Tips for first trip to UK
 

My wife and I will be visiting the UK in September of next year. We will be there about 14 days. We are empty nesters who like to visit the typical must see tourist locations but enjoy food/drink and nightlife in the evenings. We have never been to the UK and could really use some tips on the places to see, time needed, and the places to avoid.

Right now, we are thinking of flying to London from California and then spending the next 5 or 6 days in the Leicester area. Then taking a train perhaps up through the England to Edinburgh. Perhaps trying to stop in Bath, Bristol, Oxford and/or York on the way. We would then spend a few days in Edinburgh before flying to Paris for 3 days.

Would we be making a mistake with any of these stops or is there something hugely missing with this approach? We thought about flying to Edinburgh and the taking the train down to London before eventually getting to Paris via the Chunnel before heading home but there are no direct flights to Edinburgh.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

OK - First question >>the next 5 or 6 days in the Leicester area.<<

Why particularly. There are sone things of interest nearby, but Leicester would not be most visitor's 1st (or 10th) choice.

Does you 14 days include the 3 days in Edinburgh?

Don't you plan on any time in London?

Bath, Bristol, Oxford and/or York on the way to Edinburgh - only York is is 'on the way' to Edinburgh.

Two weeks is not very long for all of that.



•••••• OR . . . By <i>any</i> chance do you mean the Leicester <u>Square</u> area?????

Then my responses would be quite different.

Leicester is a city in central England. Leicester Square is a small park in the center of London. It is very central but not particularly pleasant.

sorry for the typos . . .

Yes, I meant Leicester square area, most specifically Soho or Covent Garden area. Sorry for the typo and thank for your quick response.

With just two weeks you have barely enough time for London, York, Edinburgh and Paris - and that would be really rushed.

Do you have any guidebooks to help you decide what you want to include/cut from the UK?

>>but there are no direct flights to Edinburgh<<

I would not let that be the determining factor.

Three potential ways to accomplish this would be Fly into Edinburgh (via LHR or Amsterdam or ??? ), train to York, train to London, train to Paris, fly home . . . or . . . Fly into Paris, fly to Edinburgh, train to York, train to London, fly home . . . or . . . Fly into London, train to York, train to Edinburgh, fly to Paris, fly home.

>>We will be there about 14 days<<

Define 'about'. 14 days <u>on the ground</u>, 14 days total trip duration, or less/more????

The UK has a fair amount to do (a lot of history you might say) so it does depend on what you like, certainly Sept in Yorkshire can be lovely, York is just one city and ok it has a "medievel" centre but just going there misses out on the large number of beautiful houses, ruined abbey, fun cities, art galleries, art parks etc that abound all around it.

It also depends a bit if you want to drive or just use public transport.

I'd give the city of York ( i live nearby) about a full day and a half, I might catch the train to visit Leeds for a day out. If a car is available then "the world is your lobster"

https://www.yorkshire.com/

Of course it's your trip and you should heed the warnings about trying for too much in too short a time.

My own recommendation would be to fly straight to Edinburgh. Coming from the west coast, my own preference would be to fly to some US gateway from which there's nonstop service to EDI (Chicago, Washington DC, NYC/Newark etc.) rather than changing planes in London or somewhere else in Europe, but either way you're looking at around 12-14 hours of travel.

Edinburgh is a great place to overcome jetlag and get onto UK time. The city is small enough to be manageable (I find London to be daunting, especially if you're pooped from long flights and 8 hours of time change). You could even take a day in Edinburgh to go on one of the many small-group day tours of the Scottish countryside - castles, Highland lochs and glens, etc.

I'd then rent a car (don't worry, driving on the left is not that difficult, especially if you get an automatic) and drive south. The coast between Edinburgh and Newcastle is a string of glorious cliffs and beaches, beautiful historic towns and villages, some of the best castles in the UK, and in September the conditions will (probably) be terrific. Stop at picturesque fishing villages like St. Abbs, the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, see the amazing castles at Bamburgh and Alnwick...

Then spend half a day in Durham with its incredible cathedral (my vote for best building in Britain, but others will disagree) and then drop the car and spend a day in York before taking the train to London. Finish the trip with the Eurostar train (don't use "chunnel") to Paris and fly home from there. Here's a rough map of the driving part - https://goo.gl/maps/dEsMRQjsdVk

Spending time in the northeast of England will mean side trips to places like Bath or the Cotswolds will have to wait for a future visit, but (in my mind certainly) the experience will more than compensate.

An "open-jaw" air ticket - home to Edinburgh, Paris to home - won't cost more than a round trip, and in fact by departing from Paris you'll avoid the high UK departure tax on longhaul flights.

Like I say, others will have different views, but that's what I'd do.

