msbetterman

Next Spring My boyfriend and I are going to take a European trip. We are going to take the Eurail pass for 21 days. We are (hopefully) going to fly into Amsterdam for Queen's Day on April 30. We also are going to the Tulip festival, and spending a day in Rotterdam. We are hoping then to go down 'through' Brussesls to Paris, stay there for a couple days. Go down and 'through' Lyon and over to Bern. Catch a local train up to Zurich. Stay there a day or 2. Cut down to Rome (yes, we realize this is an especially long train ride). Stay there a couple days, come up 'through' Venice to Munich. Spend a couple days in Munich. Cut up to Prague, stay there a couple days. Spend a day in Krakow, then a day in Warsaw. Then we're going to go over to Berlin, spend a couple days there. After that, we want to complete our journey full circle back into Amsterdam for hopefully another day or so.

We are completely aware that there will be a big chunk of time taken out for travel, eating, and some relaxing. We are not the kind of people that enjoy sitting in one spot for too long. A vacation is not 'relaxing by the pool.' We enjoy constantly being on the move. We saw all of London in a day and a half, and all of New York besides the statue of liberty in 8 hours.

My question is, is doing a large trip like this in 3 weeks still reasonable?
What would be the cheapest and most time efficient way to do a trip like this?

Any other tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks much

Timlin

I hope you enjoy every minute. I would be dizzy with confusion staying only one or two days in each place. So much to see in Rome and I cannot imagine making it to Rome and not taking a day to tour Pompeii. Venice needs two or three days to take in the islands and all that's offered.

Paris needs to be drunk in slowly and lovingly......so much to see and enjoy.

I'm not you so your plan may be just exactly what you want to do.........at least you'll be able to brag you've been to all these places even if your too tired and there too short a time to enjoy what's offered. I'd never say it's wrong for you.........it depends on your purpose for going to these wonderful places.

panecott

Whew! I got exhausted just reading your "itinerary". If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium!

I don't think it's reasonable at all. You named 11 cities where you intend to spend a day or a "couple of days". In addition, you named several others which you intend to pass "through". I'm not sure what that means.

But if you think you saw all of London in a day and a half, and all of NY in 8 hours, you might be satisfied with such a trip. Personally, I can't imagine how you'd even "see" half the places you mentioned.

If you cut out half the cities you mentioned, it might turn out to be workable.

zeppole

I get the impression there is no stopping you. You seem to have anticipated all possible objections to your trip. If you think you saw "all" of New York in 8 hours, I have the feeling you define a city by what you saw. Period.

Is it reasonable to do a trip like this in 3 weeks? What is the trip? It's what you make it. Right?

Some things to think about:

1) Going from Lyon through Torino to Genova and down the Italian Riviera to Pisa and then Rome.

2) There is an overnight train from Rome to Munich.

3) Reincarnation.

zoecat

<<My question is, is doing a large trip like this in 3 weeks still reasonable?>>

Reasonable- no. I think you are trying to visit too many places. But, if you enjoy that type of travel (NYC in 8 hours- really?), then go for it.

<<What would be the cheapest and most time efficient way to do a trip like this?>>

Skip the hotels altogether and just sleep on the trains.

Is this for real?

ellenem

Is this trip reasonable? Many have travelled this way before. Is it recommended? Based on your expressed interest level in London and New York, this fast pace may work fine for you.

You name 15 destinations (including your return to Amsterdam) in 21 days. Taking into consideration that each move will eat up about half a day of travel time, that eliminates 7-8 days from your visiting time for getting from place to place. Keep this in mind as you plan your itinerary. Do some research to pinpoint how much time making all these connections will actually take and adjust your plans as needed.

My biggest suggestion: do not fly roundtrip to Amsterdam. There's no good reason to return there just to fly back home from the same place. Fly into Amsterdam and out of another city (Prague? Rome?), connecting the dots in between. Use the "multi-city" option at airline booking websites to explore the ticket possibilities. The price should be about the same as a roundtrip ticket to one city. This will save you some time for actually visiting someplace.

