camilamejia87

I am planning a trip to Europe and I want to see as much as I can, but I am afraid of getting burned out. This is my itinerary. Do you think it is a good idea? which cities would you cut out to make it better? I would still like a 50 day trip, I'm afraid of the buses and trains being too draining.

Travel 1 day
Dublin 2 days
Travel 1 day
Glasgow 1 day
Travel/ Edinburgh 1 day
Travel 1 day
Liverpool 1 day
Travel/ Manchester 1 day
Travel 1 day
London 3 days
Travel 1 day
Paris 3 days
Travel 1 day
Luxembourg 1 day
Travel 1 day
Brussels 1 day
Travel 1 day
Amsterdam 3 days
Travel 1 day
Berlin 3 days
Travel 1 day
Munich 1 day
Travel 1 day
Zurich 1 day
Travel 1 day
Geneva 1 day
Travel 1 day
Milan 1 day
Travel 1 day
Venice 3 days
Travel 1 day
Cinque Terre 2 days
Pisa/Travel 1 day
Florence 2 days
Travel 1 day
Rome 3 days
Travel 1 day

bilboburgler

My thoughts for what they are worth

1) When, In November no, in June possibly
2) You are going to a lot of cities, some of the best bits are not in cities. So, while I find Switzerland just expensive I wouldn't bother to go to Zurich or Geneva, I'd go to say Lausanne say or one of the other smaller cities with good access to the country
3) Good you have a planned travel day
4) I think I'd knock out another four cities from this list, just to cut down your travel costs and to give you more time at the others. My four would be Glasgow, one of Liverpool/Manchester, Brussel/Luxembourg, Milan. Cull three.
5) I'd also try to do more in the country. So, for instance, on your Dublin days, you'll find the city compact with lots to do (and get over jet lag), if you add another day you could take the Dart off to the coast and enjoy a Irish fishing village.

sparkchaser

If you can afford to do it, and have the drive/stamina to do it, then go for it.

Sassafrass

You are traveling 20 days out of 50 - 40% of your days. Some days are shorter travel times, so lets say at least 30% of your time is spent traveling, not a good ratio, IMHO. Some train trips are good for seeing the countryside, but that can get old. Unless sitting on trains and busses is your thing, get travel time down and increase sightseeing time.

Traveling more does not mean seeing more. It means more time traveling and less time seeing.

You have too many one day stops or distances too far to travel for one day.

All just personal opinion.

I would not travel to Ireland only to see Dublin. If you can't give time to other places in Ireland, skip it.

Pick no more than two places in England and Scotland outside of London to visit. Consider Bath.

Pick places in Switzerland very carefully. Others are experts on Switzerland and can advise you.

Skip Milan unless you are into fashion, want to see the Last Supper, or that cathedral is of special interest to you.

Consider cutting Luxembourg and/or Brussels.

If you are going to Munich anyway, see more of Germany or a bit of Austria

When are you going? Some places like Cinque Terra are better in good weather, not good in winter.

Do some day trips from bases like London, Florence, Rome

sandralist

Hmmm. I think I'd be tempted to go directly from Edinburgh to London and spend 2 extra days there.

My preference would be to skip Luxembourg and spend that time in Paris, and visit Antwerp instead of Brussels.

I would head into the Swiss mountains rather than be in the cities.

Coming into Italy, I might skip Milan (or just have lunch and a few hours sightseeing there, but head straight to le Cinque Terre. From there, I would see Italy in this order: Pisa, Florence, Venice, Rome. You don't need full days to travel between Italian cities.

If you are not traveling in summer, scenic destiantions like Switzerland and le CInque Terre might not be worth all those hours on the train.

Finally, if you are already worried about the stress and hassle of so many train stations and rides, don't be afraid to do the trip differently. You could have a lot of fun spending longer in most of the places you mentioned, but if you decide to do that, focus on the places that are not all about tourism, but have more local variety.

nytraveler

I'm exhausted just looking at all this. I would do a lot fewer places and spend more time in each place. Ten countries in 50 days doesn't sound bad if you are doing one city in each country - so have in perhaps 3 days and a day trip form each county. There is no way I would even begin to contemplate 20 cities in 50 days.

Also, as noted, the time of year makes a big difference.

You are going sort of north to south which I assume is a trip starting in summer - trying to stay in cooler areas and avoid the worst of the heat in the south. If you are starting earlier in the year I would start in the south and head north to avoid the worst of winter in the north.

mamcalice

The buses and trains will surely be too draining if you stick with your current itinerary. You will be on them as much as you are off them.

I would skip Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester; Luxembourg, Brussels, Geneva, Zurich and Milan and add the days to London, Paris, the mountains of Switzerland and FLorence and the Tuscan countryside. I would skip Cinque Terre unless you are assured of good weather. If you cut all or some of these places, you will also cut travel days and have more time for your destinations and, perhaps, nearby day trips.

You haven't said when you plan to go but that will make a difference both for your best destinations and where you start and end the trip.

