Few Days in England
 

Hi everyone,

I'm planning to head out to Dublin for 3 days and from there travel around the UK.

From there, I plan to fly to Edinburgh and then take a tour to the Scottish Highlands (really hoping for good weather on this day primarily).

All in all, I have 8 days and right off the bat 5 are taken up. Now I have 3 days left, which I intended to spend in London, but I was wondering if I should cut my time in London to 2 days, where else can I go? I like everything - nature, museums, landmarks, etc but I want to get a true feel of England, which I know is impossible in 3 days.

The options I'm left with are
1) 3 days in London
2) 1 day elsewhere and 2 in London
3) removing Scotland entirely from the trip for 5 days in England

Places people have recommended are York, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Cornwall and admittedly, I've looked around and while I would love to visit them all, I simply don't have the time. But I also don't want to miss something that may be extremely important and I'll regret in the future (as I probably would not be back to the UK for quite a few years or so). So please provide me with some suggestions! If these are too good then I will remove Scotland from the trip and instead head directly to England.

Just to add to the situation - I will be spending time in Dublin with others, however from my flight to Edinburgh and travels through the UK, I will be alone. This is my first time traveling solo, and I am worried it might get a bit lonely if I am constantly moving from place to place? So it makes me wonder if it might be a good idea to spend those 3 days in London, enjoy it fully and meet people and take it at a slower pace (compared to 2 days) rather than spend a day in another city.

>>But I also don't want to miss something that may be extremely important <<

I'll be blunt - You only have <u>three</u> days so OF COURSE you'll miss some extremely important things. Like just about everything. Are you American - if so, think of it this way "<i>I have three days I want to spend in New York, but I've heard Chicago and San Francisco and Yosemite and the Grand Canyon are super. I don't want to miss anything important</i>"

You can't 'do' Scotland in 5 days, nor can you 'do' England in 3 days . . . and you can't 'do' London in 3 days. You can get a tiny taste of whichever places you do choose. One thing you could do is 4 days in Scotland and 4 days in London - understanding you will miss 90% of both places.

How many nights do you have? So you have 3 days in Dublin, is that three nights? Then you get up the next morning and fly to Edinburgh, checking in your hotel noonish if you're lucky and get a really early start. You spend that afternoon seeing Edinburgh. The next day you take your day-tour of the highlands. Another night and you head to London, arriving early afternoon. That's three nights in Edinburgh. Not much left I expect. You could take the night train fron Edinburgh to London, saving some time. Still only two days in London.

All of which is to say you have less time than you think. You need to lay out the nights you have and account for (research) the travel time between stops.

What time of year are you making this trip? Are you flying home from London? Or Dublin?

Fair enough, it's just that I didn't say anything about "doing" Scotland or England, I just wanted to get as much of a true feel of it as possible. I actually think it's entirely possible to get a feel of NYC in 2 days. Of course, this doesn't include doing literally everything the city has to offer but it's still possible to visit the top landmarks and still have time to catch a ferry to Liberty Island, see a Broadway show, walk the Brooklyn Bridge, take a stroll through central park, MoMA, etc in 2 days. And it's possible to do it without feeling rushed either by planning properly (i.e. avoid getting lost in the city, avoid lines by pre-purchasing some tickets, heading out early for the ferry, reducing commute by doing things that are clustered in one area). It doesn't mean that you're "doing" NYC or America, it's just getting a feel of the city and enjoying what it has to offer, but also at the same time not forcing yourself to do what might not appeal to you. There are many things considered attractions like Botanical Gardens, Museums, etc that I've never bothered with despite being there several times, so I can't imagine if someone is only able to head to the East Coast of America rarely for a short period of time would want to spend their time there instead. In those cases, I would recommend them spending a day in DC or Philly. The other places you mentioned are too far away to just take a train to.

janisj - actually it's worse than that. Three of those eight days are being spent in Dublin. I don't think the OP has allowed any travel time, either.

rodarte - you could easily spend all eight days in London, maybe with a day trip or two, and still miss a very great deal. I suggest splitting your time between Dublin and Edinburgh or Dublin and London.

Mimar,
I have 8 days and 8 nights.
My overnight flight arrives in London in the morning on Day 1, but I will be immediately heading over to Dublin where I will spend 3 days and 3 nights. On Day 4 early in the morning I will be catching a flight to Edinburgh (flight departs very early, I should be in Edinburgh long before noon), spending Night 4 there and then take a bus tour to the Highlands, heading back for Night 5 (now this is where I'm stalled on what to do next). On Day 6 I can take a train to London which would be about 5-6 hours or I could go to another recommended place on the way there. But overall Day 6, Day 7 and Day 8 are left for England. I will be flying home from London.

