Hi, I'm finding it difficult to put together an itinerary for a 16 day trip starting in Switzerland and ending in Germany. I promised my husband one scenic mountain train ride along with scenic driving. There seems to be a variety of scenic train routes in all of the countries. I thought we might fly into Geneva, drive or train northeast to Innsbruck, then north to Munich. From there we'd like to go north, maybe along the Rhine, and fly home from Frankfort. I'm not sure which area is best to drive, which to high speed train, and which to scenic train. I need help connecting all the dots as well as suggestions on places to see along the way. Thanks!

There seems to be a variety of scenic train routes in all of the countries.>

Yes but the only dramatically scenic rail lines are in Switzerland -

I would take the train or drive first from Geneva to Interlaken and then spend a few days up in the Jungfrau Region in a mountain village like Wengen or Grindelwald in what I and many think to be both the literal and figurative high point of Switzerland - an area of soaring glacier-girdled peaks - toy-like mountain trains and thrilling aerial gondolas - hiking paths for all levels - just a dreamy place - then head for Austria and Germany.

renting a car in one country and returning it to another could mean steep drop-of charges - for lots of great info on Swiss trains - especially scenic trains check out thesee IMO fantastic sites - www.swisstravelsystem.com; http://www.budgeteuropetravel.com/id3.html; www.ricksteves.com.

Cars cannot even go into much of the Jungfrau Region so trains there are you best option - and every train ride will fulfill anyone's idea of a scenic Swiss train.

To whet your appetite for the Jungfrau Region:

https://www.google.com/search?q=imag...=1600&bih=1075

From Interlaken drive or take the train to Austria and up into Germany and if you have to to return your car without a steep drop-off fee motor back to Switzerland from Germany - I'd say drive to Innsbruck and Salzburg from Interlaken and then to Munich and thru Bavaria back to Zurich.

Thank you for your help. We were thinking of driving from Munich to go west to the Rhine and follow it north to Frankfurt and fly home from there. Does this make sense? And can we get a good taste of Switzerland and Austria without a car, just doing trains? Do you have specific towns that you like to stay in following the route you gave? I appreciate all of the help!

Yes trains are a great way to go in Switzerland and Austria, especially Switzerland as trains go places cars are not allowed to - and the train route to Innsbruck and Salzburg is really scenic much of the way - especially if you take the slightly longer route Innsbruck to Salzburg that plies an Alpine valley, going thru Kitzbuhel and Zell am See - a really cute route.

Salzburg is only 1.5 hours from Munich by train - your German driving route is sweet - from Munich you could go to Rothenburg and then drive the Castle Road thru a nice river valley studded by neat old towns and castles to Heidleberg, one of the few German towns not decimated in WW2 thus intact - with a great castle hovering above it

not far from here to the Rhine - consider the Mosel by car to Cochem, a dreamy place many folks like to base for the Mosel and Rhine. Burg Eltz castle is near Cochem - one of the most famous castles in Europe - the Mosel itself is a gorgeous river valley as the river sinuously loops thru a gorge-like valley where on either side slopes go up hundreds of feet - vineyards cover much of the southward-facing slopes and numerous wine towns dot the valley.

Not far from there to Frankfurt.

Mosel Valley: https://www.google.com/search?q=imag...=1600&bih=1075

I would second using trains in Switzerland and Austria. Leave the driving for Germany.

With 16 days including arrival/departure days I would consider carefully how many 'travel days' you include vs. days actually spent in places. One of the biggest mistakes travellers make is trying to see/do too much in too little time.

Any one of the 3 countries has more than enough to take up your entire time. Moving frequently from place to place simply ends up in not enough time spent anywhere. A case of, 'If it's Tuuesday, this must be Belgium'.

Your dots connect best in reverse order. Main reason being car rentals are cheaper in Germany. In addition drop off charges are $400 to $500 more for Swiss rentals.Your dots are better with 22 days.

