As a British person I can say in this instance I just splash my hands, or move them in and out of the water stream very quickly.

I would do in the winter when it is very cold, too, even when both taps are present, because splashing quickly with too hot water is often preferable to ice cold water.

Also try using a different sink, because water usually cools in the pipes and/or takes a while to heat up, so you can often get a few seconds of cooler water if nobody has used the sink for a few minutes.

If it is not possible to mix with cold water, I would suggest getting some toilet paper wet and use that (afrer cooling down) like wet nappies.

If the water temperature hurts you, and there aren't other options, you simply don't wash your hands with that tap.

I don't see many solutions...

Use an hand sanitizer or some kind of cleaning tissue..

The general idea is that you plug the sink, and then fill it with both cold and hot water so the temperature in the water in the sink becomes manageable.

You then wash your hands in the sink, and unplug it at the end.

However not all sinks can be plugged (especially in public bathrooms), or you don't always have time to do the whole process.

If your hand can manage cold water, then one of the way is to form a cup with your hand, fill it with cold water, then quickly move your hand with the cold water in it under the hot water to warm the contents up to a more comfortable temperature -

the cold water in your hand will make sure you won't burn yourself.

You'll then use the moderate water in your hand to do what you want, and repeat the process until you are done.

If you're in the UK in accommodation where you have access to the boiler (like in some AirBNBs), you can also probably change the water temperature to be more moderate, so the water from the hot taps will not burn your hands outright.

Don't forget to ask your landlord first if it's okay to change the settings as well, and note that if the property has a thermostatic shower and not an electric one this might affect it's operation as well.

Also this is a short term solution, as the setting should be set back to it's original value occasionally to make sure the water temperature is high enough to kill harmful bacteria

A metal water bottle may work.

Something like this: Fill it.

It will take a few minutes to cool down but it is an option.

If this is a common enough problem for you (and there is no hand sanitizer dispenser), you could carry hand sanitizer with you.

I agree with SLC's answer : As a British person I can say in this instance I just splash my hands, or move them in and out of the water stream very quickly.

Doing something like this also works with a ordinary flame, too, e.g. you can pass a finger quickly through the flame of a candle.

Do it quickly (and repeatedly if necessary): when your hand touches or passes through the water then it will instantly get wet, but not have time to absorb too much heat (note the difference between "temperature" and "heat",

e.g. you can touch the outside of a metal kettle at 100C as long as you only do it very briefly).

It's annoying to have to do it (I'd rather have cold or warm water than hot -- having only too-host may be unsafe e.g. for children) but feasible.

This is assuming the temperature is only 60C or so (if it approaches boiling I fear even a drop would scald instantly).

This graph ... Hot Water Burn and Consumer Safety Chart ... suggests that at 65C it will scald ⚠ after 2 seconds -- however a fraction of a second might be safe.

There is sometimes a hand sanitizer dispenser that you can use instead of the taps.

I'm not sure I'd claim it's common, but there are enough places that have them that it's worth looking out for.

Often, it'll be in some random place on the wall, like by the door.

Alternatively, if there is a cold tap at the sink, you can just wash your hands with that.

Soap and cold water is just as effective at killing germs as soap and hot water.

Carry a small (100-200ml) plastic spray bottle with you.

Fill it slowly then spray it on your hands.

The spray will be a lot cooler than the water.

Of course you'll have to carefully rinse of the outside of the bottle between hands

and when you've finished to ensure removal of cross contamination from your hands (because the outside of the bottle will have touched the hand you haven't washed yet).

Water has to legally be 'stored' at higher than comfortable temperature to obviate the risk of legionnaires' disease, but cold water is almost always available, perhaps you were unlucky or the facility was broken.

If you are unable to properly was your hands in an eating establishment after using the toilet that raises more serious health and safety issues about the establishment.

If you didn't you should have left a written comment for the management.

You can rapidly cool the water by turning it into a mist.

You can do this by putting a spoon under the tap.

The reason it works is because you are increasing the surface area of the water which has greater contact with the cooler air around it.

There's usually a cold tap right next to the hot tap.

My strategy is to cup my hands, fill them with cold water and add just enough hot water for the mix to be at a comfortable temperature.

Question: A few days ago I settled in the UK and noticed that hot tap water was not specific to Heathrow Airport. The only option in some toilets (e.g. in restaurants) is "tooooo hot" water. I cannot touch so hot water for even one second, otherwise it is painful.   How can I wash my hands if hot water is the only option?

How to wash hands if tap water is too hot?

You could splash water on your hands or move them in and out of the water stream quickly, or wet some toilet paper and let it cool for a bit before using it, or use a metal bottle. If this happens often and no other taps are available, you could use the hand sanitiser dispenser or bring sanitiser or cleaning wipes with you.

There are a number of solutions including the use of the british hand washing technique, use of a container to allow the water enough time to cool and the option to switch water out for sanitiser. If these options don't work you can always not use the tap that causes the hot water issue.

The British seem to have a special technique which involves quickly oving your hands in and out of the water.

Using some form of container to hold the water such as; a bottle or tissue will give the water time to cool so you can use it.

Hand sanitizer is a good replacement and is sometimes provided as an alternative to using tap water.

If it hurts too much you can just avoid using that tap


I’m a former Immigration Officer myself (in the UK).

Saying “hello” (or “good morning/evening” etc) is entirely appropriate, just like any other encounter in the English-speaking world.

It distinguishes us from machines, acknowledging the human interaction.

In other words, if you did not greet the officer then you may as well be using one of the automated passport gates.

You will frequently find the officer initiating the contact anyway.

If the officer greets you, make sure to greet them back - otherwise you will appear rude.

It’s just like any other human encounter.

I agree with what others have said though: beyond the initial greeting, don’t bother to engage in small talk

(“how are you today?”), when the queue is long.

Just say hello while handing over your passport, and thereafter answer any questions.

We also appreciate it if the passport is passed already open at the bio-data (photo) page for EEA/Swiss nationals; or if you’re a visa national, with the relevant visa page already open.

There's no strict rule.

If they say hello (good morning / good evening / etc.

when you walk up, say hello back.

If they say "Hi, how are you today?

" then answer them.

If they just say "passport please", just hand over your passport.

If they don't say anything, just quietly hand over your passport.

I usually say thank you when they hand everything back at the end

but I'm sure if you don't they won't be particularly put out by it.

From the point of view of efficiency, make sure you know what documentation they will require at that particular point and have anything they might need to see from you to hand.

It may just be passport, it may also be a landing card that you have to fill out before you get to the desk, they may want to know your flight number, details of your return itinerary, or ask about where you are staying.

You don't need to offer any of this documentation until it is asked for, but if you have all your travel related documentation in one easily-accessible location in your hand luggage, you will save yourself and them time if they need to ask you for anything else.

From the point of view of somebody who is sitting there for however many hours one of their shifts is, I'm sure what they mainly want is for you to hand them what they need with minimal fuss and go on your way once they've ticked whatever boxes need ticking.

Saying hello indicates you speak at least some English, which avoids the need for the immigration officer to ask.

They may be interested in your accent - if you have a characteristic accent from some part of the country you're visiting, but have not lived in that country, they may be suspicious.

The same could apply if you try to speak a little of the local language that is not normally learned by tourists.

In the pre-Schengen days, a German friend who had taught himself some Danish was treated with suspicion at the Danish border as they suspected him of living there without being documented.

As a Scot, I find it useful to exaggerate my Scottish accent at US immigration.

I personally (nearly) always say hello (just hello) while handing over my passport, even if they don't say anything.

I'll often try to use the local version if I know it.

Once finished, usually a thank you and/or goodbye.

Beyond that, it's up to them.

I wouldn't go into any "how are you today" or anything like that unless they initiate it.

They see hundreds or thousands of people, they're often not really in the mood for a chat, though this depends a bit on the culture, a bit like when you're greeted in a store: in the US for instance, you will annoyingly be asked how you are today by every single person within 10 feet, and some (but not all)

US CBP officers will do the same.

In most other places it won't go further than hello (if that) unless they have questions.

There's no particular etiquette.

I usually say "Hello" or "Hi" when when I hand over my passport: it's a friendly thing to do and, in non-English-speaking countries

, it hints that I'd like them to speak English to me.

(Though they'd probably guess that from my British passport.)

Depends on the country.

In the UK and US, for example, the officers greet me (and/or me them) whereas in former Yugoslavia, Albania, Moldova, Turkey and Georgia, they never say a word to me.

The same is true IME when entering/exiting Singapore at Woodlands.

In the Schengen Area it varies.

(for what it's worth, I'm on a Swedish passport/ID card)

The last time I faced a passport control officer was at Barajas Airport

(Madrid/Spain).It was my second time there

and I felt SO happy that my smile was covering my whole face as I got off the plane and walked thru the customs hall.

When the agent noded me to walk five steps towards him and present him my passport

I greet him smiling

and he smiled me back with sympathy as he asked me the purpose of my trip.

We are all human.

They have an awful job: looking for delinquent and terrorist among tons of happy tourists or angry business travelers.

I can understand that they do not smile a lot at work, but you can show them a nice smile and say "Hi, good morning".

It will not harm anyone.

Question: What is the etiquette? What do the passport control officers expect? I’m asking from the point of politeness and efficiency.

Should I say hello to the passport control officers, or just quietly give them my passport?

There is no strict rule here. A brief friendly greeting and smile is entirely appropriate, especially if you are greeted, but do not engage in further small talk and it is best just to hand over your passport in silence if they say "passport please".