Thanks thursdaysd, Originally I had only intended to spend 3 days in Dublin and 5 days in London but a lot of friends who had been there insisted I go to Edinburgh and the Highlands and told me to leave London for 2 days as I really would not want to miss the other places, etc. I rarely get the time to travel for several weeks and unfortunately money can also be a bit of an issue having to constantly spend for airfare to make one week trips abroad rather than spreading a trip over 2+ weeks.

You are talking about three <u>countries</u> - you are not going to get a 'feel' for anything except the few tiny parts you choose to visit. All of the places you've mentioned are worth visiting -- as are 400 other places in these three countries.

There is no way anyone here can tell you what to see - York is worth 2 or 3 days, Edinburgh is 'worth' 4 or 5 days, The Highlands are 'worth' a couple of weeks (I've spent well over 4 months in the Highlands over many trips and still haven't seen even a majority of 'worthwhile' sites), Other parts of Scotland are worth many weeks, and Cornwall and Kent and the Peaks and the Lakes and Northumberland and East Anglia and the Cotswolds and -- then there is London.

You can't really get a 'feel' for London in a couple of days - it is <u>enormous</u>. You might fit in 4 or 5 major sites but you'll miss most of them.

So your dilemma is you want to experience 'England' but are only giving it a handful of days. No matter what anyone recommends, there will be <B>hundreds</B> of other places just as scenic/interesting/historic.

Pick a place - go there - enjoy it.

Do you fly home on day 8 or 9?

You could salvage day 6 by taking the night train, see seat61.com - the Caledonian sleeper.

I fly home on Day 9. I didn't really count the two travel/flight days (Day 0/Day 9) because I probably won't have any time for attractions during that last day. And thank you! The sleeper train seems like a good idea.

I have to do this kind of planning on a spreadsheet:

Rows of ays in the left column, hours in columns across the top.

Activities in the cells under each hour. It helps to prevent over planning because it doesn't let me think "travel from DUB to EDI" but makes me think in terms of " arrive EDI. Find bus to Center of city. Find ATM. Get pounds (Eire uses euros). Buy bus ticket (where) or get change to pay on bus (where to get change?)"

I also use the grid to plan my packing; what are the fewest clothes I can manage with, and when will I wear (or wash) them?"

You can skim quite a lot of these three countries in the time you have, though you won't be able to go inside even a fraction of the famous sites in any of your three cities. But if you can get up early, you can walk the Royal Mile before the crowds arrive. And the same in other places. You are going to have to spend a fair bit of money on hotels because you don't have enough time to stay out of the city centers.

If you think about it, you are doing pretty much what you would get on a standard tour of the UK only they do all the hotels, transportation, and admissions for you. I know this forum is anti-tour, but this is one o he times you might consider it.

rodarte - of course you can see a bit of Dublin, Edinburgh and London in 8 days, and it's a good sign that you recognise that you're only going to be scraping the surface whether you just do 2 of them or go for all three.

As you are flying into and out of London, of course it makes sense to include London in your plans, so the choice is really whether you see Dublin and/or Edinburgh as well.

Can you give us an idea of why you have prioritised Dublin over Edinburgh? lots of people might suggest that there is far more to see in Edinburgh than Dublin, plus there is access to the Highlands as well.

You could develop a much more coherent and dare I say cheaper itinerary by cutting out Dublin! [every time you move not only does it cost you time, but money too - not just the cost of transport, but finding the best/cheapest bar/cafe/supermarket - all this takes time and effort as well as cash that you haven't got!]

With 8 days I would limit myself to two locations. Otherwise you spend more time and money in the logistics of travel rather than seeing the places you have chosen to visit.

It may seem like a quick flight to all these places but you need to get to the airport, wait for your flights, take the flight, wait for luggage, get to city centre, find your hotel...so a one hour flight actually wastes about half a day before you can start seeing anything.

My personal choice would be London and Edinburgh, as I don't like Dublin...but London and Dublin work just as well.

Thank you everyone!