Here we go!
Day 1-Fly to Frankfurt.
Day 2-Arrive Frankfurt, drive to Cochem (Mosel) or Bacharach (Rhine) for 2 nights.
Day 3-Explore Mosel and/or Rhine.Burg Eltz is fab.
Day 4-Drive to Rothenburg for one night.Night watchman tour.
Day 5-Drive to Munich via Ulm or Andechs for 2 nights.
Day 6-Explore Munich.
Day 7-Drive to Salzburg via Berchtesgaden for 2 nights.
Day 8-Explore Salzburg and the Salzkammergut(S.O.M.).
Day 9-Drive to Appenzell via Innsbruck for 1 night.Could sleep in Hall or Innsbruck instead.
Day 10-Drive to Grindelwald for 4 nights. Could turn in car in Zurich and train the rest of Switzerland.
Day 11-Train to Jungfraujoch( or another day when the weather is optimum).
Day-12 Explore the region. Need more scenic driving. Many years ago I did a round trip from Grindlewald-Grimsel, Furka, and Susten passes.
Day-13 Explore the region.
Day 14- Drive to French Switzerland for 2 nights (Montreaux) via Gstaad or Bern. Visit Chateau Chillon.
Day 15- Explore the area.
Day 16-Fly home from Geneva.

I really appreciate all of the help and ideas. Let me confirm...you can rent a car in Germany and drop off in Switzerland for no extra drop fee, but not the other way around? If we rent in Switzerland and drop in Germany, it's a huge drop fee?!

What would be wrong with training thru Switzerland and on to Germany as the first few people recommended? Is the last itinerary better to cover more ground? How many driving days all told? We may have an extra day for flying, so we can be gone for up to 17 days.

I know nothing about any of this as I just started the research. I need as much detail as possible, including favorite towns and hotels! Thanks so much!!

Hi soods.
Car rental (and every thing else) is more expensive in Switzerland than in Germany.All rental companies charge for car returns to a country other than the one you rented it at. Some do not allow it at all. The fees I referenced above were from Hertz. For Germany to Switzerland Hertz charged $225. For Switzerland to Germany Hertz charged $650, therefor a difference of $425.

>>What would be wrong with training thru Switzerland and on to Germany as the first few people recommended?<<
PalenQ recommended your trip should be Switzerland to Switzerland because of drop fees.dulci likes driving Germany, training Switzerland and Austria.Also dulci does not like one night stops.

>>Is the last itinerary better to cover more ground? <<
It was for me.As example I would not want to spend my last night in Frankfurt. There are better options available.

>> How many driving days all told?<<
No total driving days. On travel driving days both mornings and/or late afternoons are available for sight seeing.

>> We may have an extra day for flying, so we can be gone for up to 17 days. <<
When asking for advice it is best to state how many nights you have.

To get detailed answers you need to ask detailed questions, or ask a question about a detail that a responder might have suggested. Look up some of the towns I suggested and see if they appeal to you. I know it seems difficult to plan your vacation, but you will enjoy it all the more.You are off to a good start by coming to this form.

I see no reason to incur any drop-off fee at all. Whichever way you choose to go, just drop off the car at the nearest town to the border and train to/from there. Don't drive across a border period.

As Dugi says, count nights, as well as days. Just counting days is misleading. For example, to spend 3 days in a place you must spend 4 nights there. No matter how little time you spend between places, it is deducted from your time in a place.

Arrival/departure days are basically lost days. I never count them as time in a place. So if you use the 'Rule of 3s' as a general tool for planning, what that tells you is that you should never plan to spend less than 3 days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B.

With 16 days minus (if you have counted them in your 16)your arrival/departure days, that means you have 14 days/nights to work with. Enough time for only 3 stops using the Rule of 3s, with one stop being 6 nights or two being 5 nights.

That is quite different from what Dugi has suggested. How you want to travel is your choice but it's important to know what you are choosing.