There is no strict rule or etiquette to follow. Most people just say "Hello" answer any questions and thank them after the exchange is made. If you're not too confident follow the officers lead and if you really want to greet them with a smile.

Most people like to say "Hello" and "Thank You" and answer any questions the officer may have.

Just follow the officers lead and hand over your passport accordingly. Prefereably do not engage in small talk.


A better rule of thumb is to not exchange any cash at all, but use an ATM in the country of arrival to withdraw money, letting your home bank do the currency conversion

(so withdraw in HKD, not in EUR; the ATM itself will offer Direct Currency Conversion but that's usually a much worse rate for you).

It's also quite logical; HKD banknotes in the Euro zone have to be transported there, so they are more expensive.

That leaves the problem that you might have some HKD left when you leave the country; as long as it's not too much, I tend to keep it for the next visit.

Or you can buy something (souvenir, drinks) at the airport.

(I don't have any experience in whether it would be better to exchange it back to EUR in Hong Kong or in Europe, so I'll leave that part to another user.)

Anecdotal evidence: in some (Western/Northern European) countries you don't even need cash at all.

I recently visited Iceland and the only moment when I didn't have the option to pay by card was the offerings during the church service...

There is no general rule.

At the moment Wikipedia lists 180 currencies being used throughout the world.

Do not expect banks (or even some small exchange offices) throughout the world to have all of them.

Actually, should I decide to travel tomorrow to some small country in Africa with substantial cash, I would probably have to change cash twice .

At home in the Czech republic from our crowns to euros or dollars (or something like that, internationally known) and then after arriving from euros or dollars to local currency.

Because there is no option to obtain that exotic currency here at home and after arrival I would have probably hard time trying to find someone willing to buy Czech crowns.

If you are lucky and can choose, my tip would be to choose the more recognized and respected currency.

If all goes well, it does not really matter what you have, but if there is some natural disaster (like volcano eruption) or something and your airplane gets diverged to an airport in some third country where you get stuck for days or even weeks, you definitely want to have locally recognized cash to get by and

not somethings locals have never seen not heard of.

I concur with Glorfindel , the best option is usually just to withdraw at local ATMs and use your card directly for most payments.

A few caveats, though: You must of course have a card that can be used internationally and widely accepted (should be the case of all VISA, MasterCard and Maestro cards).

Check your card issuer's fees for withdrawals, payments and the exchange rate they use.

It can vary quite substantially.

Note that in most cases, it's cheaper to pay rather than withdraw.

Some banks may have an international presence or international partners where fees are lower or waived.

Make sure you inform your bank that you are travelling abroad.

Some have dedicated interfaces for that on their online banking service (you specify the country and travel dates), others will require you call them.

Check that the ATM you are planning to use does indeed take the right type of card.

There are stories of cards "swallowed" because they're the wrong type.

Take a bit of your own local money to exchange just in case

there's a problem.

Usually, refuse the offer for currency conversion by the ATM or payment terminals, though of course you should compare with the rate your bank offers.

In some countries, some of the ATMs may add their own fee when withdrawing.

This is becoming quite common in the US.

Make a note of your card details and emergency contact before you leave.

In most cases, fees (by your bank or by the ATM, other than currency exchange) are usually a fixed amount per transaction, so larger withdrawals/payments cost you less, but YMMV.

In my experience, if I have to change currency (and cannot withdraw cash as the other answers suggest), usually the rates seemed better at the country of departure, probably because you can choose to do it outside of airports, so more choice means better rates.

However, the one exception I've encountered was Singapore: exchanging Euros there seemed much, much better than buying Singapore dollars in Europe.

But Singapore is a hub country full of traveling foreigners, which probably explains it.

If Hong Kong follows a similar pattern, then it could be better to sell euros there, instead of buying HKD in Europe.

Not a big deal but

Just one point nobody mentioned...

Say you're in Local country and you have (exactly) 500 units (5x 100 notes).

When you go to Distant Country, you can give them the 500 and get in return in your hand the precise amount of local currency, to the cent (peso .. yen .

whatever) including small change.

If you change in Local country, they don't keep small change in Distant Currency.

You get annoying rounding issues.

In general for this reason, and the rate, you always change "there" not "here".

(If, for some reason, you archaically are dealing in cash.)

Question: As a general rule, can one say that it is better to exchange cash for a foreign trip in the country of departure or of arrival? My main concern here is a favorable exchange rate.  As a concrete case, I am planning a trip to Hong Kong and am wondering whether I should carry EUR or (substantial) HKD.

General rule for where to exchange cash: country of departure or destination?

You may be able to find a better exchange rate in your home country since you don't have to rely on the rate at the airport, but they may not have exact change available in that currency. The best option is often to use an ATM to withdraw cash, and to use cards for most payments.

Though there is no general rule, some would prefer to exchange their  money at the destination as there are certain benefits to doing this such as; being able to get all of your money exchanged and potentially receiving better rates. For others they would rather withdraw money at a local ATM in the destination country.

A better rule of thumb would be to withdraw money from your distination via ATM.

There is no general rule to where you should exchange currency.

You do get certain perks by exchanging your money at your destination i.e you occassionally get better rates and you can get every bit of your money converted instead of it being rounded off.


No, airliners do not fly low enough that those can be photos.

On the left-hand one the distance between the top of the tower and the horizon is much less than the height of the tower, meaning that if this is a photograph, it would be taken from a height of about 500 feet.

The right-hand one apparently shows the top of the tower above the horizon, meaning that the vantage point would be even lower.

Flights landing at London City Airport's runway 09 pass quite close to the Palace of Westminster at low altitudes -- see for example AZ216 on Flightradar24 today -- but not that low.

That would put them lower than several of the skyscrapers in the City which they need to pass over to get to the runway.

The charted approaches to LCY specify staying at an altitude of 2000 feet (which is more than 6 times the height of the clock tower) until just west of the Isle of Dogs.

Some approaches to runways 27R/27L at Heathrow pass close to Westminster too, but at an altitude of 3000 feet.

More generally, the Palace of Westminster is in Restricted Area R157 where flights below 1400 feet without special advance permission are forbidden.

Both images look like digital artwork rather than photos to me.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/16947/hmakholm left over Monica

Here is a real photo taken on 21st September from a plane coming in to land at Heathrow airport.

Planes on final approach to Heathrow often fly down the south side of the Thames so if you have a window seat on the right of the plane you often get a very good view.

However, not as close as in your images at the top!

I doubt it is easy to get any closer.

Elizabeth Tower is just right of centre.

As Henning's answer makes clear, the images in the question are composites and passenger planes don't fly that low over central London.

Also, the clouds in the second image are obviously fake: they're clearly large clouds but being below the roof-line of the Palace of Westminster means they'd have to be between ground level and about 100ft (30m) altitude.

However, passenger planes do fly quite low over London.

Typically, the wind in the UK is from the west, and planes land into the wind where possible.

Since Heathrow is to the west of London, this means that, in typical weather conditions, commercial flights coming into Heathrow do pass over central London at low enough altitudes to give very good views of the major landmarks.

It is possible to get nice photos of London from commercial flights; but not that nice.

Also, the weather in London is often cloudy so you may well fly over central London and see nothing.

If I remember, I'll edit this to give an indication of the altitude they fly over London but, as luck would have it, planes are landing from the west at Heathrow today, so they're not coming in over London.

I have in fact seen Big Ben while flying into London Heathrow once or twice, but always from far further away than these photos.

Far enough that I had to search a bit to find landmarks.

The photos are certainly manipulated for artistic effect and the originals are likely either from the London Eye (a large enclosed Ferris wheel) or from a helicopter touring the city.

This is from an approach to LCY - afraid it's not Big Ben but Tower Bridge, as we were approaching from the east rather than the the west (depends on the wind direction), but this may give you an idea how low flights come in over central London.

For me, it's lower than I would have thought, but still not low enough to take the photos in question.

There is something wrong with the lighting in the first picture (well, several somethings): the hand is illuminated from the outside, and clearly in shadow on the part facing the inside of the plane - and the plane's interior is also not illuminated by the sun.

This contrasts with the window border, which is clearly illuminated by something while it should also be in shadow/airplane interior light.

the picture is made into the setting sun (or rising, it doesn't much matter).

This is perplexing on one hand because intensity of interior airplane interior lighting when I flew did not match the sun's (even at sunset), and on the other because the horizon would be much much brighter than the parts of buildings not illuminated by sun a total absence of shadows in the city scape.

The low sun on the horizon should project shadows, and some of them should be visible on flat-top buildings (or flatter-topped) the two example photos by contributors have cloud shadows in the city scape.

Residents of the UK will know better if cloud shadows are common or not.

EDIT:

The first picture (at least) is not taken from an airplane window.

Question: I see sometimes photos of the Elizabeth Tower allegedly taken from an airplane window. Here are just two of them taken from Instagram account  loves_bigben .   Do passenger airplanes really fly such low heights above the center of London that it is possible to take such photos?

Is it possible to take a photo of Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben) from an airplane window?

The Palace of Westminster is in Restricted Area R157 where flights below 1400 feet without special advance permission are forbidden, so you would not be close enough to get a good photo.  The images in your examples are composites rather than from passenger planes.

Planes do not fly low enough and are not permitted to fly low enough in London to take such pictures.


You can definitely use your passport to prove your age.

It's used by visitors all the time here in NZ, so it won't be unusual, and your bartender will certainly have seen a passport before.

There are 3 forms of accepted ID.

An NZ drivers license, any current passport and a HANZ18+ card.

You can find a form for an 18+ card here: https://www.alcohol.org.nz/alcohol-management-laws/nz-alcohol-laws/age-the-law/approved-id

It costs $50 but could be a good idea if you're planning on being out often because taking your passport around with you while drinking could result in a lost passport.

