Need advice on a two-months Europe itinerary
 

Hello everyone,
After an almost two-year long lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I decided to treat myself to my first-time trip in Europe. I'm planning to leave for almost 2 months (1 month & 3 weeks to be exact).I had been planning this for a long time prior to the pandemic, but I had different live events preventing me from leaving.

Here is the itinerary I came out with so far. I would like your input on it. Is that too much ? Are certain places not worth it ? Any suggestions of things to add ?

- London, UK (5 days), including daytrip to Bath

- Brussels, Belgium (1 day)

- Bruges, Belgium (2 days)

- Amsterdam, Netherlands (4 days), including daytrip to Rotterdam

- Berlin, Germany (4 days), including daytrip to Potsdam

- Prague, Czech Republic (3 days)

- Vienna, Austria (2 days)

- Budapest, Hungary (3 days)

- Salzburg, Austria (2 days)

- Munich, Germany (3 days)

- Verona, Italia (2 days)

- Milan, Italia (2 days)

- Geneva, Switzerland (3 days)

- Paris, France (4 days), including daytrip to Versailles

Thank you in advance for your assistance !

How are you getting around? Are you including travel time in those days in each place?
Train from Amsterdam to Berlin will take the best part of a day, flying will be no quicker with getting to and from airports and hoping your flight goes.
Work out travel times, think it terms of nights not days - 2 nights=1 day.

Sorry but that is a REALLY hectic itinerary :( (was going to say miserable but it isn't that bad)

As Hetismij2 says to get 2 days in a place requires 3 nights, 3 days = 4 nights, etc.

So to cover your list is::
- overnight flight to London 1 night
- London, UK 6 nights, including day trip to Bath
- Brussels, Belgium 2 nights
- Bruges, Belgium 3 nights
- Amsterdam, Netherlands 5 nights, including daytrip to Rotterdam
- Berlin, Germany 5 nights, including daytrip to Potsdam
- Prague, Czech Republic 4 nights
- Vienna, Austria 3 nights
- Budapest, Hungary 4 nights
- Salzburg, Austria 3 nights
- Munich, Germany 4 nights
- Verona, Italia 3 nights
- Milan, Italia 3 nights
- Geneva, Switzerland 4 nights
- Paris, France 5 nights, including day trip to Versailles

Which does just fit into your 1 mo+3wks. But including day trips you will be in transit 20 days So 51 days total and 20 of those days you will be sitting on a train or bus.

You have really generous amount of time -- why not slow down just a bit, enjoy being there, and not try to cover half of Europe.

Everyone travels differently but I would HATE hopping around all over the place so fast. If I had 7 weeks to travel, I'd pick 7-10 places. You have 18 on your list. And you haven't allowed travel time. When you have 2 days here then 2 days there, you need to subtract the time you are taking a plane or train between the two. Typically you can expect to "lose" at least a 1/2 day every time you change cities (checking out of hotel, transpo to train station or airport, flight or train trip, transpot to next hotel, check in next hotel, etc.).

Also I have more than a few "why there"? Switzerland is an incredible country, but I sure wouldn't spend the 3 days in Geneva! For example. I wonder how you chose the places you did?

Happy planning. It should be a wonderful trip (if you cut that list in half -lol).

I would reverse the length of stay between Brussels and Bruges. There is enough to see in Brussels to take up two full days, while I consider Bruges predominantly a strolling city that can be done within the day that the important sights are visited.

https://flic.kr/p/7u3Zmv https://flic.kr/p/7u7Rdf https://flic.kr/p/7u7V7W

I disagree with Michael a bit -- Yes, Bruges is small and can be 'seen' in a few hours. But it is the evening hours when the masses of day trippers and tour buses are long gone that the city blooms. Plus sites are pretty crowded so trying to squeeze them in to one full crowded day is unsatisfying IMO.

I think you have listed the big ticket cities. But a country is not a city. I suggest you should visit the countryside. Have a look at world UNESCO sites in Europe and consider visiting those outside the big cities.

What are your interests? Have you incorporated these in this holiday.

I too would "see more and travel less". The amount of time you will spend in trains/planes/taxis is incredible.

Perhaps I just missed it, but when is your trip?

