We're doing a couple of weeks in Italy in October and have pretty much everything planned except how we leave Venice for 5 days in Rome. Some in our party of 6 want to fly (fast and cheap, about $120 U.S. and less than an hour). Others would like to look into taking a train to Rome. We have transportation that picks us up in Rome regardless of our arrival method.

Does anyone have any idea how to go about finding train fares, schedules, etc. for Italy? Anyone have experience taking this route? I'd love to hear from some experienced Fodorites on this subject! Thanks.

The EuroStar from Venice to Rome takes about five hours and is about US$80.

To find the train schedules, look here: http://www.trenitalia.com

Keep in mind that in both cities, the train stations are closer to the main sights than the airports, so any time saved by flying may be lost getting to and from the city centers.

Fly Volareweb.com for about $50 per person. We used Volareweb from Venice to Naples and loved it.

You can also go to railpass.com or railsaver.com to check out schedule/fare.

Is the scenery on the Venice-Rome train worth it compared to taking the flight?

Hi

The website for Volare is www.volareweb.com.

They fly Venice Marco Polo to Rome FCO.

It is much easier to get to the train station in Venice than to the airport. You might have to take two water taxis to the airport.

The scenery from Venice to Florence is dull. Florence to Rome is pretty.

My bias is pro-fly, and often skeptical towards the advantages of the train - - and I would say: take the train.

Time it to coincide with a meal - - the dining car service of first class is "white table cloth" (in a separate car) and quite good - - even if it is overpriced.

Best wishes,

Rex

I would concur with the train route. I did this last September, allbeit stopping in Florence en route.

Much easier to get to train station in Venice than to get to airport. No hanging around for security, or waiting for bags to arrive at Rome.

Train is comfortable, scenery not bad (even from Venice to Florence). Did not use dining cart but rather packed a lunch

Another vote to fly. Even with the extra distance to/from airport, security and waiting for baggage its still much faster and not that much more money....a no brainer.

We flew Rome to Venice last year on www.volareweb.com and it was 0.01 euro per person + tax. It was so easy. We took a water taxi in Venice to airport (and back on the return--just one taxi). And it was cheaper than the train (!)

Are you traveling "heavy" i.e., bags that are beyond the weight limit that could cause an excess baggage charge if flying within Italy?

Another possibility: why not do both. Let those who want to fly do so and let the others take the Eurostar...suppose that might put a kink in the Rome pick-up, however...but doing this might also add to a much happier experience amongst yourselves.

Its amazing how many people encourage using the train simply because they think its the thing to do. It used to be internal flights within Europe were very expensive and people took the trains because is was much cheaper...but thats not always true anymore. Time for a paradigm shift. Flying now is fast and economical on many routes within Europe and one way fares are available. I'm in DC and don't take train to NY anymore, I always fly...much faster and most times cheaper than the train!

I am so, SO much for this paradigm shift - - but this city pair just doesn't pass the test, based on time/expense of getting to/from the respective airports.

Unless, of course, you are starting AT the airport of one city or the other, or arriving/departing at/from that city to/from some other destination by car.

Even if the plane were faster and cheaper, what has that got to do with travelling for pleasure? Eating in MacDonalds will always be faster and cheaper than going to a proper restaurant, and staying at home will be cheaper and less time-consuming than visiting Italy. In the case of a journey from Venezia to Roma, the difference in journey time cannot be great: the train leaves from Santa Lucia station which is right on the Grand Canal. The train fare is a standard fare which will apply whether you buy a ticket two months in advance or two minutes in advance. The train fare allows you to break your journey - for instance, to have lunch in Bologna, which is always a pleasure. If you always fly from New York to Washington, then why should your Italian journey be the same? What's the point of going to Italy if all you see are airports which look the same everywhere? Arriving at Venezia Santa Lucia station, stepping off a train and seeing the Grand Canal right outside the station is an experience that is unique to Venezia.

Hi Randy. I took the train from Venice to Rome several years ago - before the faster EuroStar - and enjoyed the long easy ride, the solitude, down time, interacting with other (Italian) passengers, and I continue to believe that train travel is on a more human scale and friendlier experience than flying. If your time in Venice will be relaxing and agreeable, you may not need the time on the train to recover. I did and it was worth it. I'd spent two weeks with a beloved but difficult friend and frequently other members of a non-structured tour so I was ready to be left alone, or not, as I chose, the full-day trip. Since you have a party of six, I would wager that by the time you leave Venice, you will be happy to spend some time alone, with a book, or just watching the countryside go past, napping. The station in Venice is very easy to access and not at all confusing. Frankly, I wouldn't even take the fast train. Whatever you decide, have a great trip.

Thanks, we're doing the train! We have lots of time and are using these weeks in Europe to unwind a bit. We appreciate all of your input!