Supermarkets are typically very strict with these rules, but bars and clubs might be more lenient.

I live in NZ.

Although I don't drink, I have used US-issued ID documents in New Zealand for other purposes.

Based on my experience, a passport is always fine as ID, whereas an ID card (especially one that isn't a driver's license) is sometimes trickier .

I've also purchased alcohol for cooking purposes, although I don't recall which ID

I used (which probably means I used a state ID successfully, rather than a passport).

With my state ID card, I did encounter two difficulties:

In some cases, mostly when forms were involved, the difference between "driver's license" and "state ID" mattered a LOT.

A driver's license is "foreign driver's license", so easy to put on forms; a state ID isn't a "foreign driver's license", and it isn't a "national ID", so it ended up being rejected (or required a manager to come over and assist).

The American-style "month/day/year" birthdate ordering, used on ID cards but not passports, is unfamiliar to New Zealanders.

If that would make the difference between "I'm 18!"

and "I'm, uh, still 17", this might be a problem for you.

With a passport, on the other hand, nobody has ever complained or had difficulty with it (although it IS a bit bulky in one's pocket).

If you want to definitely have your ID accepted, therefore, I'd suggest the passport.

If you're okay with possibly being turned away, you might be able to try with the ID card.

Not a New Zealander but, as a seasoned traveller, yes you want to use your passport .

I have on occasion completely forgotten that my UK driving licence only may be accepted on such occasions, particularly when in the US.

With my passport safely stowed in my hotel room's safe, I've found myself relying on the licence that lives in my wallet, with only mixed success.

When I'm refused service I appreciate why that is and chastise myself for forgetting to bring my passport out with me once again.

When travelling, I always assume this experience will be the same or similar, no matter what country I'm visiting.

To be fair, if you're just grabbing an unplanned quick pint during a day otherwise filled with sightseeing, you may not want to take your passport out with you, in which case you'll have to make do with orange juice. :)

travel.stackexchange.com/users/16680/Lightness Races in Orbit

Sorry it's been pointed out to me that I'm not up to date; they changed to a permitted list with the new governing act in 2012, use your passport.

While Luke is correct that the three most valid forms of ID here in NZ are NZ Drivers License, a Passport (current or in some cases recently expired), and the HANZ18+ Card.

The minimum legal requirements for age ID can however be covered by other documents and are as follows: ID needs a photo that is recognisably the subject. and a serial number that can be checked against an issuer's database. and the subject's date of birth.

Your State ID may fulfill these requirements or not, there are a number of high schools whose student IDs meet those requirements and I had classmates who used their school IDs to purchase alcohol senior year.

However all of that is moot if the barkeeper or bouncer decides they don't want to serve you, because they don't trust the ID you have presented or for any other reason at all.

I'd strongly suggest sticking with the passport as it should minimise cause for confusion or argument, and always be polite to the bar staff.

I've travelled to New Zealand (8 years ago) and used my UK drivers license as ID for purchasing alcohol (and in the 3 weeks

I was there

I only got asked the once).

But as others have said Passport will also always be accepted as proof of age ID.

Question: I am traveling to New Zealand in the spring, and I have a question regarding alcohol consumption. The legal drinking age in the United States is 21, yet it is 18 in New Zealand. I am over the age of 18 so I plan on drinking. However, I am assuming my American ID is not going to work to prove my age, so will I use my passport? Asking any students who have studied abroad or just anyone who knows!

How to I prove my legal age so that I can drink in New Zealand?

Accepted forms of identification include a NZ drivers license, any current passport and a HANZ18+ card. Foreign driver's licences may also be accepted, but the safest option is to show your passport.

You have other ID options such as; a drivers license or a HANZ18+ card, but your best form of ID would be your passport.

Your passport is always a safe bet and is your best ooption

There are other forms of ID that could work aside from the passport such as your drivers license (UK, NZ, US) and a HANZ18+ card


As you've got to make the journey between airports anyway, I say make the most of it.

Sleep on the plane if you can and see the city at night.

I'd pack in one backpack (hand luggage strapped on top) and do it on foot, but taxi/bus/night tube (Friday and Saturday) are other options.

The last tube train from Heathrow is at 23:35 (T4) or 23:42 (T5), a few minutes later for T123.

So you should have plenty of time to clear immigration, retrieve your luggage and get the tube.

There's also the TFL line train

but that goes to Paddington station which is 3 km from Buckingham Palace).

You can check for planned/emergency issues online at Transport for London's website .

If you get the tube, you can go to Hyde Park Corner, less than 1 km away from the Palace.

In the morning I used to quite often get an early train out of London Bridge to Gatwick.

Currently that looks to be 05:35, getting in at 06:04.

That should be plenty early enough for most flights but you'd need to check.

Assuming you're happy to walk through the night you can see a lot of London

Here's a quick 10 km route suggestion I threw together.

It takes in Buckingham Palace, Parliament Square (but not Big Ben/Elizabeth Tower which is being repaired), the Embankment, Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, the Strand (you could night-bus this bit), St Paul's Cathedral, the Tower of London and Tower Bridge.

Here's a picture in

case I carelessly delete the route Night buses from Trafalgar square will get you to many places but they're not very frequent.

I've deliberately omitted airport buses in the interest of maximising your time in London.

The tube and regional trains aren't all that expensive, and are much quicker; they're also less much affected by traffic, though there are rare delays in the middle of the night.

Yes, it's doable.

Although going through central London isn't the fastest route from Heathrow to Gatwick, you have lots of time

so it's not an unreasonable route to take.

You could obviously do it all by taxi, but it's also possible (and much cheaper) on public transport.

You can get the underground from Heathrow to Green Park, which will take about 50 min, and then you're only a few minutes walk across the park to the palace.

You can then walk to Victoria station, and get a train to Gatwick.

The last train to Gatwick is at 00:08 (though trains from other stations and coaches run through the night, and the ones from Victoria start pretty early in the morning).

Very easily doable.

But if you're going all that way in on the tube and aren't too tired, walk

around - central London is quite small and easily walkable.

You could see Tower Bridge, Tower of London, Big Ben, Trafalgar Square and Picadilly Circus - all quite photogenic and iconic, even at night!

Yes, with Caveats.

Budget for contingency - 2 hours on landing, maybe 3 for T5.

I'm not kidding about T5 at this time of year.

A morning arrival might have been better, it will be dark.

So everything else is down to visibility, you will miss peak hours.

Suggest you get a driver both ways, or tube and cab.

Buses do not pass the Palace.

You are taking your chances with visibility as well.

Plan to be back at the Airport at 06:00, again, for contingency.

Risks:

Snow, Tube Outage, Rain, Freezing Rain, Sleet, Traffic, Holiday events

(Winter Wonderland is close by).

Per other responses, the short answer is "yes you do" but you're only going to see the outside of it.

A brief stroll back up the mall will land you at Nelson's Column, and you're near enough some night-life such as Leicester Square, or the theatres on the embankment, as well as within wandering distance (or a short tube ride) of the illuminations in Carnaby Street (Bohemian Rhapsody this year!)

and there's doubtless a few others to see too.

I don't know the opening times but

over the river you've got the London Eye which could provide a decent photo op too.

Just a shame Big Ben is scaffolded up for repairs for the forseeable.

It takes 45 minutes to get out of the airport and another hour to get from Heathrow to BP.

You'll arrive at BP at 10.15pm.

Not much to see at there at that time, so I think you'd do better to head over to Waterloo Bridge and then wander up in to Covent Garden, Leicester Square, Picaddilly Circus, and Soho.

The cheapest way to get to Gatwick is by coach from Victoria Coach Station.

It's a miserable trip, early in the morning, but it sure is cheap.

Question: My plane lands at Heathrow at 8:30 pm on December 10 and leaves Gatwick the next morning, December 11, at 9:15 am. Do I have the time to see Buckingham Palace?

Is a 13-hour layover in the middle of the night enough time to go see Buckingham Palace?

This is very doable, although you will only see the outside. You could travel by taxi, but it would be cheaper and also possible to use public transport. The  last tube train from Heathrow is at 23:35 (T4) or 23:42 (T5), and a few minutes later for T123.

It is completely possible to get to Buckingham Palace and make it back in time for your flight. There is also a range of transport options you can choose from such as; the Tube, Taxis, Personal Driver etc.

It is completely possible to get to Buckingham Palace and make It back in time for your flight at Gatwick.

There are a number of transport options to get to a from both airports at the time of arrival such as; Taxis, Train Tube etc.


It is not illegal to display a swastika in the US; however, the symbol is generally understood in the US to be a symbol of Nazism and displaying it publicly is likely to be extremely hurtful to those around you (perhaps in particular members of groups targeted by Nazis), not to mention earn you significant unwanted attention.

If it is on a religious book and it is clear that it is a religious symbol unrelated to the Nazi party, then that is more likely to be OK.

I would

definitely avoid wearing it on a t-shirt or displaying a swastika tattoo.

Source: I am a US resident.

I mostly agree with @ajd's answer , and it'll depend a bit on where in the country you are.

While I hate stereotyping, in the US

it's not a bad starting point.

T-shirts and apparel with a swastika is almost certain to get you negative attention, especially in more liberal parts of the country, though one might think that more liberal areas would be more likely to understand the difference.

In heavily conservative areas, you're more likely to be harassed for being Indian than for a swastika (yes, I've seen it happen).

I know it sounds like I'm bashing my country, but this is mostly a worst-case scenario type of thing - better to be prepared and understand than not. :)

The current socio-political environment in the US and the increase in white supremacist activity definitely puts a damper on this particular religious freedom.

