trgslg

We (60ish) are beginning to make plans for a European vacation in a couple of years. We spent time in Paris and Bavaria a few years back, but want to see more of the area.
The focus of the trip will be a week in Italy where we plan to return to the U.S. from. Current plans are to fly into London and stay for a day or two, then hopscotch by train across Europe arriving in Rome.
Ideally, we would be on the train for 3-4 hours or so each day taking 4-5 days to reach Rome. This would allow us a few hours to walk around the overnight town and have dinner. We are all about seeing the countryside and nature, larger cities are not a must. The only requirement is that we have suitable overnight accomodations.
Looking for routing ideas that would satisfy this itinerary going through some combination of PERHAPS France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland or Austria on the way to Rome. What cities would make the best stops while providing the best views along the way?
Some will say that the packing/repacking each night and long train ride is not worth it, but we do take the First Class car and enjoy the scenery from the train.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

flanneruk

International trains run between major cities. "Countryside and nature" can be observed from them, but getting into the countryside at the very least requires double, triple or quadruple train-changes (eg: London to Hastings, Hastings to a nearby village, nearby village to Canterbury, Canterbury to Ashford to catch the Eurostar to Paris) and often substantial backtracking.

The closest mainline railway route roughly following the Via Francigena (the most commonly used medieval road between London and Rome) would go:

London-Lille
Lille- Lyons
Lyons-Turin
Turin-Florence
Florence-Rome.

The fastest route goes:
London-Paris (change station)
Paris (via the Simplon tunnel)- Milan
Milan-Rome

In each case, backtracking into the countryside (for example from Turin up into the Alpine foothills of Piedmont) would take the 2-4 hour underlying intercity journey up to around 6 hours, wiping out most of the daytime for five successive days, and leaving you with almost no time actually to see anything .

Your objectives just can't be achieved in 4-5 days: it's 3-4 days pretty intensive driving or an almost 2 days nonstop (inc overnight) train ride from London to Rome without any sidetrips. Even stopping at just Florence for an afternoon, and Lyons for a decent dinner will eat up your whole five days (Believe me: I've been doing this journey for most of the past 50 years)

Before any other posters waste time suggesting other routes, PLEASE tell us which bits of your objectives matter least to you.

bobthenavigator

Bad idea!
Fly to venice and then train from there--or Milan.

PalenQ

If you have not been to Switzerland I would definitely take that route to Italy from France - a bit longer and more changes of train but about half way is the awesome fantastic Berner Oberland in and around Interlaken - the essence of the dramatic alpine wonderland of soaring ice-draped jagged peaks girdled by glaciers - the Switzerland ethced in most people's mind when thinking of Switzerland but which you will not find in cities like Zurich, Geneva, Bern, etc - all really nice spic-and-span clean cities but not the Switzerland most dream about.

>Ideally, we would be on the train for 3-4 hours or so each day taking 4-5 days to reach Rome>

well if traveling that many days on the train, even for a few hours and in first class (a no-brainer for the substantial advantages, especially for folks with baggage IMO) the if going via Switzerland investigate the Eurail Select Saver 3-Country railpass (Saver means two or more folks traveling on one pass at about a 20% discount off two separate passes) - the countries would be France, Switzerland and Italy.

But if taking flanner.uk's route (much much less impressive Alopine scenery but you could detour to Provence or Burgundy, etc on that route) then just look at the France-Italy railpass - if going first class either pass should be a great bargain over buying tickets as you go along (though both France and Italy may offer online discounts if you book far in advance and can put up with severe restrictions on changing trains or refunds but those discounts largely it seems are better deals if going 2nd class perhaps).

Anyway - some great sources to help plan a rail trip and about passes and alternatives like online discounts - www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com - check out the latter's free and superb IMO online European Planning & Rail guide that offers rail itineraries for each country.

The Select Pass is a flexipass, good over a two-month period - you can use the minimum of 5 and max of 10 days anytime within that period - use the train to reach a city, stay there a few days and then use the pass to go on to another city, etc.

trgslg

Perhaps I just don't have a well enough understanding of the train system as we are not that familiar with them in the U.S.
It sounds like we will have to progress through major cities and just have to take what countryside comes along the way.
What are the approximate travel times between the six cities suggested above?
Is there an optional route to this one through other cities?

ira

Hi tr,

Your plan is something that my lady wife and I, both over 70, would consider for the days when we are too old to get around.

Do you really want to get up at 06:00 to get an 09:00 train in order to get to a hotel in a new city by 14:00, so that you can get to bed by 21:00 and repeat 4 times?

I think that you would be much happier with a week in London with daytrips.

You could fly or train to Rome.

aimeekm

If the focus of the trip is Italy, why not spend your time in Italy instead of spending half your vacation on a train? IMO with two weeks you could plan a very nice Italian vacation, or plan a vacation that consists of mainly trains and train stations.

I'd suggest figuring out what you really want to see and plan a trip based on those criteria.
- If you really enjoy train rides, then let that be the focus. Study train routes and see which appeals to you, which would have the most scenery, most comfortable compartments etc.. LEt the destinations be dictated by the trains you choose.
- If you want to see Italy, then what in Italy appeals to you? You've mentioned Rome, so that might be one place. What about Rome & Tuscany? Or are really " all about seeing the countryside and nature" Italy abounds with regions that fit the bill, Tuscany, Umbria, Puglia, Emilia Romano, etc..

Man_in_seat_61

This is a great idea, and far more relaxed than the hassle of flying.

But the permutations are endless.

