground or to avoid it - for example a walk-up ticket from Cambridge to Colchester, where you could change onto the Tube at Kings Cross/St Pancras or just change at Liverpool Street.
It's essentially the equivalent of '& connections' validity on advances for cross-London high frequency NR routes like Thameslink, LO, SE or SWR, which do appear in a ticketing site itinerary unlike the tube.
The Maltese cross primarily exists to validate travel on Underground/DLR services. It also validates travel on a handful of interavailable National Rail routes but that was not its original reason for being introduced.
The main issue is that an increasing proportion of services on high frequency routes, for example Thameslink, SWR, Southern and SE, are now reservable so that Advances can be offered for journeys where historically only walk-up fares would have been available.
The reservability applies on a train level so it isn't possible to configure a train so that reservations aren't issued on it (as part of a connecting Advance) when the section travelled is just a short one, e.g. Clapham Junction to London.
If you genuinely do want to avoid central London for some reason - e.g. Chelmsford-Woking via LST and WAT, instead taking the Mildmay line from Stratford to CLJ - then if your advance is booked from Chelmsford to LST I don't think you can get off at Stratford even if it's not dropoff only. There, you do need an itinerary via Stratford, which in most cases is only possible on Trainsplit. But for a journey between two London stations (where you're booked to get off at) on an advance, you have total flexibility (within reason) to travel between the two on Tube/DLR/NR trains even if the journey planner has booked you a specific NR train between the two. Hope my interpretation is understandable.
That is correct.
So, if we ignore the maltese cross, if you have a booked itinerary via London, involving a cross-London transfer on a high frequency NR service that does appear in the journey planner database, you have to stick to the exact cross-London NR connection that's in your itinerary just because that's the one the algorithm decided works best?
If it is shown on your ticket, then yes that is the rule.
I don't think that makes any sense on flows like WAT-VXH-CLJ, the Thameslink Core, or any of the Overground.
I agree but the rail industry is not interested in having rules that make sense!
So for the OP's itinerary, if you do have to double-back to Vauxhall because it's a booked SWR journey, then logically you also have to take the exact booked departure between Waterloo and Vauxhall that you've been assigned? For a flow with 17tph that's obviously nonsensical, but with yours and Watershed's advice that's the rule, since a fixed itinerary is a fixed itinerary.
That is the rule and it makes no sense. In practice I highly doubt any member of gateline staff would be interested in whether you are on the exact booked service. There's hardly time for a guard or RPI to come through checking tickets either.
Which is why I'd interpret such a leg as part of a cross-London journey, made valid by the presence of a maltese cross (even if a journey is possible without one), during which you're allowed to take any sensible Tube or NR route, including those avoiding Vauxhall.
It's not, unfortunately. Frequency does not determine the ticketing rules.
The fact that both SOU-WAT and WAT-VXH is with the same TOC shouldn't bear any relevance as they're very different types of services.
The type of service doesn't make a difference as to the ticketing rules. SWR have decided to make (nearly?) all their services reservable lately, so every booked service will be shown on an Advance, eben local ones.
If I do have it wrong, and my interpretation isn't a valid one, then I guess that's one valid benefit that TfL taking over suburban London services from national TOCs/IBUs would have at least, other than spending a lot of money on changing up the branding.
If you mean in terms of services no longer being reservable then arguably so, but that is a really niche benefit!