It's not illegal, and you won't be imprisoned or fined, but I'd be concerned about your safety and well-being.

If you happen to be coming to Michigan, let me know.

We have a pretty heavy Indian population here.

I can ask a few friends for advice, if they have any, on this particular issue. :)

The public display of Nazi flags is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which, affirmed by the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

( sources )

It's also used by some political or social groups for rallies.

Saying that, to most people it'll be associated with Naziism, despite the original orientation/meanings that were co-opted.

Most people are likely to just give it a look and form an impression of you that you might not appreciate, but aren't likely to engage.

Some however, might take more of an issue with it.

Depends a ton on the context.

People from India run the gamut in skin color.

If you have light colored skin, people might associate you with white supremacists who openly carry Nazi symbols .

A known white nationalist doing an interview was openly assaulted on the street (it's an isolated incident but some people felt it was justified ).

If you are darker skinned, that association is much less likely to be made.

Books are unlikely to get you noticed in this fashion, especially since you don't have to display them.

Clothing certainly will and tattoos are even more closely associated with it .

The term "swastika" includes a wide variety of symbols.

Something like this or this is much less likely to be perceived as being a Nazi swastika than is something like this .

It also helps if it's incorporated into a very-not-German design, such as this .

Also, while Germany is, to my understanding, sensitive to any use of a swastika in any context, there are many contexts in the US where it is acceptable.

For instance, the book The Man in The High Castle is set in a universe where Japan and Germany occupy the US, and its cover depicts the Japanese and Nazi Germany flags.

So a book with a swastika, even if it's perceived to be a Nazi swastika, would not necessarily be perceived as being pro-Nazi.

So, to summarize: how it's received will the depend on the type of swastika, the context, the viewer, and whether you have other attributes associated with Nazism (e.g., blond, blue eyes, skinhead haircut, etc.).

There are no laws specifically against Nazi symbols or Nazi paraphenalia (clothing, medals, etc.)

in the United States, and there are NO laws against religious symbols, even if they are swastikas.

Airport authorities will not give you any trouble, and if a police officer or customs officer asks, simply inform them it is a religious symbol.

That said, many places, like university campuses or workplaces, have regulations or policies against 'offending people', so people who don't understand that the swastika is an ancient religious symbol used in many cultures might complain and make trouble for you.

In that case, prove your swastikas are religious with a quick internet search on your phone, demand that they respect your right to religious freedom, and then accuse them of racism if they don't stop bothering you.

They have NO RIGHT to bother you because of your religion.

If you look like a person from India, and your swastika looks Eastern and not Nazi, I doubt people will bother you unless you are somewhere extremists congregate, like university campuses.

If people try to pressure you into not wearing your religious symbols, it could be a violation of your civil rights.

Question: Swastika is religious symbol in India and many countries don't find it offensive but due to Nazi connections, will a traveler will get in trouble if he carries anything with the swastika symbol in the USA? Like a T-shirt, Tattoo or religious book with that logo? Do I need to hide it, or avoid even carrying it?

Do I have to hide anything related to the swastika while travelling to the USA?

There are no laws in the US to prevent someone from displaying a religious symbol.  However, while it is not illegal to display a swastika in the US, it is likely to attract negative attention. This may depend on the context - whether that person dresses what is considered to be a Nazi style or depending on the political leanings of the area the person is in. If it is clear that the swastika is a religious symbol then the person should be OK. More discreet swastikas, such as in a book, may attract less attention.

Displaying swastikas and other Nazi symbols is not illegal in the USA, though may attract unwanted attention. A lot will depend on the context and whether it is being shown as a religious symbol.

Displaying swastikas is not illegal in the USA, though may attract unwanted attention.

A lot depends on the context, you are unlikely to encounter trouble if it is clearly a religious symbol.

Books are unlikely to attract attention.

Nazi symbols and paraphernalia are not illegal.

Not if you look like Indian person and not Nazi.


The stop button is exactly there to ask the driver to stop at the next stop.

If you can't get to a button, please politely request someone and they will be happy to press it for you.

Here is some interesting insight that could help you.

The following information comes from the Big Red Book , which is the official instructions guide for TFL Bus drivers.

As your bus reaches the stop… Look and listen out for passengers intending to get off.

Ideally they will let you know they wish to get off by ringing the bell but be prepared to stop in case they do not.

If in doubt, stop.

If you are sure no one wants to get on or off you can keep going.

So, make it look like you want to get off on this stop and chances are that you will be spotted by the driver even without having pressed the button during such busy rides.

If that doesn't work; Next stop, please doesn't sound like a distraction.

In the meaning of the sign, asking him to make a stop is not a distraction.

The sign is referring to irrelevant talk,

particularly that requiring thinking: means don't ask for the time, ask his opinion on Brexit, union organize, etc.

Think of it like "Sterile Cockpit" for pilots , or what US NTSB says about focus on the driving task .

Asking if the Dreamliner is fun to fly is not appropriate in sterile cockpit, but very correct to ask about a flaps setting that looks funny.

Listening to a roiling political show is a distraction, but Siri saying "turn left 500 feet" is on-task.

Calling for a stop is definitely acceptable , as it is on-task and brief.

You can also say "I need Bristol Road".

travel.stackexchange.com/users/55372/Harper - Reinstate Monica

If you can't easily reach a stop button and can't get somebody else to press one for you, it's perfectly reasonable to verbally ask the driver to stop.

Indeed, when I was a child, thirty years ago, it was completely normal to just walk to the front of the bus and say "Next stop, please" rather than pressing the button.

That always felt more polite than pressing the button.

Today, everyone seems to just press the button.

However, if you have to raise your voice to get this request heard, it's almost certainly inappropriate.

Yelling at the driver will certainly distract them from driving and their first thought will be that something is seriously wrong.

You shouldn't do that.

Worst case is that you'll miss your stop but stops are usually pretty frequent so having to walk back a stop isn't going to be the end of the world.

It would be better to be more prepared.

As you get within a couple of stops of where you want to alight, you should be able to manoeuvre yourself within reach of a button.

As people get off at the stops before yours, people are moving around the bus anyway, which gives you an opportunity.

Is this “distracting”?

YES.

Heavens, yes!

The driver is alerted primarily by the audible chime so as to not distract their eyes.

Though they're likely trained to ignore passengers, there's still an internal push to focus on a person demanding attention.

What other ways could I alert the drive or do I need to press the Stop button?

You can pull the cord if the bus is also equipped with one.

If the bus is very crowded, hollering "

Next Stop" well outside the drivers field of vision isn't the worst thing in the world, but still, push the button or pull the cord.

The reason I am asking is because at the top near the driver it says not to obstruct or distract him.

[…] Is this “distracting”?

This is a bit quite funny confusion.

No, it isn’t.

A sign asking to not distract a bus driver means you should not try to discuss with a driver a recent football game nor discuss it loudly by phone with your friend while sitting near the driver and not to obstruct means avoid putting your snowboards in a way that reduces driver’s visibility.

A stop (bell) button is actually designed to avoid engaging a (possibly distracting) conversation with a bus driver just to say a bus should stop on the next bus stop.

Drivers expect that signal and it is less distracting than trying to ask a driver politely in a few words.

Please note Also, remember to ring the stop button (or pull the cord) slightly before approaching the bus stop as the bus driver need some time to respond and slow down a bus safely, if you call the button when a bus is already passing a bus top it might be too late for a safe stop and a driver might skip it

(not being happy about your late response.)

P.S.

Probably a bus operating company should update that sign to be more clear and avoid such confusions by adding something likeL “press a stop button when approaching a bus stop you want to exit.”

Question: In London on red buses, is it ok if you are standing at the front of the bus to say “Can you stop at the next stop please”, instead of pushing yourself through the bus to press the stop button?  The reason I am asking is because at the top near the driver it says not to obstruct or distract him.   Is this “distracting”?   What other ways could I alert the driver or do I need to press the Stop button?

How to alert a bus driver to stop without pushing the stop button

The stop button is there to ask the driver to stop at the next stop. If you can't reach the button, ask someone to press it for you. However, it is not considered to be a distraction and quite reasonable to verbally ask the driver to stop.

The stop button is there for a reason, you can ask someone else to push it on your behalf if it's out of reach. Failing that, it's fine to ask the driver to stop.

You should use the stop button wherever possible.

Asking the driver to stop is acceptable, especially when you're unable to push the button or get someone else to do it for you.


For both historical and financial reasons, American Express acceptance in France is quite low.

Visa and MasterCard were associated from the start with the CB program, so anywhere they take cards they will take Visa and MasterCard, it's a standard part of the contract a merchant would get from their bank for card acceptance.

On the other hand, American Express acceptance often needs to be requested separately, and the fees are often much higher, so merchants often don't bother.

American Express cards will be accepted in most upscale hotels, restaurants and shops (mostly those that cater to high-end tourists), but other than that, it's pretty much a lottery.

American Express have been working hard to expand acceptance, so you can have some nice surprises.

They are actually accepted in stores like Carrefour (though not the very small ones) or Monoprix.

They have a site where you can look up merchants which will accept AmEx: https://www.americanexpress.com/fr-FR/maps

As a side note, even if the stores accepts contactless payments and American Express, it's nearly impossible to find a place where you can use American Express with contactless or Apple Pay, the terminals are usually not configured correctly for this.

You will most likely need to have a Visa or MasterCard card, or use cash, in most places.

Note also that ATMs that allow you to make withdrawals (cash advances) on American Express are quite rare as well.

