OCaTG

My 18 year old granddaughter and I will be traveling to Europe next summer. We plan to spend a week in England (maybe stay outside of London but want to Stratford on Avon, Bath, maye Liverpool, etc.), a couple of days in Paris and then Italy, Spain, and Greece in no particular order. We'll be in Europe for 3-4 weeks. I don't plan to drive, but rather use a combination of bus, train, tube, air, and maybe water. Does anyone have ideas about how to make the most of our time there; order of cities; type of transportation? I'd thought about maybe even catching a cruise out of Barcellona, but don't know whether that would help. Thanks to anyone who has ideas!

CathyM

I think you first need to step back and rethink the plan.

3-4 weeks for England, Paris, Italy, Spain and Greece is not realistic. Even if you planned 7 days London, 4 days Paris (2 is extremely underestimating the time needed), 4 days Rome, 4 days Madrid and 4 days Athens you already have 23 days. This would simply be a tour of the largest cities in these countries and doesn't count in travel time which would basically eat up the remaining days to make 4 weeks. The pace would be relentless.

If you really just want a broad overview of Europe in a span of 3-4 weeks then it may be best to take a group tour and leave the driving and planning to someone else. I'm not a big fan of group tours but they do give you a smattering of alot of places in a short time. You don't get to really see anything in depth or immerse yourself in the culture.

If you want to do 3-4 weeks on your own then I'd suggest eliminating at least half of the places you have planned. A couple of countries would be plenty - which ones based on your interests.

justineparis

Wow there, you don't want a tour of train stations and airports do you?
First stay in London , its a hub, and there is a TON to see and do there, and its easy to daytrip to Bath , Brighton, Stratford on Avon etc etc from there. Staying at a smaller place makes little sense since really .

London needs 5-7 days ( if you include a few daytrips out ) and Paris needs at least 5( if you include a daytrip out to Versailles for instance) ,

Italy Spain and Greece, oh come on, three countries , plus the two already, sounds exhausting and you will barely see anything, narrow it down.

What exactly do you wish to see in those places, are you just naming a whole bunch of stuff randomly?

Athens is one of my least favorite cities in Europe ( hmm, no, it is my least favorite ) but love the Greek islands.
Italy ,well which cities, Rome, Florence, Venice, something else? Spain, hello, another full country, huge.

You need to sit down and literally list your priorities , 3-4 weeks is not that long at all. I know Americans think 3-4 weeks is a long time , compared to the usual 1-2 weeks they get , but really to visit a CONTINENT( Europe), one needs to
get real.

Also, you will likely take a mix of rail and flights, booking early gets best prices. You could rough out something like London, trian ( Eurostar) to Paris, then flight to Rome or Barcelona, then flight to next place, then fly home from final place. Booking open jaw flight so you don't have to back track, when looking at prices you are looking for "multi destination" flights, not two one ways .

StCirq

WAY too rushed a schedule. WAY too much time on transportation rather than enjoying being places. I agree that for most Americans 3-4 weeks seems like a really long vacation. It's not, in Europe.

A week in England is a good start. Two days in Paris isn't worth the pounds it will cost you to get there - you should plan on a bare minimum of 5 days, more if you want to do daytrips to places like Versailles, Giverny, Fontainebleau, Chantilly, etc.

Then you've got to cut out at least on, preferably two, other countries. Spain and Greece are the outliers - I'd cross at least one off.

Make sure you book open-jaw flights.

I'll echo what Justine said - what are your priorities? You can't possibly see everything in this short (yes, short!) period of time, so scour the tour guides and figure out what is most important to you in at MOST 4 countries that are easily accessible to each other, then narrow it down.

mamcalice

I find the generalizations about "most Americans" a bit absurd. I am an American and wouldn't think of taking a trip such as you suggest in 3-4 weeks. You will be exhausted after two weeks if you trave at that pace.

Consider London with day trips (one week); Paris with day trips (one week); Italy (two cities perhaps Venice and Rome), if you plan 3 weeks. If you will be gone for 4, add additional destinations in Italy such as the Lakes or the Amalfi Coast or Florence and the Tuscan countryside.