One is a trip where you visit several places long enough to see and do quite a bit in the immediate area. The Jungfrau area that PalenQ (and many others) loves so much for example. You could easily spend a week or more there and not run out of things to do each day.

The other type of trip is a 'road trip' where you move much more often and only see and do what is right on your route more or less.

The issue for me is that while driving a car or riding a train does allow you to see scenery, you aren't actually interacting with anything while doing so. I consider time spent actaully moving as lost time. I look at it as a percentage of my total time and ask myself, 'how much of my time am I willing to lose moving vs. spent in a place seeing and doing things?' Only you can answer that question for yourself.

All I am saying is that it is a question every traveller should ask themselves. The common desire people have is 'to see as much as possible'. What they confuse however is the word 'much' with the word 'many'. They are not synonymous. The way to see as 'much' as possible is to spend time IN places seeing/doing things. Not spend time in BETWEEN places.

If someone has 16 days and spends 6 or 8 of their days moving vs. someone with 16 days who moves on only 2 days, which will see/do more?

If someone has 16 days and spends 6 or 8 of their days moving vs. someone with 16 days who moves on only 2 days, which will see/do more?>

Two ways to look at that - one who moves sees territory whilst they are moving - one who stays put see more things in their immediate vicinity.

Is traveling seeing or doing? To me it is as much as staying put.

I know what you mean and agree with it but not sure about who sees more - now is a fleeting image from a train window seeing or doing something - to me it is.

I agree with PalenQ. We have been to 16 countries vacationing, and in most of them have not stayed in one place longer than 4 nights. Most of the smaller towns only two. I believe that the moving from place to place is doing as well as seeing. The sites have been breath taking, the villages we stop at along the way have been charming, and the people we've asked for directions have become integral parts of our travel stories. That being said, we usually start out in a big city where we land, to get our barings, and end in one slow down before going home. That's why it's important for me to understand what cities people have liked in my proposed route. I really don't want to spend time in Frankfurt, but I do want to see the sights between there and Munich. I wouldn't mind leaving from Geneva, or flying in there either. Just looking for some info from people experienced in these countries. Flying in will be counted as day one (even though we can't do anything much) and flying out will be day 17. I'm getting a better feel for things the more advise I get, but this wasn't an area I had any knowledge of. My husband picked this one!

"Is traveling seeing or doing? To me it is as much as staying put."

If you drive from A to B, yes you 'see' scenery but what you 'do' is DRIVE a car.

But that isn't likely to be what you 'do' if spending the day in the smallest of villages. What you are likely to 'do' is spend your time interacting in that village in some way. Whether it is visiting a tiny local museum or sitting in a cafe people watching or shopping in a supermarket for food for a picnic, what you will be seeing and doing is learning about that village, local customs, etc. and far more than what you would be 'doing' driving a car.

'To see' and 'to do' are verbs. The assumption in your sentence PalenQ, is that seeing scenery and driving (what you see and do in that case) are equal to what you would see and do in a place for a day.

In fact, driving and seeing scenery would be better than staying in a place if all you wanted to experience was only seeing scenery and driving a car. But that isn't why most people travel is it? Rather than 'see' and 'do', substitute the verb 'interact' and what happens?

There is no question that the longer you spend in a place the more in depth your knowledge of that place will become. Stopping for an hour somewhere while driving from A to B is never going to give you as much as spending an entire day would. That's simple common sense.

So who 'sees/does more', is not simply about what your eyes see, it is about how in depth you 'see' a place. Time spent moving from A to B is never going to be as good as time spent IN a place UNLESS your only objective is to see scenery and drive a car. There is no question who will see/do (interact) more in a given day if your objective is to learn more about a place.

I am an unabashed proponent of 'Slow Travel'. http://www.slowmovement.com/slow_travel.php

I try never to spend less than a week in a place and longer if possible. The objective is to have as much interaction in a given time period as possible. But I realize not everyone will take that approach. A major factor in that is how many places they have already been to and how many they still want to go to.

