London - maybe Paris and Italy? HELP!
 

So I'm off to London for about 10 days in September. I'm looking into stopping in Paris and Italy as well during the 10 days.. but I need some serious advice and help for this! I heard trains are easiest, and for me, it makes me the happiest because I'm not a great flyer - is this true? And if anyone does know about this, or even did this - if I take a train will I be able to stop in Paris before getting myself to Italy? I'd really appericate any information or comments or recomendations you have on this! It'd be so helpful :)

Thanks!
- Rosie

No way is 10 day enough for London, Paris and Italy. (And is this 10 days on the ground - or are you counting the day you arrive and hte day you leave - in which case you only have 8 days on the ground.)

If you have never been to any of these places - and it sounds like it from your question, 10 full days on the ground can give you a taste of London and Paris - or London and one place in Italy.

For the former you would take the Eurostar train from London to Paris. For the latter you would fly from London to Rome (the train would take forever).

In either case you should get open jaw plane tickets - into the first city and out of the last. It doesn;t cost any more and avoids wasting a day returning to London.

You can't really <i>do</i> London, Paris and Italy in 10 days.

And - what do you mean by 'Italy'-- it is a very big place. Do you mean Rome? Or Venice? or Florence? or someplace else?

And - what do you mean by '10 days'? Is that the time you have on the ground in Europe - meaning a 12 day trip. Or is 10 days the total length of your trip? If it is a 10 day-total trip, that only leaves about 7.5 days on the ground.)

And - every time you move from one city to another you lose between 1/2 a day (London to Paris for instance) and nearly a full day - like London to Rome.

So, tell us more and we can help you.

was posting the same time as nytraveler . . .

I would stick with London and Paris. Don't spend your ten days in transit!

London then Paris by the Eurostar. Fly home from Paris and save Italy for another time . There is so much to see in both cities and you can certainly make a short day trip or two out of London and/or Paris.

Maybe Canterbury and/or Bath, from London and Giverny, Chartres and/or Reims from Paris. Although, there is plenty to do without ever leaving either city.

12 days, but we took out 2 days for travel (there and back home).

We have everything planned out for what we want to see and do in London, but by the looks of it we do have 3-4 days where it's just kind of do whatever we'd like to do. I was really hopeing to get to Italy and see Rome for 2 days.

It's hardly worth traveling all the way from London to Rome for 2 days. You certainly can't do it by train, and even if you flew (and had planned to fly home from Rome), you'd have barely more than a single day in Rome. It's just unrealistic. Save Italy for another trip when you can actually do it justice. Or extend your trip by another week or two.

I feel like being in one place for 10 days is just going to go to waste.. Would Paris be a waste?

So does what you have planned out for London cover 6 days of your 10? And then you have 4 extra days?

I agree that trying to see two more large cities in that time is not doable unless it is a drive-by of each (even though the Eurostar (train) from London to Paris only take about 2-1/2 hours, depending upon what time your train leaves (it's already July, not sure what tickets are left) and where you are staying in Paris, transit could equal most of a day.

We took an overnight train from Paris to Venice (so not even as far as Rome) and it truly took the whole night! I'm not sure how much longer it would take to get to Rome...so again, you will lose at least a day in transit.

Yes, you can do it, but the bigger question is will it be enjoyable for the one or one-and-a-half days you get in each city.

IMO, you really can only add one other city, and if it is Rome, should fly.

But if you are still set on this, perhaps if you post your whole itinerary, we can help see if it is truly doable at all.

OK, we were posting at the same time.

No, Paris is not a waste at all, and much more doable.

Would it be easier to take a train to Paris? I was looking into some train information and websites say that it takes about 2-3 hours to get from London to Paris.

Yes, very easy to take the train. It is called the Eurostar. Go to www.eurostar.com. It takes about 2-1/2 hours, though there is a time diffence between London and Paris, so you lose an hour.

Book your tickets through that website, not another one. You can print them out at home.

The train leaves from St Pancras in London and takes your straight into Paris, to Gare du Nord.

"<i>I feel like being in one place for 10 days is just going to go to waste.. Would Paris be a waste?</i>


London could fill 10 months. It mostly depends on what you want to see/do in London - why not tell us what your plans are and we can let you know what is realistic.

But w/ 10 days 'on the ground - and assuming you have your flights booked so you have to return to London a day before flying out, 6 days in London, 3 days in Paris and 1 more day in London would make a great trip.

Or even better - fly on to Paris immediately after landing, spend 3.5 days there, train to London, 6.5 days there, fly home

But first of all- let us know what you have planned for London . . .

Of course it's easier to take a train to Paris than to Rome. Do you have a map of Europe?

The Eurostar takes about 2.5 hours. And no, Paris is not a waste. Hardly anything in Europe is a waste. What is a waste is spending hours and hours on trains and planes when you could be out enjoying things.

London and Paris is a great combination. Fly home from Paris so you don't have to backtrack.

I don't have the written paper of what were doing right infront of me but we basically have everything we want to see done in about 4 days. Were going to the things that we want to see the most being as this isn't going to be my first and last trip to London - I'm just concerned on having all this extra time, so to say, with nothing planned and just going off what we want to do.

StCirq - that would be ideal but we have a flight home out of London that has been booked for months now.