I am in France for business and personal... Can only use my AMEX when I am in a very obvious "business" situation.

Hotels fine (maybe not cheap ones).

Restaurants near business districts usually OK but still not 100%.

Random restaurant maybe 25% if that.

Shops are hit and miss.

A high-end store might accept AMEX 60-70% but a mom and pop might be 10% - again usually only if they are in a business district or near a hotel with business travelers.

In Paris I can use my AMEX 80% of the time in the financial district and about 20% of the time in other parts.

So the answer is if you are only bringing an AMEX you better bring tons of cash.

It's well worth paying the 'ridiculous' fees for a Mastercard or Visa card.

Or at least searching for a reasonable one; they exist.

American Express is basically only accepted in tourist traps, places where you'd expect some visiting American to wander into with their business expenses.

Not exactly the best way to spend a vacation in France, and also very hard to find outside of Paris.

I'm French and I have both.

There are no problems using Visa anywhere.

Because of transaction fees, some shops may not accept American Express cards.

In big cities you won't have any problem with your American Express card but in a small village I am not so sure.

Contactless payment is becoming more popular but having a Visa or Mastercard would be preferable.

Have a nice trip.

You can try asking (before shopping): Prenez-vous les AMEX ou seulement visacard?

(do you accept AMEX or only Visa cards?)

How much can I count on this being accepted?

Some places would accept them however certainly nowhere as widely accepted as in the USA.

I used my AMEX for dining when I visited.

Always prudent to have some cash, especially for smaller establishments and hole-in-the-wall locations.

If I got a VISA or MasterCard, would I have better acceptance?

Absolutely TL;DR I am extremely surprised you indicate you could only find American Express cards without foreign transaction fees because there must be at least five times as many Visa/MasterCard cards without transaction fees as American Express cards.

Question: I'm going to be in France — mainly cities, especially Paris and Brest — for about a month this summer and the only credit card I have without ridiculous foreign fees is AMEX. How much can I count on this being accepted?   If I got a VISA or MasterCard, would I have better acceptance?

Is American Express widely accepted in France?

Historically, American Express is not widely accepted in France due to the transaction fees. Most upscale establishments will accept AMEX but this cannot be assumed in other places. As well as cash, VISA and MasterCard are more viable alternatives due to their inclusion from the start of the CB program.

American Express is often not accepted in France, therefore it is worth carrying Visa, MasterCard and/or cash as well.

American Express is often not accepted in France because of fees, it's worth carrying cash even if more places are accepting American Express.

Visa and MasterCard are more commonly accepted, so you should have them or carry cash if you're planning to use American Express.


Your question is well founded.

Some type of visas to some countries allow you to enter and exit via specific entry points only.

For example, ENTRI visa of Malaysia limits to persons who are appearing from direct flights and go out of country on direct flights (or transit to specific countries).

And the Airports of arrival is also limited.

For USA, there is no such restrictions on any passport or visa.

You can enter any international airport and use any other mode of transportation and use any border to come in and out of the country.

Also, note that US doesn't have any exit checks.

So, if you are not a US citizen, make sure that your exit is recorded in I-94 . Especially if you are not departing by air.

Happy journey.

There is no requirement to leave and enter through the same port of entry.

Note that this applies to everybody: US citizens, permanent residents, visitors, and anybody else entering or leaving the US.

If you are planning flights, you are certainly free to choose flight routing that comes back via a different route if that ends up being more economical for you.

The answer is no, In the US you do not need to return to the same port of entry (airport, seaport, ect) that you departed from.

you can fly out of New York and come back through LA.

Source: I travel a lot.

For the reason, look at the question reversed.

Do you need to exit at any particular location relative to your entry point?

No, because the US does not have exit controls .

In fact, if you are not a citizen, you should take your own initiative to document that you actually did leave the country, either by airflight, or with an I-94 form..

Otherwise you could be accused of overstaying.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/55372/Harper - Reinstate Monica

AFAIK

you can leave and enter back at different airports; heck you could come back by boat if you wanted to.

Practical data:

The first time I was aware of leaving (there was a previous time as a baby

I know almost nothing of)

the US I exited via San Francisco (with a fuel stop in Seattle) and returned via New York.

Since then I have called a trip short and the outbound was via Seattle and the return via IIRC Los Angeles.

Question: My wife and I are flying to Iceland and we are trying to book tickets but I wasn't sure about the flights.  So I am just asking to clarify. If I leave the US through an airport, do I have to return to the US through the same airport?

If I leave the US through an airport, do I have to return through the same airport?

There are no such restrictions and you can enter any international airport and use any other mode of transportation and use any border to come in and out of the country. There is no requirement to leave and enter through the same port of entry.

There are no exit controls in the US, therefore you are free to plan journeys as you see fit.

you can exit and return at other airport you left from


Update: following comments I asked a friend who lives nearby to get up-to-date information.

He took a picture of the actual Barnwell junction, which shows that @DavidRicherby

and I are both right:

the actual rail junction can no longer be used, but the rails and the points/switch and their actuation mechanism at the junction still exist.

He looked through the trees on the right to find out what is beyond the gate and saw a glimpse of rails, but it is private property so could not get any nearer.

He also went around the other side to view from the meadow to the north, and there is no longer any track behind the factories , only some rail ballast.

He spoke to a construction worker who confirmed the track was picked up.

Where the construction work is happening (perhaps the Chisholm cycle path )

my friend saw no evidence of any previous railway.

So if there is any track left at all, it will be a fragment on private property.

The station Barnwell Junction on the Wikipedia map you linked still exists (now a private residence), and the rail track at this part still exists, but not very far.

This first section remained in use until recently to service factories and a fuel depot.

Parts of the line from there to Isleham and Mildenhall are marked on the 1:50000 Ordnance Survey maps as "dismantled railway" or "dismtd rly".

OS maps can be viewed online as streetmap.co.uk and a fragment of the route can be seen from a Mildenhall search, just below bottom left.

Best viewed at 1:50000 scale.

Here is a clip from an OS map of the route from Barnwell Junction, which is at the bottom left of the image.

Here is the same route as seen on Google Earth.

The route crosses High Ditch Road under a bridge that still exists, then the A14 highway crosses it with no bridge, as the railway was already defunct at the time of its construction.

It is likely that there are other parts which remain, and you can find them using a combination of these tools, possibly with Google Streetview too, to see where bridges still exist.

It is unlikely that any of the rest of the track itself still exists, and in places the route has been built over or ploughed.

In other places is it used as farm tracks, and there are hints of this on the OS maps, guessed from their location and direction.

From Google Earth, traces of the route can be seen even where ploughed over.

Below is a clip from Google Earth, showing the former Barnwell Junction station (at the bottom) and the railway track running past its left side towards the factories, where it stops.

The tracks on the left are the main Cambridge to Ely route.

For the UK, Ireland, and the west coast of the US, I know no better online resource for this than Rail Map Online .

It allows you to view all the railways that have ever existed in the UK overlayed onto various maps (including Google Maps and OpenStreetMap).

I don't know about the specific railway you mention, but there were a lot of railway closures in the 1960s

and I don't know of any where the rails still exist.

Quite often they have been converted to footpaths/cycleways.

My understanding is that the rails were generally sold for scrap rather than abandoned.

EDIT Looking at Mildenhall station and the old route confirms that (at least most of) the rails are no longer there.

The National Library of Scotland has digitized a lot of old UK maps (and some world-wide).

It will display the old map overlaid with a new one, with a range of dates for the old map.

The new map can either be a satellite, road, or OS.

The range of old maps is better in Scotland, but elsewhere in the UK there is a reasonable selection available.

The site makes it easy to visualise the old map in relation to current maps.

If you use an old map between about 1920 and 1963 (the beeching cuts), it will show the old railways.

Later maps will show the route of old railways until they have been built over.

For example, https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=14&lat=52.2190&lon=0.2069&layers=11&b=3 Change the transparency (bottom left) from 100% to 75%

It is also currently shown in Open Street Map.

But, like most if not all the others, it does not indicate whether the actual steel has been removed.

I looked at a lot of aerials, and in the few places possible, Google’s street view and found no rails.

But three photos in someone’s comment showed some.

If you are after locations where the track itself is still present, then you're out of luck - Disused Stations suggests that the track was all lifted on closure except for that accessing the oil depot mentioned in @WeatherVane's answer.

This is generally the case for most British disused railways - the track was generally lifted fairly quickly after closure, unlike other countries where lines were often mothballed.

If you just want to find the route, then OS maps are generally the way to go, as they generally show disused railways, as shown in the example above - they also show rights of way so that you can find how to access the line.

Quite a lot have been converted to long-distance foot or cycle paths and so are easily accessible.

Question: I want to travel to the UK to take photos of  the closed Cambridge-Mildenhall railway .  I‘d like to find at least one place with all three tracks, however I can't see any rails on Google Maps. Do the rails still exist? If so, could you please help me find a location with all three rails? Preferably with google maps location.

How to find location on Cambridge-Mildenhall railway that still has tracks/rails?

Apparently, the track was all lifted upon closure and if there is any track left, it is likely to be a fragment on private property.

The track was picked up and a part of it may exist on private property.


Take the Piccadilly line to King's Cross St Pancras, and change to an Edinburgh-bound train taking you to Newcastle (there are also Newcastle-bound trains, but those are much slower).

Then catch the metro to Gateshead.

A very quick search with Google suggests that a flight might be viable.

British Airways operate several flights each day from Heathrow to Newcastle with fares as little as £92 ( Google list ), while LNER run trains from King's Cross, starting at £160 - you might get a lower price with advance booking.