Ackislander - thanks for the suggestion, you're right this will help tremendously! In past travels I usually try to account for every single thing planning things down to a T including emergency situations that may or may not come up, because I know how much time can be killed just getting lost/looking for things. I quickly went over the Edinburgh day and I definitely will lose about half a day, so that gives me virtually no time at all. However when people suggested it, their main reason was for me to visit the Highlands rather than thoroughly see Edinburgh. I'm reconsidering it, however it does make me sad as I don't anticipate returning to the UK if I make this London trip for another 4-5 years!

Do you happen to know any good tours in the UK? I'm not too fond of them either as I once ended up on a short tour (2 days, luckily) in the middle of a trip for safety purposes and aside from my friend and I being the youngest by a long margin, there was a lot of waiting around and being stuck in places you weren't as excited to go to.

annhig - The reason Dublin is a portion of my trip and taking up 3 days is because I will be meeting several friends there who are traveling through Ireland before I reach. It helps as there will be familiar company as soon as I get there, especially since I will be traveling solo for the first time to the other places and this will make me feel more secure, calm the nerves, etc. So it's mostly been more of a decision to remove Scotland and spend more time in London (though with people suggesting other cities, I thought it would be best to ask here so as to not regret anything later).

jamikins - Thanks! It looks like this is shaping out to be just a Dublin and London trip. Wish there was a way to extend stay! I am almost considering postponing it, however, I'll lose those 3 days in Dublin with friends, etc.

London and Dublin will make for a great and memorable trip!! I think you will really enjoy it!!!

As jamikins says London and Dublin would make for a great and memorable trip .... Liverpool and Manchester would not. You are not missing much by leaving those out. York is a different matter and would add to it being a memorable trip, but its whether you should kill yourself doing it. I would stick to London and Dublin.

Well your original post was a nightmare of wasted time rodarte, so it's good to see you are coming around to cutting it down.

Why are you flying into London if Dublin is your first destination? Day 1 will be gone by the time you get to Dublin, so you will NOT be spending 3 days there, only 2 if you leave on the morning of day 4 as you say you plan to do.

You will also be jet-lagged which further adds to day 1 being a lost day.

You will also lose another day moving from Ireland to the UK. That means you will actually only spend SIX days total IN Dublin and London. Frankly, I consider that a waste of time. I would suggest you visit Ireland or visit England but not attempt both in so few days.

Why not fly to Dublin directly, meet up with your friends and enjoy their company and get over your jet-lagged and get your 'sea legs' so to speak and then head off for 5 days around Ireland on your own before flying back home from Dublin.

That to me is a nice little visit to Ireland with far less lost time and hassle involved.

Well I don;t beleive you can "see" NYC in 2 days. You can see a few major sights and walk the streets for a couple of hours. The same is true of London IMHO to really get any sort of feel for London you need at least 4 days (5 nights) there. Which you just don;t have.

Frankly I agree with taking the overnight train from Edinburgh to London so you can see at least a LITTLE of it. And even if you could see NYC in 2 days (which I deny) you can;t see the entire US - or even NY State in 2 days - so how could you ever see England?

Just remember the more breadth the less depth. You can see the "most" by taking a helicopter ride over everything.

I can fly open jaw to Dublin and then leave from London, but Day 1 in Dublin doesn't really consist of much besides evening strolls and drinking with friends. I acknowledge I'll be dead tired and jet-lagged but I have traveled like this before and been completely fine even getting off the plane in the morning, spending the rest of the day sightseeing and drinking, spending 3 hours sleeping the following morning and then the rest of the day on my feet at a music festival. And this was just last summer, so it's probably the least of my worries.

To be honest, even though I do want to spend time in Dublin, it's probably the one thing that can wait out of everything else I have on the itinerary. The primary reason I am going is to be with my friends for a reunion type of thing, and had it not been for this I would scrap it completely from the itinerary and divide my time between London and Edinburgh and could probably wait until I have a longer travel time for those 2. So I'm less enthusiastic about devoting all my time to other places in Ireland for this particular trip. It would be great to visit one day when I'm not on as much of a budget, older with a career. But for now my focus is getting that time for my friends and visiting London.

If I get a flight to Ireland then I'd probably get 2.5 days in Dublin and a flight from there to London would give me 4.5 days in London. Flying back on Day 9.

I think that plan is fine and you will have a great time! You friends will show you a good time and 4ish days in London will give you a good taste of London....probably leave you wanting more!