How about the 14:02 Eurostar from London arriving Paris 17:23, connecting with the 18:24 TGV Lyria from Paris to Zurich, arriving 23:00. Then a day or two in Switzerland, perhaps going Zurich-Chur on the hourly InterCity train, then using the amazingly scenic Bernina Express to Tirano (www.berninaexpress.ch) (and Poschiavo might be agood overnight, en route), then regional train Tirano-Milan and fast train Milan-Rome?

Use the journey planner at www.bahn.de (English button top right) as your all-purpose online timetable and have a play around.

zeppole

You don't say what time of year this trip is, so it is harder to advise.

But if you enter Italy in Milan or Torino, you can be on the Italian Riviera in a few hours, and visit wonderful small scenic towns on the coastal train route. Some possibilities are Camogli, Chiavari and Sestri Levante. From there it is 4 hours to Rome, and you can stop enroute in a fascinating town like Tarquinia.

Or, from Milan, you could head by fast train to either Bologna or Firenze, and then switch trains for any number of charming, much smaller towns. From Bologna you have the choice of Ferrara or Modena. From Firenze, you have a string of great small towns like Pistoia or Montecatini Alta in one direction, or Arezzo or Chiusi in the other.

If you come in via Venice, you can make your way through Ferrara and then onto Orvieto -- there are really lots of possibilities if you want to spend a night or two in a small Italian town and be closer to nature than you are in the big cities.

One great smaller town you should consider is Mantova. It is very easy to reach by train, has 3 lakes, no end of amazing palaces and churches, wonderful food and practically no tourists. The only time I would advise against going there is in the hottest part of the summer.

PalenQ

Perhaps I just don't have a well enough understanding of the train system as we are not that familiar with them in the U.S.
It sounds like we will have to progress through major cities and just have to take what countryside comes along the way.>

There are literally passenger rail lines going everywhere in those countries - lots of sidelines you can take between the main cities which are often served by high-speed trains running up to nearly 200mph and yes only stop at main cities - but there are lots of regional trains going everywhere so the countryside is accessible if you wish.

PalenQ

for tickets from London to Paris (or Brussels or Lille) you should book really early as there is a multi-tiered fare structure where there are so many tickets at X price then when those allotments are exhausted so many at the next level and on it - just show up and you could literally pay a hundred bucks or more more than the early bird specials - which are often not changeable nor refundable so be sure of your time and dates. Go to www.eurostar.com to see what it's all about - easy to book online and it is an e-ticket so no shipping charges. No railpass covers the Eurostar trains London to Paris, Lille or Brussels.

Mimar

A jet-lagged day or two in London is not worth it. Either add 2 days there or skip London and start your trip on the continent.

Cowboy1968

After what flanner said, there is not much more to say.

You would like to spend 3-4 hours per day on a train.
That time will suffice to cover the necessary distance on a high-speed mainline to get from London to Rome in 4-5 days.

3-4 hours a day does not cover the necessary time to ride A to B on the highspeed mainline, connect at B to scenic small town C. And next day go back from C towards the highspeed mainline to cover again enough distance to get closer to Rome.

In addition, you will spend your 4-5 days hauling luggage on trains, off trains, changing platforms, missing connections here and there, get luggage again on regional trains, and so on and on.
That can be fun at 19 with a bagpack. But even the young folks now hop on a €30 flight if they want to go to Rome.

PalenQ

What cities would make the best stops while providing the best views along the way?
Some will say that the packing/repacking each night and long train ride is not worth it, but we do take the First Class car and enjoy the scenery from the train.>

I think they know what long train rides are and seem to, like me, actually enjoy them and they want to see the nicest scenery - thus that means going via Switzerland and not the dull Paris-Lyon-Mondane-turino-Milan route.

How much scenery do you see by flying to Rome - you see big cities like Paris and Rome and nothing of the Europe lying in between - some like me and them come to Europe to laze back in the plush first class seats and just watch the scenery glide by.

PalenQ

and if you really want to save time and see nothing there are also overnight trains Paris to Rome. florence and Venice.

PalenQ

though Eurostar trains London to Paris or Lille or Burssels do not honor passes there are special fares for railpass holders whose passes are valid in either the U.K. or France (or Belgium if Brussels) and at times these can be cheaper than the various cheap discounted tickets if fares in those categroes are sold out.

And there is also a special fare for senior 60 and over that similarly can be better at times than other fares - both however I believe have restrictions on changing and refunds.

RoamEurope

Well, we just did London-Paris-Rome-Florence-Salzburg-Munich in 17 days, all by train. Munich was just one day and we could not have done more stops, so I have to agree with the above posts.

Having said that, London to Paris is a 3 hour-ish trip and there is an overnight train from Paris to Rome. Thus, those 3 cities (London, Paris, Rome) are very doable in conjunction but you really need several days in each. I would consider Florence as a base to see the Italian countryside and leave just a day in Rome given your preferences.

PalenQ

Travel preferences vary and OP says they like to move around a lot on trains - I do too but I can see the points others make. But whatever style you want go for it - I often move faster than the OP seems to want even and absolutely love it

To me the travel in between cities - I usually do a base city - is as interesting as the city destinations themselves.

lindy27

http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml is a great website to check train travel times.

London to Rome by train, without any stops or detours, will take you 17 hours which includes a night train.

If you must train, and must do London and Rome, I would stop at one place along the way, probably Switzerland or Paris. You will get tired of hauling luggage and checking into/out of hotels pretty quickly.

If you can change flights, look into flying into Zurich to cut down on train time. You could see Switzerland and a stop in northern Italy before heading to Rome.

PalenQ

Packing light, like I do, is essential to anyone planning to ride a lot of trains between bases - and the base city idea negates carrying a lot of luggage as you do day trips by train to nearby cities - love to travel by train sans luggage.