I agree with others that you are hitting some major cities, and seeing few of the real gems in terms of smaller towns, villages, etc. Of course, even with seven weeks, you can see only the highlights of a few cities or countries, but your choices seem almost random and somewhat unusual, IMHO, for a first trip to Europe. Maybe you have specific things in mind in your choices though, and it should suit your interests.

Would you mind sharing your interests and what you want most to see and do for a first European experience? Historic sites, archeological sites, Art, Food, Museums. Adventure, Cafes, perhaps some lakes & mountains, things related to literature? People can give opinions about places to include or drop based on what you are wanting.

It is good that you are including some day trips from the cities. In general, I don’t like one night stays, but think about staying overnight in some that are a bit far for good day trips. Bath deserves one night. I agree with Bruges being better at night than during the day, but IMHO, does not need two days, unless you want to meander outside of town, bike along a canal, etc. and other places are, also IMHO, nicer for that. There are places near Amsterdam and Paris, for example, that are easy day trips and make sense to do that way.

Great opportunity! Enjoy!

I think this is too much too attempt at a very rapid pace. While locations are you "5 star" places? I would try to cut out at least two or three places so you can add more time to your priority stops.

I think if you cross off 3-4 from that list and distribute those days to the other stops, it would be much more enjoyable trip. Prioritize places you are really crazy to see, skip the ones that are one the list but without a burning desire to see them.

I agree with some of the others that this seems more like a 'laundry list' or darts thrown at a map than an actual itinerary.

London for example -- 4 days one of which will likely be a jet lagged fog filled with getting settled/acclimated. What sites are you hoping to see while there? London is ENORMOUS with more world famous sites than several of your other cities lumped together, and with just 4 days you won't see many of them.

Or 3 free days in Paris -- that's not many for a first visit.

Too little time for Vienna. I would cut out Munich and Geneva for starters. But I guess this is based on train connections as much as anything.

I understand the impetus for moving around. I think it's ok to spend as little as three nights in a major city. That will be enough to walk around and get a taste for a possible future visit. But always try to think about your trip, not in days, but how many nights you will spend in a given place.

There are some super cheap intra European airlines that can help you hop over otherwise difficult legs of your journey, so you might want to check out those possibilities to save you time and effort as you cut out some of your destinations.

Depending on your age and energy, the trip is doable. My first return to Europe in 1967after my student year was a 10 week trip that started in Berlin (after an overnight ferry/train trip to Wolfsburg to pick up a car) going through Austria, traveled around Yugoslavia, and then round northern Italy down to Florence, back through Switzerland to Chamonix, the route des Grandes Alpes to Nice, travel from the Côte d'Azur to the Pyrenees, on to the Dordogne, to the Loire valley, the Mont Saint-Michel, to Paris and then a drive to Antwerp to turn in the car for shipment to the States. I still have fond memories of that trip.

That was with a car though Michael, and in 1967 when there was a lot less traffic, no LEZs, no high prices for fuel, parking, tolls etc. We have no idea what OP means to use to get around.
We don't even know when they are planning to make this trip.
Flying within Europe is not a great idea for many reasons, and often saves little if any time over taking a train. The trains do need planning and booking though, just as flights do.

I did a lengthy and fast-paced train trip when I was in my late fifties and enjoyed it very much, although I travel more slowly these days. My stops tended to be closer together, and there were night trains for the longer legs back then, but I wouldn't say this trip can't or even shouldn't be done. I did build in a few longer stops, but it was a ten month trip (plus I had to pick up some visas along the way). Itineraries here: Rails Around the World 2004 -- Wilhelm's Words

We took a flight from Paris to Malaga that was dirt cheap and easy. I can't possibly believe that a train is a better decision.

The days on the OP's itinerary do not add up to 7 weeks,there is at least an 8 day gap. So there is a lot of wiggle room, even keeping the number of destinations.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with flying within Europe. We have done that on several vacations, and we have also used trains and buses. One problem with trains is that you are responsible for your own luggage. That means you have to carry your luggage on to the train, and lift it and put it up on the racks. I am sure this is easy for younger people but not necessarily for older people. I have my husband to help me, but if it were only me, I don't think I could physically handle it. Unless I only use carry-ons, but so far I haven't learned to pack that light. :)

Of all the beautiful places in Switzerland, why on earth Geneva?

