Please sign in to post.

Two weeks in/out (LHR) of London

I'm reading and studying myself into a coma.
I thought I could see some/a lot/most of London then head south and west (Penzance) in two weeks.
Now I am thinking maybe slow way down and stay in London two weeks and cover it correctly.
Maybe some day trips to the country by train and forget the car and all the way to Penzance (until next time).
Thoughts?

Posted by
503 posts

There is more than enough in London to keep you busy for two weeks - but with that amount of time you could certainly venture out to another location. Instead of dealing with a rental car, etc., etc., etc. perhaps look at options via train - Bath and York come to mind as easy trips with plenty to see for a couple of days and neither requires a car.

Posted by
5687 posts

Your possibilities are endless. You need not even stay in the UK. It's super easy to visit French, Belgium, or the Netherlands by train from London and spend a few days there. Or take a budget flight from one of the London airports to anywhere on the continent. On my first trip to London, I had nine nights but spent three of them in Paris, and as much as I enjoyed London, I absolutely fell in love with Paris.

But there's nothing wrong with spending two weeks in London itself if that's what you'd enjoy.

Posted by
4380 posts

You can get books about day trips from London. Be aware that different destinations start at different train stations-I think Windsor leaves from Victoria, Brighton from Waterloo. I think York deserves more than one day.

Posted by
6568 posts

Penzance is 5+ hours by train from London, so you'd effectively be sacrificing two of your days to (mostly scenic) travel. I'd stay in London, take some day trips, and maybe an overnight to someplace like York or Bath or Oxford. If coastal scenery appeals, try the coast between Brighton and Portsmouth -- not the same look and feel as Cornwall, but hey it's water. ;-)

Posted by
713 posts

Penzance is a really long haul from London, and you do really spend most of a day traveling each way. The train trip is scenic, but if I'd never been to London before I don't think I'd have a trek to Penzance on my list. I went there a few years ago as part of a two week train trek around Britain. Not sorry I did it, but it was my 8th trip to the UK so you can see it wasn't the highest thing on my list of places to visit.

There are a lot of great options for day trips from London. Brighton's kind of a hoot, and has the beach. Bath is lovely and the Roman Baths are worth the trip IMO, plus so much else to wander around and see. Cambridge is amazing, and you have to have a punt ride if you go there.

Look at the London Walks website: http://www.walks.com/. They do day trips from London. Last October I went with them on a Sunday day trip to St. Albans - really enjoyed it. Maybe there will be something on their schedule that would work for you, that you'd be interested in. You don't have to reserve anything; just show up at the appointed place and time with the cash in hand to pay.

Posted by
1878 posts

Two weeks in London alone might be a little intense. London is wonderful but two weeks is just too much. Having visited England twice (not counting business trips), the best strategy might be east and west from London, or north and south. I am not a big fan of big city as a base for day trips strategy, because you are paying top dollar for the hotel in the big city and it might take you 45 minutes just to get to the train station for your day trip. Plus trains in England are expensive. Rental cars oddly are relatively inexpensive there last time I checked. You don't have to do all the way to Cornwall, there is also Devon and Dorset. North and south, York is really great.

Posted by
27236 posts

I think I agree with vftravels. I love London. I spent ten days there last September and will return for twelve days at the end of August this year. But in both cases I had some additional time to see other parts of the UK. I liked the variety of time in smaller places plus the museum-intense period in London.

I also agree that--unless you're made of money--it seems a shame to pay the very high London hotel prices then take day-trips out of town. I'd consider spending my first two or three nights somewhere that's easily reached on your arrival day via an affordable last-minute bus or train ticket. There are many possibilities. The funky Brighton might be one (haven't checked ticket prices); it offers side trips to the attractive towns of Lewes and Arundel, which are more classically English-lookkng.

Another possibility might be Oxford. There are the colleges to explore (the tourist office offers a good walking tour), the Ashmolean and Pitt-Rivers Museums are both great, and you can hop on the train to Moreton-in-Marsh to catch a (pre-booked) GoCotswolds van tour.

But all-London would be great fun, too. If you opt for that, you might spend some time at Kew Gardens for a change of pace.

Posted by
713 posts

Yes, not being based in London the whole time makes sense too if you want to see a few other places. As with most things, I suppose it's a matter of striking the right balance.

Maybe you can close the books and web pages, and make a list of the things and places you'd like to see. Then work with that list a bit to figure out your priorities. Maybe as to each item on the list, ask yourself, if I miss this on this trip, will I regret it when I'm back home? Let it simmer on the back burner a bit, so to speak. That might lead to some clarity. You may really want to see Cornwall, and so the travel time would be worth it. Or, maybe you really want to see some of the country South and West of London but don't need to go clear to Cornwall this time out.

I don't remember how soon your trip happens, but hopefully you're still in a good window for booking your accommodations and travel within the UK.