Taylort771

We will fly into Lisbon then take a train from
Lisbon-Madrid
Madrid- Barcelona
Barcelona- Zurich
Zurich- Munich
Munich-Frankfurt
Frankfurt- Luxembourg
Luxembourg- Brussels
Brussels- Amsterdam
Amsterdam- Berlin
Berlin-Prague
Prague-Vienna
Vienna- salzburg

We have 5 weeks to do this. Is it doable? Any stops you would add or take off. we like to see as much as possible while in europe. Is this the best way to do it?

janisj

"<i>We have 5 weeks to do this. Is it doable?</i>"

You decide -- you'll be spending the best part of ten full days in transit, more when you consider all the checking in/checking out, packing/unpacking.. That leaves approx 25 days for 13 major cities.

So is spending a little less than one third of your trip in train stations and on trains what you want to do?

5 weeks seems like a long time - but it isn't really. Not for visiting for 10 countries anyway . . .

adrienne

Enjoy visiting 13 train stations! I agree with janis - way too much moving around. Too little time to visit the sights.

I expect you also think this is an overly ambitious itinerary otherwise you would not have posted.

StCirq

Sure it's DO-able. Are you doing a thesis on European train stations?

spaarne

I did something like that about 5 years ago using a rail pass and night trains. See http://tinyurl.com/y57vft. Actually I went even further in four weeks, just about circling Europe from Holland to Portugal to Austria to the Nordic countries. Go for it. Keep a travel journal and use your digital camera so you'll be able to remember where you were. Change the time function on your digital camera as you change time zones.

janisj

"<i>use your digital camera so you'll be able to remember where you were.</i>"

That is more true that you probably intended

ira

Hi Tay,

13 venues in 35 days
Nearly 12 days lost to travel.
about 2 days per venue.

"If It's Tuesday it Must be Belgium".

Barbara_in_FL

My days of ambitious itineraries are behind me. But I disagree that this is 12 days "lost" to travel. The times I spent on trains during my years of this type of sight-seeing are among my best travel memories.

I agree that it's trying to do a LOT, but it might be a lot of fun. And who packs and unpacks a backpack?

Now, if you are thinking of doing this with several suitcases and your 80-year-old auntie, think again. ; )

I would not necessarily pick all the same cities myself, but if you have specific reasons for seeing them, why not? (To me, Zurich, Frankfurt and Brussels are not "first tier" destinations, but I'm sure there are others here who can demonstrate how amply wrong I am about that.)

I once did Paris-Nice-Venice-Rome-Athens-Zagreb-Vienna-Prague-Salzburg-Strasbourg in about four weeks. It was a blast. But that was a long time ago.

nytraveler

Most of those cities deserve way more than 2 days - more like 4 or 5 - unless you have been there before. If you want to see a couple of major sights in each place - but never get a feel for the city or spend late afternoon sitting in a cafe having a drink and watching the world go by or having a nice walk back to the hotel through the quiet streets after a late dinner - go right ahead.

You don;t say what time of year you are planning this trip - but depending the southern areas may be hot as hell - or the northern ones may be covered in snow.

Also - you don;t give a clue as to your interests but you are only in large cities - not leaving any time for smaller towns or countryside.

janisj

"<i>But I disagree that this is 12 days "lost" to travel. The times I spent on trains during my years of this type of sight-seeing are among my best travel memories.</i>"

Sure - train travel can be fine, even great sometimes. But it is not "worth" <i>more</i> than the actual destinations. 5 - 10 hours of train travel every 4 or 5 days is one thing. 4 - 8 hours on trains every day or two means you will become and expert on trains and learn very little about the places.

nancicita

I think if you have only 5 weeks and you want to go to all of the cities you've listed, you need to do a combination of flights with overnight trains. Otherwise, you'll waste a lot of time. Take the advice of seasoned travelers here on this forum -- most will say that it's not a good idea...

ira

>Keep a travel journal and use your digital camera so you'll be able to remember where you were. <

Because everything will fade into a grey blur.

I did 3 weeks on the trains when I was in my early 20's.

About all I can remember is being in a train station with a circle of people around me wondering if I was sick, drunk or stoned.

Taylort771

Okay so i think Yall are right. Maybe we shoudl stick to just like
Germany, Austria and Prague and maybe brussels and amsterdam? What do yall think about that?

nytraveler

Well the number of places makes much more sense., I'm still not sure why you've picked those places (which are fine) and what you want to see do. I am a city focused person - and I want every museum, church and ancient monument that there is - but even so I do like to spend some time in the countryside. We usually do road trips -- but you can do similar on the train.

I would pick the places you want, figure out what you will see there an dhow long it will take )michelin books will tell you that) and figure out if you want to see any smaller towns or countryside.

And again, this depends largely on WHEN you will go. In winter the countryside is fairly boring unless you are actually skiing - but for most of the year it is worth visiting.

greg

Whether a trip is doable or not depends on the compatibility of what you intend to do and the constraints. Is 13 destinations trip less doable than a one destination trip in 5 weeks? I don't think the answer is automatic. If you want to do 6weeks of activities in one location vs. 4wks worth of activities in 13 locations, the later is more relaxing while the one destination trip is not doable.

Whether a certain destination requires one , two, or three days, etc, depends on what you intend to do there. Just because one person requires three days to do "justice" does not automatically means you need to do the same. You have your own objectives, values, and trade-offs. What you need to do in any case is a realistic idea of how long it takes for you to move around using the maximum number of options you can deploy. What is left over is the time you have to sleep, eat, and visit attractions.

Each person places different values on different components of the trip. For several of my acquaintances, it is the driving above all. They are content as long as they are driving. Never mind that they have no time left at the destination do anything but sleeping and eating until the next morning when they resume driving. It is not for me, but for them, that is what the value of travel is all about.

nancicita

It does seem that the OP prefers these types of crazy head-spinning trips -- as shown in past posts.

Harry005

Nice discussion, getting much information regarding this problem. Same with me.
Thanks everyone here.

http://www.eurostartickets.com

ira

>Maybe we shoudl stick to ... Germany, Austria and Prague.

Much better plan.

Fly into Prague - 1 wk, train to Vienna - 1 wk, train to Salzburg - 3 nights - rent a car and visit the Salzkammergut - 4 nights, drive to Fuessen via St Johann in Tirol, Worgl and Lermoos, see the Castles and drive the Romantic Road to Rothenburg ob der Tauber - 10 Days, drive back to Munich before flying home.

Enjoy your visit.

Taylort771

nancicita- some people prefer those types of trips. I get to see more of europe at a time, sure its rushed but I dont know when i will get to go back. So if you dont like it dont post.


Still trying to work out the small details. But thanks for helping me narrow it down. This is what we will probably end up doing.