There is quite a bit of luggage space at floor and waist level on the trains. Even standing room only trains had room for my luggage. I am too old to lift a 22"case into the overhead space and had no problems storing my luggage this past May.

This year was the first year we did not rent a car while traveling in Europe. I agree that the ZTLs are a pain, but as to pricing gas prices then were much higher in Europe than in the States although the difference is that the dollar was much stronger. Traveling through Portugal in 2019 was no problem, with little traffic on the road. The same was true in 2018 when traveling through the French Alps, the Côte d'Azur and the Provence. It's around the cities that traffic gets bad, and if the OP is interested mainly in cities, car travel is less appealing. I would say the same thing when traveling in the States if the primary interest would be 3 weeks to see Boston, NYC, Philadelphia and DC.

" . . . although the difference is that the dollar was much stronger." Unlikely since the € is currently very low against the $ - almost at parity.

Of all the beautiful places in Switzerland, why on earth Geneva?

Boy oh boy, you can say that again :-)

I've lost track... are you flying into London and out of Paris? Or do you have to return to London at the end?

Enjoy. Consider deleting both Verona and Milan, as they are both outliers in your plan. You have a miserable itinerary planned.

What are your sight seeing or activity goals for Geneva, Milan and Verona? Are there performances or events or a particular cathedral of interest or shopping, etc? If not, consider cutting one or more of them.

Reasons for trains1) climate change. I guess you've seen large areas of Europe are on fire today, while the Po and Danube are extra low. Australia had major flooding and Texas grid is in danger of collapsing due to Aircon use. How many more messages do you need. Just burning fossil fuels is no longer acceptable2) airports across Europe are is chaos causing cheepo flights to be cancelled with little warning, right now. Trains outside UK are working fine3) within 500 km trains are often faster than planes door-to-door.

I would highly recommend doing an itinerary matrix with the dates down the side and then each column represents a different itinerary. Excel works great for this...or you can use Google Sheets. Below is a trip I planned several years ago. We use this type of planning tool early on as we're trying to make overall decisions like which cities to see, order of the trip, how half or full days of travel effect time at each location. Then once we firm up the trip, buy airline tickets, book hotels...then I moved into a more detailed itinerary using Word or Google Docs. You need to carefully consider how much time each of the travel legs takes...usually a full day or half day is needed. When I read your initial itinerary above I was thinking travel would really impact what you can actually do - as many have already mentioned. I guess the main thing I'm adding to the dialogue is a good way to better understand your trip and see each day what you'll be doing, factoring in travel time.

As you'll see below there are days when a half day of travel and a half day of touring is possible - like on May 29 when we factored a morning of travel then touring Paris in the afternoon. Then there are days like June 7 when it took a full day to get from Salzburg to Prague. You need to at least have that level of understanding to really know how well your itinerary works.

BTW...we travel at a faster pace than many on this forum. But we typically never plan less than 3 days in a city so we get 2 full days of touring and the 3rd day is usually a half day of touring and a half day of travel. Our first stop is usually a full 3 days to allow for a bit of jet lag.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fod...6c9adbacbf.jpg

I'm with Wekiva,
I love making a chart/spreadshhet/google doc, . It gives me a realistic idea of how much time I will spend getting from Point A to B, and what I plan to do once I get there. I also add costs of my preferred hotels, trains, entry fees. However, that's not to say I stick to a regimented itinerary, but it's helpful. You might enjoy doing something similiar.

Others have given you lots of good advice. You have a lot packed in, and will spend a lot of time getting to train stations, buying tickets, etc. and less time enjoying the sights you've chosen.

Plan to return to Europe for another trip at some point.

Good luck.

Yes it was and that was before the creation of the euro. Meat prices were high from the European point of view, low from the American point of view. The strength of the dollar in terms of purchasing power was similar but not equal to what it is now for countries like Mexico and some of the countries at the edge of the European Union, like Romania and Bulgaria. We had a brief but interesting conversation with a taxi driver in Bucharest, who pointed out that the taxi fares are based on local population affordability and local currency, but having joined the EU, imported items, such as cigarettes are in euro prices. BTW, the euro started at $0.85.

"Yes it was and that was before the creation of the euro."

Oh - jeeze, so you are talking more than 20 years ago not 2018/2019 like your post suggests.

" BTW, the euro started at $0.85."

