My husband and I (early 50s) have decided on a three week Europe trip for Sept / Oct of 2019. Here is our rough itinerary:

London - 4 nights
Paris - 3 nights
Lucerne - 4 nights
Lake Como - 3 nights
Florence - 4 nights
Rome - 3 nights

Our plan is to fly into London, out of Rome and take the train between cities.

We would welcome feedback / suggestions regarding:
- nights in each place (we don't want a hurried trip but then again there is so much to see)
- other stops to add or substitute for current stops
- should we try to include Amsterdam?
- should we add time in Rome and take a day trip to Pompeii?
- anything else

Our older daughter loved Chamonix / Mont Blanc - Should we adjust our itinerary to get there?

We are casual people who love to walk and explore. We love the outdoors and are not really foodies. Historical sites, museums, architecture, quaint villages and beer interest us.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts about our trip.

>>we don't want a hurried trip but then again there is so much to see<<

1) it is a hurried trip, and 2) the more you try to cram in the less time you have to see/do things.

Just some random comments:

All destinations are not equal. You are allowing more time in Lucerne than either Paris or London (London being your arrival city means you'll be jet lagged so really only about 2.5 usable days)

>>- other stops to add or substitute for current stops<<

Definitely don't add anything - if you want to substitute that's a different question.

>>- should we try to include Amsterdam?<<

Not unless you drop one or two other cities.

>>- should we add time in Rome and take a day trip to Pompeii?<<

Sure - but that would mean dropping/cutting somewhere else.

After accounting for travel times, what you have now is:
London - 3.5 days, 2.5 to 3 of them usable
Paris - 2 days
Lucerne - 3 days
Lake Como - 2 days
Florence - 3 days
Rome - 2 days

Is that a pace that looks OK to you? If so, the mix is fine. But I'd definitely want more time in London, Paris and Rome and a few days in the countryside somewhere.

With 3 weeks I'd seriously consider just London/Paris/Switzerland - or - just Italy/Switzerland

Only thing to possibly add is if budget is at all an issue drop the Swiss stop. Use the four days elsewhere. You'll also have one less currency to deal with.

Thank you. Lots to think about. I appreciate the feedback.

Agree pretty much with Janis. London, Paris and Rome need more time. I'd cut out Lucerne and you would still be rushing through London, Paris and Rome.

IMO, for the time and effort it would take to get to the popular mid-lake area of Lake Como, three nights there are not enough. The train from Luzern to Como takes 3 hours, and then you'd likely ferry to another point on the lake. To then travel to Florence would require either going to Varenna or back to Como to catch a train that would take 3-3.5 hours. Without a car, your sightseeing would probably be done mostly by ferry, so what you could see/do in two days would be constrained by ferry service. Here is a link to the 2018 timetables; service in the same period in 2019 will be similar.

Navigazione Laghi | Lago Maggiore | Lago di Garda | Lago di Como

It sounds like more traveling than actual sightseeing.. too many places. I think you may not be accounting for travel time.. each time you move from one place to another you are checking out of hotel.. getting to train station or airport, then traveling, then getting from arrival point to hotel and checking in.. this all adds up ..

Also.. three nights in a destination is really only 2 full days.. Paris is worth far more than that.. especially since you like wandering, historical sights , museums and architecture..

With three weeks I would choose four places.. and unless you spend more time in a hub city.. you wont be seeing any "quaint villages".. since you wont have time to daytrip out of the cities , and non of them are quaint villages themselves obviously. .

Also when you book flights book open jaw ( usually called multi destination flights on booking sites).. so you dont have to backtrack and waste time.. also , I would start north and work my way south ( so fly into London and out of Rome ) to hopefully get optimal weather in each area..

Wonderful as all those destinations are, I would cut Lucerne and Lake Como this trip and save them for the next one. I would add another night to London, two to Paris and two to Rome.

You mention liking quaint villages and historical sites, but these do not feature in your plans. Rather than big places farther apart, why not look for at least one interesting place near the big cities for quaintness, hiking, etc. You will actually "see" a lot more.

Examples:
London is great, but Bath is simply gorgeous with stunning architecture and important history. It is easy to reach by train from London. Three nts in London and 2 nts in Bath with a stop in Oxford could really enhance and add variety to your trip. Consider at least one theater evening in London and perhaps one afternoon or morning at Hampton Court Palace.

Paris has enough to offer for weeks of exploration, but there are also many great places for day trips. Versailles can be crowded, but it certainly is historical with lovely grounds, and the town, itself, is wonderful. It has a beautiful market. Make a list of things that are important to you to see in Paris and think about how much time they will take, plus travel time from one place to another.

IMHO, Pompeii is a really long day trip from Rome. If it is of great interest to you, then take extra time and spend a day or two on the Amalfi Coast rather than Switzerland or the Lakes. That would also give you some of the outdoor time you mentioned. OTOH, you could visit Ostia Antica from Rome.

Fortunately, you have several months to have fun researching and planning. Take your time. You might decide to do only two big cities, London and Paris or Rome and one other city, and more days in countryside, lake or mountain areas. You might choose a completely different area.

Book long-distance trains as early as possible - usually 3-4 months out for neat discounted fares - but typically non-changeable from a specific train. Don't forget each of those places takes a travel day in between about - with relocating time, etc. thus you only have two full days in Paris- add at least one IMO - I'd also cut some place like Lake Como and spread time around other cities. For lots on trains and booking own tickets check www.seat61.com - www.ricksteves.com and BETS-European Rail Experts. forget anything about rail passes but do look into some kind of pass for days in Switzerland.

Perso we had enough with one day in Lake Como. I'd drop Swtzerland altogether. I'd add 2 days to Paris, 1 to London, one to Rome. Maybe 2 to Rome if you reduce lake Como to one (full) day.

that time of year can be cool and wet in Como area. I'd spend more time in Rome and Paris.

Switzerland too can be funky weather then - yes you IMO should consider dropping Switzerland at that time of year and add Venice - you could take an overnight train Paris to Venice (www.thello.com) -get a private compartment and bring any food and drink aboard and chill. Train fare will offset cost of a night in a hotel.