ROSIEcheeks

So I'm off to London for about 10 days in September. I'm looking into stopping in Paris and Italy as well during the 10 days.. but I need some serious advice and help for this! I heard trains are easiest, and for me, it makes me the happiest because I'm not a great flyer - is this true? And if anyone does know about this, or even did this - if I take a train will I be able to stop in Paris before getting myself to Italy? I'd really appericate any information or comments or recomendations you have on this! It'd be so helpful

Thanks!
- Rosie

nytraveler

No way is 10 day enough for London, Paris and Italy. (And is this 10 days on the ground - or are you counting the day you arrive and hte day you leave - in which case you only have 8 days on the ground.)

If you have never been to any of these places - and it sounds like it from your question, 10 full days on the ground can give you a taste of London and Paris - or London and one place in Italy.

For the former you would take the Eurostar train from London to Paris. For the latter you would fly from London to Rome (the train would take forever).

In either case you should get open jaw plane tickets - into the first city and out of the last. It doesn;t cost any more and avoids wasting a day returning to London.

janisj

You can't really <i>do</i> London, Paris and Italy in 10 days.

And - what do you mean by 'Italy'-- it is a very big place. Do you mean Rome? Or Venice? or Florence? or someplace else?

And - what do you mean by '10 days'? Is that the time you have on the ground in Europe - meaning a 12 day trip. Or is 10 days the total length of your trip? If it is a 10 day-total trip, that only leaves about 7.5 days on the ground.)

And - every time you move from one city to another you lose between 1/2 a day (London to Paris for instance) and nearly a full day - like London to Rome.

So, tell us more and we can help you.

janisj

was posting the same time as nytraveler . . .

denisea

I would stick with London and Paris. Don't spend your ten days in transit!

London then Paris by the Eurostar. Fly home from Paris and save Italy for another time . There is so much to see in both cities and you can certainly make a short day trip or two out of London and/or Paris.

Maybe Canterbury and/or Bath, from London and Giverny, Chartres and/or Reims from Paris. Although, there is plenty to do without ever leaving either city.

ROSIEcheeks

12 days, but we took out 2 days for travel (there and back home).

We have everything planned out for what we want to see and do in London, but by the looks of it we do have 3-4 days where it's just kind of do whatever we'd like to do. I was really hopeing to get to Italy and see Rome for 2 days.

StCirq

It's hardly worth traveling all the way from London to Rome for 2 days. You certainly can't do it by train, and even if you flew (and had planned to fly home from Rome), you'd have barely more than a single day in Rome. It's just unrealistic. Save Italy for another trip when you can actually do it justice. Or extend your trip by another week or two.

ROSIEcheeks

I feel like being in one place for 10 days is just going to go to waste.. Would Paris be a waste?

amamax2

So does what you have planned out for London cover 6 days of your 10? And then you have 4 extra days?

I agree that trying to see two more large cities in that time is not doable unless it is a drive-by of each (even though the Eurostar (train) from London to Paris only take about 2-1/2 hours, depending upon what time your train leaves (it's already July, not sure what tickets are left) and where you are staying in Paris, transit could equal most of a day.

We took an overnight train from Paris to Venice (so not even as far as Rome) and it truly took the whole night! I'm not sure how much longer it would take to get to Rome...so again, you will lose at least a day in transit.

Yes, you can do it, but the bigger question is will it be enjoyable for the one or one-and-a-half days you get in each city.

IMO, you really can only add one other city, and if it is Rome, should fly.

But if you are still set on this, perhaps if you post your whole itinerary, we can help see if it is truly doable at all.

amamax2

OK, we were posting at the same time.

No, Paris is not a waste at all, and much more doable.

ROSIEcheeks

Would it be easier to take a train to Paris? I was looking into some train information and websites say that it takes about 2-3 hours to get from London to Paris.

amamax2

Yes, very easy to take the train. It is called the Eurostar. Go to www.eurostar.com. It takes about 2-1/2 hours, though there is a time diffence between London and Paris, so you lose an hour.

Book your tickets through that website, not another one. You can print them out at home.

The train leaves from St Pancras in London and takes your straight into Paris, to Gare du Nord.

janisj

"<i>I feel like being in one place for 10 days is just going to go to waste.. Would Paris be a waste?</i>


London could fill 10 months. It mostly depends on what you want to see/do in London - why not tell us what your plans are and we can let you know what is realistic.

But w/ 10 days 'on the ground - and assuming you have your flights booked so you have to return to London a day before flying out, 6 days in London, 3 days in Paris and 1 more day in London would make a great trip.

Or even better - fly on to Paris immediately after landing, spend 3.5 days there, train to London, 6.5 days there, fly home

But first of all- let us know what you have planned for London . . .

StCirq

Of course it's easier to take a train to Paris than to Rome. Do you have a map of Europe?

The Eurostar takes about 2.5 hours. And no, Paris is not a waste. Hardly anything in Europe is a waste. What is a waste is spending hours and hours on trains and planes when you could be out enjoying things.

London and Paris is a great combination. Fly home from Paris so you don't have to backtrack.

ROSIEcheeks

I don't have the written paper of what were doing right infront of me but we basically have everything we want to see done in about 4 days. Were going to the things that we want to see the most being as this isn't going to be my first and last trip to London - I'm just concerned on having all this extra time, so to say, with nothing planned and just going off what we want to do.

ROSIEcheeks

StCirq - that would be ideal but we have a flight home out of London that has been booked for months now.

janisj

"<i>we basically have everything we want to see done in about 4 days</i>"

I may be 100% wrong, but I <i>suspect</i> your plans for London may be overly ambitious (unless you are only planning on visiting 6 or 7 major sites)

London is HUGE and it does take a lot of time to get around. W/o knowing what you want to see/do, it is hard give useful advice.

ROSIEcheeks

There's not that many sites that we want to see, in all honesty. We did our research of narrowed everything down and all because we really wanted to do another place but we're not too sure where to go

mogsanova

There is plenty to do in London for months! I went for 11 days and took two day trips to Oxford and Bath. But if you want to go to Paris, go! Take the Eurostar and spend a few days. I wouldn't go to Italy unless you have more time. I agree with everyone else, too much time traveling. Have a wonderful trip!

ROSIEcheeks

I think everyone IS right about Italy, we agreed that going to Italy would be better as a complete seperate trip.

Now onto my next hassle..
What to do in Paris!?