And whatever you may think, you did not see "all of New York besides the statue of liberty in 8 hours" -- you saw just enough to satisfy your interests in particular. Travel is very subjective.

yk

In my younger years, I also traveled very fast pace - but I can only do that for perhaps a week to 10 days max. After being on the go all the time for 10 days, my body tells me that it's enough, and I go home. I can see it being possible to keep a pace like this for even 2 weeks if you're young and energetic, but 3 weeks of constantly packing/unpacking, getting on/off trains, checking in/out of hotels gets tiresome.

I've been to many of the places you've listed, except Poland, Prague, and Lyon. The ones I've been to, I'd say skip Rotterdam, Bern, and Zurich; unless you have a dying reason to go there.

BTW, cheaper usually = fewer train rides and less moving around.

retiredinflorida

I question if you really did see London and New York. Did you? I really think you missed out on alot and made a mistake. Yes, you've been to London and New York, but those cities have so much to offer as do so many of the places you plan on visiting. I wouldn't even attempt this trip, and I do travel at a fairly fast pace.

Bern and Zurich are okay, just okay and not the real Switzerland, I agree with yk to skip them and Rotterdam.

I'd omit some of the places you plan on visiting. I suggest you read a good guide book and deceide what you'd like to see and then come back here and ask for advice.

The way you have your trip planned, you'll only get your money's worth is train pass, since realistically, you'll spend more times at train stations and trains than sightseeing.

Then again, if you really think you've seen London and New York, stick to the itinerary you've posted.

retiredinflorida

you'll only get your money's worth from the train pass....typo, sorry.

nytraveler

If you think you "saw" New York in 8 hours then this trip will probably be just fine for you - a tour of many of the train stations of europe with some hotels, a few meals and a sight or two in between. Really you're just doing a checklist - not actually seeing much of anything or understanding anything of the different cultures or peoples. And - no place you;'re going has beaches to sit on, by the way.

Your only real risk is that some sort of transit glitch (a strike or similar) throws you a day off - and then all your reservations will be useless.

IMHO 15 destinations in 21 days is madness - but it's your life to spend as your choose.

Russ

"What would be the cheapest and most time efficient way to do a trip like this?"

Well, it's $800 each for a 21-day global Eurailpass. That's not cheap when you consider that a lot of flights on Ryanair from Northern Europe to Rome, for example, go for under 50 Euros.

"We are not the kind of people that enjoy sitting in one spot for too long."

It sounds like you will spend a huge amount of time sitting on trains.

Since you've decided on the pass already, and allocated very little time within these cities, it sounds to me like your main goal on this trip is to ride the European trains, look out the window, and sleep somewhere well known between train rides. I like the trains very much myself, and I think that your trip is already well planned and time efficient if this is your goal.

"We saw all of London in a day and a half..."

Then you need no advice on time management. I'm sure you can see Rome to your satisfaction in even less time. It's a lot smaller.

Apres_Londee

>>>We are not the kind of people that enjoy sitting in one spot for too long<<<

Well, you'd better learn to enjoy it considering the amount of time you'll spend just sitting there on the train.

You've mentioned 14 different cities for your 3 week itinerary. This neither a cheap nor efficient way to travel. I'd think about cutting the number of cities you visit in half.

Peter_S_Aus

Based on seeing all of London in a day and a half, then you need allow no more than say 17 milliseconds for Venice, or maybe 25 milliseconds if you want to see it all.

It'll be the trip of a lifetime, no doubt about that. I would humbly suggest that if you manage this trip as planned, and are still on speaking terms with your boyfriend, than you have achieved a minor miracle.

We look forward to the trip report with much anticipation.

Apres_Londee

Someone posted this on another thread- I'd think twice before signing up to see Europe this way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7CpkzJU9kA

retiredinflorida

Apres_Londee, thanks for the link to the great video clip.

This thread reminds me of:- http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...s-and-rome.cfm

If msbetterman's trip of a lifetime is a Grand Tour of European Trains and Railway Stations, so be it!

Often when I see posts like this I don't respond (take not I didn't respond to nicbur. Simply, because I feel the op really hasn't done any research which is why they post a ridiculous itinerary to begin with. Also, I don't know the ops interest, etc. so how can I advise her properly.

msbetterman, you'll have a trip of a lifetime if you plan things properly. We can help you plan this trip, but we really need to know what is important to you and your boyfriend.

