UK long distance coach travel. How comfortable is to to travel by coach compared to by train?

Question

I've never travelled long distance by coach - only by train.
How comfortable are the seats, how much legroom/breastroom, any food served, TV? toilets?

Answer 1

Never, never, never travel by coach. It`s bloody awful, trust me it really is terrible.
Go by train.

Answer 2

Much depends on WHERE you are going from/to. The rail networks have long distance through trains where the coach companies often have you changing coaches.

Also, speed can definitely be a factor. The speed limit on the motorways still maxes out at 70 mph (115 kph approx) while some of the major railway routes run at speeds in excess of 125-150 mph (210-225 kph approx). Especially if you are travelling long distance like London to Scotland, there is no comparison in time.

The actual seat size and legroom are much less relevant than the length of time you are stuck in them!

Answer 3

The longest journey I have done by coach in the UK is about 5 hours. That was about long enough. I don't remember much in the way of entertainment and I have difficulty reading books in coaches and cars. Don't remember food being served. The seats were comfortable for that 5 hour period.

I have done longer coach journeys in places like Australia wher they have taken about 8-9 hours. The service I think is better in Australia.

However, if I have a choice, I will always choose train travel over coach travel regardless of country. I find it easier to keep myself entertained on a train - I find it easier to read on a train than a coach, you can walk around on a train. You can also get something to eat on the long distance trains (albeit not being particularly brilliant but you can get something to eat nonetheless).

Answer 4

traveled 7 hours from Sligo to Cork when in Ireland. don't know how UK is but I definitely prefer train.

also depends what you're seeing as long distance - i assume you're staying on the island? If you want to come to Europe,there's coach travel too, but they take about 24 hours between just brussels and london while Eurostar takes 2 hours and it costs about the same!

Coach in that case gave nearly no leg room, did about one or two stops for food and toilet on the way, no TV and really stuffy.

My advice: unless you're on a tight budget and buses are only half the cost like it was for me that time, go by train!

Answer 5

er, well, coaches are cleaner, theyre well stocked and comfortable, with AC / WC / DVD and reclining seats...

legroom can be an issue, but several seats on any coach have wider access...

going by charabang is a great way to meet folks.. and keep the cost down... for me, London by train is around 70 quid
by coach its 12 quid... which is why i drive coz its a tenner for 5 of us...

and maybe its cheap, and my younger brother owns a coach company... but, id still rather drive...

Answer 6

Always, always avoid coaches!! There is almost always going to be someone who throws up and it's not like you can get up and stretch your legs and take a walk on a coach. On a train, it's more eco-friendly, sometimes they serve food, it's faster, cheaper and you can walk around more. And another thing is that some coaches don't have bathrooms.

Answer 7

I wouldnt do it personally - where one has the choice I would always choose rail over coaches. On trains you can get up and walk around whereas coaches you are trapped. Also trains are generally much faster.

Answer 8

is ok but make sure you book with a company that have toilets on the coach, and a few good rest stops

Answer 9

Its sheer hell, trust me on this one!
I travelled to wales on a coach-it took 13 hours!
the passengers consisted of students and oaps and small children crying or having their nappy changed.
the toilet was unusable after the first 20 miles-disgusting yuk!
its imprinted in my memory as the worst journey of my life.
Go on the train-PLEASE!!!!!!

Answer 10

I travelled to Germany a couple of years ago by coach - never never never again!!