Stick to that and you will have a great time I am sure!

nytraveler - I am basing that off my own experiences. During my first visit I only spent two days, two nights there and managed to see all the places I listed and more. Basically all the major attractions covering most of Manhattan from bright and early morning to late at night. It really depends on the person, their pace, their interests and their planning. Since then I have been back several times for far longer and I haven't done anything touristy, instead most of my time was devoted to events, parties, shopping and revisiting some of the places that are just nice to go to again like museums and central park. I don't think traveling and seeing a place truly entails seeing every single touristy thing a city has to offer unless you really want to. Lonely Planet suggests 2518 things to do in NYC and 417 sights, I'm pretty sure even New Yorkers haven't seen and done all of that, and they definitely have a true feel of the city. So I do think it's entirely possible to see a place in a shorter timeframe than weeks.

So I do think it's entirely possible to see a place in a shorter timeframe than weeks.>>

of course, but I think that as you have acknowledged, your original plan had just too much travelling around in it for it to be worthwhile doing.

Dublin and London, whilst not ideal, should make for a great trip.

and what trip IS ideal? they all involve compromises of one sort of another.

Thanks everyone for the advice. I will only be going to Dublin and London.

I might have a couple of questions along the way, but one that I have right now is if I should bring my DSLR with me? I know that the likelihood it getting stolen is just as much as it getting stolen in my own city, but I'm just worried about being an obvious tourist with this in hand and already having to careful about my passport, cards and phone. I've taken my camera with me on other trips, but then I was with other people.

My ex-bf took it with him on all his backpacking trips, but the difference is he's a 6 ft guy in his mid-20s, while I'm a petit girl in my early 20s.

For the passport and cards you should wear a money belt under your clothes, e.g. http://www.backpacktravelstore.com/L...p/grlkwmbb.htm (And, no, you DO NOT access it during the day - keep one day's cash handy.)

You are going to look a tourist anyway, so take the camera if you like. I've switched to smaller camera just because of the weight, and still get 18x zoom.

I take my DSLR on all our trips, so does my hubby

Thanks! Were you also comfortable leaving it in the hostel (say for nights out?). Where would you leave your bags in the hostel (locked, etc but did you take any other safety precautions or just leave them near your bed?). If I wasn't taking my camera all my valuables would be on me the whole time in the money belt like suggested, but I wouldn't want to carry the camera when going out to drink.

I usually take it with me because I love taking night photos.

I have nip ever stayed in a hostel. I just leave it in our hotel room if I don't bring it out with me.

I don't often stay in hostels. I'd leave it locked in my bag. I suppose you could use a cable lock to lock your bag to your bed. Some hostels have lockers - take a padlock. Would think the hostel would be safer than a night club.

Don't be afraid of looking like a tourist. There is nothing you can do really to avoid that. You are a tourist -- and there will be many folks taking photos anywhere you are . . w/ iPhones, iPads, point and shoots, mid-priced SLRs and full on professional gear.

Phones are much more likely to be stolen than a bulky camera BTW.

Take it.

Most hostels have lockers but you must provide your own lock. Check before you book.

Leaving things on your bed or even a bag padlocked to a bed in a hostel is NOT a good idea. Unfortunately, most thefts from 'backpackers' using hostels are perpetrated by other backpackers in hostels. Sad but true.

The only way to avoid theft 100% is to not take anything you really need to worry about being stolen. Otherwise, INSURANCE is what you need to get. In regards to cameras, that is not that easy to get covered to full value for expensive equipment. So check your coverage.

I'm glad you decided on more time in London and left out Scotland for now, I don't think you will regret it.

Not far from Dublin is Newgrange if you can get there. And if you have a car available or can rent one for the day, add in Monasterboice. Only about an hours drive from Dublin but centuries away in atmosphere and the "feel" you might be looking for.

When in London, easy to take the train to Hampton Court Palace for the day. Bath would also be a good day trip from London.

I agree with Thursdays about both the money belt and the camera. I leave my DSLR at home, not because I am afraid of theft but because of weight. I tend to walk around all day (12 hours or more) on vacation and the weight gets to you (I'm also petite). Also, you are limited as to the weight in your carry on for flights so that's a big consideration. I have a very good non SLR camera and most people think I get decent results with it (www.pbase.com/annforcier)

I think you made a good decision to skip Scotland this trip. If you feel you have enough time in London there are so many great day trips from London you can take. And by basing there you don't have to make that decision till the time comes. Do a little research as to where else you might like to go on a day trip just in case (Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Canterbury, etc.).

