Eurail is not a train as far as I know.
Fast rains in Europe are called TGV (train grande vitesse) Thalys (er ?), ICE (inter city ? - German trains, great) Eurostar for those I'm used to take. Normal trains are much slower and stop more often, resulting in long trips.

What do you want for recs of hotels in Paris ?
Cheap ? Centrally located (most tourists want to stay in the 5-6, if they have bought a Rick Steve book, they want to be at rue Cler).

I would not forget AirBnb or other such sites completely - I wowuld forget them in big cities, where they are having problems, but not necessarily in smaller towns, however for short trips, I would not bother.

I rented two-three times an apartment in Paris (not Airbnb, and I hope they were legal, at least I had an invoice...) and it is a hassle for short stays : you must make a rendez-vous most of the time, so you must be there, the other guy is late, you lose a lot of time for ... not much for a few days.
(is it correct to make a rendez-vous ? Or do you rendezvous ? or do you make an appointment ? (I am always lost when US use french words actually).

Stay OFF the Eurail site! It is not what you need to deal with train travel in Europe. It is a middle-man meant to make money off people who don't know how to use the national railways of each country.

>>on the Eurail or otherwise.<<

Eurail is not a train -- it is a ticket agency that sells (often over priced) rail passes. For London/Paris Amsterdam a Eurail pass would not benefit you.

>>I expected the language barrier and the money exchange hassles, <<

Language barrier will be pretty much a non-issue. They speak English (of a sort) in London, anyone you run into in the hospitality industry in Paris will speak English, and I swear - most Dutch speak better English than we do :)

There are no money exchange problems either -- you do not 'exchange $$ anywhere. You just use you ATM card to get £ / € cash as you need it. And of course you can use credit cards just like at home.

I would consider flying in to London, then take the Eurostar to Paris (MUCH better/easier than traveling to the airport, flying, and traveling in from CDG. That is a HUGE hassle) You get on n central London and less than 2.5 hours later you get off in central Paris. Then train to Amsterdam (you will go via Brussels). Finally fly home from Amsterdam.

I'd get hotels or apartHotels in Paris and Amsterdam and an ApartHotel in London. An Aparthotel (like Citadines) will give you the space of a small apartment but the amenities of a hotel like a front desk, restaurant/cafe on site.

In London look at Dolphin Square -- nice flats, hotel services, in a nice neighborhood. http://www.dolphinsquare.co.uk/dolphin-house/

Eurail is an agency selling rail tickets in Europe and making a profit. You will want to buy directly from the national railway sites. For more info on train travel, look at TheManinSeat61. com Once you have decided exactly where you want to go, we can help if you are unsure about buying train tickets.

And I get the feeling from quite a few of you that the train is not all it is hyped up to be. Maybe the Eurostar from Paris to London, but I am not seeing great reviews on the Eurail or otherwise. Am I correct on that matter?>

You are misinterpreting 'others' - everyone who has taken European trains will say how modern, fast and comfy they are in general - like janis says flying say London-Paris would take more time and more hassle than Eurostar trains city center to city center - ditto Paris to Amsterdam.

Many folks do not think Eurailpasses live up to hype and in your case no way. But doing rail London-Paris-Amsterdam is the best way to go - few would dispute that.

Europe's trains do IME and most others more than live up to the hype, whatever that may be.

<Mexico, but never to Europe or any other continent for that matter. Apparently there is a cultural difference in how to travel.>

Not really.

Would you rent an apartment in Mexico City and go for... 1 day to Guatemala & return to the DF to sleep? Then 1 day to Cuernavaca & return? Then the next day to Belize & return?

Well you get my point :-)



<Amsterdam, Paris or London>

Those three make an OK 13 day itinerary. Just book hotels, whatever you can afford, in a central location in each city.

Fly into London and out of Paris.

What is your nightly budget for hotels/apartments and do all 4 of you want to be in the same room or apartment?

I am afraid I disagree with Suze and would suggest making Paris your middle stop between London and Amsterdam. As often as we have flown to Paris I dislike CDG airport compared to Schiphol and Heathrow.

Getting to and from cities is very easy. I don't think the "Fly into Boston and day trip to Orlando " comparison is accurate. Except for Eurostar, you just show up, buy a ticket, hop on the train and it goes from city center to city center, several trains a day. Eurostar is more like showing up for a flight, so be sure to take that into account. You show up early and go through security.

It's just that there is so much to see in each city that a day trip from London to Paris would make no sense at all, especially when you already have no time in London.

