hlyn23

My husband and I are planning a five week trip to Europe and while we recogonize we are cramming alot into one trip, we are doing this in case we never get another opportunity to return. We hope to one day return, but realistically may never happen. Anyways I could use some assistance with determining best modes of transport and I am trying to figure out part of the trip to get from Amsterdam to Milan if there is a town in Germany or France we should stop at along the way. We have a friend who is from Berlin, Germany so we plan to visit that part of Germany at a later time so looking for more of small town Germany or France experience that would be along our way to Milan.
Our itinerary looks like this thus far:
London
Brussels
Amsterdam
____
Milan
Venice
Rome
Florence
Monaco-Nice
Geneva
Paris
If it makes sense to switch the destination orders as I have listed the itinerary in the first place to last location please respond or say so. Thanks

PalenQ

Anyways I could use some assistance with determining best modes of transport>

You are going to mainly large cities where cars are useless and even a liability at times - trains are the best IME for doing big tourist cities - right to the city center - no parking hassles or worries about thefts from cars, tickets for entering off-limit zones for private vehicles like in many Italian towns, etc.

For a great fix on the European rail system check out these IMO fantastic sites: www.budgeteuropetravel.con (check out their superb IMO European Planning & Rail Guide (http://www.budgeteuropetravel.com/si...s/rg011210.pdf) and www.seat61.com and www.ricksteves.com. If traveling all of that by train investigate some kind of railpass.

Michael

10 cities in 35 days, including travel time between them. Do you really think that this is realistic?

PalenQ

Travel time between most of those cities is just a few hours - some less - to me OK to thus average 3 days in each city, some of which deserve less and some perhaps a day or two more.

suze

As long as you realize 10 places in 5 weeks means barely 2-1/2 days in each city, once you subtract the transportation times.

Not a pace I'd want to do, but I think it is physically possible.

Michael

<i>Travel time between most of those cities is just a few hours</i>

Even so. Let's imagine the person arrives by train. To the actual train travel, one must add getting to the station (with ticket in hand give yourself half an hour before departure to orient yourself in the station, find the train, etc.), and upon arrival orient yourself to a new station, find the exit for the taxi stands, get to the hotel, register and take luggage to the room. All this takes away time being spend visiting either one or the other city at either end of that leg of the trip.

It can be done, but would you want to do it?

dwdvagamundo

If I were you, I'd fly into London and out of Rome, going to Paris after Brussels, then Lyon, [Geneva], Nice, Monaco, [Milano],Venice, Florence, Rome. This would save you backtracking from Rome to Paris.

I do think it's doable but it's a little bit too much moving around and doesn't give you time to see much of the beautiful country or smaller cities and towns.

I'd recommend dropping Milano in favor of Lyon and/or one or two of the smaller cities between Milano and Venice like Verona and Padua, If you must see Milano, stay just one day (two nites) to see the Last Supper and one other thing.

I also would drop Geneva. Geneva was one of our biggest disappointments in Europe--we drove, had to pay a fairly hefty price to get into Switzerland, and then a lot of money to park in a dirty dark and dangerous parking structure.

Instead, given your interest in small towns, I'd pick up a car in Lyon and drive down the Rhone to Provence, stopping at some of the many small cities and towns, then to Nice and along the Riviera/Corniche to Monaco.

BigRuss

<<My husband and I are planning a five week trip to Europe and while we recogonize we are cramming alot into one trip, we are doing this in case we never get another opportunity to return.>>

How old are you?

Are you both healthy?

Why wouldn't you be able to return? Get credit cards that have rewards and you'll be able to procure overseas tickets for the price of Southwest flights in the US.

What is your budget? All the travel from place to place is expensive.

As to the itinerary: take a map, draw a line tracing your travel and whenever you cross the line, you screwed up.

You don't get "small town France" between Paris and Milan based on your list, you get a TGV ride from the coast to the capital. You also don't get small town Germany because you don't go to Germany on that list.

