Itinerary critique, please
 

Opinions on this itinerary?

We are a family of four -- 13yo twin daughters (one thrilled to travel, one timid traveler). We have 13 days to spend, including travel to and from JFK. I'm the only one who's been to Europe (German-speaking countries) -- once with a tour and once independently.

I'm trying to hit a balance of things different people in the family will enjoy, plus some independence and some having-things-taken-care-of.

Day
1: fly JFK to Manchester
2: arrive Manchester, train to Thirsk (Herriot country)
3: Thirsk
4: Thirsk
5: train to London (hook up with tour here)
6: London
7: London
8: London
9: train to Paris
10: Paris
11: Paris
12: fly home from Paris to JFK

Your comments are appreciated -- thanks.

Kandace

May I presume the Thirsk part of the trip is in the "some having-things-taken-care-of" category?

For me personally, more time in Paris would be nice but it looks like that might not be possible this time? I'd take a day away from Thirsk and add it to Paris.

Have a great trip!

I agree completely with TD above. I like your plan in general, to limit your locations with the short time you have. But Paris deserves that day, no question. If everyone had already spent time in Europe and wanted more countryside time it would be different. But given that this is a first European trip for 3 quarters of your party, do take 1 day from Thirsk and add it to Paris.

What does "hook up with tour" cover?

Is your flight from JFK overnight? You will probably arrive sleepy and jet-lagged. So I can see the use of that extra day in Thirsk. If your train to Paris arrives early, you'll have another half-day in Paris. So I would urge you to leave your itinerary undisturbed.

Once your itinerary is fixed, buy the train tickets ASAP. There are cheaper fares available early whereas you'll pay much more (like several times as much) close to your travel date.

Thank you. I'm not keen on Paris and would rather spend the whole 13 days between Thirsk and London, but am giving in to the rest of the family's goal of seeing the Eiffel Tower.

No tour company seems to include Thirsk in its itinerary, but husband and I are huge James Herriot fans and nature enthusiasts, so this is our "independent" phase of the trip. One daughter loves waterfalls (likes big cities, too) and the other loves horses (hates big cities). We're hoping to hit a balance of all these things by adding Thirsk. <<yes, I know, "balance" and "13-year-old girls" don't mix well :-) >>

We might be able to fly into Leeds instead of Manchester which would save us an hour or two. I'm checking flight and train times.

Re: the tour, I'm still figuring out which one it will be, probably Globus. The London/Paris tours are pretty comparable -- three or four days in each city. I'd rather not go the tour route but it's what the rest of the family is more comfortable with.

We're planning to return to Europe next year, that time focusing on a more independent trip of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the eastern sliver of France. This trip is a warm-up/confidence builder for the other three. Personally, I think I could take off today with a backpack and just wing it. This family thing is ever a compromise. <smile>

Thanks again --

Kandace

As you've explained it to us now the itinerary makes sense as it is. On what exactly, then, did you want opinions?

I think your itinerary sounds fine, but I don't understand the need to use a tour company for a short time in London and Paris. It is very easy to get to the major sites in both cities.

If you wanted to do a few organized tours, you might look at London Walks (http://www.walks.com/) which has some interesting walks grouped around themes (a Harry Potter walk, for example). I have used ContextRome but they also offer tours in Paris and London (http://www.contexttravel.com/city/pa...family-program) such as a Chocolate Walk. I think these more targeted tours might prove more interesting to your girls.

Since Thirsk seems to be a given, I would be sure to leave London first thing in the morning for Paris. I know you say you are not keen on Paris but there is so much more to the city than just the Eiffel Tower. The more time you can spend there, the more you will love it.

I think you are giving Paris too short a thrift.

Paris is a wonderful city to be walking. You could go from the Eiffel Tower to Les Invalides, cross the Alexander III Bridge and go to the Tuileries to the Place de la Concorde to the Louvre in one direction or in the other direction go along the Champes Elysees to the Arc de Triomphe.

I, too, would suggest doing your own trip and not go with a tour group.


For Paris, I've often seen Michael Osman recommended, although never taken a tour with him (got my own friend who lives in Paris). Just google his name or look at his profile here:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Mike/Osman

Maybe some kindly Fodorite will give you his contact information.

I entirely agree with mama_mia - London and Paris are two of the easiest cities around to visit independently - you don't even have a language barrier in London. They have excellent public transport (and hop-on-hop-off buses for those that like such things) and are endlessly fascinating to those who just wander.

I, too, recommend London Walks, and also Andrew Duncan's books if you want to arrange your own walks. There are many trip reports and itinerary planing threads here from people who have gone independently.

What does your family think it will gain from a tour? I you can post that we can help you explain how to get the same results.

