I need some advice from those of you who have traveled on planes and trains in Europes. My husband and I will be flying into rome, then plan to go to Paris and then finally departing out of London. should we take planes or trains? What are the advantages of taking trains? Much more scenic? It seems that they are definately not cheaper. Do those of you who take trains often stop at stops in between? ie, we were thinking of taking train from Rome to Paris and stoping in Switzerland or maybe veering off to Venice? Any help would be appreciated.

Taking planes certainly saves time, I enjoyed the train very much. This is what I did with some friends last summer, I took the train from Rome to Venice then Venice to Geneva (connection in Milan 90mins) then Geneva to Paris and Paris to London on Eurostar. Loved it and I plan on doing it again next year with another group of friends that couldn't make it the last year. If time is on your side do the train the scenery is wonderful and I find it very relaxing.

Since your trip is not specific yet, I can only tell you mostly in generalities.<BR><BR>The advantage of trains, usually, is that provided that route offers frequent services between destination, you are not tied to a particular train as strongly as a plane. Sure you need to make reservations but these are not that expensive, certainly a tiny tiny fraction of what airlines charge you for changing a plane.<BR><BR>Majority of train route, per distance basis, are NOT scenic. You have to know which ones are to be taken on the basis of scenery. One exception is Switzerland, where we enjoyed any route that went into mountains.<BR><BR>You are correct about straight fare. You have take a look at overall picture. For a short distance, the highspeed trains would be faster but can be more expensive. How much does that saved time worth to you?<BR><BR>Trains make many stops. Whether you can take advantage of them is a different question. The obvious problem are your luggages. Because of the terrorist concern not all stations have storages.<BR><BR>I separate plane and train sections based on trip time. If 6 hours or more on train, if there is good access to airports on both side with decent scehdule, I would fly.<BR><BR>You will be prudent to travel light on train since you have to take care of them yourself. You can get away with larger luggages on plane.

For sure take the chunnel between Paris and London, it is known as the Eurostar. Advance booking is recommended, first class worth it if you are travelling with anything other than a backpack. You leave from the center of Paris and arrive in the center of London with much, much less hassle than airport security these days and also less cost to and from airports way out of town. We stayed on the Rue di Rivoli in Paris and got to the train station from there in less than 10 minutes, waiting for a taxi took longer than the ride. If you are staying in Knightsbrigde or Mayfair in London, it is about a 15 minute taxi ride from the station on that end. So that solves that. Now, as far as your other question about stops in the middle, the real disadvantage of train travel is dealing with the luggage thing. If you two can really pare down to nothing more than a rollerboard and a purse or a light backpack each, you should be okay. My problem is a tendency to buy lots of stuff (particularly in Italy) and then have extra bags to drag everywhere I go. Trains are amazingly scenic going through Switzerland and a side trip to Venice is key. However, I would fly from Rome to Venice, then definitely take a real gondola to the hotel, then I would consider training it to Paris with maybe a stop along the way in Lucerne. The Italian lake district is beautiful but I don't think train travel is practical there. Zermatt is amazing and really only reachable by train, it is a long long trip with many changes so don't consider it unless you have minimal baggage. We did it once with skis and everything and wanted to kill ourselves. If you do make it to Zermatt book far ahead and stay at the Hotel Julen, a really charming chalet hotel with all the trimmings and perfectly located. The Matterhorn is worth alot of trouble, summer or winter. As far as hotels go, I would strongly recommend splurging on Claridges in London, you can call them directly and negotiate a rate. It is the best place I have ever stayed in the best location with the best restaurant (Gordon Ramsay, #1 in London now) and the best staff. Not too many places serve breakfast in bed without you having to get up, put on a robe to answer the door and then signing a check. There it is a seamless, paperless thing and they roll the table right to the side of the bed. Amazing, plus the hotel has a nice workout facility and spa. One minute walk to Bond Street, 5 minutes to Hyde Park for running in the morning and 3 minutes to Oxford Street. Be sure to book all hotels and restaurants in London and Paris at least 3 weeks ahead if you want to go to the most popular ones. In Paris is money is not a problem I would recommend the Crillon or the Meurice. The extra money is really worth it in Paris where hotels are sold out all the time and getting any level of service these days is tough. London is still reeling from the lack of yanks after 9-11 so it is much more pleasant and the people really want tourists. No advice about hotels in Venice though! Be sure to book lunch at Langans Brasserie in London, and be sure to sit on the main floor. Also Daphne's for dinner if you want Chelsea and celeb sitings. Any other questions please write.

I am a big fan of flying in Europe, but your plans will mean that you will want to use some trains and some planes.<BR><BR>Train: Rome to Venice.<BR><BR>Plane: Venice to Brussels or London - - or train to Milan, and then fly to Brussels, London, Dublin, Glasgow or Paris (by way of Dublin or Glasgow)<BR><BR>Personally I would forget Switzerland in this itinerary - - though you could train to Geneva, then fly to London - - for about the same price as just taking the Channel Tunnel train (Eurostar) to London.<BR><BR>Is this your first trip to Europe? Five destinations is probably too many unless you have more than fifteen days. And the ratio of city-to-rural (five:zero) is missing the best half of Europe, in my opinion.<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

up<BR>

Wow, two completely different replies, one who says fly from rome to venice, then train it, then another says the complete opposite.<BR><BR>Thanks for the in-depth info on all of the hotels, etc. Had not really thought about london yet, still stuck on Rome, Paris and how to get from one place to the next.<BR><BR>Any more ideas on the plane or train conundrum?