Tour companies go ridiculously fast, but they have two things you don't. 1) guides that know their way around and 2) preplanned and booked activities. I doubt they wait in the normal admission lines- they probably buy tickets before hand and everyone enters together as a prebooked group. You're traveling with other people, you'll get lost, or argue about where to eat, or anything else that slows you down.

Another thing: if none of you have been to Europe before, it's probably the main sights you want to see. Book ahead as much as possible. You won't believe the lines at some of the museums, or the crowd in front of something like the Mona Lisa. I wouldn't worry about adjusting to the food and money and transit. You've been to Canada and Mexico and presumably major US cities- no problem. What you need to worry about is planning your days efficiently, making sure everyone is on board, and knowing enough for everything to run smoothly.

Lodging depends on what your group wants. All three cities are expensive, and you want to be either central or convenient to transit or both.

Except for Eurostar, you just show up, buy a ticket, hop on the train and it goes from city center to city center, several trains a day>

True can always almost always buy tickets before the train but at full fare - if you know exactly when you want to go book ASAP to get discounted fares often much much lower than walk-up - like Paris-Amsterdam full fare about 200 euros -discounted tickets from 39 euros- same seats same train just a lot cheaper.

<am afraid I disagree with Suze and would suggest making Paris your middle stop>

Fine with me, I don't care which order, my point was to not fly in and out of the same airport.

I've got this one in Amsterdam that may appeal to you: it's "apartment-like" and in a great location

Zoku

https://livezoku.com

Good point, palenq, but I meant more that it was possible from a schedule standpoint. Not recommending it. It's possible in Europe, whereas it isn't in the US due to train and bus infrequency.

prebuying tickets can save a lot of money or waste a lot of money. It all depends on whether the group can make their train on time. I would be nervous doing so on a fast paced itinerary with lots of day trips, because if you're too tired to do the day trip, you're out of money.

Yes London-Paris-Amsterdam two direct train rides and fly into London and out of Amsterdam (whose airport is always near the top of frequent fliers easiest airports to navigate it seems).

prebuying tickets can save a lot of money or waste a lot of money. It all depends on whether the group can make their train on time. I would be nervous doing so on a fast paced itinerary with lots of day trips, because if you're too tired to do the day trip, you're out of money.>

Agree on that - and that is a beauty of a railpass for folks making several train trips - decide once there which trains to take. But again not for 2 trains like OP is taking at max.

I must be nuts because I ❤️ Amsterdam. And such a good base for many daytrips. Shoot me, I spent two weeks there last September and I'm sure I'll return in the future. Sure, it's not "like it used to be" but where is?

There was a time I was able to touch the stones at Stonehenge......time passes and things change.

I was just in London last week.
Spent over 1 hour and 15 minutes in line - after I had filled out my declaration - and then proceeded to French passport control, which took 2 minutes.
The real problem was the British passport line, which took up the other 1 hour and 13 minutes. Only had 2 agents working.
So give yourself plenty of time, if you're going to London.
You can only access the lounge when your train is 30 minutes from the time it departs.
Look at this website to get all information for European travel:
www.maninseat61

I have been to Amsterdam, and I still say it's a waste of time.

'I have been to Amsterdam, and I still say it's a waste of time.'

You can apply for belgian citizenship ;-)

I've been twice in my life - that is soooo far away (1h30 min) and 500+ times to Paris.

I really enjoy Amsterdam, just got back from a long weekend a few weekends ago.

The main road up from the station and the red light district is way too crowded for us but we never go there.

It is very easy to walk over a couple of canals and find lovely views, quiet cafes and lots of character.

A bit of research and we always eat well.

Pics from our trip in August 2017 and summer 2016:

https://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]

<<And I get the feeling from quite a few of you that the train is not all it is hyped up to be. Maybe the Eurostar from Paris to London, but I am not seeing great reviews on the Eurail or otherwise. Am I correct on that matter? >>

Again, don't know what you mean by "Eurail," but I live in Europe, use trains all the time, and absolutely love them. The Eurostar is actually one train I'm not terribly enamored of.

Many folks yes do like Amsterdam, warts and all. Veteran travelers and locals tend not to?

The very useful site for train information is https://www.seat61.com/

Again, don't know what you mean by "Eurail,">

European trains and kind of makes sense.

What's wrong with Amsterdam?

I thought it was an interesting city, easy to get the feel for in a 4-5 day stay.

But no I wouldn't do it as a "day trip" by train from Paris, that idea doesn't really make sense!

