norway in a nutshell
 

Hi all,

I am flying into Oslo in first week of April

Will also be visiting Stockholm, and Copenhagen.

Should I:

1) Book the Norway in a Nutshell tour roundtrip from Oslo to Bergen and sleep on the train

2) Book the Interrail pass from Oslo to Flam, then separately book a mini Norway in a Nutshell (Flam-Gundhaven-Voss) and an Interrail pass from Voss to Oslo?

I've heard that Voss to Bergen is the least exciting part of the tour.

Thanks,

Andrew

I did the NIN and spent the night in Flam before returning to Oslo. So I can't speak to whether the Voss to Bergen was the least exciting. Why do you say sleep on the train? Why wouldn't you sleep in Bergen and return to Oslo? Is this in the interest of saving time?

I do regret not going all the way to Bergen - but time matters and sometimes one has to make choices.

These are some of my very favorite cities. Enjoy your trip.

Unless you plan to visit Bergen itself, which you cannot do at the end of the NIN trip but only the following day, see if you can get a RT back to Oslo. Yes, the Voss to Bergen part of the trip is the least interesting.

You could take the sleeper train to Bergen - since you'll be backtracking later it doesn't matter that you won't see any scenery. A sleeping compartment (not available Saturday night) costs NOK 850 for up to two persons in addition to the tickets (you don't share with strangers) - cheaper than a hotel!
Take the NiN from Bergen (there's enough time to transfer - leave baggage in Oslo hotel and travel light). Book Oslo-Bergen and Flåm-Oslo trains early to get minipris discount. Not necessary to book rest of the journey as it's by public transport, so just pay as you go. Direction Bergen-Oslo means that you can snooze last part on the long train journey after you've passed the best of the scenery.
Forget Interrail - you still have to pay to reserve a seat and the minipris is cheaper.

What is your reason for doing this? I mean, what do you want to do, just look out of a train window?

I can't imagine visiting Norway and not visiting Bergen for at least a couple of days. If you don't have time to do that then spend the time IN Oslo, not waste a day sitting on a train looking through glass.

I am arriving in Oslo 2 pm, and was planning on doing NiN the following morning.

@dyloll:

Are you recommending that I first take train direct from Oslo to Bergen (bypassing Flam) and then book minipris for Bergen to Voss, Flam to Oslo, and separately book the Flam railway and cruise? I am nervous about missing a connection and throwing the entire itinerary off, especially in April, when there may be less frequent trains/boats

We did the NIN on our way to Bergen. I see no reason to go to Bergen and then do the NIN separately, and, in my opinion, the changing scenery between Oslo and Myrdal is more interesting than the scenery between Voss and Oslo.

And of course, the NIN does allow a view of the fjords that is more than looking through a train window.

hellosun - I am suggesting that you take the night train (sleeper) leaves Oslo 23:23 but you can board earlier - book this with minipris and book a sleeping compartment (if you want). Arriving Bergen 06:51 in time for NiN connection. There is no need to worry about the connections - if for some reason there is a major delay on the train then you could get off in Voss - but no reason to do that otherwise - nothing to do in Voss that early in the morning!.

There is only one connecting NiN route in April. 08:30 train from Bergen connects with bus in Voss and ferry in Gudvangen. You need to book the 16:05 train from Flåm connecting with the NSB 17:55 train at Myrdal arriving Oslo 22:45. Bergen to Flåm NiN is by public transport - no booking available, just pay as you go on train-bus-ferry. There is no minipris to Voss. Booking Flåm-Oslo will get you minipris for Myrdal-Oslo (no minipris for Flåm rail).
http://www.norwaynutshell.com/en/explore-the-fjords/
Personally I would try and spend a day or two in Bergen, but if you don't have the time?

Michael, I would suggest if you want a view of the fjords, you get in a sailboat and sail in the fjords.

I'm reminded that the average visitor to the Grand Canyon spends something like 12 minutes actually at the rim of the canyon taking the obligatory photos.

Then off home to say, 'been there, done that'. Or in this case, 'Yup, I've been to the Norwegian fjords, they're fantastic'.

<i>I would suggest if you want a view of the fjords, you get in a sailboat and sail in the fjords.</i>

I did see them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...th/4214156493/

That's fine Michael but there is seeing and there is seeing isn't there. People 'see' the Grand Canyon in 12 minutes too.

Let's separate them by using 'seeing' and 'doing'. Here is doing the fjords: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbawiHPJLc

Yah gotta get down ON the water for a week or more and experience them. The same with the Grand Canyon, to 'do' it yah gotta walk IN the Canyon for a week or so.

No offense intended Michael, I'm must not a fan of the fast food approach to travel. You can't see the fjords in a few hours or minutes any more than you can see Rome in a few hours.

dulciusexasperis,

and your mode of travel does not apply to the OP's schedule.

What I did when I did the Norway in a nutshell was to start in Bergen. I then went through the fiord by boat, Flam and then the train. It takes an entire day one way. Unless you are also staying in Bergen, it won't work as a day trip from Oslo unless you just take the train to Flam (the lest interesting part of the journey).

