My wife and I are flying to London the first week of Sept. and thence to Rome. Using miles, we could only get as far as London on the dates we wanted. How practical would it be to take the train from London to Rome? How long a trip? How many train changes? And, of course, how much? Probably return from Venice.

Hi BB,

I suggest that you fly.

See www.whichbudget.com

www.seat61.com/Italy.htm#Rome

The quickest way by train these days takes under a day (dep Waterloo 1205, arr Paris Nord 1559, dep Paris Bercy 1900, arr Rome 0950). From about £110 return. Nothing like the proper two-dayer, getting on and off the ferry, we all grew up on - but then the slow old way got you waking up to the Alps and you had a wonderful day sweltering through Italy. See http://www.seat61.com/Italy.htm#Rome

Ira's suggestion is more practical, Usually cheaper. And SPECTACULARLY boring.

If you leave London in the morning, you can have lunch in Paris, spend the afternoon sightseeing there, then take the sleeper to Roma.

You can get Eurostar to Gare de Nord (approx 2.5 hrs), then the metro (I think it's the meteor fast train - no more than 10-15 mins) to Bercy, then a train to Rome - usually overnight, departing early evening.

Once you get to Italy the scenery is really lovely for much of the trip so, though longer than flying, it's more exciting. I did the journey to Verona this way a couple of years ago and really enjoyed it.

PS The sleeper bunks can be quite uncomfortable - request an upper one if you can as they are better, or go for some sort of upgrade, or even just a reclining seat if poss.

I did that over the course of several days, continuing on to Greece and Turkey from there.

It takes 2.5 hours on the Eurostar to get from London to Paris. It's 12 hours from Paris to Venice, and about another 5 hours to Rome. So all told you're looking at 19.5 hours on a train.

In 2003, it cost approximately $100 USD on the Eurostar to Paris (the budget Leisure Fare bought far in advance) another $120 or so for the night train to Venice, and another $40-50 to Rome. All told, that's $260 per person in train fares, and I'm sure they've gone up some.

So, if you want to stop in Paris, Venice, Florence or other points in between, you could take the train, but if your plan is to just see London & Rome, definitely fly.

Jules

I'm trying to figure out how much you can enjoy the spectacular scenery of Italy during the night on a sleeper train, especially if you are asleep. What am I missing here?

Unless you have an interest at getting on and off the train to visit places along the way there is no point in wasting precious vacation time - or budget - by taking the train that long a distance. It is far quicker and cheaper to fly. Whichbudget, which has already been mentioned here can layout all the various low budget airlines that fly btwn London and Rome.

www.ryanair.com for instance during the first week in September can cost as low as $4 per ticket (not including tax and fees) depending on when you fly during that week.

You could then take the train from Rome to Venice for your departure. Trains in Rome are relatively inexpensive. www.trenitalia.com

Hello boom_boom, I have not personally done this but family members have due to a strong suggestion from their travel agent. It was not a good idea at all in their opinion. They arrived tired and sore (and no they were not senior citizens) and felt like it almost ruined their time in Rome which in their case was to short of a visit to begin with. From their experience I would fly. Taking the train from Rome to Venice would be fine, at least for me.

Neopatrick -- when I took the night train from Paris to Venice, we stopped for a passport check in Switzerland at midnight. I woke up and looked out to see the Swiss police, and I pictured soaring Alps behind them. So I guess I've "seen" the Swiss Alps, even if it was in my mind's eye! LOL

As a long time enthusiast of train travel in Europe, my switch to flights for trips like this one is pretty recent. It's one thing to have a leisure daytime train trip with lots of scenery if you can spare the full day, but quite another to make a night time trip -- more uncomfortable to me than transAtlantic flights.

Jules, I know what you mean. I'm still chuckling over that whole idea of "seeing the countryside" while taking a sleeper train. In your dreams -- literally.

I made the round trip 35 years ago. I can recall: having a drink with an Oxford student at the ferry bar, being recalled below decks to see the sinister French immigration officer, morning in Paris, brief walk outside the station. Workers lining up for 6AM glass of wine. A long afternoon. An Australian holding forth on the different foot odors of diverse nationalities. Keeping my boots on. Pulling the seats together to make a bed. Figuring out Caldo/Freddo. Waking up to the glorious Alps. An evening arrival in Rome . . . On the return, an Englishman living in Spain delivered a hilarious monologue on the stages of sea sickness. Took us out for coffee in Paris and purchased himself dramamine. Conversation with a pretty French girl who entered the compartment in Paris. A pleasant surprise at farewell. Evening arrival in London.

What travel used to be about, for me. I wonder if I could find it again. I suppose an abridged version could happen on a plane, but somehow I just end up reading the magazine . . .

NeoPatrick - If the train leaves Bercy around 7:00pm you'll be in Italy well before 7:00am the next morning. From Milan onward you'll have hours of daylight before the train reaches Rome - depending on the route, you'll be seeing Lake Garda, Verona, Venice all in daylight - not to mention lots of beautiful countryside in between.

"depending on the route, you'll be seeing Lake Garda, Verona, Venice all in daylight "

From Paris to ROME?????

The 1900 from Paris to Rome doesn't even go through Milan. On an average day, it's at Bologna by sunrise, so all you'll catch is a glimpse of the Appenines.

Pausanias, sadly, is right. Today's schedules make it almost impossible to bring back the old days of sun rising over Domodossola and the breakfast coffee at Milan while the train waits three quarters of an hour.

Get a Ryanair or Easyjet and pray that delays will recreate some of the old passenger camerarderie.

But donot fly Ryanair if you have much luggage. Their freedom for that is one of the lowest...

Flanneruk - I listed that itinery specifically because someone else had suggested breaking the journey and going via Venice. Even if you don't you will still be exiting the Alps at dawn.

Has anyone telling the OP that they won't see Italy if they take the sleeper train actually made the journey? Because I have, and I know that once you leave the Alps you are usually in daylight for the whole of the rest of the trip. It's complete rubbish to say you won't see anything.

My comments have to do with the idea that first of all I find overnight trains to be pure torture. To endure such a trip just to have about 2 hours of scenery whipping through Italy in the morning, is just one of those things where the end doesn't justify the means in my opinion. If the total trip were just from the point of entering Italy to Rome, then of course I'd go along with the train trip. But to spend all night in torture getting all the way from London to that point where the sun comes up and the "visable scenery" starts, just doesn't make sense to me.

RM67

Yes, of course I've taken the train. But I've also looked at the timetable for the 1900 train from Bercy and the poster's question.

The poster is travelling two weeks before the autumn equinox, and most of us have suggested the direct Paris-Rome sleeper - scheduled to arrive Bologna 0600. Sunrise at Bologna two weeks before the autumn equinox is 0610, CET. Far from seeing the Alps, the poster wouldn't even see Bologna's suburbs. For which he might well be grateful.

To get sunrise over the Alps, the poster needs to be on an altogether different, slower and almost certainly sleeper-free train. Prolonging the London-Rome trip very significantly indeed.

Isn't it interesting when "facts" get in the way of how we like to picture things?