Thanks for the advice! Normally, when I take a DSLR with me, I've stayed in a hotel room or at a family member's place and thus when I don't take it out with me, I just leave it in the bag. I was more afraid of other backpackers possibly stealing it but I didn't want to come off as paranoid. I'm probably going to have to think very hard about this one, but I will consider a point and shoot that is easier to carry (lightweight, etc) to keep my mind at peace if I'm still not comfortable with the idea of leaving it behind, etc. Thanks for the suggestion isabel, those are beautiful pictures, what camera do you use?

Thanks for the suggestions regarding day trips! I am really interested in Bath or Oxford but I will decide once I arrange my travels on a spreadsheet to see if I have enough time. Thanks for the tips!

I have another question - for those that are backpackers, have you taken a carry on with you onto the plane? In the past whenever I have traveled it has either been for a few days in North America for which I just take a small rolling bag and a handbag or a longer 2 week or so trip, for which I take a bigger bag. I will be buying a backpack for this one (but also for future use). Should I take a carry on with me?

If you are checking a bag you MUST take a carry on for all those things it would be a real pain to lose - e.g. your camera - plus a change of underwear if not tops. My checked bag would work as a carry on on a lot of flights but I check it anyway (along with over-the-limit liquids and a Swiss army knife), and take a carry on with electronics, pharma etc.

Now onto another subject. OK.

If you plan to do a more 'backpacking' type trip then I suggest you look at 'travel packs'. These are neither a suitcase or a true backpack.

Backpacks are in fact designed for wilderness travel, not bumming around Europe. That many people who 'backpack' use a backpack in Europe does not mean they have got the right idea.

Travel packs are designed specifically for what is called 'backpacking' but which really means independent travel somewhere on a tight budget. Thus the average 'backpacker' who stays in hostels, buys food in supermarkets, etc. rather than hotels and restaurants.

Travel packs have a backpacking style harness for carrying the pack on your back but it zips away behind a cover when not needed making the pack far more airport carousel friendly.

The first thing you need to do is realize that for a 'backpacker', WEIGHT is your number one enemy. Rolling a wheeled suitcase from an airpor to a taxi and into a hotel is not the same as taking a bus into the city and walking half a mile with your pack on your back to a hostel.

So before choosing a bag, you need to get your 'stuff' down to as low a weight as possible. Then figure out what size pack you need to put it in.

Experienced travellers get as low as 15lbs. including the weight of the bag itself and get by with a bag of 30-35L in volume. Anyone should be able to get down to 40-45L with a little thought. Anyone using a 55-70L bag is simply not getting it right. If your 'stuff' weighs more than 25 lbs. go back to the drawing board.

I manage for 3 seasons with under 7kg/15lbs. and it makes no difference whether I travel for 3 days or 3 years. What I pack is the same for both.

No offense but if you use a bigger bag for 2 weeks than for a few days as you say, you're getting it wrong. Sometimes it's easier to see the picture if you make it even bigger. If you went for 3 months for example you would not expect to take enough socks, underwear, etc. to last that entire time without washing or having things washed for you.

The Rule of 3's says, 'one to wear, one to wash, one to spare. NO ONE needs more than 3 pair of underwear or socks no matter how long they travel for.

Two good travel packs to look at are the Osprey Porter 46 and the Osprey Farpoint 40. Have a look here:

http://www.rei.com/product/837012/os...46-travel-pack

http://www.rei.com/product/837010/os...40-travel-pack

Either of those will suit your planned trip. Both will fit carry-on regulations on most airlines but remember, it also matters what you try to carry-on. As thursdaysd says, deciding to take a swiss army knife automatically means you have to check your bag. The same is true of other items obviously.

rodarte - I travel with two cameras, both Panasonic. The main one is the FZ150 - almost as large as my Nikon DSLR but much lighter (and far more zoom range than one lens on the DSLR would give). My 'backup' is a pocket sized point and shoot (Panasonic LX5).

I also agree with the thoughts above re luggage. You can travel around independently without using an actual backpack. I use a 21" rolling bag plus a day pack. Both are allowed as 'carry on' -but most European carriers have fairly stick weight limits. A 21" bag that meets weight limits is easy enough to take on trains/metros, to carry up a few flights of stairs to hotels, etc. I would much rather have the option of rolling it when that's possible than having to have it on my back all the time. Plus I think it's really obnoxious when people get on public transportation with a huge backpack on - they usually bump into everyone. If you think you will want to wear it on your back maybe look into the convertible type that can be wheeled or worn as a backpack.