Actually the route from Flam/Myrdal to Oslo is the most scenic.

Please note that NIN is only a ticket vender. They have a list of itineraries from which to select and they provide the tickets for that route. Usually one picks up their NIN tickets at the rail station.You can buy tickets on your own for the same itineraries or create your own to be more flexible. If you purchase the minipris you can actually save money. Bus tickets can be bought on the bus and you can ride any of the buses marked NIN. I believe you can also get your ticket for ferry when boarding. I prebooked mine but could board which ever ferry schedule was the most convenient. I looked at NIN but their itineraries did not give me the flexibility I wanted, so I did the trip on my own including a day/night in Balestrad.

The most popular itinerary NIN itinerary is the following.


Oslo/Myrdal/Flam ( the famous Flamsbana)then ferry to Gudvengan, bus to Voss ( the most scenic route goes via Stalheim) Voss/ Bergen.

Or the reverse, starting in Bergen.

dyoll has given you some very good information.

A RT from Oslo is listed on the NIN site, it lasts 16 hours. But the way back repeats the way out, so one can nap.

We did the same cities as you. What we did was:
- Started in Copenhagen
- Ferry to Oslo
- NIN to Bergen
- Spent a couple days in bergen which was definitely worth it.
- Flew to Stockholm from Bergen (Finnair non-stop).

I was thinking of the boat journey through the fiord connecting with the train as being the most scenic part of the journey. The train leg to Oslo is interesting--especially the scenery around Finse--but, for me, the "guts" of the experience was the fiord. It was pouring rain when I took the Flam railroad, so that did not turn out to be so interesting, but that is the way it goes. You cannot guarantee the weather on a holiday. Had nice weather for the boat though.

I would never recommend doing this back and forth in a day.

"and your mode of travel does not apply to the OP's schedule."

I agree 100% Michael. What I am suggesting is that the problem is with the OP's schedule. It is simply not enough time and so I suggested spending the time in Oslo.

The real issue is the same old same old, 'to see/do as much as possible' that so many people have in their mind. But they confuse the word 'many' with the word 'much'. The way to see/do as much as possible is to spend your time IN places, not in between places.

So if you have only 3 days in Norway for example, spend 3 days in Oslo and you at least have a chance of seeing some of Oslo. Spending one day in each of 3 places only results in not seeing much of anywhere. That is the 'fast food' approach to travel I am talking about.

I would love to hear just how much time the OP has for visiting Oslo, Copenhagen and Stockholm which is mentioned to begin with as well as this jaunt by train.

I unabashedly advocate 'slow travel' and will always attempt to convince people who want to take the 'fast food' approach to travel that it is their choice but the wrong choice. They are actually getting LESS out of their time in reality.

Slow travel is excellent advice, but, alas, many think they have to "do it all" in not too much time. To each his own.

With my trips based on home exchanges, I am a very slow traveler.

<i>So if you have only 3 days in Norway for example, spend 3 days in Oslo and you at least have a chance of seeing some of Oslo.</i>

I try to avoid imposing my preferences on others. If someone wants to see the fjords during that three day stay in Oslo, the Norway-in-a-Nutshell package as a round trip back to Oslo makes sense. It's 16 hours long but you come back to the same hotel room, don't need to drag suitcases, and the mainline train is comfortable enough for napping on the return trip.

As for Oslo, even two days will give a sense of it. Some people do not spend more than three days in Paris, which, in my opinion, deserves more me than Oslo.

The most interesting thing in Oslo is the Museum Island. That place is worth at least a solid day. I especially liked the folk museum where they moved all the old rural buildings. I did not get a chance to see one of the stave churches when I did the fiords and was glad to see one that had moved there. There were a lot of other museums to see, the Royal Palace and some very good places to eat. Oslo is a very small city for a capital city because Norway does not have as many people as a country like France. I consider myself lucky to have had a home exchange there. I home exchanged in Fredrikstad, about an hour by train south of Oslo. Very nice holiday.

I was fortunate to have visited the Fantoft Stave Church the year before it burned down lauren.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantoft_Stave_Church

They are indeed incredible. I also visited the composer Grieg's house and enjoyed a lunch time concert there. But you can't do all these kinds of things if you only visit somewhere for a day.

Michael, we can agree to disagree. If someone asks me for directions to the edge of a cliff, I am not going to just give them directions and say to myself, 'I avoid imposing my preferences on others'. I'm going to ask why they want to go to the edge of a cliff and I am going to discourage them from doing so because I think it is the wrong thing to do.

Sometimes, the saying 'to each his own' is fine and makes perfect sense. But sometimes it is used to avoid having an opinion on something. While many things are not black and white, often it isn't hard to know whether you think you should lean to one side or the other.

So let me ask you a simple question. Do you lean towards fast travel or slow travel? Fast is for purposes of this question, defined as moving more often than every 4th night while slow is defined as not moving any oftener than once a week.

