travelingbrianandkim

We are looking at a Europe trip next summer in July (know it's busiest then, but that's when we have time off). Need some suggestions if the below timing makes sense and won't leave us running like crazy. If this agenda seems too packed, we might skip Rome altogether to stay in the Northern regions of Italy (knowing that Rome and southern Italy are a trip in themselves.) We want to go to Germany regardless as we have friends in Stuttgart. We are planning to travel by train, and are not opposed to taking night trains. Is there a place we should stay overnight on one of our longer trips?

Flying into Rome, staying 2 nights
Florence, 2 nights
Venice, 3 nights
Munich, 2 nights
Stuttgart, 2-3 nights
Prague, 3-4 nights

StCirq

Are you teleporting between these destinations?

You don't seem to have given any consideration whatsoever to the logistics involved in getting from one place to another - namely, the TIME it takes.

Yes, you'll be running like crazy. This would be grand if you were doing researching for a thesis on European train stations. As a vacation, it won't be much fun at all.

bobthenavigator

Too many stops in too little time:

Rome-4
Florence--2
Venice---3
Stuttgart--2
Munich---2

or; Venice--3
Prague---3

bobthenavigator

Sorry,hit the wrong key.
Venice--3
Prague--4
Munich---3
Stuttgart-3

A max of 4 stops is best in only 13 nites in Europe.

nytraveler

You aren't allowing any time to get from one place to another. Two night in a city is really only one full day.

Agree that in 13 nights 2 destinations is better, 3 is fairly rushed. More than that gives you a lovely tour of the train stations of europe.

Aramis

brian, kim;

Here is some "practical" advice

Rome - Florence; 1.5 hours
Florence - Venice; 2.0 hours
Venice - Munich; 7 hours - 1 change ( a 9 hour direct overnight train is also available)
Munich - Stuttgart; 2.2 hours
Stuttgart - Prague; 6.1 hours - change to a bus in Nuernberg

Clearly, you are not out of bounds on the time between locations. I am not sure how leaving Rome at 9:00 a.m. and being at your hotel in Florence before noon is grounds for the response you have received so far. Some people expect everyone to travel within a fairly small geographical area and only move every 3 or 4 days.

The "tour of the rails stations of Europe" line is getting to be quite tiresome

If you don't mind the (direct) night train from Venice to Munich dep @ 21:05 - arr @ 06:15, then Stuttgart to Prague becomes the most challenging travel as you will have to spend about 6 daytime hours traveling and change to an (express) bus in Nuernberg ( a 7-10 minute walk to the bus from the rail station - essentially they are "connected").

Does it seem too packed? I am not a big fan of repeated 2 night stays, preferring 3, but you may be perfectly happy with moving on after 2 days. Doing two 2 night stops right after arriving might be a little taxing. An option might be to move on to Florence immediately after landing in Rome and saving Rome for another trip involving southern Italy. There is a train from the Rome airport direct to the main rail station where you can quickly connect to Florence.

That would give you two days back and you could add one to Florence and Munich to give you;

Florence 3
Venice 3
Munich 3
Stuttgart 3
Prague 3

I suggested Munich because it would allow you to have at least 3 days in each location and sometimes the overnight train trips can leave you light on sleep so an extra day in the arriving city can be useful. There are many great potential day trips from Munich you could take if 3 days wasn't what you had in mind.

Alternately, you could add the day to Stuttgart or Prague deciding whether you wanted to rest up (what kind of friends are they ) either before or after your travel to Prague.

I have presumed that Prague is a must because you only offered up dropping Rome if things looked to tight.

Remember, only you and kim/brian (I don't know who is actually posting) know the way you want to travel and what you want to see.

kybourbon

>>>I am not sure how leaving Rome at 9:00 a.m. and being at your hotel in Florence before noon is grounds for the response you have received so far.<<<

That's not all that is involved. You have to check out of your hotel in Rome, get transport to the station (you simply can't arrive at the exact departure time and expect to make the train), train to Florence, get transport to your hotel, check-in (IF they will allow check-in that early). If they won't, you might have to store your luggage at the train station (there's often a line a luggage storage). All of these things take time. It's not as simple as saying Rome/Florence is 90 minutes by train.

Any city listed with 2 nights only gives you 1 day of sightseeing.

oldmacdonald

According to your itinerary you have 14-16 nights in Europe and Stuttgart is a given. With this information, I would skip Italy and Prague all together and do a two week trip that takes you from Munich to Paris with Stuttgart a stop in between.

Munich and Salzburg - 3 nights
Germany for 5 nights (Meersburg, Wurzburg, etc.)
Stuttgart - 2 nights
Paris - 5-6 nights

We did a similar trip an d wished we had more time in Paris and we love, love Germany (and Italy). Save Italy for the next trip.

StCirq

Of course, at the end of the day, however someone wants to travel is up to them. BUT...people come here asking questions, like "are we going to be running around like crazy?", so those of us with lots of experience can actually offer some advice and answer those types of questions. They wouldn't come here to ask if they didn't have some hesitations about their plans.

The "practical" advice dished out by Aramis always leaves out exactly what kybourbon mentioned: the extra TIME to pack and check out of hotels, figure out the transportation to the train station, the time AT the train station being sure you get there with plenty of leeway for finding the right quai, understanding the signs, etc., getting a snack to eat before on while on the train....and everything else in reverse once your train actually arrives at the station. Even with all the apps and electronic help in the world that young people have at their disposal these days, you can't transition from Place A to Place B, even if it's a "90-minute train ride" without expecting to spend a minimum of half a day accomplishing that. And that's if you're smart and have your wits about you and don't encounter any setbacks (which every traveler encounters on just about every trip).

