It's a fare that's already in the data, and the only (non-Travelcard) one that is valid for the journey. No 'compound fare' has been created.
I'm assuming it applies to flows where GTR's Southern brand is the fare setter, but can't remember the logic behind their decision (which was possibly mentioned in Newsrail Express or a Retail Brief at the time.)
Why isn't the same arrangement extended to South Western Railway services, where you can change to LU at Wimbledon, Chiltern Railways services where you can change to LU at Amersham, London Northwestern Railway services where you can change to LU at Harrow & Wealdstone, or Elizabeth line services where you can change to LU at Ealing Broadway?
In the case of the Elizabeth line, because it's a National Rail service between Ealing Broadway and Paddington.
Its probably not fair to associate the problem with Govia and its various brands with this situation. The situation has existed since the era of Connex and First Capital Connect if not earlier. All of GTRs proposals for fares reform in the current franchise (and from the independent Williams report on the Brighton Mainline) have been rejected by the DFT who have held the revenue risk since 2013.
Is there much point if there’s already LU inter-availability?
I appreciate that lots of TOCs, GTR included, have their hands-tied in terms of FTR reform things they might like to do due to politics, but they could at least work with RDG to document the current status quo properly. A throwaway comment in the iKB isn't really good enough for an implementer.
That's an anomaly then, that should be corrected.
I refer you to post #18 which you originally replied to.
Interestingly St Pancras to Euston is an out of station interchange for PAYG travel on Oyster/contactless but there is no fixed link for it when it comes to National Rail cross London journeys.
to be honest if all rail revenue risk in the future sits with the taxpayer (as it has done with the GTR franchises for over 10 years now), , I don't really understand why there is any need for independent retailers. You certainly shouldn't be paying retailers to come up with schemes such as split ticketing which is reducing overall income and increasing taxpayer support. To be clear I don't have a problem with punters coming up with split savings it just seem bizarre to me to be paying retailers commission to reduce revenue.
Independent retailers drive innovation. While there’s stuff not to like about Trainline there’s much to admire about their marketing and easy to use apps. This would never happen under a government run system - we’d have a 1990s style website at best.
https://issuu.com/independentrailretailers/docs/irr_supplement_fa_no_date_1_ makes the case better than I could write in a short forum post
Avanti excluded less expensive Travelcards, which should be the cheapest option they offer!
That's not the conclusion I would draw.
I suspect it's a question of interpretation. Logically (for some values of logically) if someone requests a Single journey (as in the original example), they shouldn't be offered a Travelcard as that's a Return product.
Not everyone agrees with the government that passengers pay too little, and taxpayers too much, towards the cost of running the railways.
Ah - I presumed (wrongly) that it was creating the equivalent compound (from the Any Permitted to London Terminals + £5.60). They are exactly the same price (probably for this reason that it forces the U1256 to be sold instead).