You really cannot do it all, but with 5 weeks you can do a lot AND actually do justice to some of the larger cities. Fly London, spend a week (London is NYC-sized and far larger than any city in Western Europe); train to Paris, another 5-7 nights; go to Nice, spend 4 days on the beach; go to Rome for 5-6 nights, Florence for 3, Venice for 3 and fly home from Milan.

hlyn23

We are in our late twenties and both very active and healthy so I know a faster pace won't kill us with planned downtime of course. We were planning on staying in the big cities for longer time frames with places like Milan, Brussels and Geneva being mostly 1-2 days. And I know with the amount of time I have I won't see everything there is to see in a city or town, but overall trying to get a taste for Europe and see things that I grew up learning about and reading about.
BigRuss-I would love to know which credit cards you are referring to cause our rewards don't add up to that much unfortunately. Our budget is approx $6,000 per person and that is with original flight already purchased and not including the saving we will continue to accumulate in the next 8 months or so.
Thanks for the suggestions regarding smaller towns like Lyon and Verdue.

jamikins

First timers usually think that seeing more places means seeing more. In reality you see less of the places you are spending so much money to come to see and see a lot more of train stations and airports. Slowing down will allow you to see more of the actual places themselves. Not to mention will save a tonne of money on transport costs allowing you to spend more seeing sites!

For example a week in London is a great start...there are soooo many things to see here and they are spread out. It would also give you time to do a day trip or too to say Stonehenge or Windsor castle or Canterbury cathedral. Even giving London and Paris 5 days each will give you a more pleasurable time I think.

Of your list I would definitely drop Brussels as I found it really dull other than the beautiful square...not in the same league as the other places. Monaco as well...not interesting at all other than the really expensive casino. I would also give geneva a miss as its not as interesting as the other places.

5 weeks seems like a long time but if you have too fast a pace the last 2 weeks will feel like work rather than a vacation and you likely feel like you can't wait to get home to recover. Been there don that and learned me lesson!

hlyn23

We will be in Europe for at total of 39 days.

PalenQ

It can be done, but would you want to do it?>

Yup and after all these years I prefer to travel more than dwell in one city seeing one boring museum and church after another - the train trips themselves I love - but yeh it ain't for most tastes.

But 10 stops over a five week period seems to me slow - average of 3 days in each place - 1/2 day travel between and to relocate - no I do not see this as too rushed but again that's the way I like to travel after all these years of annually going to Europe.

jamikins

PalenQ I am just curious...when you travel like this do you travel for 39 days straight? I found that keeping a pace like this for that long meant we just couldn't wait to get home and don't remember the last half of the trip...

janisj

But PQ -- your MAIN joy in life are the <u>train trips</u> between places. Of course <i>you</i> would love this plan.

For many, actually <i>being</i> places is the 'why' and transport is the 'how'. 3 days in some of those cities wouldn't give you a chance to visit even a minimum of the main attractions/sites.

And besides you have (according to you) been to all of them many times so you wouldn't need more than 3 days. You are not most people.

Hyln: Your plan has just massive amounts of packing/unpacking, checking in/checking out, transfers, train stations, airports. If you think spending 30%-35+% of your time in transit fits your travel style, this is a doable plan. If you want to see more and travel less - not so much.

Aramis

>> BigRuss said


>> How old are you?
>> Are you both healthy?
>> Why wouldn't you be able to return? Get credit cards that have rewards and you'll be able to procure overseas tickets for the price of Southwest flights in the US.

They didn't ask you to inquire or comment on the likelihood that they had the time, health, money and spending habits that you believe would enable them to return and support your theory that they should rework this to a schedule you find comfortable

>> What is your budget? All the travel from place to place is expensive.

They also didn't ask you to inquire as to their budget finances in a poorly disguised and insulting attempt to suggest they reduce their stopovers/schedule

>> As to the itinerary: take a map, draw a line tracing your travel and whenever you cross the line, you screwed up.

