metou

hello,
i am planning to travel to europe in july . 2 nights in uk , 2 nights in paris , 1 night venice,1 night florence 1 night rome, 3 nights switzerland.

#1. what would be the most economical mode of transport intercountry as well as inter city and as well as locally its approximate cost (very limited budget)

#2.which city is best to stay in swtizerland '

#3. is it better to do the booking for tourist attractions to avoid ques (if so from where to book)

plz suggest

thanks in advance

sassy_cat

You won't see many tourist attractions as most of the time you'll be traveling between countries/cities and if you have a very limited budget then you really can't afford to hop around so much.

Save money and valuable time and spend 10 nights in London & Paris (travel between the two by eurostar train.. in London use the Tube or bus and in Paris the Metro)

or spend 10 nights in Italy (travel between cities by train).. you could also spend a couple of night in Switzerland via train if you really want to.

mamcalice

Very hectic, very expensive trip and you will not have much to remember.

Follow sassy's suggestion and choose either Italy or London and Paris. Leave yourself time to savor the places you visit. Perhaps Italy will be a bit more economical than London and Paris. London, especially, is very pricey.

annhig

also i suggest that you contact the moderators [use the little triangle on the top RH corner of your screen] as you have marked this as a trip report, which it isn't.

really, the UK in 2 nights? we may look titchy on the map but 2 nights actually only gives you one day. where are you flying into and out of?

my ability to add up suggests that you have 10 nights - ideal for a 2 or 3 base trip, IMHO. think the place you're flying into, the place you're flying out of, and possibly one place in between.

gh21

I agree with the previous posters. If you have a very limited budget, why spend it in on many train segments? Stay in no more than 2-3 places and actually see the sights rather than just passing through. As many others have pointed out on this forum, you eat up half a day each time you move from one city to another-- getting to train station, X hours on the train, getting from train station to new hotel, checking in etc, etc. Plot the timing out on paper along with what you hope to see in each place and I think you will realize your plans are overambitious. I hope we have convinced you to pare down the numbers of cities you will visit in 10 days.

nytraveler

You have planned a lovely tour of the train stations of europe - since that;s all you will have to see. And for someone on a budget you will be spending a larger amount getting from one city to another. You have 10 nights in europe - but I'm assuming 8 actual days on the ground - since the day you arrive is lost to jet lag and the last day is lost to leaving.

If it were me I would pick 2 places and actually see something of them. Visit London and Paris. Or Switzerland (1 city only) and Venice or Florence. Otherwise you will have spent a lot of money to see/do practically nothing.

StCirq

I think the most expedient and least expensive way for you to pull off this trip is to rent a helicopter.

annhig

now wait for the howls of outrage that we've not been nice enough to the OP.

janisj

"<i>now wait for the howls of outrage that we've not been nice enough to the OP.</i>"

I'll take the heat -- earlier I hit her other/identical thread w/:

>><i>"I don't mean to sound snarky but it really doesn't matter how you travel. All you will see is the inside of airports or train/train stations.

You will only have 1 day free in London, 1.5 days in Paris, less than 1/2 a day in Venice, about 1/2 a day in Florence, and approx 2 days in Switzerland. totally irrational - sorry.</i><<

carolyn

metou, if you are looking for an overview-type of European trip, you might check out a tour. Globus is good for getting a taste of different cities/countries, and then you can go back on your own and spend time at the places you like best.

Wekiva

On my second trip to Europe we did the following:
3 nights London
2 nights Paris
2 nights Wengen, Switzerland (best area for great Switz intro)
1 night Garmish-Partenkirchen
1 night train to Florence
1 night Sienna area
3 nights Rome

No howls of outrage here...just a reminder that not everyone is the same. The thought of 5 nights in London and 5 nights in Paris seems very boring to me. That trip itinerary was two of the best weeks of my life as my wife and I got to know Europe. That trip introduced us to the highlights and helped us formulate future trips.

I just believe that for many in here that have been to Europe MANY times I think they've forgotten how much more flexible they may have been on their first trip...and willing to move around a lot. At least that's the way WE felt and it was great.