"<i>we basically have everything we want to see done in about 4 days</i>"

I may be 100% wrong, but I <i>suspect</i> your plans for London may be overly ambitious (unless you are only planning on visiting 6 or 7 major sites)

London is HUGE and it does take a lot of time to get around. W/o knowing what you want to see/do, it is hard give useful advice.

There's not that many sites that we want to see, in all honesty. We did our research of narrowed everything down and all because we really wanted to do another place but we're not too sure where to go

There is plenty to do in London for months! I went for 11 days and took two day trips to Oxford and Bath. But if you want to go to Paris, go! Take the Eurostar and spend a few days. I wouldn't go to Italy unless you have more time. I agree with everyone else, too much time traveling. Have a wonderful trip!

I think everyone IS right about Italy, we agreed that going to Italy would be better as a complete seperate trip.

Now onto my next hassle..
What to do in Paris!?

Rosiecheeks,

I'm not going to try to tell you what to see or do. You've done your research and made your choices with the knowledge that you will be back.

What I, and I think others on this board (although I know you must feel you are getting a lot of flak) would like to do is help you have THE most enjoyable experience possible.

Knowing that you need to get back to London to fly home, choosing one other place besides London would give you a great trip, especially since you aren't crazy about flying.

My suggestion would be to spend one day in London to help get over jet-lag - do something to orient yourself to the city. A walking to with www.walks.com would be ideal.

Then train to Paris, spend 4-5 days there including one day trip to Versailles, Giverny, Chartes etc. Do like you did for London - pick your highligts. Then train back to London for the remainder of your trip, following your planned itinerary.

So much help, thank you :)

Hey Rosie, choosing what to do in Paris isn't a hassle, it's great fun working out what you would like to see. I like the idea of going straight to Paris when you land in London and then spend the second half of your time in London and fly straight home from there.

Why don't you tell us what your interests are and then we can help you plan out your days in Paris so that you get the best value out of them. The city is quite spread out and you can waste a lot of time doubling back and forth if you don't have a logical plan of some sort.

Don't worry about running out of things to do, there is lots to see and do in Paris. I've had about 3 weeks in Paris over two trips and have barely scratched the surface.

You've chosen two beautiful cities to visit, I hope you enjoy them both.

I'm going to Paris in September! It sounds like you've been to London before - have you already been to Paris? I am so very excited - I've never been. Top four for me are Musee D'Orsay, St. Chappelle, Notre Dame, and the Louvre. I'm going to the Eiffel Tower of course but it isn't at the top of my list. I have what seems to be about a 3-4 hour walk planned in the Latin Quarter with a visit to the Cluny Museum (Middle Ages). I love museums and am going alone.

I'm sure if you love shopping, many Fodorites can tell you where to go! Enjoy!!!

amamax2'ssuggestion makes sense. The main reason I suggested going straight on to Paris instead . . . It eliminates one set of traveling into central London/checking in/packing/checking out/traveling/checking in/traveling.

So - say you land at LHR in the AM, you can book an onward flight and be in Paris in time for Lunch. Spend the next 4 nights in Paris, take the Eurostar to London and settle in for the rest of your time.

This would be less hectic and a more efficient use of your time.

janisj's suggestion is also a good one if you don't mind one more flight.

I was trying to avoid you landing at LHR and then having to make the Eurostar, just in case the plane is delayed, etc.

I was also thinking that by doing something that first day to orient yourself, you could make adjustments (if necessary) to your London schedule prior to actually carrying your itinerary out.

"<i>I was trying to avoid you landing at LHR and then having to make the Eurostar, just in case the plane is delayed, etc. </i>"

I never suggest landing in London to take the Eurostar to Paris the same day. That is simply too much hassle.

And I personally think getting all the initial travel out of the way would actually help w/ the jetlag. The hassle of getting into London only to leave the next morning would just prolong things IMO.

It used to be that the best price you could get for the Eurostar was a RT London-Paris-London. Like many people, we booked that and simply never used the return to London. (The price savings were that good.)

janisj,

I think you misunderstood my post. Of course you didn't suggest that! I was agreeing with you that flying on would be a smart thing to do, for all the reasons you state.

But the OP said she wanted to avoid flying if possible. She wants to take a train.

So I was explaining why I suggested she spend the first night in London. Believe me, I always think your advice is fantastic! :))

Rosie,

You should also check prices of the Eurostar vs adding on a flight...the cheapest train seats for Sept are probably gone by now, so it may be worth "grinning and bearing" another quick flight.

"<i>But the OP said she wanted to avoid flying if possible. She wants to take a train.</i>"

I understand that. But she needs to know that changing terminals at LHR (or possibly not even having to change terminal) is a lot less nerve wracking than crossing London to St Pancras.

Planning Paris is a hassle? How is that? There are a million guidebooks, videos, and websites out there to guide you. Not to mention thousands and thousands of posts here on Fodors. What led you to consider a stop in Paris to begin with?

I also find it perplexing that you are planning a REALLY short trip to Europe and are worried about "all the extra time" you have. Heck, you have barely enough time to see anything as it is. Most people have exactly the opposite problem - they want to cram way too much sightseeing into a short period. You seem to think you're going to be at loose ends because there's not enough to do and see, which is just so, so wrong. People spend weeks, months, in London and Paris and never, ever run out of things to do. I sincerely doubt you'll have more than a second of wasted or "down" time in either city.