If the purpose of travel is to see/do/experience the most you possibly can in the time available to you, then I know which one I believe is the right way to spend your time to achieve that goal. Time spent moving is time lost that could be spent IN places.

<i>Do you lean towards fast travel or slow travel? </i>

When I was young I spent ten weeks traveling in Europe, 5 weeks in Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Italy and Switzerland; and 5 weeks in France, doing our own <i>tour de France</i>. My wife and I have fond memories (and pictures) of that trip. We have since slowed down, but it might still be fast for some.

Of all the travellers posting in various travel forums, I'd say probably 90% are 'fast travellers'. Unfortunately, we live in a world of 'fast' and accept that as the way things are.

But just as a 14 minute lunch at McDonald's cannot compare to a 3 hour lunch in a Greek village restaurant, a 14 minute viewing of the Grand Canyon cannot compare to a 7 day walk IN the Canyon. That's all I'm saying Michael.

Some might argue well 14 minutes, or 1 day, is better than not having seen it at all. I would agree if that was done in isolation. But usually those 14 minutes or that one day are part of a larger trip.

Someone spending 14 days moving through 10 places vs. someone spending a week in each of 2 places. Which is better use of time? To me it is no different than the 14 minutes looking into the Grand Canyon vs. a week walking in the Canyon. Which is better is not debateable.

People are "fast" travelers because they don't have the time to be "slow" travelers. Everyone has their own way of doing what they want to do given what is always a limited amount of time.

<i>a 14 minute viewing of the Grand Canyon cannot compare to a 7 day walk IN the Canyon. </i>

True but when the OP suggests a limited time in Oslo along with visits of Stockholm and Copenhagen, I think that one should consider the NIN in the same vein as someone looking for a day tour of the Normandy landings area from Paris. The parameters have been set by the OP.

On the other hand, if someone should say that they are thinking of spending 3 days in Amsterdam, 2 days in Bruges and 3 days in Paris, it is entirely appropriate to suggest that one day in Bruges would be sufficient, adding the extra day to either of the other cities.

Again, the OP has X amount of time. He does not HAVE TO visit Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen in that amount of time. He is CHOOSING to do so.

Everyone has enough time for slow travel lauren if they choose to use their time that way. Using the example Michael has just given of 3 days Amsterdam; 2 days Bruges; 3 days Paris, it simply means CHOOSING instead to do 8 days in one of them. Trying to 'see' all 3 of them in that amount of time is ludicrious to me. Nor will you even get 8 days IN those 3 places. You will lose most of 2 days moving from one to another.

When the OP suggests a limited time in Oslo Michael what I am questioning is dividing it up even more when it isn't even enough time for Oslo alone.

Most people plan based on a list of places they want to visit and a limited amount of time available as you say lauren. They then divide the time by the number of places to come up with an amount of time per place.

What I am suggesting is that while that is ONE way to approach it, it is not best use of time. Instead what I am suggesting is first dividing your time available into some minimum amounts that result in you spending the majority of your time IN places, not losing days in between places. The more limited your time the more applicable that becomes.

Losing 2 days moving plus an arrival and departure day which are always basically a write off as well, in say a 10 day period means you lose 4/10 or 40% of your time. Arrive in one place and stay there for 8 days and you only lost 20%.

It's fine to visit 3 places if it's in 3 weeks. That same 4 days lost over 21 days is only 20% of the total time. How much of your 'limited' and valuable time are you willing to lose? The more valuable it is to you the more unwilling you should be to waste any of it.

If you use for example a minimum of 4 nights per place in order to get 3 full days IN a place at least and allow for a travel day between places, then you will arrive at a maximum number of places you can visit and only spend 25% of your time moving. ie. 14 nights divided by 4 equals no more than 3 places. Now you prioritize the list of 186 places you would LIKE to visit and pick the top 3.

It really is a question of putting the tbefore the horse. You can try to 'fit' a number of places in to X amount of time or you can decide how many places you have time to visit.

Huh, weird typo. Should be 'cart before the horse' in the last paragraph.

The point I was making is that the OP has a right to make his own decisions about how he is going to travel. Others may not agree with his decisions, but he doesn't have to take their advice. It is, after all, his trip. Lots of people travel as if they were never going again and that may or may not be the case.

Every summer I do one of my long home exchange based European trips I wonder if it will be the last year for such trips. They have become a lot of work since people accept home exchanges, discover they can't afford the airfare (having failed to check that out before they accept) and then cancel. I am also aging and, at some point, will get something that will put the kibosh on such trips. I have had a lot of trouble with this last year and this with cancellations and there are lots of places I have not seen (or want to revisit) in North America. The expensive airfares are a factor for me as well. So, while I sit in the same place for awhile, I always assume I am not coming back to that place for a long time--if ever--and run around to see all the sites within a reasonable day's drive that I can pack in. So I may travel "slowly" when I choose a place, but I don't let grass grow under my feet while I am there.