Nearly everyone likes Amsterdam on Fodor's posts - I have not been in four years but it could not have changed that much from being my favorite city in Europe - not just for beauty but people watching, etc.

Amsterdam has always been perceived as sleazy by some and was especially so IMO in the 80s and early 90s - but its sheer beauty must still shine.

And I supposed it depends when you visit - summer crowds can be overwhelming in some places. I went to Amsterdam every year for 40 years and saw many changes - good and bad but the ring of canals and stately old buildings lining them are the same.

Now this is not one of Europe's most beautiful cities?-

https://www.google.com/search?q=amst...w=1745&bih=863

Yet some above say the city has dramatically changed for the worse in 4 years since I've been there - I am dubious of this claim but who knows maybe in last 4 years.....

PalenQ, I'm not averse to Amsterdam, I lived there for 10 years and I still come there often. 4 years has seen the mass tourism steamroller arrive, and it's had a dramatic effect. Tourists will be ok, but the city isn't, especially not the city centre. It always used to be possible to live there, even with a modest income, because there used to be a lot of social housing. Much of this has disappeared. Of course, also because of changes in Dutch housing policy, but the rules have changed in worse ways for the centre of Amsterdam and the last 4 years have been a convergence of factors that have had this effect. One of the most marked is how the small business/shopping landscape has utterly changed. For instance, the Nine Streets area has changed beyond recognition in about 2 years time. 4 years ago, still an area with many independent shops, quirky, off beat, with an iron monger thrown in, bakers, greengrocers, specialist shops for the neighbourhood, not only for tourists. Then the rents were raised as big brands eyed the real estate. So now, those shops are gone and with it the special character of the area and big brands have moved in, selling a tourist version of Amsterdam quirkiness. This is one example, but the same has been happening in the Jordaan, the rest of the canal area, the Pijp, and now also the Kinkerbuurt, which used to be beyond the pale, tourist wise, but is now almost as touristy as the Pijp. All this is to the detriment of the local residents, who see their shops disappear, to be replaced by pancake and waffle places that cater to the munchies. Because that is the one genre of tourism that is still flourishing. Last week, the councillor responsible stated that Amsterdam had not done any overt Amsterdam promotion during the last two years. The general feeling is, that Amsterdam want the revenue from tourist tax and has been aggressively promoting the city, without really considering the sustainability of this particular kind of mass tourism for the city.

In fact, you PalenQ, promote the same faux Amsterdam, with your love of pot and of the RLD. The Amsterdam that you loved has almost disappeared. Of course, the photographs look nice, but the reality on the streets is dire.

Lots of cities like London and Paris facing same things but Amsterdam is smaller so effects on locals are deleterious which I also lament - the old little neighborhood shops and especially bakeries were so nice as were neighborhoods.

But your argument is not with tourists who are welcomed in record numbers - aided and abetted by Amsterdam and Holland Tourist offices no doubt. Rather your argument is with local government who has permitted such drastic transformations.

Don't blame me or casual tourists for it. I indeed will find the 'new' Amsterdam less appealing but most tourists will not. The Red-Light District could be abolished overnight by the City of Amsterdam yet it is about the most visited site in the city - a tourist draw, sad or not as that may be.

I sympathize with locals being priced out of tourist cities but you - Amsterdam- can't have it both ways.

I guess Amsterdam is more the 'Venice of the North' than ever before?

"To the detriment of local residents..." No. To the detriment of some of them, yes. But it's local residents also that are pressuring the city to deregulate. It's local residents who want the social housing to disappear or to at least be on less prime real estate. This is something that is happening everywhere. The big brands can pay more rent than a grocery, that's all there is to it. What's happening to Amsterdam isn't on the tourists. It's on the city government, ran by locals.

I can believe that the tourist crowds are immense and irritating. But at last we get to the core of the problem. You're an elitist. You'd like to blame the casual daytripper for being a tourist and not a "traveller" because you don't want to blame who is at fault for Amsterdam's problems. And that's Amsterdam! They could have kept the social housing. They could regulate pot tourism and the RLD into extinction. They chose a different direction.

I have visited Amsterdam 6-7 times over the years. Always liked it...but,
the last visit ( 3 summers ago) was less enjoyable
Perhaps it was July 's crowds, or unusually hot weather, or extrimly expensive
hotel...or too many cyclists zooming around...

The city ( well, the center) seemed a bit " tired".

Well since our OP needs to cut out half the proposed itinerary, maybe they will give Amsterdam a miss this trip!

Well this is not the place to get into a haggle over all of this -OP's thread and we've taken it off-kilter too much.

