I went into Bath yesterday - slowed down by many of these issues.   Joined bus at 11:51, got off at Grand Parade in Bath at 12:52.   So that took 61 minutes.  Busy - both on the bus and on the roads.  The time scheduled is 11:48 to 12:35 - 47 minutes - and of an evening an inbound bus can have a timetable as brisk as 40 minutes, with fewer inbound passengers and fewer other vehicles on the road, and that timetable can be met.

Is it just me, or is anyone else frustrated by the lack of insight shown by so many transport articles like this that appear in what is meant to be "the quality press"?

It's from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/26/kill-off-heathrow-express-airport-train-third-runway

The obvious airport train, as unwary visitors often find out too late, may not be the best one. The Heathrow Express, which charges a whopping £26 for a 15- to 21-minute one-way hop, was long one of the most expensive airport connections around (at least until it was overtaken by the Luton Dart). It is, as advertised, technically the fastest way to central London, though passengers travelling beyond Paddington may reach their destination more quickly on the Elizabeth line or even the tube on a direct route.

For those who value the speed – in addition to TV news, a toilet and a luggage rack – it may be the perfect service. But the Heathrow Express was only used by 4.5 million passengers last year, a figure that represents, at best, less than 6% of Heathrow’s air passengers, with the number bolstered by airport staff on heavily discounted tickets.

I took the Heathrow Express on a recent trip to London, based on recommendations from this group. 15 minutes from LHR to central London sounds great.

But it is a 15-20 minute walk from the terminal to the train platform. Plus the time to wait for the train. Plus the time to walk through Paddington Station to the taxi stand. Plus the time to take a taxi from Paddington to your hotel. In total, it took us over an hour to get from LHR to our hotel, about the same as a taxi. All while trying to drag our luggage behind us.

The cost for two train tickets plus the cab from Paddington to our hotel was a little less than the cost of a cab from LHR. If we had 4 people, the cost of the cab would have been less.

Keep that in mind if you're flying into LHR. It might be better to take a cab for about the same time and cost, but much greater ease (especially with luggage)

I always stay at the Premier Inn Paddington Station. Take the Elizabeth line. Cheaper than Heathrow Express. Hotel is literally across the street from the station and great jumping off point for all areas of London.

Has anyone ever made the recommendation to call the hotel front desk and ask them? I assure you they have all that info ready for guests

Driving will certainly take a lot longer but yes Heathrow Express is an unnecessary rip off. Even before the elizabeth line, the piccadilly line couldve got you where you needed to go if you were willing to change trains for a fraction of the price.
That aside, i would still recommend the express before i recommended a cab to any visitor. It simply isnt worth it. Most real Londoners wont travel that way for a reason. Its worth dealing with a busier train and luggage 99% of the time.

No Londoner has ever taken the Heathrow Express twice.
Some first time visitors were trying to argue with me (why?) the other day
THE HX does not even stop at T4. So if you arrive there there's literally no justification ever for taking it into the centre

Tell me your from the USA without telling me (and that you did zero actual research….)If you booked in advance it would only be £10 each on the Heathrow express and it’s less on the Elizabeth line or Piccadilly line - which might also take you closer to your hotel. The walk at Paddington is less than five minutes, less if you take the walkway from the northern end of the platform. And depending on the time of day a taxi from Heathrow is 90 minutes if not more especially at rush hour. What are you trying to do? Save time or money?

really depends where your hotel is. I do regular subway from Heathrow - best $7 spent.

That's why I stick to the Underground, especially since the Elizabeth line opened! I only rarely take a taxi in London. The tube is the way to go. And once I switched to a carry on sized suitcase life is much easier!

My son lives in London & has helped me on 2 of my 12 visits (since 6/1/2022) to get to his home, via the tube system, as he works. But because of my maximum weight suitcase, carry on suitcase, and backpack (I stay 16-24 days), I just cannot physically do that on my own. I was taking black cabs from Heathrow, but they are very pricey. So now I take Ubers to his home & back to Heathrow for about half the price! It is worth the approximate $65-75 each way to have help with luggage & being delivered to his doorstep.

For those suggesting the Elizabeth Line or (un-air-conditioned) Picadilly line, those might be a lot cheaper, and might work if you are traveling alone with only a small carry-on. But I can't imagine navigating either with larger luggage, especially with rush-hour commuter crowds.
And those trains take a lot longer to get into central London, plus you still have the very long walk from the airport terminal to the train platform. And unless your hotel is right near one of the train stops, you still have to manage to get from the train to your hotel.
The only advantage here is they're cheaper. But in my mind, they're not enough cheaper to be worth the hassle of managing luggage versus the ease and convenience of door-to-door service of cab or Uber.

How far was your hotel from Paddington and how far in advance did you book the Heathrow Express? Both are highly relevant to whether it makes sense to use it.
The Elizabeth line is the best option for most travellers between Heathrow and central London. Heathrow Express is a rip-off unless you get cheap advance tickets and are going somewhere near Paddington, its only destination.

Sounds like you should have used google maps to get to the right tube stop

I always take the Piccadilly or Elizabeth line (whichever is closer to my destination) to and from London. It’s an hour with the Piccadilly line, a taxi takes longer: traffic jams are real. The Elizabeth line is roomier and faster (and therefore more expensive at about 15 pounds). Used to take the H Express because I would often stay at a hotel near Paddington, but it’s only super fast if you’re staying in that area. I also travel a lot during rush hour (because of evening flights) and it’s a bit of a hassle but doable and it usually gets a lot better after a couple of stops. I travel alone (usually for work), so nobody to share an expensive taxi bill with.

