leafman31

I'm planning on going to Europe solo (male, 21 years old) for March/April and would like your help with my itinerary. I've planned a rough draft and would like to know your honest opinion on it.
Fly from Calgary, Canada to
Rome (3 nights)
Pisa (1 night)
Venice (2 nights)
Lucerne (3 nights)
Munich (3 nights)
Berlin (4 nights)
Amsterdam (3 nights)
Bruges (2 nights)
Paris (4 nights)
London (4 nights), Fly home
That's 29 nights plus a day to fly there and a day to fly home. I plan on traveling by train most of if not all of the time. I know a lot of you have more knowledge and experience with traveling Europe than I do and would like your help with any adjustments or critiques you would make to my itinerary.

Thanks

StCirq

Too many places. Two nights in a place = 1 day. Three nights = 2 days. And so on. You haven't taken into account the time it takes to travel from one place to another. This would be a fine itinerary if you were doing a thesis on European train stations.

Pare it down by about half.

StCirq

I forgot to add that it will cost you a small fortune to move around so much, which at your age I would guess could be a consideration.

ToujoursVoyager

During my first trip to Europe, I travelled with my sister and some friends for 6 weeks. We did travel quickly because we wanted to see it all! And while 15 years later I travel slower and enjoy knowing an area in more depth, I would not change anything to that first trip. I treated it more like a reconnaissance trip. And I returned since then to my favorite locations. I did have 5 rules, even when I was 20 years old:

1. At least 2 nights in one locations. (unless you have an overnight train of course)
2. Do not save money on the activities (save money on food (grocery store) and lodging (youth hostel card)
3. Have "float" days in your itinerary. There are places you are going to want to stay longer. Don't book everything in advance. As you are traveling, make your reservations.
4. Alternate between cities and countryside. (unless you hate nature). Some of Europe's magnificent sceneries are in the small villages.
5. Break the rules above.

As for your itinerary, I would skip a night in Pisa. Just stop there on the way to another location. Take a picture of the tower and move on.

I just re-read your post and noticed you are traveling during march and april which can be hard to really enjoy the countryside (my favorite Murren, in Switzerland) Cities make more sense. I like your itinerary. I think you are going to have a lot of fun.

janisj

I'd slit my wrist about half way thru this trek . . .

Rome (3 nights) = 1/2 jet lagged day and + 2 full days
Pisa (1 night) = about 3 hours free time in Pisa while any sites are open.
Venice (2 nights) = 1.25 free days
Lucerne (3 nights) = 2 days
Munich (3 nights) = 2 days
Berlin (4 nights) = 3 days
Amsterdam (3 nights) = 2 days
Bruges (2 nights) = 1.25 days
Paris (4 nights) = 3 days
London (4 nights) = 3 days

Do you really REALLY want to spend all the time and ALL that money to spend nearly 1/3 of your time in transit???? If I was spending that much $$/££/€€ I'd actually want to see a lot in the cities I visited - not arrive, see a few things, pack/check out and move on in 2 days.

FHurdle

I don't think there's anything wrong with a whirlwind tour. The first time I saw Rome I had two nights and a full day, and we packed quite a bit of sightseeing in that full day. Rome isn't my favorite city, so I feel the less time spent there, the better.

Why Pisa? Florence is the better city and you have to go through there to get to Pisa. Also, is Lucerne really worth six or seven hours of additional travel time? There's a great Venice to Munich train, and if you cut out Lucerne you can add an extra day to Florence and Venice.

Traveling solo can get lonely, and you are likely to meet people along the way and want to tarry. So buy a rail pass and be willing to prune and modify your schedule. Two additional nights with people you enjoy is worth a month of Bruges.

janisj

>>I don't think there's anything wrong with a whirlwind tour. <<

Sure -- whirlwind can work. But one needs to weigh what one is spending in time AND money just moving from place to place vs. spending more of that time and money actually <i>seeing</i> things.

6 or 7 days of 'whirlwind' can be fun. But nearly a month of dashing from place to place - could end up a total blur

bilboburgler

Not a bad plan, fast and furious but covers a lot of ground.

I would take out a few, for instance Munich is basically a conference centre when it is not a beer hall. With your dates it is a conference centre so rooms are expensive and the place is not worth a visit (unless you like Baroque and there are better cities to visit for that). I'd replace it with Prague which is far more fun.

Like J I'd cut out Pisa and do a fly by (actually the web covers the tower of Pisa better than they do in Pisa so I'd spend an hour on the web and drop it)

I like Bruges but at 21 I think you should be able to find better things to be doing with your time. Watch the film and spend the time doing stuff.

So that has freed up 3 days and saved you some money. Spend it on Rome and London.

bilboburgler

Also surf this site for Palenque who normally has great advice on european trains and stuff.

sandralist

For a solo male of 21, I would substitute Anterwp for Bruges.

Pisa is a good spot for an overnight for a budget traveler.

I love Toujours Voyagers post. It has a lot of wisdom in it.

>>I'd slit my wrist about half way thru this trek . . .<<

Promises, promises. Read janisj's last 2 trip reports and see if you want to follow her travel plans.

The trip outlined does not have to be expensive. Some of you have never traveled on a shoestring, and spend (and overspend) on tourist trap acticivies (champange on the London Eye), pastries and frou-frou b&bs.

Anyway, back to the original plan:

I think it would be most fun as a train trip, no flights.

bilboburgler

"PalenQ" sorry

bigtyke

I think for a first trip for a young person, it is not bad. When I was that age I took what I would now consider a whirlwind tour, but at the time it was perfect. After taking this trip you will have an idea of which countries you might want to visit again.

People have different interests and touring styles. After my first trip that consisted of the major cities, I have only spent perhaps 10 says in major cities out of 200.

nytraveler

Well if this had been my first trip - at 19 for almost 6 weeks - I would have hated it. We travleed muchmore slowly and I still hated leaving a bunch of places - especially Paris - since we just didn't have enough time.

But - it all depends on what the OP wants.

My fear is that he hasn't looked up the train schedules and doesn't realize how much time traveling this is versus time sightseeing (whether that be traditional sights or just exploring interesting neighborhoods and sitting in a cafe watching the world go by).

Also this is all large cities (great for me - but perhaps not for someone who want to do hiking or other outdoor activities/ see scenic beauty.)

LR220

I think your itinerary is fine. As someone in your age group, I've done 2 slow travel trips (due to family) and was bored half the time with all those early nights and minimal activities/day.

And of course you will hate leaving some places (namely Paris and Amsterdam) but those will always be there to return to and adding 1-2 more days isn't going to make it any easier to leave after! Though do consider that recommendation for Florence instead of Lucerne or adding days to places you would want to stay in longer after you've researched everything you want to see in those cities. Or consider saving Italy for a different trip like I did, there's a lot more to see there than just Rome, Venice, and Pisa. I agree with sandralist about janisj's trip reports. You most likely have a completely different traveling style/interests/etc and just a different idea of fun.