I agree. Ditch Italy.

Jean

And the train journey times assume the trains depart and arrive on schedule. Not always a given.

As the others have suggested, you need to reduce your itinerary. But before you starting eliminating things out of hand, check your flight options in and out of Europe. Could you fly in or out of Prague without a lot of connections? Ditto Venice? Are you willing to fly within Europe? Your flight options might help narrow your focus.

Investigate what routes even have overnight train service and pay attention to the number of connections, the times of the connections and the wait times between trains. Although night trains can initially seem like a good solution, the reality is often multiple connections, some in the middle of the night, some with longish wait times, etc., and a resulting lack of sleep.

janisj

You have to understand you know who. He gets his kicks claiming no one on Fodors knows anything - except him of course. Well, he is flat wrong. But you have your choice - listen to him . . . or everyone else. Pick carefully.

As it is - w/ your original plan you will have 1.5 days in Rome and the first day will probably be a jet lagged fog. Before seeing anything much and maybe still jet lagged you are off to Florence for 1.5 days. Then pack again and leave for Venice for 2.5 days. 1 day plus a <u>tiny</u> bit in Munich.

And so on. What you cut is up to you, but IMO something(s) have to go. . . . Or listen to one poster and ignore everyone else . . .

Aramis

I have never claimed that no one else in here knows anything, janis - only that too many people feel that there is only one proper way to travel and that those people are often condescending when they respond to posters who attempting to plan something that they themselves would not undertake.

Lots of people are happy to spend 2 nights in each stop and even include some one night stops. I am not one of them, but to presume they must be corrected of their crazy ideas is arrogant. My choice is to provide practical information and let them decide.

It might be an issue of planning, or sleeping late (which is another example of imposing personal preferences into a response), for those who don't think it's possible to leave your hotel in Rome at around 9:00 a.m., catch a 09:46 train to Florence, arrive at 11:21 and get to your hotel within 40 minutes? I do it all the time as do most of the people I Know who travel frequently.

kybourbon

It's quite different if you are an experienced traveler or you've been to these cities before and know your way around than if you are a first time traveler. The OP was asking if the itinerary was too hectic - "Need some suggestions if the below timing makes sense and won't leave us running like crazy".

Just because an itinerary is possible, doesn't mean it's practical.

StCirq

<<I do it all the time>>

Whoop-dee-do. So do I. You know what's truly "arrogant?" Assuming everyone who comes here can do it, too. People who are clearly hesitant about the plans they're contemplating simply don't have your experience...or mine. That's why they're hesitant and come here for advice. There's nothing "practical" about assuming everyone can, or will enjoy, traveling like you or all those people you know who travel frequently.

Aramis

I prefer to let the posters be the judge of whether they "can" or want to do it.

I don't presume they can, or can't - I let them decide based on practical information and opinion. That is not arrogant.

And, really, asking the OP if they plan to "teleport" between destinations, implying that their plans would be "grand if they were doing researching for a thesis on European train stations" and that "as a vacation, it won't be much fun at all" is not a good basis from which to start calling others arrogant.

If you want to believe that your vast experience (you seem to want to make it a competition) uniquely qualifies to decide what others want or will enjoy out of a travel experience and to chide them as a first response, you will no doubt continue.

I will continue to offer information to try and give the OP's the ability to make their own decisions.

pizzocchieri

travelingbrianandkim,

Unless you do very well with heat, you might greatly prefer some your cooler destinations. Although Florence is north of Rome, it is hot and extremely humid -- and mobbed -- in July. If you do not have a keen interest in touring historical sights, I say give the hot south a miss. You might find it appealing to fly into Venice, get over your jet leg, and then look for a northern scenic destination to enjoy. Any interest in renting a car and having a scenic drive through the Dolomiti? They are spectacular. Get rid of your car before leaving Italy and take trains the rest of the way. Or head from Venice to an Italian lake, catch your breath, then on to Munich.


Aramis,

Let it go. You are arguing with hardened ideology that's turned into a cult. You are perfectly right to share your travel experience, so just do that and ignore the ninny AARP chorus.

pizzocchieri

In case this needs to be said, most of us don't need to budget time for getting a snack at the train station. We don't get hysterical about such things. They sell snacks on the train. We don't eat every minute either. If we need to, we ask the hotel to call us a taxi to take us to the train station.

Most people can, in fact, keep moving on a schedule for a week or two of international travel. If they couldn't, the global economy would collapse. Whether one wants to do that on a vacation is the advice being sought, but this hysteria about snacks at the station and checking out of hotels is nuts. Also, not everybody wants to spend all day at the Vatican. Not everybody is a nose-in-the-guidebook-do-the-checklist sightseer.

BigRuss

The debate is ridiculous. The OP's implied question was does their plan make sense for a couple concerned with some convenience and avoiding hectic travel schedules. The answer is no.

If you're not a nose-in-the-guidebook-do-the-checklist sightseer, the plan is completely daft because a non-nose-in-the-guidebook-do-the-checklist sightseer would want MORE time to experience the places visited, not less time spent in each place because that only allows for ticking off boxes on the to-do list.

One question that the OP has not been asked, nor answered, is WHY these cities and WHAT experiences are anticipated. That might help with budgeting and prioritizing.