A direct flight takes just over an hour and will save you time travelling into London, plus three hours on the train.

An alternative route which might be better if you have lots of luggage and small children would be to get the Railair bus from Heathrow to Reading and then get a train to Newcastle.

There are direct trains and also some which involve a change on route.

Heathrow does not have a mainline rail station so there is no possibility of a direct train to Newcastle.

The most common route taken is the Heathrow Express to Paddington, switch to Kings Cross by underground (or taxi if you have luggage) and take the direct train to Newcastle.

There are trains about every 30 minutes most of the day.

With four of you a taxi from Heathrow to Kings Cross is also viable, and a good bet if you have luggage.

The Piccadilly line is cheapest but slowest, and very hard with luggage.

Just for completeness I will mention the existance of National Express Coaches, probably the cheapest mode of transport from Heathrow to Newcastle.

A ticket would cost £30.00 per person.

The downsides are there are no direct coaches from Heathrow, you would need to travel to London Victoria Coach Station and change there, and the time it takes to travel around 7hrs.

Fly.

It's much faster and likely cheaper.

The LNER train from Kings Cross to Newcastle is only cheaper than flying if you book seats on a specific train, which you realistically can't do if you're flying from India - if your flight is delayed or you're held up in immigration

then you'll lose your tickets.

The flight takes an hour, the train will take closer to five once you factor in travelling time between Heathrow and Kings Cross.

If for whatever reason you have to take the train there's also the problem of getting from Heathrow to Kings Cross at 7:30am on a weekday - either brave a long rush hour tube journey with your family and all your luggage (

never nice after a long flight), or get an expensive taxi.

For rail enquiries in the UK use the National Rail site .

As other answers have pointed out, trains to Newcastle leaves from King's Cross station.

The cheapest fares are if you buy in advance for a specific departure.

However, that can be risky when coming in from a long flight with risks of delay, as the tickets would be worthless of

you miss the train.

With 4 people, a rental car could be the cheaper option, but perhaps not such a good idea after a long flight and jet lag.

Best would be if you could get a connecting flight added to your ticket.

Might not be possible at this point.

Question: We are to reach at 7.30 AM on LHR from India for further move to Newcastle along with 2 kids. Plz suggest what to do ? Piccadilly Line/ Tube/Taxi/Bus or any other mode?

Is there any direct train from LHR Airport to Newcastle Gateshead?

There is no option for a direct train to Newcastle from Heathrow, as Heathrow does not have a main line rail station. However, suggestions include taking the Piccadilly line to Kings Cross and then a train to Newcastle; a bus to reading and then a train to Newcastle; National Express coaches or even a rental car. Air travel is also another option with British Airways.

You can get the train to Newcastle, alternatively you can get the coach, a domestic flight or rent a car.

You can get a train to Newcastle on lines running to Edinburgh.


HKD is usually accepted in Macau but any change which you might get would be in the Macanese currency.

Macanese Pataca, on the other hand, isn't accepted in Hong Kong.

This is based on my personal experience and experience of the people I know.

YMMV

SHENZEN (CN)

In Shenzen almost always not - especially if you get further away from the border area.

you might get lucky with some random person or HK owner of some venue - but don't count on it.

( Sidenote - It is also illegal in China as far as I know to pay / accept in other currencies other then CNY except business that have special permit which is also probably the reason most people will not consider it but

for example a hotel might change for you )

You also mentioned Guangzhou in your question and the answer there is generally even less chance then Shenzen.

MACAU (MO)

In Macau it is a different story and the answer is mostly yes .

Taxi drivers / Restaurants / Hotels / Casinos / Ferry terminal will accept HKD - even 7/11 type shops and supermarkets will usually accept it at a ratio of 1/1 while giving you the change in Pataca ( MOP ).

Personally I never had a refusal ( been there tens if not hundreds of times )

Many ATM's ( most to my experience ) will even also disperse HKD if you choose so.

Not only that - but like @Aaron comment above - some Casinos ( and machines inside ) for example will not even accept MOP but only HKD ( or RMB ) .

you will still be able to change at the cashier probably.

If you do not want the hassle Of changing currency and you are there for a short time ( one-two days ) you can do fine with HKD especially in the tourist route.

( Sidenote II: less frequently but also possible in many places to pay directly in RMB if you come from China.

You will lose some conversion rate but then again you lose it when changing currency in advance too

so it all depends on the amount you are planning on spending )

Using MOP outside of Macau:

As for the other way

around - No, the MOP is quit useless anywhere outside Macau - and the further you get from the border the harder

it is to even change it back although I have seen some very rare exceptions where vendors in Zuhai ( near the crossings ) will accept it.

RMB in HK RMB in Hong kong is not generally accepted in normal venues, but it is sometimes accepted in tourist locations (especially Chinese-facing and also close to border ) even in big stores / malls but not everywhere

and it is up to the store / vendor to decide.

In that case also the change will be in HKD usually.

Many locations that accept RMB will have some kind of a sign near the cash register ( some even with exchange rates ).

I have already paid taxis in RMB , train tickets, ferry, supermarket and even MTR and cinema tickets.

But in most cases it will depend on the person / venue accepting it.

It is not "institutionalized" and deep like HKD in Macau.

While In HK use HKD .

All the above based on personal experience.

HKD in Shenzhen is basically a no go.

You may find the occasional person or merchant to take HKD, but the exchange rate will be atrocious.

You will be much better off getting cash from an ATM.

Also wanted to mention that many places in Macau also let you spend RMB (as well as newer-HKD).

Most shops charge the same price for all the currencies though, so using MOP is the best deal.

In Shenzhen, many establishments near entry point areas will take HKD, but the exchange rates are usually suboptimal.

One such area is Shuiwei (Shui Wai) 水围 area, which is frequented by guests from the Hong Kong (it was notorious for being a red light district in the past, but not anymore --- mainly just restaurants and cafes now).

Many of those restaurants and cafes take payments in HKD, but really that's about it.

To a lesser extent, some establishments in Shekou (Shek Hau) 蛇口, Wenjindu (Man Kam To) 文锦渡 and Shatoujiao (Sha Tau Kok) 沙头角 might take HKD.

Of course, shops on the Shenzhen side of the Chung Ying Street 中英街 will take HKD.

However, do not count on it: not to mention the poor exchange rates, you don't want to wander around searching for a store that takes HKD!

In the past (i.e. when my parents were still young and when Hong Kong was still under British rule), most shops in Shenzhen did accept Hong Kong dollars, and HKD was a de facto second currency in Shenzhen; this situation continued into the early 21st century.

Now, using HKD in Shenzhen is limited to the aforementioned areas.

HKD is almost universally accepted in Macao (especially in the casino area), so no problem there.

One very important thing about Macau is in most if not all casinos you must have a mainland China, HK or Macau identity card to take out cash at all no matter the currency or the Amount, even with a foreign card or a local card its the same, caught me out big time had to take the boat back to HK to take out the amount I needed for a poker tournament.

This was the same in the large shopping malls as well Not sure about the atms outside of the casino complexes though maybe someone can add about that

Question: I'm going to Hong Kong next month and planned to visit Macau and Shenzhen (maybe Guangzhou).  So are HKD accepted in Macau and Shenzhen or I must pay with local currencies (MOP/RMB) ? And vice-versa, can I use MOP or RMB in Hong-Kong if I have a surplus of currencies ?

Can I pay with HKD in Macau or Shenzhen?

HKD are usually accepted in Macau but any change which you might get would be in the Macanese currency. In  Shenzhen, HKD are very rarely accepted - especially if you get further away from the border area. Establishments near entry point areas will take HKD, but the exchange rates are usually poor.

HKD is generally accepted in Macau, but not in Shenzhen with the exception of areas near entry points.

In Shenzhen HKD is not accepted other than near entry point areas.


Citymapper , also available as an app for iOS and Android, has never failed me in London or other large cities where it is available.

Cabs, Uber, Tube, buses, Heathrow Express, cycling, walking, I don't know of any mode of transport they don't cover, at least in London.

The mobile app (but not the website) even finds a combination of public transit and cars-to-hire (scroll to the bottom of possibilities offered):

It also shows you the cost and the time of any alternative routes it finds, the best place to be on trains, as well as the best entrances and exits for tube stations.

And it calculates time for transfers inside the stations.

It's my most important app whenever I'm there.

The simple answer is that depending on the address Heathrow Express or a taxi may not be the fastest way to get to your address and routing apps are taking that into account.

London is highly congested, road speeds are often 8mph for cars, so taxis can get stuck in that traffic.

Heathrow Express goes into Paddington Station on the western side of central London, which is fine if you have accommodations on that side of the town.

However if your destination is elsewhere by the time you have got off at Paddington and then found the correct route to continue your onward journey

the time saved by using the Express can be eaten up.

If you can give us some idea of where the address is further it may be possible to give more focused help.

On Google Maps the Heathrow Express will show up if you specify a terminal to depart from.

As for Taxi journeys, time wise those would mostly be equivalent to the Car timings on google maps.

As comments mention Rome2rio is a surprisingly good solution within a city as well.

I never considered it for anything but intercity travel.

Google does find the Heathrow Express

but you need to kind of force it: if you just enter Heathrow Airport it won't find it

but if you enter say Heathrow Terminal 5

then it will.

It also suffers from the problem of trying to find the best solution at the minute and a cross

London trip has so many solutions that a better one five minutes later will be crowded out.

Peruse the schedule explorer option.

Also don't forget Google Maps doesn't add time for underground transfers which can be long (or not) -- this adds a lot of manual work to the search.

These 3D maps of Underground stations can help.