We did the above trip with trains (except for the Garmish leg where we wanted to drive). We purchased a EuroRail pass that combined train legs and rental car lets.

Metou...in spite of the fact that we like to move around a lot more than most on this forum...even I'd have to say that 1 night in Rome is a bit short. Unless you're just staying there to catch a flight home. Maybe shift one of the Switz nights to Rome...or add 1 more day.

For a hectic paced trip I would highly recommend doing a VERY detailed itinerary that clearly shows you how much time you'll be traveling. Get exact train departure and arrival times so you'll know how much time you'll really have to spend seeing things at your destinations.

Have fun. For me the planning part is half the fun.

metou

NO hard feelings for ANYBUDY . . thanks for ur suggestions.
accordingly i thought of

3 nights UK
3 nights paris
3 nights venice
3 nights rome

can i take a 1 day tour or something similar to florence for Pisa?

would this be good enough?

if so just let me know the best means to travel.

all suggestions are welcome

metou

other option :

3-4 nights uk
3 nights paris
4 nights switzerland

and also suggest travel & how do i divide among cities in swiss

jlubeck

Hi Metou,

We have a very similar trip coming up shortly:

16 days
5 nights in Paris (skipping London for aforementioned reasons)
Vueling to fly from Paris to Rome
5 nights in Rome
2 nights in Venice
2 nights in Wengen, Switzerland
1 night in Zurich near airport to catch next day flight

Our last 5 days in Venice and Wengen will probably be far too short but we had to cut short of the 3 weeks we had planned.

To save money, we are renting apartments in Paris and Rome. (Apartment costs more, but I'm pretty certain we will save $50-$200 per day eating breakfasts and some dinners in our apartment after shopping at local markets. Also our b&b in Venice has a kitchen and we plan to do the same there.

Swiss pass - we just bought 4 days for my 2 youths (under 26) for 200 Swiss francs ($225), 3 days for adults about $245 (I forget but that is close).

Zurich, I believe is expensive to fly in and out of. Consider Rome as an alternative (not positive about that).

annhig

trains run at least every hour from florence to Pisa centrale. cost on the regionale train is about €6 one way.

easy to do by yourself without a tour.

sassy_cat

You new plan sounds better. TRavel from London to Paris by Eurostar and book as soon as possible as ticket prices go up closer to the travel date. Note: You might have to travel very early or very late to get a good ticket price for weekend travel in July.

For Paris to Italy or Switzerland I would fly as I don't enjoy long train journeys AND this is a relatively short trip but check out the cost of tickets as July is peak travel time in Europe.

In Italy local trains between cities are cost effective and run regularly as annhig says, no need for a tour.

Wekiva, the itinerary metou suggested sounded very expensive to me and if budget is important then cutting back on the train/airfare is one way to save $$

StCirq

<<as my wife and I got to know Europe>>

That is highly debatable. It's one thing to plan a whirlwind trip - I used to do it sometimes, and it can be enjoyable for many people - it's another to claim you got to know a continent doing it.

metou, this new plan is a vast improvement and will save you considerable expense.

nytraveler

It's unfair to assume that everyone starts going to europe by jumping around by a ping pong ball. It's true my first trip was 6 countries (but only 1 - on in 2 cases 2 cities in each country). But we had 5 weeks. If I had done the type of trip where you jump from one place to another seemingly at random - I wold have hated it and might not have gone back right away.

for me getting the feel of a city - not just rushing to see 2 or 3 sights and moving on - is the essence of travel. I need time to sit in a cafe and have a drink in the late afternoon or after dinner. People watch. Just explore an interesting neighborhood. You can't do that spending 1 or 1.5 days in major cities.

Wekiva

NYT...I didn't say EVERYONE started their European travels that way...but I did say MANY.

Wouldn't it be a fair statement that most people took trips of a bit more hectic nature early on in their traveling experience?

We enjoy hitting the big stuff lightly for now. Some day I also look forward to slowing down and digging deeper.