Sassafrass

People sometimes indicate they want to see and do as much as possible, and have a really packed in trip. That does not necessarily have to mean moving around a lot from city to city or country to country.

I am not putting down a trip that takes you to many places for a brief visit. That can be fun, but you can also have a jam-packed trip in one place.

Example:
Five days in Rome: if you visit the Sistine Chapel & St Peter's; tour the Colosseum, Forum, Palantine Hill and the Pantheon; take in the Borghese Gallery; throw a coin in Trevi Fountain & walk around Piazza Navona; walk over to Trastevere, visit a couple of other churches, etc.; and take a day trip to Ostia Antica, you won't have much time to spare, but you could also throw in Orvieto for something more than the big city experience, and you will have seen a lot with not so much money or time spent traveling from place to place. The example could just as easily be Paris, London or Madrid.

So, for anyone who can't afford the extra time or money to go to several places/countries, staying in one place is not incompatible with packing in a full itinerary with lots of quality sights and activities. One can see only so much in any given amount of time, whether it is nine things in one city or three things in three cities. The variety and quality is so rich and varied in every major European city/country, you will not have missed out on anything by seeing more things in one place.

rs899

I didn't read all the replies very carefully, but I don't think anyone mentioned taking overnight trains. By doing so you can save at least half a day of transport (dead time). I didn't have too much of a problem doing this when I was younger. This would work well to go from Rome to Paris, for example, if you are still considering that.

PalenQ

Yes consider overnight trains - i have taken literally hundreds in my several decades of European train travel - cover long distances at night - save on the cost of a hotel and wake up in the city center - book a private double compartment and it can even be very romantic - friends of mine claim their first child was conceived on the Paris to Venice overnight train!

And if covering as much distance as previewed then the train system is great - trains going up to nearly 200 mph and lots of them everywhere - flying you see mainly airports but taking the train you see the lay of the land as well.

For lots of great info on planning a European rail trip i always spotlight these info-packed sites - yes www.ricksteves.com - not a favorite with all Fodorites but his site has oodles of great info on rail travel - and also www.seat61.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com - download the latter's free and superb IMO European Planning & Rail Guide as it is a great primer for planning such a trip - suggested itineraries, rail maps, etc. And yes if taking more than a few trains consider one of the plethora of railpasses. I've used literally hundreds of railpasses and have always found them to be a great deal - but it depends on in which countries you travel and how much - a railpass is not always the best deal for everyone.

chadnycity

Agree that overnights can be useful, though would recommend against more than 1 in a trip, particularly if you've got more than 1 smallish sized suitcase per person. If you're doing Amsterdam/Paris/London, you don't need (can't use) overnight though. You can use Eurostar between Paris/London (Chunnel train) and ferry (London)/train (Paris) to Amsterdam, you'll get there in a couple of hours.

cheryllj

I think London, Amsterdam, Paris would be a great trip. Yes, if you cut down to just London and Paris, it will be more relaxed, but Amsterdam is a smaller city and you can squeeze in the highlights.

I would spend 4 nights in London, 3 nights Amsterdam, and 4 nights in Paris, and fly home from Paris. No, you won't see everything, but you will see most of the big sights, and you won't feel too rushed. And just remind yourself, you're young, you will get back someday.

beeswing

We used the hotel trains from Venice to Paris and then from Paris to Barcelona. There were three of us, so we opted for a T3 (three to a compartment) on the first leg and a single and a double (adjoining) on the second leg. The T3 was a tight fit in that only one of us could stand up at a time, but since the idea was to sleep, it was not a big issue for us. And the single/double combo was quite comfortable, though not luxurious, by any means. So two legs on the train worked fine for us, though it doesn't sound as if that's even an issue on your trip.

Michel_Paris

I've been to Amsterdam three times. Last time I used the Fodor's guide as my guide. It took me 2 days to see those sites. Depending on your museum requirements...three days, leaving on 3rd day for Paris.

So..I'd do a 3-4-4

London first...tempting. But getting from London to Amsterdam..flying is a hassle because you lose so much time. And train, bit of a waste to go "up" to Amsterdam then back down to Paris. I've not done that route, so I'll leave it to the experts.

Landing in Amsterdam first is nice because it will be a little less hectic, smaller place, English everywhere..

CaseyMorgan

Our first big trip to Europe worked out very well visiting London, Paris, and Rome in 12 days. We flew into London, took the EuroStar through the chunnel to Paris, flew to Rome and then flew direct from Rome back to the US.

