Robespierre

Ah, no. The reason London's Big Red Bus and Paris's l'Open Tour routes take most of a day to travel is because <i>the tourist sights are spread out.</i> Yes, a few in every city are clustered in &quot;Salt Lake City,&quot; but once you've gone there, you don't have to go back.

mamc

With all due respect, staying in the center of cities like Paris, London, Venice, etc. is a big part of the charm for me. It is nice to be able to venture out from your hotel and see so many of the major sights within walking distance. As Rex says, using public transportation in those cities is likely and for certain, much easier if you don't have to add the commute to the movement within the city. We often change for dinner and it would be a real annoyance to travel out of the center and back again just to have dinner.

Robespierre

Good Lord! I'm not talking about staying in Reading or Amiens - my hotel would be within a 10-minute ride of Notre Dame or Trafalgar Square.

And as far as returning to the hotel to change: unless <u>all</u> of your sightseeing is within walking distance of the hotel (which I find unlikely in the extreme), you still have to get to it from your last tour venue anyway, and chances are there are good restaurants the same distance from <i>it</i> as from a centrally located property.


And saving &pound;20 or &euro;30 a day on lodging will buy a LOT of transportation, even by taxi. And <u>still</u> have money left over.

rex

This is a lot of ranting over an issue that encompasses too many micro-geography issues for the generalizations here to be worth arguing over. The differences of one location over another in - - what are we talking about? five different cities here - - are undoubtedly going way over the head of sean007, who probably hasn't even gotten a grasp yet on the basic layout of the continent, let alone the arrondissements and sestrieres of Paris and Venice, nor what it means to be on one side of the other of the Thames or the Tiber.

Location DOES drive price, that's for sure, and in some cases, it is money well spent (e.g., Albergo del Senato in Rome, to cite just one), and in others, those &quot;prime&quot; locations (in London, for example) have become status symbols and refuges for seekers of ultra-luxury expansive suites.

Each city is a worthy question in its own right, and we have no idea whether sean007 will place a high value on keeping within a $1400 total lodging budget for 14 nights, or 2-3 times that, or some lower figure. At a given budget, there are locations that are highly suited to making the most of &quot;seeing&quot; a city (and I use quotes, because each city on this proposed itinerary is going to be &quot;seen&quot; superficially at best) - - and there are bargain locations that are &quot;you get what you pay for&quot;, for good reason.

Let us talk about specifics, when sean007 is ready to ask about them.

This aside started as an argument over whether a &quot;rail pass&quot; is a good idea for their proposed travels - - and I maintain that it is not. A short transfer from the major train station(s) to a centrally located hotel (sometimes a few blocks walk) was part of that equation - - but the math is not hugely different even if Hammersmith IS the choice.

PalQ

for anyone planning a first trip to Europe you should consider using the superb rail network and one of the best single sources of information is free European Planning &amp; Rail Guide which not only tells about trains but lots of other things from packing tips to changing money to foreign electricity, etc. A really valuable and free resource (call BETS: 800-441-9413. I also heartily recommend the Let's Go Europe guidebook for anyone going on their own and especially if looking for budget accommodations. It has a wealth on info on each town and dozens of budget hotel/hostel listings - available in any bookstore. Fodors European guides are excellent too but the accommodations are geared more towards higher budgets - if planning on spending $100/day or more on hotels this would be better; if going the low-budget hotel/pension or hostel route (you're not too old for hostels, in fact they even sell a senior citizen hostel card!) also get Let's Go.

abbynicole27

Be sure to check out www.whichbudget.com to find out which major cities you can fly between cheaply - it takes far less time and if you book enough in advance it can be a lot cheaper than the train

PalQ

Flying may be cheaper but it's not the samd as a train trip where you actually SEE the countryside in between - it's often what's in between places that you'll remember - you can fly from Rome to Munich over the Swiss Alps or you can take the train through them. Plus with cheap fares you got to lock yourself into something far in advance - these cheap fares are usually not available on short notice. And one airport is like another and you still got to get into the city - some of the cheap flights serve remote airports, like Beauvais, 40 miles from Paris, the train takes you into the city center. Use night trains to save on hotels and travel time. I'm not saying i wouldn't fly from Rome to London but i'd work my way down to Rome by rail, end up there and then fly to Dublin. I think folks that often recommend flying are well meaning but are veteran travelers who have already seen the Europe, the ground Europe in between the major cities and airports. That's just my opinion.

111op

I've not really seen as much of Europe as the veteran travelers, but I think that given the (short?) length of the trip (2 weeks) and the desire to cram as much in as possible, flying is usually preferable. You save a lot of time flying compared to taking the train.

That's what I think, anyway.

And with the proliferation of budget airlines, flying need not be much more expensive compared to the train.

My tolerance for a train ride is 4 hours, unless there's something truly spectacular. Longer than that I start thinking about flying or a different itinerary.

PalQ

For example you take the train between Paris and Amsterdam - 4.5 hours and you see French countryside with its wondrous old villages in the distance and then the canal and cow-dotted fields of the Lowlands. Or you fly - you spend an hour getting from Paris to CDG airport and probably have to check in an hour early and wait and then wait some more if the plane is not ontime and then at Schiphol, wait to deplane, retrieve your luggage and then have to get into the city center. How much time do you save - and you lose seeing the lay of the land in between. You see cities and nothing else. If that's your cup of tea i say fine, i have no quibble but flying often sounds so simple until you look at the invariables of delays, check-in mob scenes, waiting for bags, transferring on each end - it's not as hassle free as it sounds often. I'm not opposing mixing trains with planes but only for a few long distances. A European train trip (or motoring) is something special, flying between airports for me is a real drag. Each to his each and i respect your view.

111op

Well, I guess with Paris/Amsterdam I would take the train. So if the ride is 4.5 hours, then I guess 4.5 hours is my limit then.

But one thing that I also consider is whether I'm leaving from the city center or from the airport. If I'm at the airport already, then flying is usually preferable also, if I can get a quick connection to go from one destination to another (rather than go to the city center to catch a train there).

But of course, it all depends on what the itinerary is.