Edward2005

1. Way too many big cities on this list! Italian and French hill towns are wonderful. Tiny Swiss villages high in the Alps are fantastic.

2. I'd remove either the Ireland/UK (13 days) or Germany (7 days) from the list, which would leave more time for everything else.

3. You can always jack up your country count by visiting Andorra and San Marino.

bvlenci

It seems that everyone wants to cut out two of my favorite cities on your itinerary, Glasgow and Milan.

It would really help to know your interests in order to help you pare down this itinerary, as you've asked us to do. For example, I can't understand spending the same amount of time in Amsterdam as in London, but maybe you have specific interests that led you to make that choice.

I tend to agree that it's probably not worth going to Ireland, just to spend three days in Dublin. Unless, again, you have some specific reason for your choice. Maybe you could cut Ireland or else fly into Shannon and spend some time on the beautiful west coast.

What did you want to do in Luxembourg? It's a country, not a city, although a small country.

Maybe you should go through your list and ask yourself specifically what you want to see or do in these cities.

annhig

travelling like this for a week or so, let alone 7 weeks is very tiring. Counting in your travel days, you have a long succession of 2-3 nights in many disparate places, with long days of travel in between.

I would suggest picking 3-4 places which you have a real interest in seeing in or the area around them and using them as bases/hubs for a week or so.

then link them with other places of lesser interest, spending 2,3,or 4 nights in each.

You will actually see more that way, and gain more from the trip, than by rushing pell mell from one place to another.

janisj

zipping around like mad for a week or two - while hectic is at least bearable. Doing that for the best part of two months will be exhausting and <i>crazy making</i>. Plus you are spending an enormous % of both your time and money in transport.

Kathie

The good news is that you recognize it takes time to get from place to place. The bad news is that you are spending too large a percentage of your time in transit. I'm guessing that you have specific things you want to do/see/experience in some of these places, and all of the travel time takes away from that.

I would cut any place that is only one day. And I would increase time in any of the major cities (Paris, London, Rome) to 4-5 days.

Especially with this long a trip, you will want one or two stops that allow for some relaxing time when you aren't packing up and moving on. I'd give myself at least one weeklong stay somewhere.

ira

Hi C,

>Travel 1 day
Glasgow 1 day
Travel/ Edinburgh 1 day
Travel 1 day
Liverpool 1 day
Travel/ Manchester 1 day...

Good way to kill yourself.

When I was in my early 20's I did a whirlwind 30-day tour.

All I remember is lying next to a bench in a railway station with a group of people around me wondering if I was sick, drunk or stoned.

Pegontheroad

I think you have way too many cities there. Ten countries doesn't sound so bad until one counts the cities. 20 cities in 50 days? Too much.

I just returned from a trip where I visited 6 countries in a month. When I break that down by cities, it was 9 cities. Also too much. Even though I'm a pretty relaxed traveler and spent either 3 or 4 days per city, I didn't see all I wanted to see, and I knew I would have enjoyed most of the the cities more if I'd spent more time in them.

twk

Besides time spent traveling from point to point, one other consideration I would keep in mind is laundy. Some people like to take larger bags than I do, but even so, on a 50 day trip, you're going to be doing laundry multiple times. Maybe you have in mind dropping it off and letting someone else do it for a fee, but even doing it that way, you're going to have to plan where you do it.

On the other hand, if your 50 day trip included some longer stays, like some one week rentals at various points, it would be a lot easier to take care of that concern.

PalenQ

I'm a fan of base cities of which you have few - traveling about everyday and that means packing up, unpacking, getting to a new hotel, checking in, etc - base in say Florence and day trip to Pisa no stay there, etc.

In any case with that much train travel - buses are really not viable on most of those days check these inormative sites for oodles of great stuff to plan - www.ricksteves.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.seat61.com and by all means look at some kind of Eurail Flexipass or if traveling about every day a consecutive-day or two-month pass.

You do not need to stay a week in each place of course but you may want to slow down a tad or become a train zombie.

FrenchMystiqueTours

If you've got the energy for it and like moving around a lot this is doable. When I was in my 20's backpacking around Europe I think I hit about 25 different destinations in a two month period and it was the best time of my life.

abethetraveler

Not a good idea lol

dwdvagamundo

I'd cut the number of stops approximately in half: you want to see as much as possible and, paradoxically, that means going at a slower pace.

As Edward says, see some of the smaller towns and the countryside--that's at least half the charm of Europe.

And as both Edward and bvlenci said,before we can advise you what you should cut, we need to know your interests. Are you traveling for art, history, culture, food, scenery (guess not or you wouldn't be going to so many cities)or something else?

The most natural cut would be geographic because it would save some dashing around: so I'd choose either northern Europe or southern Europe/Switzerland or cut outliers like Ireland, Scotland, midlands England, and Berlin.

janisj

The OP registered, posted, and ran. Don't think she'll be back. . . .