I think you have that backwards. The € started well over $1 - around $1.16 at close of trade the first day. The US$ was approx 0.85 €

If preventing climate change is the #1 priority, then nobody should be going to Europe or they should walk/bicycle once they get there.

As far #2 is concerned, I am not sure the OP is going this summer, so cancelations are unlikely to be a major problem.

People need to figure out their own ways to plan travel. I know a spreadsheet itinerary like Wekiva showed would be valuable (not for me personally, but for all those newbies who want to go here for 1 day there for 2 day here for 1 day, etc. in places they have picked for no specific reason or because they saw it on Insta - as someone recently said when I asked "why?" -haha).

I think for many a spreadsheet for financial matters would be useful. I read so often people saying "I've got $3000" or whatever but haven't bothered to figure out what that will get them. Dividing the budget by number of days of the trip is a good place to start.

Oleonius, you just have to be able to weed out the useful info from the snobbery on this forum. There's NOTHING wrong with moving around more than those who like to sit in one place for a week or a month. Good for them....but shoot me if I had to travel that way.

The most important thing is to make sure you clearly know what each day will look like, and determine if the amount of travel vs. touring is something you're comfortable with.

For me the year of planning is a lot of the fun, even if I get into the details like a "newbie" :)

Two months in Europe gives you an opportunity to settle in one place for at least a couple of weeks and almost become a local;
shop, do laundry, go to the same cafe until they know what you like without asking.

On the other hand, if "It is Tuesday it must be Belgium" is your favourite movie or are participating in a scavenger hunt, your original plan is perfect.

Oleonius: You've been posting questions about your first trip to Europe for more than 5 years. 8 or 9 threads and nearly 200 responses so far. I do hope you are finally able to fulfill your dream trip -- just don't bite off more than you can chew.

Unfortunately, I've been too busy with work and family stuff in the last five years. Plus, a worldwide pandemic happened and we were on lockdown for almost two years.
I have just been approved for a two-month holiday and I'm leaving for real this time,
Thank you though.

My error on the value of the euro, which I could explain but won't as it sounds as if I am weaseling out of a mistake.

But when it comes to car travel, and the exchange rate, we did travel by car in 1967, as already described, then in 1971, in 1975, in 1985, in 1994, and then almost every year since 2000. Gas prices were always high, but before the euro food and lodging were relatively cheap when traveling on the dollar. My original point was that given a young age and energy as we had in 1967, a crowded trip is not out of the question, and I can see it as touring by car in the present not because I did it 1967 with no ZTLs and less traffic, but because until the pandemic hit, I have toured by car almost every year since 2000.

As someone who does a LOT in a given day, the time spent in each location sounds doable though you will need to be prepared that you are only skimming the surface in some of the places you’ll be visiting.

I will say this as someone who has previously done similarly and visited 8 countries in 6 weeks, in some respects you will feel satisfied that you have seen and done what you wanted to do, and in others you may feel like you should have spent more time in certain places or exploring more of a given country – for example I spent 2 days in Bergen and 3 days in Oslo in Norway and when I (one day who knows when) go back to Scandinavia I plan to spend much more time in Norway’s countryside since I only saw a tiny portion of it and that was what really blew me away.

Anyway, some comments on some of the places you are visiting based on my travels to date:

• Berlin I found very underwhelming, especially after having travelled from Munich and enjoying the charm of Bavaria. If you have time, I would highly recommend visiting Hamburg – I spent 2 days there and it is a lovely city to visit (fun fact, it has more bridges than Venice and Amsterdam)
• Following from the above, Salzburg is closer to Munich than it is to Vienna – not sure if your itinerary was listed in the order you actually plan to travel (I hope not because it would result in a bit of back and forth) so depending on the order of places you visit, it may be more convenient to visit Salzburg after Munich
• I spent 5 days in London (I intend to one day go back to do a proper UK and Ireland trip) which included a day trip to Hampton Court and a day trip to Windsor, Bath and Stonehenge and I found that to be satisfactory
• I have not been to Brussels but everyone who I have spoken to that has found it to be a bit lacklustre and recommended only a day there, so I would look at maybe doing Brussels as a day trip from Bruges rather than an independent stop
• If time permits, Maastricht in the south of the Netherlands is a really lovely city that I would recommend (though it is closer to Cologne in Germany than to Amsterdam)