You will have a much more pleasant trip if you have a chance to enjoy the places you visit rather than rushing from place to place.

And fly into your first city and home from your last. Happy planning!

Heimdall

I think what StCirq meant was that most Americans get only about two weeks annual vacation, and few would be able to take 3-4 weeks at a time. I am also American, and can stretch my holidays to five weeks per year, so am more fortunate than most in that respect. ;-)

PalenQ

If going by public transportation on a rather wide-ranging trip you will often be using Europe's superb IME train system so investigate some kind of railpass - some great sources for planning a rail trip IMO are www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com - download the latter's free and superb IMO European Planning & Rail Guide for lots of great rail-oriented itineraries in all those countries (http://www.budgeteuropetravel.com/id2.html).

You can also maximize time and save on hotel costs by hopping any of zillions of overnight trains running across Europe - relocated from one country to another whilst sleeping! This is also a good way IME to meet other travelers doing the same thing on Europe's amazing IMO overnight trains.

justineparis

mamcalice, I am not sure what is absurd, most Americans do not get long holidays, so most DO consider a 3-4 week trip and long trip, you deny this?

Most Austrailians get longer holidays, ( they have 4 weeks normally I believe) so their idea of a longer trip would be closer to 8-12 weeks.

See the difference or you do just like to assume that anything said about Americans is derogatory and get all defenisive ?

kerouac

Step 1 -- set up your itinerary in some sensible geographical order. It is extremely rare that England, Spain and Greece can fit in the same short trip.

nytraveler

This is just way too much in way too little time.

First, get a map and check how far cities are apart.

Then look at train and air schedules to get an idea of transit from one place to another (it will usually take most of a day to get from one city to another).

So, if you go 8 places in 3 weeks, you will actually have 13 days on the ground (21 - 8 travel days) - or about 1.5 days per location. this is much closer to the Bataan death march than a vacation.

In 3 weeks I would pick 3 or at most 4 cities (not countries) to stay in. That way you will have at least a little time to get a feeling for each places (IMHO to see much o fmajor cities like London or Paris the first time you really need 5 days - 6 nights).

This is a time when less is more. And you should use train or air between cities - depending on which. Tube and Metro is local within a city - not between them. There are long-distance bus routes in some countries but trains are usually much faster and more comfortable. Not sure what you mean by water - but if yuo're talking about a cruise - that is the best way to see practically nothing of europe a lot of the inside of a boat.

My best reco is to get some of the Michelin green guides. They will list the top sights in each place and tell you how long it will take to see them (The Eiffel tower is half a day - not 30 minutes). For travel times look at the bahn.de website which lists almost all train schedules for europe (inter-city trains, not local subway or metro in cities).

bilboburgler

Well as suggested the main route around should be by train. Links already provided above see PalenQ.

So London, Paris, Italy, Greece with the final bit done by flight or ferry. Venice/Rome/Florence airports all fly into a bunch of Greek islands using cheepo airlines. If you want to use Ferry you could do some from Bari or Brindisi (I forget)

Barcelona is out on left field but if you wanted to do it you could fly in from just about any of the major cities you plan to visit so cutting out a train journey as Barcelona is on just about every cheepo airline's itinary. Every time you move on a holiday you will lose most of a day but the good thing is you get to meet new people.

In terms of the Summer you need to think about the exact month as Italy gets pretty busy in August but is still reasonable in June. Barcelona is similar. Europeans can get 4 to 6 weeks holiday a year so holiday regions can get vrey busy.

OCaTG

Thanks, everyone, for your comments - excellent advice by all. You're right - we need to narrow the field a bit, so will get to work doing that. I suspected it was unrealistic, but as always, I like to defer to the experts (like all of you). Again, thanks for your honest feedback. It helps a lot and I sincerely appreciate it!

Sassafrass

I commend you for seeking advice and actually taking it to heart.

When DH and I are considering a trip, we each write down four or five places, cities or countries we most want to see, then we each order the priority and compare our choices. That might help you and your GD to narrow things down to the two or three places you both would most want to visit. Then see what other places could be reasonably added as day trips, etc.

Look at logical travel progressions. For example, With four weeks, you might do two cities (London & Paris) and one country (Italy), or you could do London, Paris, Provence, Barcelona and Northern Spain. You and your GD will find the right combination for you.