Answers like this make it obvious who screwed up

>> You don't get "small town France" between Paris and Milan based on your list, you get a TGV ride from the coast to the capital. You also don't get small town Germany because you don't go to Germany on that list.

A ridiculous comment - even ignoring the fact that it is clear the itinerary does not contemplate a Paris Milan leg. You get small town France wherever you want it.

It's also clear from the proposed itinerary that they plan to go from Amsterdam to Milan and that is the leg where they are looking for small town Germany recommendations. I think they can manage that can't they? unless, of course, you feel there aren't any small towns in Germany between Amsterdam and oh, lets. say Zurich as a way-point on the way to Milan?

It pays to both make the effort to understand what the OP is asking and to respect their personal circumstances and choices before offering up a misguided response.

Newbie00

having done a 40 day trip last year, all I can suggest is make sure that you leave yourself some down time.

It is a long time to be on holidays soaking in culture and history and ambience every day ... you just go into overload.

I generally like to say a minimum of 3 nights anywhere (other than tiny places or specific things where you just have 1 major site to see), or 4 nights if the travel has been more than 5 hrs or so ... this gives you 2 full days before you are on the move again, so enough time to actually see something.

Paris, London, Rome all take a bit longer if you have the time. Venice I really loved, but 3 nights was enough (and that included getting in late on night 1).

Do you have a specific reason to do Brussels and Amsterdam? if you have friends in Germany and will return there, perhaps leave north for then and concentrate on France, Switzerland and Italy.

so Fly to London, then Paris, then South of France (look for a small town there if you want that kind of experience) as well as Monaco. Monaco to Geneva is doable on the train as well (though I would probably choose Montreux over Geneva) ... then to Milan, Venice, Florence and Rome last (fly home from Rome)

These are then all via train which is MUCH better and less time consuming than flying (my general rule is 6 hrs on the train is the limit ... after that I fly, less than that I train).

BigRuss

Aramis: your post is preposterous. You say "It pays to both make the effort to understand what the OP is asking and to respect their personal circumstances and choices" and that is the reason for my questions that you decried. Do you also speak from both sides of your mouth or just contradict your own written statements.

To provide the OP with sound advice, we don't need to confirm what they're doing or how, but provide additional insight that may help them shape what they plan. As for the nitpicking on the small town issues, they have a point-to-point plan and that is how it is laid out. If you wish to fill in the blanks and read between the lines, do so. I'm not going beyond the parameters of their outline.

The fact that the OP answered my questions indicated that (1) she neither felt them intrusive, (2) understood they could help, (3) understood the nature of the inquiries.

Your post is just rot, save your time in the future.

BigRuss

To the OP: Citibank, Cap One, Bank of America and others all offer rewards cards that give travel options. Citibank has some tied to AA; Chase has one tied to United; Cap One has one not tied to any airline. Each is highly useful for accumulating points/miles and using those for free trips later. I've done that more than once and I don't travel much for work.

Because you're both 20somethings and understand the need to save for travel, the presumption that this may be your only opportunity to go across the pond is misplaced. You can definitely budget your way to Europe in the future so viewing this as a one-time possibility is self-limiting.

Your trip will cost a lot in travel expenses going from place to place. A total budget of $12K is about $300 per day so it is doable but a bit tight. Fewer destinations also will help keep the cost down. Venice and Paris are hard places in which to keep costs down. London is easier because there are so many no-fee attractions (about 20 top museums) and other discounts (two-for-one programs).

suze

When people are on a tight budget, I think it's really pretty universally accepted good advice, that if you cut the number of places you go (keeping the same amount of days of travel) you bring down overall expense. One week in Paris and one week in London would very likely cost less, than two weeks going to six different cities (for example).

yodababe

If budget is an issue, I would cut London for sure, maybe Paris too--both cities are incredibly expensive--and focus your time in Italy which is much cheaper. That might solve a lot of the issues that people have brought up in this thread.