For lots on British trains check www.nationalrail.co.uk for schedules and fares - booking early can result in nice discounts but also have restrictions... if taking as many trains as OP indicates you may be one of few folks benefitting by a BritRail Pass which lets you hop on any train anytime - other sources of rail info: www.seat61.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.ricksteves.com.

Is there some reason you are not interested at all in London?

Once again PQ fails to read the thread. Turns out that by Leicester the OP meant Leicester Square. With nine days for London plus Paris, plus time in transit they do not have enough time for Bath and Bristol. Depending in whether the 14 days includes tranit to/from the US they may be pushing it to include York.

>>Is there some reason you are not interested at all in London?<<

#-O

"tired of London tired of ..."

Thanks for all the feedback. Just to be clear, we are visiting London and looking to stay in the Leicester Square area (SoHo, Covent Garden, etc.) and we are scheduling 14 days on the ground

Gardyloo - I like the idea of flying into Edinburgh first, perhaps even drive down to York as suggested and then take trains from there to London and Paris before flying home. Or perhaps do the trip in reverse as janisj suggests, fly to Paris and then fly to Edinburgh before working our way down to London.

>>Just to be clear, we are visiting London and looking to stay in the Leicester Square area<<

We understood -- PQ is just a step behind >)

Are you wedded to the Leicester Sq area? Covent Garden is definitely central, but in general Leicester Sq/Soho is very congested, noisy, hectic. There are MANY great central London neighborhoods.

I have stayed in the Covent Garden area, but on Drury Lane. I wouldn't want to be further west than that in that area and I would not consider Soho. I prefer Bloomsbury which is not that far from Covent Garden but much quieter with some lovely squares.

I've just spent 3 weeks in Soho - love it cause it's central and I can walk to theatre at night alone . We've stayed in that area since 1980 - our place is right opposite soho square and. Very quiet.

<i>...Or perhaps do the trip in reverse as janisj suggests, fly to Paris and then fly to Edinburgh before working our way down to London.</i>

I'd say no, for the same reasons. Paris for the jet-lagged is enormous and (to me) much more enjoyable if you're sharp, so that you can enjoy (and cope) with that marvelous and huge place. Edinburgh is way easier (still vibrant but much more compact.)

In addition, you don't say <i>when</i> in September you're traveling, but the north-to-south order of things might help avoid wetness. I wouldn't say that's a huge consideration, but later in September (some years) autumn can definitely be felt the farther north you go. Remember Edinburgh is farther north than Ketchikan, Alaska.

Don't worry about how far north it is, just remember that it is in the Gulf stream so stays way warmer, just damper ;-)

Then taking a train perhaps up through the England to Edinburgh. Perhaps trying to stop in Bath, Bristol, Oxford and/or York on the way>

None of those except York are anywhere near the direct London-Edinburgh train route. Bath and Bristol and Oxford are easy day trips from London.

>>Just to be clear, we are visiting London and looking to stay in the Leicester Square area<<

This thread is a very clear example of the advice so often given on travel forums: when in London, or the U.K. generally, never ever drop the word “Street” or “road” or “square” when talking about addresses, as so many are named after other places (or after the dukes of other places). Oxford Street and Gloucester Road are other examples.

The OP was asking for Tips for a first trip. My tip is to look at London Walks tours. No reservations needed, inexpensive. They have a wonderful day trip to Cotswolds and Oxford, as well as a plethora of things in London.

We will be there next September, as well

BTW - Since I misread your intentions in OP you are not nearly taking enough trains for any BritRail Pass to pay off- contrary to my earlier statement based on my incomplete reading of thread. Book your tickets at www.nationalrail.co.uk though for long distance trains for cheaper rates. Trains like to Oxford/Cambridge just buy at station to retain full flexibility.

I would be inclined to put Paris first. I've spent a jet-lagged first day in many large cities in the world, including Beijing, and it's not too bad if you make no plans for the first day that are carved in stone, and try to stay outdoors as much as possible.

Paris is not as hilly as Edinburgh, and I think climbing hills might be tiresome when you're jet-lagged.

You say you'll have 14 days on the ground. However, people mean different things with that. If that counts arrival day and departure day, it's really only 13 nights, which is 12 full days. Arrival day will be at best half a day, once you get settled in. Departure day will be almost entirely spent in traveling back to the US, because flights to the US normally leave Europe very early in the day.

My advice below assumes you'll have 14 nights in Europe, which is 13 full days. If you'll only have 13 nights in Europe, you'll have to cut something. My suggestion borrows from Gardyloo and Janis. You can easily switch Paris to the end, if you prefer.

Paris 4 nights, fly to Edinburgh.

Edinburgh 4 nights, include a day tour to the highlands, train to Durham

Here are three alternatives for the next bit:

Take Gardyloo's advice and drive to Durham (1 night on the road and 1 night in Durham), train to London

OR

Train to Durham, 2 nights in Durham, train to London

OR

train to York, 2 nights in York, train to London

4 nights in London

Both Durham and York are beautiful, but I would maybe give a slight edge to Durham. Gardyloo is right about the cathedral, although I would put Wells up there, too. The cathedral was special to me also because the Venerable Bede is buried there. Durham doesn't have a ton of tourists, as York does.