Sassafrass

Just curious about your itinerary in NYC and London, because I've been to both several times and feel I have seen very little of either. I am older so, of course, somewhat slower, but still, in London, in a whole week, besides a bit of walking around, I managed to visit only The British Museum, The Tate, Westminster, St. Paul's, a Boat trip on the Thames to Greenwich, The changing of the Guard, The Tower of London, Camden Lock, Portobello Road Market, a play at the Globe Theater, a couple of other plays, a walk in St. Regent's Park, Cambridge, and a canal trip. Still haven't been on the London Eye, visited Hampton Court or the National Gallery, Library, etc. In NYC, the most I've managed in one day is one museum (The Met for example), one play, dinner and a trip to the top of the Empire State Building. Other days are similar: a group of galleries, museum, etc., dinner & theater. Did you hire a guide and car for your days in London & NYC? How did you get about to everything so quickly?

trsny

I too am a fast paced traveler and don't think of vacation as sitting by the pool, but your itinerary leaves me exhausted! I hope you write a trip report on all the things you've "seen".

msbetterman

thanks for all the responses!
I forgot to mention that we will both still be considered "youth age" so the train pass will be $600 give or take each. After next June, he will be too old to qualify for the youth pass, so to get the best deal we feel we need to do this soon.
Thanks for the suggestions, we figured we'd probably have to cut some out. We did want to see Switzerland...but we weren't sure why or what necessarily we wanted to see.
We do have to do some more research on it, and comparing train times.
My boyfriend says thanks for mentioning the multi city flight deal. We weren't aware you could do that, and that it wouldn't be overly expensive. That certainly has become a great time saving option!!
Also I never thought about the fact that we'd be GOGOGO for THREE WEEKS. Much longer than a week in England or a day in New York. I'd hate for us to get cranky and have it ruin our trip!

So follow up question would be, other than Switzerland, where would be a place you would skip? I know some answered this already, but if we did cut out some cities, which cities would you spend MORE time?
Like most of you said, succesful traveling is essentially the opinion of the traveler, but as 'first time' European travelers (except England) it would be great to hear some suggestions/ideas/opinions from people who have experience traveling there.

Thanks again everyone and have a pleasant evening!

msbetterman

@ Sassafrass (and others!)

I'd like to clarify London and NYC. I simply mentioned it to give more of an idea of our travel style (as suggested in my new member registration email!!) and had no idea it would become a focal point of conversation!

My boyfrend and mine's MAIN interest is architecture. This means that generally, we can walk down a street, "oo" and "aah" at the buildings, make comments about we like and dont like concerning the design, take a couple pictures and move on. Most of our pictures from England are just shots of churches we found to be grand and beautiful! We do like to see the "famous spots" but generally we don't feel the need or want to stand in line for an hour to see something unless we REALLY want to see the inside. So for us, "seeing" NYC means walking by Radio City Music Hall, Rockefeller, Times Square, etc etc....This may sound like "silly kids" traveling, but that is what interests us and makes us feel satisfied with a trip.

Our whole reason for trekking into Rotterdam is to see Erasmus bridge and the "cube houses," as further example. We plan on spending a lot of time in the NL as we are learning Dutch and we are very fascinated with their culture. No, we are not "pot heads." !! But the NL cannot be skipped.

Oh, almost forgot, food and beer are good, too!

I apologize for not being more specific earlier. This hopefully will help some of you to be able to give us a better idea of what to skip and what to see. We aren't MUCH into museums...we are making time to go into the Van Gogh Museum and the Louvre (if we decide we can stand the line!!!) and of course if a museum topic catches our interest. We aren't interested in beaches or parks or gardens...a place with rich history and grand architecture would interest us best.

Thanks again!!! You all are so very helpful!

Russ

It's hard to say what to cut exactly. You should do some more research yourselves and decide what's most important for you to see.

That said, it's hard to imagine dumping Switzerland altogether. Krakow really is stunning too.

Personally I'd dump Rotterdam. And I wouldn't go all the way to Rome unless you have a serious interest in Roman Civilization and the origins of Western Culture.