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.

You will have no language problems in Paris - 3 or 4 words of French (merci - thank you, s'il vous plaît - please, basics like that) - is all you really need. Sure, being fluent in French would be great, but 95% of visitors aren't.

Do your kids understand they will be up and out of bed VERY early in the AM while on tour? That they likely won't have a choice of where to sit on the bus (the guide will shift people every day so no one gets mad about a 'bad' seat)? You really (REALLY) don't want to take most of your meals w/ the 40+ other passengers at places that take coach tour groups.

In London -- the only places you will find any sort of lines, or any to worry about, are the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey. In Paris --the Louvre and Musee d'Orsay. But there are ways to avoid all of those queues.

In any case, get the girls involved in anticipating the trip. Trvel is educational! The public library often has travel videos and guidebooks. Or buy a guidebook or two. Rick Steves' books might be reassuring for neophyte travelers.

Look at www.walks.com. They have a wonderfully wide choice of London walking tours. And there are similar tours in Paris. Not to speak of Segue tours and bicycle tours.

But independent travel planning takes time. And hours here on Fodors :-). If you don't have that time or just don't feel comfortable doing the planning, a tour is a perfectly acceptable compromise. Those of us here at Fodors lean heavily toward independent travel. But, like many of us, my first trip to Europe was a tour.

One last thought: this trip might work better in reverse, starting in Paris and ending with the independent segment, once you've become more comfortable.

Oh, and don't worry about not speaking French.

Oh, Janisj ... had not thought of that. One kid is an early riser (5am year-round without an alarm clock), the other not so much. You're right, that could be a killjoy for her.

OK, you're persuading me away from the tour idea altogether. I'll start a new thread.

Thank you, everyone! Merci! :-)

Kandace

What exactly does the tour you're looking at include? The Globus tour I checked didn't seem to take you IN anywhere, so it wouldn't help with lines. And as janisj says, there are ways around the lines. And with 13 y.o.s you might want to spend more time walking outside rather than inside.

When I first went to Paris a long, long time ago, not speaking French was a bit of a problem. Not any more. You do need a half dozen polite words, so that you can say Bonjour Madame/Monsieur when entering a shop, for example, but any guidebook will have those.

And if you're worried about being obnoxious (and since you're worried, you won't be!) a large tour group is far more obnoxious than almost all independents.

If you're prepared to do some research, you can plan a much better time for yourselves in London and Paris than you'd get from any packaged tour. That's where this forum comes in- we LOVE planning itineraries and this is where we come when we need help planning our own :)

I can understand feeling intimidated if you aren't used to big cities, or feeling unsure because you don't speak French- however, it would be a shame if you allowed those feelings to put a damper on your trip. London and Paris receive millions of tourists a year from all over the world. Most of them are a lot stupider and less culturally sensitive than you, and they muddle through just fine. You and your family will have no problem seeing London and Paris independently, as long as you do your homework beforehand.

I would have thought that an organized tour would be anathema to two 13 yr olds!
They might want to shop (or preferably window shop in Paris and London ;) ) and not trail around with old people. What's the average age of people on the tour you're taking?

Agree with everyone else. London and Paris are easy to plan & navigate solo.

OOps I see you're convinced! Good luck with your independent plans! :)

Kandace,

We (DH, DS, mother in law and I) went to London and Paris on our own two years ago. I too was at first a bit hesitant about Paris because I was the only one in the family who knew a few and I mean a few words in French. However, I went to the local library and took out Pimsler French learning tapes a few months prior to our trip.

It worked wonders. I learned enough to ask for basic information such as for a pitcher of water, for the bill etc. The most important phrase I learned was asking in French if they understood English. As long as we made the attempt to speak in French everyone always responded in English and were very pleasant.

Paris is also very easy to navigate by metro and bus as well as by walking.

What else is there besides the Eiffel Tower? Tons of things really. The Musee de Orsay is in a converted train station and holds magnificent art work. The building is worth seeing for the architecture alone never mind the impressionist paintings inside.

The Louvre is well worth plenty of time. Climbing to the top of the Arc de Triomphe is fun and affords a beautiful view of Paris including a view of the Eiffel Tower. There are tons of parks to meander about, Luxembourg Gardens being just one. We didn't get to do this but with 13 year old girls you can spend time window shopping. Saint Chappelle with its gorgeous stained glass. I could go on and on.

I found on bus tours you drive by places and don't really get to go in to explore only but a very few. You do get to see gift shops on bus tours and you have to stick to their preset time schedule. Independent travel affords you time to stop and spend as much or as little time as you and your family wants to spend at a particular venue.

Hi - Thirsk is only a few miles up the road from my village but it sounds as if you are pretty much sorted with this part of your trip. But let me know if you think I can help.
And do try and visit the Ritz in Thirsk - a tiny, independent cinema where you'll be the only ones who aren't locals!
http://www.btinternet.com/~denison/ritz.htm
And if you DO have some spare time in the Thirsk area your girls would love this place (note you need to buy tickets in advance).
http://www.theforbiddencorner.co.uk/

This thread appeared to me to be one of those doomed to ask-question-get-answers-reply-with-reasons-why-not. I'm glad to see at least a semblance of interest now in the OP's rebuttal.

