How much from Heathrow to Picadilly Circus?
Jun 21st, 2005, 09:13 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much from Heathrow to Picadilly Circus?
Hello, I´be arriving (8:30 AM) in London next July after a tiring and long flight from Brasil and I´ll be staying at a budget hotel in Picaddily Circus. Of course I planned to get there by tube, but since I just will be able to check-in at 2 PM and I´ve heard how hot is the subway in London in summer season I´m afraid if I would not faint before being able to check-in my hotel and considering a more confortable way to arrive there. By cab for example ... Do the cabs have A/c ? How long it will take me and how much ? I´ll be arriving on Tuesday morning.
Thanks
Claudia
Thanks
Claudia
Jun 21st, 2005, 09:41 AM
#2
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A cab will be very expensive and if you are staying in a budget hotel, compared to the price of the tube, you may not be able to justify it.
A car service would be cheaper than a cab but still quite expensive. I can't quote numbers as I live in London so don't use these for the airports.
The tube (our name for the subway) will more than likely be fine for you. Don't worry too much about all these heat stories. By the time you are through immigration/customs etc and heading for the tube, the worst of the rush hour will be over and the tube should be getting quieter. Plus, the weather may not be all that hot when you arrive anyway, who knows.
A car service would be cheaper than a cab but still quite expensive. I can't quote numbers as I live in London so don't use these for the airports.
The tube (our name for the subway) will more than likely be fine for you. Don't worry too much about all these heat stories. By the time you are through immigration/customs etc and heading for the tube, the worst of the rush hour will be over and the tube should be getting quieter. Plus, the weather may not be all that hot when you arrive anyway, who knows.
Jun 21st, 2005, 09:54 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that you are staying at the infamous Regent Palace, you will find the tube to be luxuriously comfortable compared to your accommodations.
Most of the tube journey is above ground, so you are only travelling in an underground tunnel in central London.
Most of the tube journey is above ground, so you are only travelling in an underground tunnel in central London.
Jun 21st, 2005, 10:00 AM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About half of the trip is above ground, and you can get off the Tube and back on the next one if you want to.
If you can spend a few more £, you might want to consider the train. There are two services:
Heathrow Express, which takes ten minutes to Paddington Station and costs £13 (when booked online), and
First Great Western service to Ealing Broadway for £8.80 - takes longer, because of intermediate stops. Both are (supposed to be) air-conditioned.
If you can spend a few more £, you might want to consider the train. There are two services:
Heathrow Express, which takes ten minutes to Paddington Station and costs £13 (when booked online), and
First Great Western service to Ealing Broadway for £8.80 - takes longer, because of intermediate stops. Both are (supposed to be) air-conditioned.
Jun 21st, 2005, 10:53 AM
#5
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though you can only check in at 2 pm, you will be able to leave your luggage there. I've never heard of a hotel that does not accept that.
If you arrive on a weekday morning, there will be a lot of traffic into London from Heathrow; a cab will take long and cost more since the price is not fixed. The tube will take you straight to Piccadilly Circus without changing trains.
If you arrive on a weekday morning, there will be a lot of traffic into London from Heathrow; a cab will take long and cost more since the price is not fixed. The tube will take you straight to Piccadilly Circus without changing trains.
Jun 21st, 2005, 11:33 AM
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all of you !! Your opinions were very important !!
Ron, could you tell me more about Regent Palace Hotel ? I was wondering how you guessed I'll be staying there. Of course, I won't expect wonderful rooms, but at least clean and safe and with a great location for who will be in London for just two days and want to make the most of those few days there.
Ron, could you tell me more about Regent Palace Hotel ? I was wondering how you guessed I'll be staying there. Of course, I won't expect wonderful rooms, but at least clean and safe and with a great location for who will be in London for just two days and want to make the most of those few days there.
Jun 21st, 2005, 11:50 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everyone knew immediately you were talking about the Regent Palace - "budget hotel in Picaddily Circus" could just about only be describing that hotel.
The location is in the very center of things - it is a HUGE hotel that is often overrun w/ teen tour groups because it is so cheap. Many rooms don't have private baths so there is a lot of running back and forth in the hallways.
I personally would not stay there (a simple B&B would probably be cheaper and be a lot more quiet) - but it is not dangerous and it is very convenient to get anywhere in London and is a very short walk to many theatres/cafes/pubs/restaurants.
The Piccadilly Circus tube station is very large and can be confusing. For that hotel (and especially if I was traveling alone) I'd take the tube. It is only yards from the tube station to the hotel. If there were 2 or more sharing I'd probably book a car service. But I would NOT take the train to Paddington, because after you got off the train you'd still have to take the tube or a cab to the hotel.
The location is in the very center of things - it is a HUGE hotel that is often overrun w/ teen tour groups because it is so cheap. Many rooms don't have private baths so there is a lot of running back and forth in the hallways.
I personally would not stay there (a simple B&B would probably be cheaper and be a lot more quiet) - but it is not dangerous and it is very convenient to get anywhere in London and is a very short walk to many theatres/cafes/pubs/restaurants.
The Piccadilly Circus tube station is very large and can be confusing. For that hotel (and especially if I was traveling alone) I'd take the tube. It is only yards from the tube station to the hotel. If there were 2 or more sharing I'd probably book a car service. But I would NOT take the train to Paddington, because after you got off the train you'd still have to take the tube or a cab to the hotel.