I find that the more someone has travelled, the more places they have been, the more willing they are to slow down and spend longer in a place.

I also find that the more places you have been to, the more you come to realize that no matter what you do, you will never get to everywhere that might interest you. That leaves you wondering what the point is of trying. Should you rush to 10 more places on your next trip or should you spend all that time getting to really know one place?

Travel is like the saying, 'the more you know, the more you know you don't know.' Spending a day in a place allows you to know a little. Spending 3 days allows you to know more. Spending 3 weeks even more and at some point you come to realize that spending 3 months will still not let you know all there is to know. There will always be more you don't know.

The other saying that applies is, 'you can see a little of a lot or a lot of a little.' Everyone is free to choose for themselves but I'll still try to convince you that a lot of a little is better use of your time. ;-)

<There is no question that the longer you spend in a place the more in depth your knowledge of that place will become. Stopping for an hour somewhere while driving from A to B is never going to give you as much as spending an entire day would. That's simple common sense.

So who 'sees/does more', is not simply about what your eyes see, it is about how in depth you 'see' a place.>

very subjective thing though as soods and moi think (though indeed I have spent weeks in places like London, Paris and see what you are saying...

but I have often traveled by bicycle and the above you say could not be more untrue for bike travel - there is no more way to get an in-depth experience of a country, its people and culture than going by bike where you will have countless encounters with folks - yes a car can be quite insulating and even trains too though you have fellow passengers there to interact with.

So it depends on the mode of travel - going by plane is the worst IMO of being insulated from everything but tarmacs and airports and then only seeing large cities.

Well a mixture of both is what I recommend - rather than spending a whole week in one city spend at least a few days traveling around on day trips, etc.

I think you have simply proved my point PalenQ. A bike slows you down and yes you interact more. The more you slow down, the more you interact. So it is not "untrue" about bicycle travel, you are in fact proving the point. Slower is better, less is more.

Fast travel is the 'fast food' of travel. While it fills you up, it isn't the best way to fill yourself up.

This idea may seem odd but why don't you check out the
itineraries of various bus tours that take in the countries
you want to see. By doing so you can get an idea of the
most popular sites and the time allotted to them. Also,
you can figure out how to avoid the hordes on those busses.

Building on your comments:

Day 1-Arrive Geneva.High speed train to Montreaux for 2 nights.
Day 2-Explore French Switzerland. Visit Chateau Chillon. Les Rochers de Naye.
Day 3-Train to Bernese Oberland( Grindelwald) for 4 nights.
Day 4- Train to Jungfraujoch( or another day when the weather is optimum).
Day 5- Explore the region.
Day 6- Explore the region.
Day 7- Train to Konstance. Rent car. Drive one hour to Appenzell for one night.
Day 8- Drive to Salzburg (via Innsbruck) for 3 nights. Explore Salzburg.
Day 9- Explore Salzburg and the Salzkammergut(S.O.M.)
Day 10-Day trip to Berchtesgaden, or Hallein (Salt mine), or Hallstatt. Consider sleeping in Hallstatt.
Day 11- Drive to Munich for 3 nights.
Day-12 Explore Munich.
Day-13 Day trip to Kings Castles.
Day 14- Drive to Rothenburg for one night.Night watchman tour.
Day 15-Drive to Cochem (Mosel) or Bacharach (Rhine) for 1 night.
Day 16- Explore Mosel and/or Rhine.Burg Eltz is fab.Drive to Frankfurt for one night. Turn in car.
Day 17- Fly Home from Frankfurt.

-Arrive Geneva.High speed train to Montreaux for 2 nights>

No 'high speed' train Geneva to Montreux but a fairly, for European trains, slow one that gives at places lovely views of Lake Le Man. But not high-speed in any sense.