I would suggest that if 2 of the party are adventuresome and 2 are not, maybe the 2 that are could go forth with some confidence that hardly any tourists die or are lost forever in Paris and the other 2 will follow. I try not to listen to dire warnings about a place ("I've heard less-than-encouraging things about Paris...") unless they come from a good source. Casual visitors to a place are rarely that. There must be a reason so many of us love that particular city.

i might agree about doing Paris first, except that your family [at least the less adventurous part of it] will feel happier if its first taste of things foreign is in a country where they have a fighting chance of understanding a bit of the language - but you do know that they speak funny up north, don't you?

the english you hear in Manchester and Thirsk might not be quite what you are expecting!

I agree with annhig. My sister & I took a trip some years ago to Edinburgh, London & Paris in that order, her first time out of the US in a place you couldn't drive to. Edinburgh must have felt like another planet to her and she was terribly homesick. London was better. But she could not cope with Paris at all and paid to change her ticket and go home early. My point is this, starting with England may be a good idea because if the less adventurous in the family hate Paris, as my sister did, it won't taint England as much and they'll be closer in time to being home.

@MmePerdu - that's very interesting. In what respects did Edinburgh feel like another planet? And what did she hate about Paris?

Well, I guess, I'm from another planet, because I don't see this as any kind of "doomed" thread.

It appears that people are being very honest and giving honest opinions. One of which is to try and divest the OP of her unknown fear of "things French". She seems very concerned that she doesn't speak French and that's the reason for shortening her visit to France!

There's nothing to fear about not knowing a foreign language. I've been to plenty of places where I didn't speak a word of the language and couldn't even guess at what might be acceptable - Afghanistan as an example. So, posters are trying to tell the OP not to give in to her fears and to enjoy France. I don't see that as a "doom" scenario.

BTW, can anyone please tell me what the name of this other planet is that I'm living on? :)

Thursdaysd, regarding Edinburgh, I had been in charge of choosing our accommodation. I like old things so got us a little twin room above a pub in Grassmarket. I loved it but she thought it was awful - too small, too "foreign", charm notwithstanding. Bad start, it really set off her first bout of homesickness for family and San Diego where she lives. She was in charge of London accommodations and friends of hers said stay in Ealing, more for your money and it was true. But no charm, far from everything, I hated it. However, it was more like US motels so she was relatively happy. Then Paris, my one-time home, excited to show my little sister. Doom. Obviously too foreign, comments about the food, "aren't there any delis", this after we'd just left a beautiful charcuterie with take-out for our dinner. After a very nice meal of chicken in a nice sauce, too expensive, "it was only chicken". All in all it was a disaster and I was more relieved than she when she timidly asked if I'd be mad if she went home a week early. I felt so bad for her but also much relieved.

Clearly, travel is not for everyone and there's no shame whatsoever in loving to be home.

If you're not keen on Paris once you get there, you might do a day trip to Reims (45 mins. from Paris on the TGV) and visit a champagne cellar and see the amazing cathedral there. But Paris is surprisingly addictive and wonderful and the metro is really easy to use. Get yourself a good tour guide to Paris -- Fodor's is quite good -- and check it out. There are all kinds of things to do and lots of day trips to take if the city seems too much.

@MmePerdu - thanks for the answer. I was wondering if there were lessons for the OP. I agree that it's good we don't all like the same things, but it sounds like different accommodations could have improved the trip. Maybe a more gradual immersion?

Another good day trip from Paris is Chartres, I went for the cathedral (especially the stained glass), but found that the town was worth seeing too. And I was interested in how abruptly and quickly the city ended and the countryside began.

Thank you, everyone. Loving the sharing of information here!

You have me thinking in a different direction than I originally thought. Personally, I'd rather go the independent route, but thought it would be easier for the other half of the family to know what's mapped out all in advance. Had not considered all the ramifications of it, though.

We don't really like being tied down and never seem to match up with other people's timeframes, now that I think about it. I'm still a bit hesitant about France -- in part because I *do* know other languages and have understood what "natives" say about non-English-speaking people, even when they are being very nice to tourists' faces :-) -- but heck, it's only March. We're not leaving for another six months, at least. The Pimsleur suggestion was a good one; I pick up languages easily and can buckle down and learn enough to scrape by.

Thanks again ... will mull over your great suggestions and start another, more open-minded thread.

Kandace

Thursdaysd, I don't believe different accommodations would have made a difference or at least enough difference. The Paris hotel was the one we chose by consensus and, while she liked it, it didn't seem to help. I think it was a simple case of culture shock at every turn. Too much all at once and it hadn't occurred to either of us that it might be the case. She has since traveled to Europe and the UK with her husband and enjoyed herself, more a bit of home on her arm than I could be for her.

Kandace, have you ever had respect for people here who would demean anyone who didn't speak English? So what, if in France, someone thinks unkindly of people who don't speak French....you'll likely never see them again.

Go and enjoy, realizing that most people will not expect you to be fluent in French.