As for using a cab, it's very likely a car can't beat the underground so getting as close to your destination as you can with it

is a good idea and then swapping to a cab might be good but you need to manually search the station in the vicinity of your destination.

Search for your destination first in Google Maps, then click the [x] clear search button and enter underground station to find the underground stations in the vicinity.

Also note the difference between the traditional Hackney carriages and Private hire (minicabs) .

Transport for London's journey planner at https://tfl.gov.uk/ takes all public transport in London into account, so includes the Heathrow Express (as well as more outre options such as the river bus and the cross-Thames cable car).

It doesn't, however, include cabs, probably because these are very expensive and of highly-varied travel times.

The latter complaint could also be made of buses, but TFL's are all fitted with location trackers so TFL has a good view into congestion insofar as it affects the buses.

This doesn't solve the entire problem as specified, though;

sorry.

Question: Neither Google Maps nor Traveline.info seems to consider neither Heathrow Express nor cabs. Is there any service that would?

How do I find the fastest route from Heathrow to an address in London using all forms of transport?

Transport for London's journey planner at  https://tfl.gov.uk  takes all public transport in London into account, so includes the Heathrow Express (as well as other options such as the river bus and the cross-Thames cable car).  Rome2rio and Citymapper are also recommended. Heathrow Express is shown on Google Maps if a departure terminal is selected.

Google shows the Heathrow Express if you specify a terminal and you can see car journey lengths for taxis. Citymapper, TfL and Rome2rio are alternatives for journey planning.

Citymapper, TfL journey planner and Rome2rio are all solutions.

Google finds the Heathrow Express if you specify a terminal and taxi journeys would be equivalent to cars.


There are two ways of looking at this.

The physical 'can you' and the legal.

From the physical, every single transmitting device on a plane has to be certified to legally fly on the plane in transmitting mode.

Most devices 'probably' won't interfere, but even adding a wifi router onboard takes hours of testing, compliance, and certification

(source:

I was on the Qantas wifi programme team).

Since they can't possibly certify every single variant of mobile phone, it's easier to just say 'turn it to airplane mode'.

From a legal point, If you forget, or don't bother (and our scanners could see this happening on almost every flight), it almost certainly won't make a difference, but you are technically transmitting onboard an aircraft with a non-certified/compliant device, which is illegal in many countries.

You're also meant to legally always follow instructions of the flight staff.

They might seem like just friendly hosties, but there are serious consequences available in most countries for disobeying instructions of the flight crew.

So if you're told to keep it off, and they forget to tell you it's ok, technically you shouldn't be turning it on again until you disembark (usually into the terminal).

Again, it almost certainly won't do anything bad, but you asked 'can

you' vs 'should you' so I'm trying to cover both.

Easy option: It's a few min of peace of quiet from your phone and the outside world.

Enjoy it :)

The effect of leaving Airplane Mode off:

your phone will be trying to connect, using maximum battery power, to any phone company cell it can ping during the flight.

The connection is guaranteed to fail since at airplane speeds you will be out of that cell's range before a successful handshake is concluded—or at least before significant amounts of data are sent or received.

You won't be happy because of battery drain.

The phone company won't be happy because any cell that receives your attempt to connect (that's not impossible over several miles with no buildings to interfere) will be attempting to locate your now-far-away phone to hand over to another cell, at maximum signal strength and power; plus, of course, you are briefly using a slot that could be available for another user who won't be miles away by the end of the opening handshake.

I know there are stories that your cellphone can somehow interfere with the plane's navigational system, but that's not the case.

Once you have landed, and are taxiing to the gate, you can establish a successful connection and use your phone just you would leaving the airport in a car.

(This supposes cell coverage in the airport vicinity, which is a given at any major city.)

This doesn't answer any question about legal regulations, which vary from one country and airline to another, but explains the physics.

On all flights I have taken in the past couple of years, this information was either available in the airline’s information leaflets in the seatback pocket or it was announced when we landed – or both.

I cannot remember a flight I took recently where the passengers were asked to keep their handheld devices in flight mode until the aircraft came to a complete stop; they all had some sort of do what you want after touchdown.

My experience is limited to flights in Europe, East Asia and between those two.

Legal standards may differ.

Actually, in Europe you can have your phone or any other device throughout the flight without Airplane Mode enabled.

EASA ( European Union Aviation Safety Agency) gave permission for that almost 5 years ago )

But it is the airline company's final decision.

As others have said, this will depend on country and airline.

That said, in the US, immediately after the wheels touch the ground, I quickly turn off my Airplane mode as my phone will shortly be able to get cell signal for 4G.

A few seconds later, attendants have explicitly said that although passengers should stay seated, they can turn off Airplane mode and surf the web as they please.

Makes sense since after landing, it should be smooth for the most part getting from the runway to the gate.

Question: Can you turn Airplane Mode off after you land or finish taxiing on a plane? I have seen some turn it off after landing and some after taxiing and I have never heard an official rule stating which one is correct.

Can you turn Airplane Mode off after you land or finish taxiing?

Some claim that any transmitting device on a plane has to be certified to be able to use transmitting mode when flying. However, it is also claimed that this depends in the country and airline and that in Europe, phones and other devices can be used throughout the flight without Airplane mode being activated.

It is a matter of the discretion of the airline and the rules of the countries involved, though in Europe the law states that you do not need to use flight mode when flying.

Certification is required for a device to transmit during flights.

In Europe you can have your device on normally on flights, but it depends on the rules of the country and airline.


To avoid any trouble with taxis, you can use the Aeroexpress train.

It will get you to the city centre for ~8$ (500 RUB).

You can use wireless payment options at the automatic gates:

PayPass, PayWave, etc.

It departs every half an hour for most of the day.

The other two Moscow airports also have an Aeroexpress, with the exception of ZIA .

If you plan to use taxi hailing, better pick up a local SIM with a data plan (a $5 plan would get you a month of unlimited data).

Then you can use Uber/Yandex/Gett.

First of all, ignore the people that run up to you when you get out of arrivals.

They can see you are not a local and will charge you 4 times the price.

Never pay more than 1250 ₽ for a taxi to the Red Square .

You can order a taxi from the Yandex taxi stand (Uber equivalent), located in each terminal at the arrivals section.

This is open 24/7.

They may ask your phone to pre-book but often the person behind the desk can use their phone and write down the registration for you.

Some more information can be viewed on the airport website here .

Travelling without smartphone is nuts, seriously.

Fortunately Russian operators (well, at least Beeline, not sure about others) have packages that are charged _per_day_, not per month, have quite good Internet plans, and can be disabled/enabled through Internet.

So my suggestion is to get local number in official operator booth at Airport (NOT an "all-in-one" re-seller booths near exit gates, which charge extra!), charge it with small amount (you can ask to lower the amount they offer by default), then disable it through website on day

you're leaving the country, so you're not charged for following days, and re-enable it when you come back to Russia.

So far, I've seen so good package offers only in Russia.

As for taxi: Yandex, Gett, Bolt, whatever works through Internet.

Uber got merged into Yandex in Russia.

Yes, there are official taxi desks in Moscow airports.

Here you can see what they look like: Source

This photo was taken at Sheremetyevo 2 years ago.

But Moscow is not the world's best place for "offline" people.

I'd recommend to buy a local phone with internet as soon as possible.

It would be very difficult to plan any trips or buy any tickets without internet.

You can use Wifi in the airport to request Uber or Yandex taxi

Question: Is there anyway to tell scam taxis in SVO airport, Moscow without pre-booking? I can't pre-book due to the fact I can't use my phone abroad (receiving SMS messages/calls which is required to book a taxi online). Is there an official taxi desk?

Moscow SVO airport, how to avoid scam taxis without pre-booking?

First of all, ignore the people that run up to you when you get out of arrivals. There are official taxi desks in Moscow airports. You can also order taxis from the Yandex taxi stand located in each terminal at the arrivals section.  Yandex, Gett, Bolt and Uber services are also available via the Internet. As an alternative and to avoid any trouble with taxis, you can use the Aeroexpress train.

Moscow airports have their own official taxi desks, it's best to use these rather than to go with people approaching you when leaving the airport. You can also get the Aeroexpress train. Taxis can be ordered online via Yandex, Gett, Uber and Bolt.

You can use the Aeroexpress train instead.

Avoid the people who approach you when exiting the airport.

Yandex, Gett, Uber and Bolt are all options accessible online.

Moscow airports have official taxi desks.


According to the help file from the Canadian government for filling out the ETA it says the following on the application: Given name(s) / first

name(s) Please enter exactly as shown on your passport or identity document Source: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/eta/english.pdf

(Page 11)

So you should put it in,

exactly like it says on the passport.

If you're not sure what you should put in (not just two name forms, non-latin script) and your passport has a machine readable zone, you should probably use the names in the same grouping as done there.

The format are two lines at the bottom of the identity page of your passport where the first line is of the following format:

P[4 unimportant letters][family name with blanks and other non-latin characters replaced by <]<<

[given names also separated by <] ( [] being used by me to separate the fields).

Note that the ETA help pdf has some more detailed explanations that are worth reading for everyone with unusual name(s).

" my First name only into the Given Name(s) field " If it asked for "first name" a single name might be acceptable.

But it didn't.

Notice

the "(s)".

That means that there can be more than one name.

Notice

the "Given", that means all but your family name, which was inherited not given.

The form didn't ask for "First name"; it asked for "Given name(s)".

Many countries are improving their forms by saying "Given" rather than "First", since there are many societies where the first name is actually the family name.(e.g.

in Chinese, "Xi Jinping", "Xi Jin Ping", and "Xi Jin-Ping" are all valid Romanizations of "习近平".