Mimar

Wekiva, the OP indicates a preference for slower travel.

tds, just to explicitly state one point, you should buy open jaw plane tickets, maybe into Amsterdam, out of London. Or into London, out of either Paris or Amsterdam. By returning from one of your other destinations, you save time and money not retracing your steps.

And, if you're arriving after a long, overnight flight, allow extra time at your first stop to get over jet lag.

And, yes, expect to return. For most of us here at Fodors our first trip to Europe was the start of a lifelong fascination.

We went from London to Amsterdam by train to Harwich, overnight boat to the Hook of Holland, and train to Amsterdam. This is another overnight trip, relatively inexpensive.

Michel_Paris

Mimar, that asnwers my question. It would seem, to me, that the time it takes to go from London to Amsterdam, would not be as efficient as landing at Schiphol and starting the holiday there.

tds0212

I am having a hard time letting go of Rome. After all the research, I know I will make it a priority to go back to Europe....so I am trying to tell myself I can visit Italy again someday. I think that a two week trip to Italy alone would be nice, or even a two week trip to Italy and Spain. My husband really wants to visit Madrid (Spain in general) so I feel like trying to squeeze it in this trip and stay 2-3 days isn't fair to him. He has said that we can wait to go to Spain, and since I am the one who really wants to go to Italy I am trying to make myself say we can wait to go there. That way we are both sacrificing 'per say' one place. We BOTH really want to go to London and Paris...and both would like to see what Amsterdam is like. So that is how we managed to come up with the decision to go to London, Amsterdam, and Paris. We like things to be a little fast paced and interesting...so I think we can do the 3 places in one trip. I'll try to slow myself down one day, not just yet though.

kfusto

" I'll try to slow myself down one day, not just yet though.

It is not so much the slowing down it is the wasting of precious time to fit many places into a short trip. Sitting on planes, trains, etc. is pretty darn slow IMO...

chadnycity

agree with kfusto and other posters... as you'll see in other posts, most people would give Rome 4 days on its own and there's so much more to see in Italy that it's a great trip on its own. Similarly, most people I know who traveled to Spain really liked Barcelona and Seville as much and frequently more than Madrid, so with such limited time, it may be preferable to do either a more Spain-centric trip, or one that at least includes Barcelona.

Sassafrass

tds0212,

After your post about Italy and Spain, I am going to go out on a limb and say that, given you are going in May, you should spend the whole time in Italy. May is about the most perfect time to visit Italy. With two weeks, you would feel you had a more in-depth experience. You could see a lot of places: Venice, Florence, Rome and a couple of day trips. With your husband's interest in Spain, I don't think he would be disappointed with Italy. I am not saying they are the same at all, but they both have great charm, architecture, etc. in warmer climates.

Whatever you decide, however, you are sure to have a wonderful trip. You can't beat Paris in Spring either.

chadnycity

Just to clarify, I meant you may consider a Spain-centric or Italy-centric trip (as Sassafrass suggests) this time or another time, if you're going to Paris, Amsterdam, London this time.

tds0212

Do you have to call the airport and get the "open jaw" tickets that you guys are talking about?? Forgive me for my stupidity. :/ I got on Delta and only saw one way (is this open jaw?) or round trip. Looking at one way tickets, they are several hundred bucks more than a round trip ticket. I've never purchased anything other than a round trip airline ticket so the "open jaw" is new to me. Figure that air fare is the place to start, then hotel, then itinerary?? Are their better choices as far as airlines flying into Europe that I should check into as well?? Going to get travel books at some point this week. This trip planning has become my second job! haha!

lindy27

London, Paris, Amsterdam sound good for 11 days to me. When we were in Amsterdam we did most everything we wanted to in 2 days and on our 3rd day just took a bike ride. So you could easily spend 2 days, and in the morning of the 3rd head for Paris or fly home. That will leave 5 and 4 to divide between London and Paris.

When planning a trip to Europe you just have to keep telling yourself that you will make it back or you will keep changing your mind about where you want to go this time!

Kristinelaine

tds -- try www.kayak.com and use "multiple city trip" instead of one-way or round. That will show you many possibilities.

chadnycity

www.fly.com i think gives best rates and it allows "multi-city"

Andrew

I like Kayak.com also. However, if you want to use Delta.com just click on "Multi-City" next to "One-Way" as a search option. However you book it, I suggest you book directly through the airline and not through a third-party booking site like Orbitz or Travelocity (Kayak is a "meta" search site and doesn't actually book anything, just refers you to other sites that do.)