There's a seperate thread on a similar vein already relating to using Stratford to Liverpool Street and whether tickets to London Terminals are valid ....I use the HS1 and have asked 3 different Train Managers since yesterday and have had 3 different answers!!
1 said "not sure but would find out" (which he did ring me yesterday to say his ticketing contact had not yet replied.
1 last night said "yes - Liverpool Street is a London terminal - I would let you through"
This morning I was told that "London Terminals were an old Southern Region expression and the tickets were not valid"
As is normally my experience with South Eastern confusion reigns!!
Interesting responses there, and only the first one is the sensible one.
The second has some element of logic but if that system was true then ticketing through London would be rather flawed as demonstrated by the following example: Someone holds a South Hampstead to London Terminals ticket. Which London Terminal(s) is it valid into?
Obvious answer is 'Euston only'. But what if the customer travelled the opposite direction to Willesden Junction and from there went to Clapham Junction, to Waterloo, London Bridge, and finished at Cannon Street? Is that fine 'because Cannon Street is a London Terminal'?
No? The customer then says 'well fares in London are zonal based, I've paid for a ticket from zone 2 to zone 1 effectively, and I am travelling from zone 2 to zone 1'. Is this argument convincing you? Hopefully not! Even if it seems plausible it *might* be valid, if you are not travelling on the shortest route (and here that would mean to the nearest Terminal - not just one of your choosing) nor on a direct train then the Routeing Guide must be consulted to see if your intended route is valid.
In a similar manner, South Hampstead to Willesden Junction to Stratford to Liverpool Street would be an example to use to show obvious shortcomings of the argument given by the Train Manager. If the zonal argument above was correct then you could say well Stratford is in zone 3 - a zone that has not been paid for. Indeed, in many cases the fare does exclude a route because it ventures into a zone not paid for. The logic is fine in that direction, but it is not true in reverse that 'because you have paid for the zones means you can take any route in those zones'! Whether you feel this is the right or wrong approach to use in a zonal scenario is a debate that can probably be left to another thread.
The last response of the old SR term has just completely bewildered me. Not only is that historically inaccurate but is very misleading in the opposite extreme to the second answer (I'll let you decide which out of 2 and 3 is the most misleading!).
The term when under BR was 'London BR' later 'London Brit Rail' as 'London BR' could be confused with 'London Bridge'. 'London Terminals' has only existed for the last 11.5 years.
Just because you are not going into the most appropriate terminal from the station you are travelling from does not automatically mean the journey you are undertaking is invalid. Again, that's a matter for the Routeing Guide to establish. Indeed, that could be argued to be the whole point of the routeing guide - to allow obscure, but 'sensible' routes. If you go from say Selhurst then by the TM's argument that means I can only go into Victoria and not Waterloo or any other station in that cluster which I talked about in the other thread. Obviously, the very reason we have 'London Terminals' (and things like 'Manchester Stations') is to allow some flexibility into where a customer can go.
If these three Train Managers were fares trained then it says a lot about the rules if not even they can understand them. As has been experienced, many things are open to interpretation and it can depend on the member of staff as to whether you are 'valid' or otherwise. This is clearly not an acceptable system as it is not down to the individual member of staff's opinion to say whether something is valid. The rules are there for a reason.