Definitely not a wheeled backpack - worst of both worlds. Go for one or the other. For a European trip, unless it's mostly Eastern Europe, and probably even then, I'd go for the wheels, but then I'm getting older.

A preference for a wheeled bag is fine isabel but don't go too far as thursdaysd says. A 'wheeled backpack' is indeed the worst of both worlds.

The KEY as I have said to a pack on your back is WEIGHT. If it isn't heavy and isn't big, there is no problem. If you think about it, the invention of wheeled suitcases (not all that long ago really) came about as a result of people finding their suitcase was too heavy to carry. Wheels let them take a lot of weight.

If the problem is too much weight, then the solution is A, to reduce the weight or B, to not have to pick up the suitcase and carry it. Wheels took route B.

I happen to prefer route A and a pack on my back. For example, suppose you are running down a cobbled street in some small town in Europe to catch a bus. Wheels will not work all that well believe me. Now think about doing the same thing with what you probably think of as a 'daypack' slung over your shoulder. That's MY only bag. Some school kids carry more weight in their 'backpack' than I do when travelling.

When you mention, "I think it's really obnoxious when people get on public transportation with a huge backpack on", you are indicating a far different picture than what I carry in reality.

This is what you envision (I believe): http://www.thehappiesthour.com/blog/...ckpacker-bars/

This is what I am suggesting which is far smaller: http://herpackinglist.com/2013/11/os...ckpack-review/

This is an example of what I personally use which is smaller still:http://outdooradventureguide.co.uk/2...k-gear-review/

As I said, no bigger than a kid's school bag and under 15lbs. total weight.

Thank you everyone for all the help! This really makes things much easier as I earlier had in mind a trekking bag. Usually when I fly around the USA I don't check my bag (these tend to be few day trips where I don't take a heavy load) so I don't think I will be carrying any items with me that might make it necessary to check my bag, of course unless I have to due to the weight restrictions.

dulciusexasperis, you're right about "not getting it right" by using a bigger bag for longer travels - in the past I have taken things I never needed and clothes I never used. I haven't been pressured into packing lightly nor had to worry about public transportation in past travels. But that's generally the standard I've used, only packing lightly for shorter trips.

isabel, Thanks for the cameras suggestion! This might also be an issue but I have taken it on flights as a carry on and put it under the seat in front of me, though carrying it might become an issue within the cities.

thursdaysd, I am taking a large longchamp tote with me to act as a handbag for my flights. In case I have to check my bag this will allow me to keep valuables in it, but then becomes flat and can be folded up taking very little space when I don't needed. I use it as my University handbag and it's been used up quite a bit for 3 years. But if I can manage to fit everything in the bags that are suggested here, I won't take it.

This is my packing list:
- lock
- padlock
- heels
- small towel
- umbrella
- tight seal water bottle
- phone
- camera
- phone charger
- camera charger

Washkit:
- shampoo
- conditioner
- toothpaste
- toothbrush
- deodorant
- razor
- liquid soap

Skin/Makeup:
- cleanser
- moisturizer
- lipbalm
- hand sanitizer
- wetwipes
- sunblock
- eyeliner
- lipstick
- foundation
- mascara
- makeup remover

Travel Documents:
- passport
- passport photocopies
- emergency numbers
- insurance info
- flight details
- guidebooks/info/maps
- notebook, pen
- money belt
- student ID
- license and photocopies
- credit card
- emergency cash

Clothes
- 1ightweight jacket
- 2 pairs of leggings
- 3 skirts/5 tops
- 2 dresses
- socks & underwear

Other
- hair iron
- packet of tissues
- alarm clock
- sunglasses

The wash kit and makeup kit are the same ones I usually travel with and are 2 small pouches. Some travel documents/info will be stored on the notes section on my phone and in the notebook. Everything else in that section is very small and will be put in a pouch probably. I need an alarm clock since I don't know if I will be comfortable having my phone out while I'm sleeping in London, so I'm just looking into buying a small one. And even though the amount of clothes sounds a lot they are small and can be rolled up tightly not taking up much space.

that's a pretty good list. Mine takes three posts here: http://mytimetotravel.wordpress.com/...take-part-one/

About that hair iron - is it dual voltage? If not you'd be better off leaving it at home as it will need a converter as well as a plug adapter and may still give problems - and don't forget the adapters for your chargers.

What shoes beside the heels? I suppose they are for evenings, although flats will take less room.