Going back to the Guardian article referred to by MarkA, there are a number of questions raised that are not addressed by what I thought was something of a rambling, unfocused piece.
...
Is it just me, or is anyone else frustrated by the lack of insight shown by so many transport articles like this that appear in what is meant to be "the quality press"?

Flixbus - the Ryanair of buses? 

Again, that is my personal opinion, certainly not the official view from the Coffee Shop forum.

CfN. 

A trade union is explicitly forbidden from organizing or recruiting a group of workers if another TUC-affiliated union already has an established negotiating relationship or majority membership with that employer

Heathrow Airport warns third runway could be delayed by four years

Heathrow Airport has warned that its planned third runway might be delayed by four years due to planning and regulatory issues.

The government had hoped the new runway at the UK's busiest airport, estimated to cost £33bn, would open by 2035.  But Heathrow sees this deadline as increasingly difficult to deliver without further steps to simplify the planning process. It said on Saturday that it hoped to secure planning permission by 2029 and then open the runway "within a decade".

The Department for Transport (DfT) said the project's timeline had "always been ambitious" and that it would continue to work with stakeholders "at pace" on the matter.

The airport said its "core scenario" had always been to open a new runway within a decade of securing planning permission.

It said it was encouraged by the chancellor's efforts to streamline infrastructure and remove regulatory bottlenecks, and promised to continue to work with ministers, airlines and stakeholders to "progress the planning application with pace".

Former chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the government's support for the project in January 2025 as a means to grow the economy, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham - who was previously critical - said he was "open-minded" about the scheme when he came to office.

Despite attracting wide opposition from environmental campaigners and local resident groups, the project is expected to create around 100,000 jobs and provide a major boost to the economy as part of a wider £49bn modernisation of the airport.

The expansion would mean demolishing hundreds of homes, diverting rivers, and rerouting the M25 motorway between junctions 14 and 15 through a tunnel under the new runway.

The number of flights from the site, currently capped at 480,000 a year, could go up to 720,000 - or nearly 2,000 a day on average.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has always opposed the new runway, warning of the impact on noise, air pollution and climate change.

The government's climate advisers warned last week that the expansion should only go ahead if airlines were required to pay for cleaner flying, which could push up the cost of flights.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the advisers had set out "one view" but there was "more than one pathway to meeting our climate change obligations", in an interview with the Daily Telegraph published on Friday.

A draft of the planning framework for the expansion was published in June this year for consultation. Once finalised, it then needs to be put to a parliamentary vote, which could reportedly be delayed until 2027.

A DfT spokesperson said: "There is currently no live planning application for a third runway, and we cannot comment on ongoing consultation processes or prejudice them in a way that will only delay progress.  The timeline has always been ambitious. We'll continue to work with promoters, including Heathrow, and all other stakeholders at pace to ensure the right framework is in place for which a planning application for a third runway could be considered."

A spokesperson for Heathrow said: "It's right that ambitious targets were set; the sooner expansion begins, the sooner the whole UK will benefit."

They said the benefits would involve "at least 108,000 new jobs and billions of pounds invested in supply chains in every part of the country.  This is a national project, 100% privately financed which will support growth today and secure the UK's position in the global economy once the runway opens."

Heathrow is the UK's busiest airport, serving more than 80 million travellers a year with its four passenger terminals and two runways.

Could an iced coffee freeze you out of the job market?

Would you bring an iced coffee to a job interview?

The question on the internet's lips this week started life, as many do, in a TikTok video.

"Don't waltz into your interview all casual with an iced coffee, it just looks like you didn't have time to finish your coffee beforehand," said US recruiter Caitlin Wehniainen.

It's what her Gen Z job candidates are doing, she said, warning it makes it look like the interview is "just a stop on your list of errands for the day".

The post has started what Wehniainen calls the Great Iced Coffee Debate of 2026.

Some believe turning up with an iced matcha latte in hand is a cardinal sin. They say it's unprofessional, too informal, and a distraction.

Others feel this is an overreaction - distracting from how difficult it is to secure a job - or even just get an interview in the first place.

In a subsequent LinkedIn post, Wehniainen says she "was never saying that bringing coffee makes someone a bad candidate.  My point was simply about avoiding distractions."

(BBC article continues)

We have the South Western Main line slowed because the clay of the trackbed is drying out, but I haven't heard about leaf fall season timetables yet this year.  Have I been sleeping?

I do not know the full answer to this. However, watching the current "Fare Dodger" programme on Ch 5 implies that on TfL a debit card with no credit will just keep on working the barriers and racking up thousands in unpaid fares. So this seems to mean that public transport systems do not always recognise a cancelled card.

Wiser heads may be able to comment with more certainty?

2.19 If your card is declined when we submit it for payment, you authorise us to
seek to take payment using your card details again on a number of additional
occasions until we receive the full payment. This payment will show in your bank
account as TFL.GOV.UK/CP TFL UNPAID FA. We will not seek payment on more
than three occasions nor more than once a day nor for longer than 30 days after
your payment was declined.

2.20 If your card is declined when we submit it for payment, we will also attempt to
collect any unpaid fares the next time you touch your card or device on a yellow card
reader or a portable card reader held by staff. You can sign in to your TfL online
account to pay any unpaid fares, or call TfL Customer Services.

2.21 If you have unpaid fares for previous travel, you will not be permitted to travel
using the contactless card that has unpaid fares against it until the amount owed has
been paid in full.

............ a debit card with no credit will just keep on working the barriers and racking up thousands in unpaid fares.

I suspect that the machines are designed to work locally and the details are updated at the end of the day.