Cowboy1968

If you left out Greece, and narrowed down "Spain" to Catalunya, and extended your stay in Paris, and focused on what to see in "Italy" you could find pretty convenient ways to use land/sea transport between those destinations.

In England (and that does not include destinations in Scotland or Wales ), I'd base myself in London.
First, there is a ton to see and do in London.
Second, you have great and very frequent rail connections to the nearby destinations in England. Even those within 1-2 hrs by rail will keep you busy for a year.

From London you can easily get to Paris on the Eurostar.
Allow at least as much time as StCirq suggested. You will spend a good deal of time just box-ticking the big sights, so plan for some time to just walk around and explore the city beyond the queues at the Louvre or Tour Eiffel.

Barcelona could be your next stop, also by (mostly highspeed) rail. I guess 3-4 nights are a minimum. If you want to add sidetrips, e.g. to Montserrat monastery, add another night as a minimum.

From Barcelona you can take the regular ferry to Genoa. This could be a much cheaper surrogate for a Mediterranean cruise and will "force" you to rest 1.5 days before you hit Italy.

Then align your destinations in Italy with your preferences (and budget). Try, if you can, to catch also a glimpse of the Italian countryside and small towns and "hang loose" in San Gimignano or Siena and not only hit the tourist hotspot major cities like Florence or Rome.

All the above are just random examples, but you should quit thinking in political boundaries, i.e. whole countries, but more in regions / cities you consider must-sees for you. And what other destinations can be reached from there without wasting all your vacation on train station platforms and on transport.

PalenQ

s, Italy, Greece with the final bit done by flight or ferry>

and one of the perks of a railpass that covers both Italy and Greece is that it is valid for free passage on several boats going between Italy and Greece - free for deck passage that is - you pay extra for sleeping berths but those at least in Pullman reclining seats can be very cheap.

Venice, Bari and Ancone to Corfu and Patras are some routes covered. Once in Greece a railpass is fairly useless as buses often run more direct routes - the train system is very limited and is actually being reduced I think.

OCaTG

Again, more excellent suggestions. I hadn't thought about "regions" versus "countries" - an interesting and logical approach and I like the idea for my GD and I to write down the top 4-5 places/sites/interests points rather than countries and see where the trends take us.

You guys are all awesome and I appreciate your candid observations and recommendations!

Heimdall

Unless money is a huge issue I wouldn't recommend a ferry from Italy to Greece, even with a rail pass. The shortest route to the Greek mainland, Bari - Igoumenitsa, takes 10½ hours. Add to that the time it takes you to get to the Italian port, and the time to travel from Igoumenitsa or Patras to, say, Athens or Santorini, and you have eaten up a couple of days in travel. In contrast, flights from Rome to Athens take only 3 hours. A random check for Aegean Airlines flights in June showed Saver fares for only €66.62 per person including taxes.

PalenQ

Actually an overnight ferry from say Venice (no need to go to a distant port but leave right from Venice proper) to Patras can save time and money - money on a hotel night and you travel largely by night - boats have timed buses to meet them to whisk folks to Athens - or from Patras it is a short distance to Olympia, via train or bus for a neat first-night stop. Plus you can stop off at Corfu easily for a day or two in that gorgeous island and then mosey onto Patras by boat another day.

Well I guess flying may overall be quicker by flying even on a short flight can take up much of a half-day - getting to the airport, waiting for flight that could be delayed - waiting for baggage - getting into the city, etc.

Plus these boats IME are kind of like cruise ships with many amenities aboard - treat it as a travel adventure - you can fly anywhere but the opportunity to experience this type of boat travel is rare in Europe.

Cowboy1968

The flight time from Rome to Athens is one hour less than posted as Greece is already on Eastern European Time, one hour ahead of Rome or Paris.

clausar

The flight time from Rome to Athens or vv is 2 hours....

Of course taking the ferry ( especially from Venice) will last much much longer, and will be much more expensive than the offer of Aegean Airlines ( 67 Euros per person/way )..

Sleeping on a seat isn't very comfortable and paying for a cabin is very expensive.