Day trips INTO London
 

DH and I will be in England with some friends next June. We have all been to England before. We would like to spend about three days in London and then we will be visiting other friends in the midlands. It will be four adults and a 6-year old.

In looking for accommodations, I was wondering if there are places outside of London - maybe to the north or northwest - that would be less expensive and interesting in their own right to stay. We don't mind spending time on the underground or trains.

My fantasy wish is to find a place that would be under $250/night for the five of us or at least under $350.

Possible or am I too cheap to be traveling in England? :)

Oh, I forgot. I am strictly looking at price right now. We only need clean and comfortable beds. All of us are wonderfully adept at finding something interesting where ever we are, but a good pub nearby would be handy.

Check travelinn.com or whatever their web site is and look for something near a train station - much cheaper than in London i think

TravelInn like a Red Roof Inn.

From what you say I think you mean in N/NW greater London - right?

Your budget is quite generous for an apartment right in central London. check out http://eandeapartments.co.uk/

They have 1 and 2 bdrm flats sleeping 4 in Victoria/Pimlico from around £90 - £110 per night. Why stay an hour out in the suburbs when you can be right in central London for less than your target budget??

If seing London is the point - stay IN London.

There are very few hotels in outer Greater London that meet your brief.

For example, all the hotels I can see in the north/northwestern perpheral towns on the site PalQ quotes are an unpleasant - and often impossible - walk to the station. Their locations have all been chosen for easy car access - even some with names like "Hemel Hempstead Central".

You should also remember the cost of getting into the centre: a return ticket from Watford is about another £11.50, and on some lines you'll pay a premium before 0900 or 0930. That's on top of the Oystercard you'll need to travel within London. And finding somewhere to eat at night in places like Welwyn Garden City isn't that easy.

In addition to janis' suggestion of a London flat,you should also look at what you can get on Priceline.

Which said, none of us here are experts on all London's commuter towns. So here's a list of towns to the North/NW within 30 mins or so by the fastest trains:

- that are of some real interest:
Ware
Hertford
Hatfield
St Albans
Welwyn Garden City and Letchworth (though of interest only to students of early 20th century urban planning)
High Wycombe

- of limited or frankly zero interest, but pleasant
Tring
Berkhamstead
Amersham
Beaconsfield
Maidenhead
Harpenden

Anywhere between 9 o'clock and 1 o'clock on a map of Outer London not on this list is either:
- hideous, or
- bereft of direct trains to London, or
- so boring I've wiped it from my brain cells. Though that's just a tad subjective.

Aside from Hatfield House, what is interesting about Hatfield or are you referring to Old Hatfield?

Unless they're seriously crippled, walking from Old Hatfield to the station's not going to kill them. Though admittedly most other things on view from the station would give any aesthete a heart attack.

But, yes, I am rather scraping the bottom of this barrel.

Enfield Chase is suprisingly civilised (and I was born there - look for the blue plaque).

and there is a TravelInn and Formule I (www.accorhotels.com) in Barking or someplace in the far Docklands with easy train access to London - cocofromdijon, a French lady recently wrote of her stay there with her kids.

Actually in Greater london

Barking's in East London (and is a bit of a pit)

If you really want to stay "outside" London, try St. Albans, which is a pretty little village, with good train links into central London. I don't know about hotel costs there, but it's easy enough to google some.

Also, maybe consider some of the outer villages of London if you still want to visit London, rather than staying outside London. (Although St. Albans could ostensibly be considered one of these). For example, you might consider Greenwich, which has the additional fun of getting to/from on a boat if you wish. Or Richmond has some nice things to offer (Hampton Court, great parks and playgrounds, and easy access into Central London). Otherwise, I would stay outside of London (in the Cotswolds, or Bath or Brighton or elsewhere) and forego coming into London altogether.

If you are visiting London you should stay in London.

Staying outside of London means some long (and probably expensive) travel times and especially with a 6 year old you can't just nip back to the hotel for a lie down / change of clothes / etc

I'll second the idea of St. Alban's. A number of years ago, our community theatre in Florida did an exchange with the theatre in St. Alban's. We did a production in their theatre and stayed in members' homes there for two weeks, the first week doing the show and the second week for leisure going into London nearly every day. The train is quick and frequent (but not very cheap) direct to Kings Cross and then easy tube connections. There were a couple of delightful small hotels near the station in St. Alban's -- in fact a couple of them above nice pubs.

Of course the comment about the cost of travel back and forth for five people possibly negating an advantage of staying within London is worth a good close look. If our lodgings hadn't been free, I'd never have done it.

I pay 21 pounds for a nice B&B 20 mins by train from London Bridge - so there are inexpensive and decent accomms in London area if saving pounds is your bag.

Another possible issue is that you may be fighting with commuters for seats on trains, unless you start late.

£21 pp x 5 will cost more than a £100 per day apartment right in the very center of London and no travel hassles/expense.

As said - if you want to see London - stay IN London. If you are just going to pop in one day for a quick look-see, then stay anywhere.

janisj makes sense - and there are flats for five in central london for 100 quid that are easy to book? i'm assuming so.

yes, very - see the link I provided above . . . .

janisj - my old computer won't let me on lots of links.

That does seem like a very good deal and thanks for posting it.