Amsterdam fits perfectly into the London-Paris-Amsterdam troika and the vast majority of tourists will love it or at least like it.

Why not go to Bruxelles instead? That's a wonderful option.

"To the detriment of local residents..." No. To the detriment of some of them, yes. But it's local residents also that are pressuring the city to deregulate. It's local residents who want the social housing to disappear or to at least be on less prime real estate.

Not in Amsterdam, marvelousmouse, and this is a battle by local residents that has roots well into the 1970s. The plan then was to construct two freeways right through the then poorest part of Amsterdam. Construction of the the Stopera and the metro right through the Nieuwmarkt area were part of this. That large parts of the former jewish neighbourhood had to be torn down for this was of no concern to the then City Governors, because the jews were gone. It was against this that a popular revolt took place. And it was successful. Ever since, a number of socialist aldermen shaped Amsterdam's housing policy along the lines of "living here is a right, not a favor". Until about 2005, when the government set about to deregulate housing corporations. These, cooperative societies before, with members who could influence housing policy on a city level, and indeed on the neighbourhood level, were replaced by private-public partnerships from which residents were excluded. There was huge opposition to this but it happened anyway. Alongside this, the centre of Amsterdam was declared of "exceptional national value", and rent control was abolished to give big real estate developers a chance to contribute to the preservation of it. All this combined to create the perfect storm if you're an Amsterdam resident. The resentment in neighbourhoods like the Kinkerbuurt or the Spaarnebuurt, where residents see their neighbourhood being taken over by real estate outfits that develop for the short let tourist market or for expats stems from experience with this kind of development.

I was part of a few of the citizen initiatives that protested against all of this and I can tell you that it is was not the residents that wanted deregulation. But I gather that you're more knowledgeable about these Amsterdam issues than I am.

And I second Brussels as part of the itinerary. Really nice vibe and good value for money. Compare hotel prices and be amazed.

Brussels is a city that has a few main great sights but which dissapoints many - do not drop Amsterdam, one of Europe's most goregous cities for it but you may want to break your train journey Paris to Amsterdam for a few hours in Brussels to see the few main sights.

If you want to overnight in Belgium do so in lovely Bruges not Brussels if on a tight schedule.

Not everyone agrees with you, Pal. IME, Brussels is a fascinating city, with great prices, plenty of culture and activities (beyond what you call "the few main sights), and some of the best food in Europe (surely miles ahead of Amsterdam in that category). Bruges was lovely 25 years ago and maintains some of its appeal, but for me it's Disneyland.

There are myriad other places that interest me in the Pays Bas: Rotterdam, Ghent, Antwerp, Delft, Den Hague, Den Bosch.....far more than Amsterdam these days.

Pays bas is at the exclusion of Belgium St Cirq. Someyears ago we kicked the Dutch back home. Since then if you want to talk about low lands you talk about Benelux.

Gent Antwerpen are Belgian. Non mais.


I fear Amsterdam is turning into some kind of Brugge whilst Bruxelles stays a ' normal ´ city when normal people live. With therefore a few crappy houses here and there.

I'm talking about the average tourist with limited time - to suggest they go to Brussels or Den Bosch instead of Amsterdam is for what the average tourist wants is just IMO very poor advice. You seem to have little idea of what first-time tourists want to see -put yourself back into a first-time tourist - did you go to Den Bosch or Amsterdam and why?

I agree with StCirq. I think first time visitors want to see interesting places and they choose what the choose because they've heard of them. The greatest service we can do for them is to let them hear of places they may not have already, where the quality of the experience may be far greater, not steer them onto the well-trampled path (though most residents of Den Bosch are no doubt glad to have Amsterdam serving as a barrier to the ruin of their own city).

Yes, there are the box-ticker tourists who wouldn't dream of bypassing a name. But there are some, I know, who'd love to visit a place that's not unlike it was 25 or more years ago, if only they knew where.

And extolling the virtues of an Amsterdam you haven't been to in 4+ years is poor advice. You often go on and on about places you haven't set foot in for years, so how is your "advice" useful?

Have you ever even set foot in Den Bosch? Or Rotterdam? I find it unthinkable that any "average tourist," whatever that might be, could possibly land in either place these days and not be enthralled. Without the gnarly hassles of trying to wade around frightfully expensive Amsterdam these days.

I'm not telling anyone not to go to Amsterdam, but there are choices...some of them more rewarding than others. If the "average first-time tourist" wants to go smoke pot and see a RLD, I'm certainly not going to stop them, but there IS more way more to the Benelux (thanks, Whathello!).