Rules, Oldest Restaurant in London

That would not normally be much of a boast - restaurants in London seem to have lifespans measured in months rather than years - but Rules opened in 1798 and is still going strong in Maiden Lane, Covent Garden, 213 years later. Given the age of the restaurant I was expecting an intersecting atmosphere and a well-honed menu; both were delivered in style but, as the interior of the restaurant is (or should be) merely the background to the food, let us move straight to the meat of the issue - the meat.

And what meat it was! At my table we sampled the steak and kidney pudding, the steak, a fish dish of some sort (apparently very good, but fish doesn't really float my boat) and the pork. All were reported as absolutely top notch but the star was the steak and kidney pudding with summer beans; the blend and quality of the ingredients and the preparation made it rather special.

My previous experience of the old S&KP has been rather disappointing. The steak is often dry and of poor quality, the kidney scarce, the gravy weak, thin and heavily peppered (never a good sign - I can't help thinking that over-peppering a meal is a sign of a nervous chef). Rules, by contrast, serve a pudding that embarrasses the competition, delights the diner and suggests a serious risk to waistlines amongst regular patrons.

Accompanied by a bottle of red wine and a side order of chips, the main course barely touched the sides on the way down. It was, by any measure, spectacularly good and I look forward to many repeat visits.

And the deserts? Singling out a particular course for praise is often a sign that other courses, or maybe the service, were less than good, failing to meet the standards laid down by their illustrious compatriot. Don't be fooled. Our table took the plum trifle, lemon meringue pie, apple crumble and golden syrup pudding (both served with excellent traditional custard), all of which were epic (I don't like plum trifle, so I report instead the trifle experiences of a fellow diner).

The lemon was strong and tangy and paired with a thick crust of meringue over a nice pastry base. In a lesser restaurant, where quantity is not an important attribute in a meal, the lemon meringue would have served three or four people; in Rules my wife struggled, giving up halfway through (she had already consumed most of a vast steak, so can be forgiven).

My advice, if you plan to eat at Rules, is to skip lunch and take a light breakfast. We soldiered through our main courses (having skipped the first course) before being defeated by the deserts but better preparation may have allowed us to finish a great meal, possibly even with cheese and coffee. Instead, the following day was spent avoiding restaurants and exercise, remembering the puddings and searching for light, calorie-free salads.

Rules; we will return for a second attempt.

Rail vs Air - Travel Preferences

For me, it's often air; for international business travel, flying remains the only practical option because most of my destinations (Estonia, Malta, Gibraltar) are not readily reached by rail from London.

That doesn't mean that I choose air travel when geography allows an alternative. The journey from Edinburgh to London, for example, takes 4 - 4.5 hours by rail with about 1.25 hours for transfers (both ends) for a total door-to-door travel time of about 5.75 hours. That sounds like a lot, especially compared to the 3 - 4 hours required for flying, but the train has a few advantages:

1. Comfort - the seats are generally more comfortable than those in aeroplanes, seatbelts are not required, you can move around whenever you like and even large bottles of water are allowed on the train 
2. Luggage - there may be a practical limit to the amount of luggage you can take on a train but you won't be charged for taking a large suitcase or two
3. Ease - modern trains have power sockets, tables and wifi making it perfectly possible to work (or check Facebook) while you hurtle along
4. Simplicity - turn up at the station, collect your ticket from the machine and stroll onto the train; no need to pass through security (except, maybe, if when travelling internationally), check your luggage or spend hours waiting on the platform
5. Pollution - trains emit significantly less  CO2 per passenger mile than aeroplanes and make far less noise
6. Convenience - railway stations are often more found in the centre of cities rather than on the outskirts; you might choose a hotel near the railway station and close to the city centre but you would think twice before staying near an airport.

All of these things make train travel, in my experience, far less stressful than air travel but if rail has all these advantages, why do people still fly so often? Ignoring those trips where rail simply isn't possible (London to New York by rail is going to be tricky, for example) and air is the only option, there are still a couple of reasons for flying:

1. Speed - you can go an awful long way by train in Europe but after a certain point flying is always going to be faster (which might be important if your schedule is tight)
2. Security - air travel is safe and, even if you had time to get to, say, Delhi, by rail, you probably wouldn't want to pass through all the slightly iffy countries between here and there - much better to fly over them and avoid all the hassles with border crossings and visas.

All things considered, I prefer to travel by rail, particularly if I can book in advance and get reasonably priced first-class seats. I'm resolved to travel by train whenever possible, shunning car and plane alike unless they really are the only options; unfortunately, my next trip is Almaty, Kazakhstan (or it was, when this article was first drafted); tricky by rail or road, so I will be flying.

iPads and Long Haul Flights

I'm currently (at time of writing) flying from Almaty, Kazakhstan to London Heathrow, which is just under 3,500 miles and takes about eight hours. It's the second long haul flight I've done with the iPad (the first being the flight out to Almaty earlier in the week) and all I can say is that it is an absolutely epic piece of equipment.

