You should notice that in all the sentences you wrote and assumed that the preposition is missing, the prepositions are not missing. This is in accordance with the grammar rule. You see before home, here, there, prepositions are missing, because home, here and there are adverbs. And therefore we don't need a preposition before an adverb.
You can also check this link
Hope this helps.
Regarding the use of in with time:
There's a couple of common expressions that use in with time (there's probably more than below):
In time - means before an understood deadline of some sort. It differs from on time - on time means you arrived at the correct time - in time may mean you got there early.
("In time" can mean "when circumstances allow" or "eventually" - it will usually but not always start the sentence, or precede the subject-verb part of the sentence, i.e. In time, we will conquer the enemy or *If you keep working at it, in time you will succeed.)
In plenty of time - means with an ample amount of time left over.
For in time and in plenty of time, the point of time that you arrive is "within" or "inside of" the range of time you have to be at the destination, so "in" makes sense.
Let's say we are talking about a train - the train leaves at 5:00PM, and you learned of the train leaving then at 3:00PM. You arrived at 4:45PM. 4:45PM is in the range of 3:00PM to 5:00PM.
Some others:
In good time - equivalent to in plenty of time (people racing one another comes to mind with this)
In enough time - when something is ready - The cookies are baking. In enough time we can eat them.
In no time - means something has taken no time to happen, or a very short duration of time passed. - I was driving recklessly and got to the station in no time.
So...
I like getting to the station in plenty of time.
I like to get to the station in plenty of time.
These sound fine to me, but are something you'd hear in speech more than see in writing in my opinion.
Regarding the difference between getting and to get:
In my initial opinion as a native speaker, there is not a difference between them. However, this says the following:
Using a gerund (-ing form) suggests that you are referring to real activities or
experiences. Using an infinitive (to X) suggests that you are talking about
potential or possible activities or experiences.
So, since you are talking about a potential activity, to get is the right thing to use.
Best Answer
The clause beginning with "requiring" employs the subjunctive mood, more precisely, the so-called mandative subjunctive:
Mandative subjunctive uses the "bare infinitive", the basic form of the verb without the particle to.
The mandative (or "present") subjunctive expresses a circumstance that is desired, demanded, recommended, necessary, etc.
If you spot a verb like insist, suggest, demand, prefer, an adjective like necessary, desirable, or a noun like recommendation, necessity, and after (or subordinate to) it, a that-clause, it's a good sign you have a mandative subjunctive.