Hello, I'm hoping for advice on the logistics of a US to UK trip next April.

We'd like to visit Edinburgh for first time and return to oft-visited London, probably for four nights each.

If open-jaw is best option, does it matter which we do first? We would plan on taking train between the two cities but not the sleeper.

Your advice is much appreciated + valued!

(I hit 'return' after that last sentence and it posted immediately. My intention was to add "Thank you" but no opportunity to preview or edit.)

no it doesn't matter which you do first, just down to personal preference

but train tickets for weekday travel between the two cities are now available up to 22 April 2016, so book ASAP if you want a bargain

https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/

All other things being equal, I'd start in London and go to Edinburgh -- just because it's a little warmer and a little lighter in London. And you spend your jet lag days in London.

BTWH, when we flew to Edinburgh from the US, we went via Heathrow, the change of planes making for a longer trip. So, if the same will be true for you, when would you prefer a longer trip? Going to the UK or coming home?

If you happen to be flying British Air, the flight changes planes in London. Coming or going, you have the option for a stayover in London for several days for no additional charge and can avoid the train cost. I would recommend Edinburgh first.

I think it sort of depends on what you want to do in both cities. Obviously Edinburgh is smaller and in my view much more walkable, and in general less hectic, so it might provide a better "soft landing" for jet-lagged visitors. Then by the time you get to London you'll be able to hit the ground running, so to speak.

Do you plan to get out into the countryside from either city? One thought might be to drive part way; for example you could spend a lovely day (or more) driving from Edinburgh down to, say, Durham, visiting the splendid Northumberland coast and amazing Durham cathedral, then drop the car and hop on a train to London from there. Or you could go as far as York and do the same. It really hinges on your aims for the trip.

>>little lighter in London<<

If you mean daylight hours -- not so. By April the days are longer in Edinburgh than down south.

IMO/IME the order makes very little difference. Except - if you are flying RT in/out of London I'd put Edinburgh at the front end. I'd fly into LHR and up to Edinburgh the same day. Then train to London and be in London before flying home.

I'm leaning toward doing just as janisj and others suggest - Edinburgh first.

Mimar, your <i>"when would you prefer a longer trip? Going to the UK or coming home?"</i> is an excellent point, and clarifies my thinking.

Thanks for all the helpful thoughts.

Icelandair flies in and out of Glasgow, if it's an option for you to use Reykjavik as your hunb

If you are flying from the States I do think the jet lag aspect is a factor. The day of arrival is like weasels ripping your flesh, and good luck trying to remember anything of it unless you take loads of pictures. The next two are grasping at straws for basic sense of personhood.

So why not blow the razor-blade-reality portion on somewhere you know, where familiar things can give a sense of stability (i.e., London)?

I kind of disagree that Edinburgh is an easier walking city. The Royal Mile is perched on a high hill - - the April winds are blustery, and the walking ways are winding, long, and spring-weather assaulting. London, on the other hand - - is dense and public transportation is everywhere, and there are places to duck in for tea or a bite everywhere. In Edinburgh, for public transportation to be of use, you need to study like you're going for a doctorate, and the cultural geography is pretty particular.

Why not get your feet wet in London, where things are predictable and fall into place, and when you are fully fresh, get the most out of an Edinburgh that is totally new to you.

I have to agree with janisj.

>>The Royal Mile is perched on a high hill - - <<

But one starts at the castle end and it is all down hill and a terrific walk. If one can't cope getting up to the castle, a short cab ride takes care of the climb.

>>London, on the other hand - - is dense and public transportation is everywhere, and there are places to duck in for tea or a bite everywhere. <<

Public transport is easy in Edinburgh too and places to eat or have a quick pint are everywhere.

In truth there are pros and cons placing either city at the front end and it really is 6 of 1/half dozen of the other. I absolutely adore both cities and would slightly lean toward Edinburgh first simply because it is a bit less hectic, is much smaller and easier to deal with while getting over jetlag.

I would agree with the above. Edinburgh will be a more gentle introduction. Start there.

If cost is an issue, plug in both flight options.

We found it considerably cheaper to fly into London, out of Amsterdam, than into Amsterdam, out of London, just as an example.

Same thing this year flying into and out of France, different airports, not CDG, coming and going, different prices.

Remember that taking the train over a flight will take at least 1, possibly 2 days out of your itinerary. That might be worth thinking about too!

It's 4.5 hours from Scotland to London by train. No way will it eat 2 days - or even one. A flight is quicker, but there will be more waiting around at each end and unless you use City Airport in London, a bit to add on to actually get from the airport to the touristy bits.

This past summer we visited Edinburgh for the first time. We flew from Milan and spent four nights; saw the Tattoo, etc., and enjoyed the city. We ended up taking a flight to London City airport and the DLR/Tube from there to our hotel.

We purposely put London last, as we often do, and that was totally arbitrary but worked well for us.

We'll end up there again next year after visiting both the moors and dales, also.

Hope you have a great trip.