One of the questions people ask is "what do you use your iPad for?" because although it is clearly an attractive piece of kit it is no immediately obvious, despite Apple's best efforts, why anyone might need one. After a flight like this, where the selection of entertainment chosen by the airline is not hugely interesting, it's a fairly easy question to answer because it is my only distraction. I have:

1. Watched a movie (The Expendables - not great, but somewhat diverting if you're into guns, explosions and ludicrous fight scenes) 
2. Dealt with a load of email (reading and writing, both for work and home, although without an Internet connection it isn't going anywhere at the moment) 
3. Read part of a book (Marcus Brigstocke's God Collar - entertaining but a little over the top and best consumed in modest chunks) 
4. Updated Facebook (or not - I've prepared email responses to several comments made by other people but the aforementioned lack of internet means that the updates haven't yet happened) 
5. Drafted a couple of boring blog updates (using PlainText and email) and some notes for work (via Evernote) 
6. Listened to a load of a music 
7. Caught up on some reading (mostly articles from New Scientist that I saved for later reading using Instapaper, another recommended app). 

At time of writing, after about four hours of continuous use, the battery is down only 30% and I'm thinking about taking a break from writing to work through a couple of Sudoku puzzles. Be right back.

And we're back, with four Sudoku puzzles finished off in something more than record time (I blame a lack of sleep). I thought about playing some other games (I have a couple of tower defence games, some racing games and a version of Command and Conquer) but decided against it - too lazy.

Being locked in a tin tube over the middle of Europe reduces Internet access options somewhat. When there is an Internet connection (3G or Wi-fi) the range of possible activities increases to include shopping for books (I like to use iBooks), browsing the web, chatting using IM or Skype and any of a dozen other data-dependent tasks.

So if you wanted to know what I use my iPad for you now know. You might find a load of different things to do on an iPad but that's your problem. For me, it offers the opportunity to do a little work, consume a little entertainment media and, network allowing, communicate with friends, family and work colleagues. As a multi-purpose lightweight computer it is spectacularly good and it makes an invaluable companion for a long flight.

Caledonian Scotrail - the Sleeper to Edinburgh

The most generous comment one might make about the cabins on Scotrail's Caledonian Sleeper service from London Euston is that they are "compact". The American students on our train were more critical, calling them "caves" and it is easy to see why; at a little over six feet long and about four feet wide they can hardly be described as luxurious. 

To be frank, there were a couple of other problems that seemed more serious. Various parts of the train were basically broken, including the power sockets in the lounge (the only ones on the train at which phones could be charged), the door to the lounge (which worked, but only just, and only very slowly) and the toilet at one end of the carriage (whose door appeared to work but had malfunctioning lock status indicators). Breakfast was functional but not very good; it was  standard airline fare, delivered a little later than requested.

It is also unfortunate that some of the staff seemed to have suffered fairly serious sense of humour failures. Their more polite colleagues, who made up maybe 50% of the crew, gave adequate service but were unable to save the reputation of Scotrail.

Even a cave can be more than just a cave but the fittings in Scotrail's cabins are extremely utilitarian, closely resembling the mass-produced, style-free cabins one finds on cross-channel ferries; the Orient Express this most definitely is not. 

That said, the price is fairly low. The nine hour trip (which includes station time at both ends of the journey, during which you are on the train but stationary) cost £130 each (two travellers) in first-class, which gave us two standard cabins with a linking door - twice the space of a standard class cabin. Compared with the Orient Express, Scotrail are almost giving the service away.

And what about sleep? The bed was comfortably basic and the cabin was warm but the irregular noise and the unfamiliar movements as the train accelerated and cornered made sleeping somewhat tricky. In the end I gave up, dressed and took photos through the open windows of the carriage doors for a while before returning to the cabin to complete this post. 

There were some good points, particularly when compared to flying. Firstly, it was completely stress-free - a big advantage - and the freedom to carry whatever luggage we wanted (including 200ml bottles of potentially "dangerous" liquid) was most welcome. Transit through the stations at both ends of the journey was quick and painless - markedly different to the major airports. The train left on time and arrived on schedule,  and apart from the aforementioned acceleration the trip was completely turbulence free, delivering us straight into the centre of Edinburgh, a ten minute stroll from our hotel.

Would we use the service again? Yes, I think so, but we would probably go Standard class rather than First and we would skip breakfast. Overall, a viable alternative to air travel if you can spare the time.