I am going to Manchester England on Business in mid-April and decided having never been to England before to go over a couple of days early to sightsee a little. I've done some looking around on the internet, but there doesn't seem to be much to do in Manchester other than a few things. I've got 2 days to fill (the third day is the day I arrive and with the overnight flight I'm not sure I'll be in any position to want to do too much anyway). My question - is it worth it to take the 2.5-3 hour train to London to do some sightseeing for one day? Or - should I do an open jaw flight flying into London - spend a couple of days there - take the train up to Manchester and then fly home from there? I know I probably need more than 2 days to see London - but I will return again one day - I just thought since the company is paying for it - I'd get a little sightseeing in without having to burn vacation time! Would appreciate any comments/suggestions.

Well, whether you decide to move down to London for a couple of days or not, the train is probably the better option than the plane. By the time you've checked in and out both ends, got to and from the airport, it'll take at least as long as the train.

The noblest prospect a Mancunian can observe is the railway to Liverpool.

The world got industrialised because of railways. And the world's first proper passenger railway was built just so that Mancunians could get out of their dismal polluted hellhole to the proper city 30 miles west. The line was profitable within weeks: even the most optimistic boosters of the project were flabbergasted by the enthusiasm of the people of Manchester to escape to civilisation.

The fascination of Liverpool as a refuge from Manchester is one of the crucial facts that's shaped our world as it is today. And it's still as true as it was 180 years ago - only Liverpool's acquired 180 years of Britain's best buildings, pubs and museums in the meantime.

My husband and I flew into and out of Manchester several years ago, simply because we liked the idea of renting a car there and driving to our destination (Nottingham, where our daughter was studying) rather than dealing with car hire from Heathrow. We spent an afternoon and evening there the day before we flew out.

That time sticks out as a very interesting part of our trip. I'd never spent time in a city like Manchester, and being there at rush hour gave us a real flavor of city life in England outside London.

I like flanneruk's suggestion to go to Liverpool. We thought about doing that but didn't have the time--but preliminary research showed that there would be plenty to do there. Of course, if you're a Beatles fan at all, seeing their hometown would be very interesting. (I'm kind of amazed I've never gone, given that.) The other places nearby that had appealed to me were Chester and Stoke on Trent. It seems that you could use Manchester as your base and take one or more day trips from there. Why not do that and simply save London and all its many, many attractions for another trip?

There are plenty of things to do in Manchester to fill a day or two:
Science and Industry Museum
Lowry Centre and Museum
Imperial War Museum of the North
Manchester Art Gallery
Manchester Cathedral
John Rylands Library
Old Trafford (ManU Museum)
Chinatown
Rusholme Curry Mile
Palace Theatre
Opera House
Lowry Theatre
Shopping
Clubs and bars
Music scene
Lyme Park (in Disley, on A6 towards Derbyshire)
Tourist info at St Peter's Square can give more details

Manchester is also a good base for day trips to:
Peak District
Haworth (home of the Brontes)
Snowdonia
Chester
Liverpool
(all above an hour or less away)
Lake District (2 hour journey)

It's always fun to bash Manchester. There's so much to bash, apart from anything else.

But even the most fervent Mancy-baiter (and I' not by any means the place's biggest critic) wouldn't suggest Stoke on Trent's worth leaving Manchester for. I doubt even the poor sod responsible for promoting Stoke's tourist industry - which has to be one of the most thankless tasks you could imagine, if such a bizarre job exists - would make such a claim.

Ha, ok. So, the long list of things to do in Manchester, some of which interest me, most of which do not. But, some of the day trips do sound interesting and I think Liverpool does as well. I think I will save London for another time and spend the couple of days I have in and around Manchester and see what Liverpool has to offer as well. Thanks for the suggestions!

Hold the bus. For a first visit to England, I think your idea of flying into London, sightseeing for a day or two, and then taking then train up to Manchester before flying home from there is a really good one. And that's pretty hard for me to say, as I live in Manchester (and am ignoring the Manc-baiting tabled by one Mr Flanner, whilst trying to offer some honest advice). London has LOADS to see, and for the first time visitor it's all there on a plate; tons of it, with easy access. The North West of England has LOADS to see and do too, but there's less of it than in London, it's more spread out and it's harder to access... it's a bit like choosing between New York and Boston... both have sights to see, but one (in this case London) has headline sights round almost EVERY street corner... and all doable with so little effort.

Well, Manchester wasn't a hotbed of excitement, but I think the Peaks District and Chatsworth and maybe some of the other places already mentioned would round out the sights nicely. If you're going to return one day, I'd just wait and do London properly without the rushing about.

Alec

How could you forget the curry mile.

If you DO decide to travel London-Manchester or the other way round by train, beware that fares on this route are extortionate. If it's a business trip that's fine, but if you have to fork out yourself, be prepared and book ahead.

I live in (well near) Manchester, despite which I would also suggest staying in London rather than up here. This said, as Alec has noted, there are some wonderful places to visit from here. But Liverpool, in my opinion, has not much more to offer than Manchester. York is also only a couple of hours away and a much more interesting place than Liverpool.

Let me add my 2 cents here, please. We flew in to Manchester on Continental a couple of years ago, and were very pleasantly surprised. First: It's so much easier an airport to arrive at than the complications of Heathrow! Second: you are near the city, and nearer even to the countryside.
We were on our way to Wales, and wanted to stop near Nantwich to have lunch with old friends.
Back from Wales after 10 days, we spent an extra night at a hotel at the Manchester airport, so we had time to go down town and see the Art Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the Lowry, and REALLY enjoyed it.
For me, avoiding Heathrow is a big deal, and when we flew, the difference in cost was minimal for some reason.
There is so much to see all around Manchester: I've been to Chester (marvelous city), York (ditto) all of Cheshire (well almost) is quite beautiful, and maybe you don't want to bother with Stoke on Trent, but Chatsworth and the Derbyshire Dales are so lovely to see.
So I'd vote for Manchester as a base for you, with daytrips to a couple of other places.
Of course, I have to admit, I've been to London many, many times.