We were in Durham for four nights and enjoyed the stay very much. One day we visited Hadrian's wall, and one day we visited Newcastle and Jarrow (again, a Bede pilgrimage). We didn't have a car while we were in Durham, but it might have helped for the Hadrian's Wall visit. We also visited Crook Hall in Durham, a 13th century manor house with wonderful gardens. Finally, I highly recommend a walk along the river. With a 2-night stay, arriving early on the first day (or leaving late on the last day) you could see the cathedral, the castle, Crook Hall, and take a riverside walk.

But then you have those pesky steep departure taxes flying from London!

The train line and road between Edinburgh and Durham down to Newcastle are often called amongst the most scenic in Britain - well the train line anyway not sure about road but train follows seaside much of way. But as a base like for bvlenci Durham yes can be nice. I stayed in Berwick-on-Tweed and used as a base for Borders Abbeys - Berwick to me was a real sleeper - fortified town with many forts still used. Lovely setting where Tweed River greets the sea.

In terms of cathedrals Salisbury is a sublime example that buries Durham and York. Durham's position is impressive and York is massive but Salisbury has open fields on two sides and walking to it across the meadows in the early morning is up there with eating larks tongues to the sounds of french horns.

The trouble with Durham, after the wandering around the small city centre is what to do next. With York, the opportunities just keep coming, the walls themselves, the ancient buildings around the Cathedral and then probably the world's best train museum are fantastic and then all the little places still await you.

>>The train line and road between Edinburgh and Durham down to Newcastle are often called amongst the most scenic in Britain -<<

There is a bit of nice scenery and some water views, but it is not gob smacking gorgeous by any means

nevertheless the Guardian newspaper calls it 'one of the top 10 scenic train rides in Britain' - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/galle...-rail-journeys.

the world's best train museum are fantastic>

Yes in York practically adjacent to the main train station - also a gem of train shed architecture - uniquely built with noticeable curve in it and a grand old structure - but the National Railway Museum - great for all ages and especially kids and free - star attractions are collection of royal coaches and historic steam and other locomotives:

http://www.nrm.org.uk/

<i> tired of London tired of ...</i> ...life. Samuel Johnson, as quoted by James Boswell in <i> Boswell's Life of Johnson</i>.

I've seen York Minster, Salisbury Cathedral, and Durham Cathedral. It's true that the siting of Salisbury is exceptionally beautiful, seen from the meadows. But for the cathedral itself, seen from the inside, I don't think it equals the other two. I would also put Wells among the tops cathedrals for beauty. There are beautiful views of Durham Cathedral from the train, but I must admit that they don't surpass the views of Salisbury mentioned by Bilbo.

We spent 3 1/2 days in Durham and never tired of it. We found plenty to do, including very interesting day trips. In fact, there was one more thing I wanted to see, a well-preserved Anglo Saxon church, still in use, in the nearby village of Escomb, but we ran out of time.

I remember the first time I saw Salisbury Cathedral. I didn't particularly like it. Too symmetrical. I preferred the more hodgepodge effect of Winchester and Wells with their extended building over several 100 years. Completely different from Salisbury which was completed in less than 40 years. I have grown to love and appreciate Salisbury Cathedral having stayed a month in a flat over the National Trust gift shop and including numerous visits since then. I now find the symmetry appealing and have a special fondness for Ela of Salusbury and her role as a founding figure. The Prisoner's window is simply on of the moist poignant and beautiful stained glass windows anywhere.

As for Durham, it too is a favorite, perhaps at the top of my list. A wonderful example of Late Romanesque and Early Gothic innovations. I love its fortress- like majesty. The piers and columns are massive and the chevrons, diagonals and spiral motifs make a bold statement and offers a contrast to the slimmer and more elegant ones of Winchester, Wells and York. For an English cathedral it is unique.

The views of Salisbury Cathedral majestically rising in the distance over cow-dotted meadows are famous if you take the footpath south (?) of town to where Constable and others put this bucolic scene on canvasses now world famous:

https://www.google.com/search?q=view...w=1536&bih=759

I took that walk what seems centuries ago and assume that patented view has not be altered but protected. (Being proactive here!)

Pal, there haven't been any cows in those fields, actually the water meadows, for some years. There have been cows in the past and sheep and even llamas. Both Constable and Turner have painted the view of cathedral from the water meadows.

Thanks historytraveler - there were cows (and dinosaurs!) there when I visited long ago - I'll update my info.

Salisbury is more than just the cathedral itself and its close - a bustling market town and base for Stonehenge by bus and also historic Old Sarum in on the edge of town.

Great base for a few days.

Cheers!