Jun 21st, 2005, 12:18 PM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claudia, I stayed there ten years ago, so I can't say what it is like now. It is under different ownership now, and because it has been under threat of demolition for years, there has been little incentive to renovate. But it was clean, then.
I agree with everything Janis says. For a short visit, the location is unbeatable. And if your expectations for creature comforts aren't too high, the hotel is acceptable.
I agree with everything Janis says. For a short visit, the location is unbeatable. And if your expectations for creature comforts aren't too high, the hotel is acceptable.
Jun 21st, 2005, 01:48 PM
#11
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When choosing a hotel, location is almost meaningless. Because unless you want to go back and forth to your digs all day, you will spend the same total amount of time traveling to the sights no matter where you sleep.
Since accommodations further from the city center offer better value (<i>i.e.</i> more for the same money or the same for less money), it's worth thinking about.
Since accommodations further from the city center offer better value (<i>i.e.</i> more for the same money or the same for less money), it's worth thinking about.
Jun 21st, 2005, 02:00 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to disagree with that last statement. Most first time visitors to London staying at Picadilly Circus area are likely to walk to just about everything they want to see, unless they have an aversion to walking. I refuse to believe that a first time visitor to London would spend just as much time getting to and from things if staying in Picadilly as if staying in one of the outer suburbs.
And that's without considering the advantage of being able to "go back and forth to your digs all day".
And that's without considering the advantage of being able to "go back and forth to your digs all day".
Jun 21st, 2005, 03:32 PM
#13
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walk from P.C. to Tower Hill? To Greenwich? To Hampton Court? Windsor? The British Museum? The Eye? Globe?
Besides - in any case, walking is a very inefficient use of the time that you paid ~$3000 to spend in London. I don't recommend it unless you're in town for a very long stay.
Besides - in any case, walking is a very inefficient use of the time that you paid ~$3000 to spend in London. I don't recommend it unless you're in town for a very long stay.
Jun 21st, 2005, 03:44 PM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick Is right. (Robspierre picked the absolutely most remote places to prove his point). From Piccadilly Circus one can EASILY walk to among other things: Buckingham Palace, the Royal Mews, Green Park, St James Park, Big Ben, Parliament, Westminster Abbey, the London Eye, Nat'l Gallery, Nat'l Portrait Gallery, TKTS/Leicester Square, about 20 theatres, Covent Garden, the Cabinet War Rooms, Royal festival Hall, Somerset House, Hyde Park, Apsely House, Fortnum & Masons, Royal Academy, and many other places.
Sure the OP would have to take the tube (or a bus or a boat) to the Tower - but so would anyone staying anywhere besides the Tower Thistle . . . .
Sure the OP would have to take the tube (or a bus or a boat) to the Tower - but so would anyone staying anywhere besides the Tower Thistle . . . .
Jun 21st, 2005, 04:26 PM
#17
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello guys !! Please no more discussion about that !! I think the decision about where to stay it´s a very personal choice. I always prefer to stay near the main attractions , mainly at night because I don´t feel confortable to take public transportations at night and as all of you know, cabs are very expensive. I´ve already been in London some years ago and I loved everything except having stayed near Victoria Station. It´s a really a very good place to stay considering public transportation and prices but it´s very desert at night and my husband and I got scared to walk around. When I saw Regent Palace in Picadilly Circus it seems a dream since the price is very affordable and I expect to be able to walk around and have fun at night just by walking.
Anyway, I had a lot of fun just by reading all your opinions and trying to imagine how will be my room in the wonderfull Regent Palace Hotel.
Anyway, I had a lot of fun just by reading all your opinions and trying to imagine how will be my room in the wonderfull Regent Palace Hotel.
Jun 21st, 2005, 05:31 PM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Besides - in any case, walking is a very inefficient use of the time that you paid. . ."
Another classic example of disagreement about how we like to spend our time. There is not one place mentioned above that I enjoy any more than the actual "event" of walking in London. I'll never consider walking through a city like London an "inefficient use of the time".
I think some of us have disagreed about this before. If you arrive in a city and have a list of "have to see" places and a very limited time and seeing those places is more important than experiencing the city you are visiting, then yes, I guess I'd have to agree with you. My trips aren't about checking off the "must dos" but rather just plain enjoying myself.
Another classic example of disagreement about how we like to spend our time. There is not one place mentioned above that I enjoy any more than the actual "event" of walking in London. I'll never consider walking through a city like London an "inefficient use of the time".
I think some of us have disagreed about this before. If you arrive in a city and have a list of "have to see" places and a very limited time and seeing those places is more important than experiencing the city you are visiting, then yes, I guess I'd have to agree with you. My trips aren't about checking off the "must dos" but rather just plain enjoying myself.
Jun 21st, 2005, 05:57 PM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh? Please read your own last response. Even though it may not be about "must do's", that doesn't mean you'll still want to visit attractions near you. You'll find a lot more near you if you're in Picadilly than you will if you are in the outer reaches of Earl's Court for example.
Sorry, Robespierre, I'm not conceding that one!
Besides, the original poster has already explained her desire to be where she is, so what's the point of arguing with her and trying to change her mind?
Sorry, Robespierre, I'm not conceding that one!
Besides, the original poster has already explained her desire to be where she is, so what's the point of arguing with her and trying to change her mind?