If you're looking at this tour: London & Paris: A Tale of Two Cities Family Vacation (RFF) I really don't see the point. Virtually the whole thing is free time, and the "tour" part appears to be a drive by that you can do yourself on the hop-on bus, or even regular buses.

yes Kandice, having found your way here, you will find that we like nothing more than to help people plan their trips, though I can't guarantee that we will all agree of course!

but what we will agree on is that London and Paris are some of the easiest places to plan independent travel to. you will presumably be finding your own way to London to join up with the tour, and that means you will have already have done the most difficult bit. London to Paris is a doddle on the eurostar, and then you fly home from Paris anyway.

Hotels in both cities are numerous and there are threads here to help you pick one to suit your family's interests and budget; as for transport within London and Paris, they both have excellent transport systems that are pretty easy to negotiate.

of course you can do a tour but you might be surprised at how much fun it is to plan and travel on your own.

"<i>I entirely agree with mama_mia - London and Paris are two of the easiest cities around to visit independently </i>"

I entirely agree w/ mama_mia AND thursdaysd :)

Neither London nor Paris require any sort of guided tour. (except for the mentioned London Walks which are great) And when you look at those guided tour prices you need to multiply the cost by 4. That will be massively expensive. You can do this entirely on your own cheaper than a tour and have more fun. Organized tours are not geared to young teens BTW. Most other passengers will be the ages of their grandparents.

Car for Yorkshire, turn the car in at York and take the train to London, Eurostar to Paris,fly home.

I think this is one of the times when the OP wanted their decisions confirmed rather than critiqued. I see no indication in the 2 posts that there's any flexibility there. It may the best they can do given the constraints she alludes to with the 4 personalities. Our time may be better spent elsewhere.

Odd...how do you know you aren't "keen" on Paris, if you only been to German speaking countries? Paris is worth the time.

Tina

Oh, and I personally think the quickest way to find yourself again traveling "solo", just you and your backpack, is to subject 2 13 y/o girls to stiff "must see" generic type tours. Just my opinion.
Have fun!
P.S. We leave ours kids at home now. ;)
Tina

"<i>I entirely agree w/ mama_mia AND thursdaysd</i>" . . . AND annhig :D (didn't see her post)

<B>MmePerdue:</B> "<i>I see no indication in the 2 posts that there's any flexibility there.</i>"

Since they haven't booked a tour yet we still have a chance to keep them from a possible bad decision.

<B>Kandace_York:</B> What exactly do the rest of the family like about taking a tour? Are they worried about the language difference in Paris? Do they think the cities are too big and complicated to maneuver on your own? Or some other reason?

IMHO a tour for a few days ech in London and Paris is a huge waste of time and money - esp with 2 13 year olds who will want to see completly different thing than most tours provide. Based on my experience of London/paris with teen/tween girls - they will want to spend some time doing what you want and some things for them (Covernt Garden shopping was a huge hit) and they visited the Cluny Museum twice.

I would bag the tour, see some major sights together and then just let everyone go see what they want. As long as everyone has a map, cell phone and carnet or equivalent - exploring is half the fun.

Sorry for the confusion. I was looking for your opinions on the timeframe of Thirsk and the transfer to London, along with general ideas about length of time in London.

I'm wobbling on the idea of the tour, for the reasons so many of you stated. France intimidates me, and I don't speak a word of French. There are only a couple things in France I'd like to see and they're all at the eastern half of the country, which we won't be seeing on this trip. Our daughters are excited about the Eiffel Tower. Beyond that ... ?

London would be easy enough on our own, I think, but don't tours offer the benefits of shorter times in line (or no time waiting), and having convenient hotel/transportation/meals worked out?

I'm OK maneuvering in big cities, but half our family (spouse and one daughter) is not comfortable with it at all. That's why I thought a tour part of the time, and some independence part of the time (in a rural area, at a slower pace), might be OK.

You guys are the experts in these things ... I haven't been to England or France. I *do* want time to spend in Thirsk -- it's actually the only thing I'm greatly looking forward to, so that is non-negotiable.

I've heard less-than-encouraging things about Paris and France, and without knowing the language, I didn't want to be one of those obnoxious tourists who just plunks themselves into a country and expects everyone else to take care of them. A tour, I thought, would remove that barrier.

But I don't *know* that. It's only a guess. That's where all of you come in ... and thank you!

Kandace,
You might start a new topic with a title like "Three days in Paris with 13 yr old girls--suggestions please". I know there have been trip reports by travelers on this topic; they can give you more specific and great ideas on that aspect of your trip.

You can also get some specific recommendations here on hotels with quad rooms, if that is what you are seeking. Really, there is a lot of help available for you.