Xi" is first, but it is the family name.)

EDIT:

@Voo says that the form contains this instruction: Please enter exactly as shown on your passport or travel document.

That should remove any confusion.

Whatever names are on the passport you are going to be using should be the names you use on the form.

No more, no less.

My name is (based on catholic), using the same form as David's answer: A:

given (first) name B: middle name 1 (or second first name)

C: middle name 2 (or third first name)

D: middle name 3 (or fourth first name)

E: family/surname

To make things even more complicated, my nickname is different than A; it is not in any official paper.

So, on my passport I have to use A until D, and not my nickname.

If your first and two middle names are printed under ‘Given names’ in your passport, and you are asked to provide ‘Given name(s)’ not ‘First name’, you should include all three.

Example

: I just applied for an ESTA.

I have a first and middle name (I’m known by my middle, not first, name), and my passport shows both names under ‘Given names’ and in the machine readable data section.

When I uploaded this section during the application process, the system captured both names in the ‘Given names’ section of the application.

Other examples: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/is-middle-name-part-of-given-name.202730/

Your title question is answered by your question itself: you consider your middle names as middle names, and not as your first name.

Thus, I would complete applications so as to track your passport names as closely as possible.

In my culture, it'd go like this: A =

given (first) name B =

middle name #1

C = middle name

#2 D = family/surname Like this: If the application has only two fields, enter A and D in the appropriate fields.

If the application has three fields, enter A in the first field, B and C (with an intervening space if possible) in the second field, and D in the third space.

Different cultures may attribute names differently.

Question: My full name is four names long - First name, Middle name, Middle name, Last name.  Whenever asked for my  Given Name  I have always supplied my First name (not either of my middle names).  This week I have applied for a Canadian eTA, and put (as per usual) my First name only into the  Given Name(s)  field.  But now I'm wondering, should I have included my middle names also into that form?  In my passport I have all four names printed.

Is a Middle Name a Given Name?

Whatever names are on the passport you are going to be using should be the names you use on the form.  If your first and two middle names are printed under ‘Given names’ in your passport, and you are asked to provide ‘Given name(s)’ not ‘First name’, you should include all three.

Your name should be entered as it appears in your passport.


In the Nordic countries, we use a layered clothing method, which has the benefit of being adjustable to the weather: First layer: Moisture-wickening technical underclothing Long underpants Long sleeve undershirt Thin socks

Second layer:

Warm and breathable Fleece jacket and underpants, wool socks

Thin wool gloves

Third layer:

Outer shell Windproof but breathing jacket and pants Thick waterproof two-finger gloves (separate thumb, and other fingers together) Waterproof shoes (eg. goretex) Wool collar or wool scarf that covers your throat, ears and nose Wool or technical hat (beanie)

The first layer keeps you warm by removing any sweat and humidity (this is the worst type of cold feeling you can get - being wet and cold!).

The second layer keeps you warm even in the coldest of weathers.

And the third layer keeps wind and water away, which is essential in cold and/or wet snowy weather.

And even the best of warm clothes will be cold if the wind can go through it.

The adjustability is helpful, for example if in the morning it is -35 C, but according to the forecast it will warm up to -15 C in the afternoon.

Then you just dress up for -35 C in the morning, and in the afternoon, you will probably leave out the second layer.

Or if there is no wind or rain, and plenty of sun, you might leave parts of the outer shell out (probably the wool scarf, and windproof pants).

Or if you sweat so much that your lowest layer is all wet (despite it's moisture-wickening capabilities), you can remove the 1st layer altogether, and stay warm with the dry 2nd and 3rd layer.

Wool and fleece in particular have the added benefit of keeping you warm enough even if they get wet.

And they dry very quickly - but keep away from open fire, as they start to burn easily!

Winter mountain night temperatures are comparable with the temperature inside a freezer.

Daytime temperatures are no higher than those inside a fridge but can be lower and feel lower still.

You will need serious winter clothes, meant for serious winter weather.

And if you are from a warm climate you need extra layers over what locals would wear.

Long underpants and a warm long sleeved undershirt at least.

Thermo versions might be needed.

On top of that you need a hat, scarf, mittens (or gloves but mittens are warmer) and sun glasses.

Keep your outer clothing well closed, up to your neck, unless you feel hot.

And good boots that keep your feet warm and dry.

It depends how long you are staying outside, as tourist I recommend: [I was there several time]

On top, 3 layers are often enough (shirt, pullover, winter jacket), bottom: 2 layers (you can do also with one layer [jeans], as I do it, but if you do not move, depending of winds, it can be cold, I do not recommend it).

As shoes: I recommend the moonboot: light and very effective for keeping heat.

But they are just good for simple walking on snow, not for hiking.

Glove, sunglasses, and bonnet is essential.

As tourist, I do not recommend more equipment, and you can heat in restaurant.

But if you want to remain outside several hours (and maybe on evening), you need technical wearing: go in a sport shop and ask.

[There is too much risk to get wrong equipment if you just order stuff by "name/type"].

(according to the precision you just made) It is difficult to answer.

If you just want to go up the mountain, look around, take a couple of pictures, you don't need the whole layers thing and technical winter equipments; you will not stay out that long.

I would have regular winter boots; I don't think you will want to venture out and hike; so no need for specialized hiking boots.

Also a regular winter coat, no need for a fancy technical and expensive winter coat if you will be using it for just a couple of hours (remember that down in the valley it will not be that cold).

Also a good hat and a pair of winter gloves; maybe a scarf if your coat does not cover your neck.

It's winter and the elevation of Titlis is 3238 meter.

That means the temperatures will be far below 0° C, and it might snow.

Bring winter clothes (i.e. a thick jacket, hiking boots if you have them) or ski clothes if you want to go skiing.

Question: I am visiting Mt. Titlis in Switzerland for a single day between the 15th of December to the 20th of December. The activities would include riding cable car but not skiing. What kind of clothing is required in this duration of the time period?

What clothing should I bring to Mt. Titlis in Switzerland during December?

If you just want to go up the mountain to look around, you may not stay out that long, but you will need serious winter clothes for serious winter weather (i.e. a thick jacket and hiking boots if you have them).

You will need winter clothes but not specialised winter equipment.

You will not require technical winter equipment.


For all countries, you can just dial 112.

Dialling 112 will direct you to the same emergency call centre as phoning the country's emergency number would.

In the EU, emergency call centres must provide a translations service.

In some countries, a phone does not even need to have a SIM card present to dial 112.

(emergency telephone number) : 112 is a common emergency telephone number that can be dialed free of charge from most mobile telephones and, in some countries, fixed telephones in order to reach emergency services (ambulance, fire and rescue, police).

112 is a part of the GSM standard and all GSM-compatible telephone handsets are able to dial 112 even when locked or, in some countries, with no SIM card present.

It is also the common emergency number in India and in nearly all member states of the European Union as well as several other countries of Europe and the world.

112 is often available alongside other numbers traditionally used in the given country to access emergency services.

In some countries, calls to 112 are not connected directly but forwarded by the GSM network to local emergency numbers (e.g. 911 in North America or 000 in Australia).

Note: data-only sims might not be able to dial the emergency number in some countries.

The information about 112 in another answer is correct.

It is also true of 911, so to address your concerns explicitly, not sure if I will be able to call the local emergency number (USA - 911) using a foreign (India) mobile number when I am in USA.

You will be able to do that.

If your phone does not recognize 911 as an emergency number, it sends the call to the local cellular network tower, which will recognize that it is an emergency call and send it to the emergency call center.

In this case, it doesn't matter where your phone or phone number is from, because the call is handled by the equipment of the local telephone company.

Though I have mentioned USA, I would also like to understand how it works in other countries as well.

The same thing happens.

Whatever provisions may be in place for recognizing certain foreign emergency numbers as such, the local network will always recognize the local emergency number.

In the United States, you can make an emergency 911 phone call from a mobile phone without a SIM.

As long as your phone can communicate with the network (supports the same frequency and standard), you can call 911.

This is governed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC's basic 911 rules require wireless service providers to transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, regardless of whether the caller subscribes to the provider's service or not.

If you do not have service, there are even instructions about calling back in the event your emergency call is disconnected: If you do not have a contract for service with a service provider and your emergency wireless call gets disconnected, you must call the emergency operator back because the operator will not have your telephone number and cannot contact you.

Data point:

In NZ the emergency number is 111.

112 works to call emergency services from a GSM phone

- I just tried.

Nobody has ever told me this before now.

Dialling 112 from a landline accesses a very slowly and clearly spoken message -

"The NZ emergency service number is one one one.

That is ONE .....

ONE .... ONE.

Please hang up the receiver then slowly and carefully dial one

one one" Repeats ....

In any ITU country, dialing 911, or 112 should connect you to emergency services if the phone physically works.

(I probably shouldn't go and test this, but any emergency number I could think of worked where I live a few years ago.)

112 is more standard in the EU, and 911 in North America.

I have gotten connected to emergency services in the EU dialing 911, but don't count on it.

It's separate from your phone plan, and separate from regular phone number routing.

So it isn't like a regular phone number.

Question: I read about  How to make an international emergency call?  but not sure if I will be able to call the local emergency number (USA - 911) using a foreign (India) mobile number when I am in USA.  Though I have mentioned USA, I would also like to understand how it works in other countries as well.

Call local emergency number using a foreign mobile number

For all countries, you can just dial 112 to connect free of charge to emergency services. Dialling 911 should also re-route to emergency services anywhere.

You can call 112 or 911 internationally.

Calling 911 works in the USA and other countries.