yk

If architecture is you MAIN interest, then by all means go to Rotterdam, IF you like Modern architecture. It's got plenty of cool architecture, more than just the Erasmus bridge.

Munich never "did" it for me. If I were you, I'd skip it.

retiredinflorida

"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!". This is why I responded to your question in the first place, had you not made this comment I'd have just read your post and left it at that.

"Oh, almost forgot, food and beer are good, too!", I'll second that!

Since the Netherlands is of interest I'd try to visit Den Haag and Delft too.

Since you have a reason to go to Rotterdam, go. I'll admit it's not the most interesting city, so I wouldn't spend too much time there. It won't take long to see the cube house and the Erasmus bridge.

The real Switzerland is IMHO the alps and the countryside, not the architecture in the cities.

Of the places you mention, they are all so different, I do feel you should omit about half of them to make this trip a success.

I can tell what I like, but I'm not going on this trip you are, you really need to deceide what you and your boyfriend want to see.

If you admired the churches in England you'll find plenty to admire in the places you plan on visiting, you really should choose which ones you want to see (PROPERLY) and which places you'll leave for another trip in the future.

A good way to start planning the trip is to get a visual travel guide, like Fodors See it or DK Eyewitness travel guides.

Hope this helps.

Apres_Londee

You're a good sport- I'm glad you're going to rethink it a bit and start cutting back. Doing a combination of point-to-point train tickets and budget flights might work out to be the most cost efficient.

If you like churches and modern architecture, give Paris a few days at least- besides what you'll find in central Paris, you might want to check out St Denis Basilica and La Defence.

I think if you include Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Paris, you'll have time for either a couple of cities in Italy or in Central Europe, but not both Italy and Central Europe, so I agree you might want to do some more research to help pinpoint what appeals to you most.

zeppole

I really don't think it matters which cities you go to, so long as you go to cities. European cities are full of grand architecture, antique and new. It seems silly to take the time to recommend classics of architecture to you if walking by Radio City Music Hall and Times Square floated your boat.

I'm not suggesting that you can't appreciate fine architecture-- just that a list of sightseeing "must-dos" would crimp your style and your unpredjudiced eye.

And if you are going to wait on any line in Europe, I wouldn't make the Van Gogh museum (or the Louvre -- just walk by the pyramid), but the line (if there is one) for the Reichstag dome in Berlin.

ellenem

msbetterman,

Thanks for being such a good sport about all the comments. Glad that some of the ideas offered were helpful to you.

Another idea you might consider as you set your schedule: staying only one night in a place can be exhausting. Knowing your speedy travel style, I'd encourage you to stay at least two nights at each location you choose. If you do choose to stay only one night some places, try not to put too many one-nighters in a row--it will seem as if all you're doing is dragging around a suitcase.

Also note that even with a Eurail pass, you may have additional train travel costs if you choose to ride the faster trains. For example, in Italy the faster trains all have reserved seats, so you will have to make a reservation to ride such trains and pay another 15 euros or so for the reservations. You can't just hop on any train you want.

Aside from Switzerland, Rotterdam, and your interest in architecture, are any of the other places on your original list as important to you as Rotterdam is? Can you number your list in order of importance?

suze

I think you CAN do a fast-paced trip, but not quite everything you mention in your OP. And yes you will improve things immensely by flying into Amsterdam, and fly home from whatever your furthest away city turns out to be (Rome)? To avoid backtracking on the ground.

Sure you "did" London and NYC in 1 day each, but when you finished that day, did you get on a train, take a long ride to a new city, check into your next place to stay, sleep, then see the NEXT city in 1 day. AND repeat that schedule about 12-14 times in a row???

Sassafrass

That really did clarify your interests. You are going to have a wonderful time because there are so many beautiful buildings and great food in every country: so much so that I would be at a loss to say don't miss this or that particular one. It sounds like you are planning exactly the right trip for you at this point in your life and I hope it is fantastic and you have great memories.

ira

Hey msb,

>We saw all of London in a day and a half, and all of New York besides the statue of liberty in 8 hours. <

Then your plan for Europe should suit your travel style very well.

I look forward to your report of this expedition.

kybourbon

Before you buy a 21 day pass, check out some of the budget airlines. They might be more convenient/faster/cheaper for some areas.
www.whichbudget.com
www.skyscanner.net

MarthaT

I would cut out Lyon, Bern, Krakow and Warsaw. Spend more time in the alps in Switzerland and more time in Prague and Berlin.

tweety170

You got lots of good advice, but I just wanted to chime in. I love Lyon, better than Paris. It wasn't as touristy. Have a great time!!

Cindywho

Our first trip to Europe in 2008 we stayed in 7 locations in 16 nights. We loved it. We are 50 years old. We stayed only one night in two different places, Munich and Rhottenburg in Germany. The other places we stayed 2 or 3 nights.

I would do more planning before buying your rail pass. We found certain places worked better with a car or even a bus. We rented cars twice, once in Tuscany and once in Germany. However, I would NEVER drive in Florence for example. We were also told that buying train tickets at the station can be even less expensive than the rail pass and we found this to be true. Train travel by railpass sounds "romantic", but don't get your heart set on it if another way of travel works better for the destination.

I started the planning by outlining what areas or cities to go, then researching the transportation, then the hotels, then the sites we wanted to visit. The more you drill down to the details, the more you will find what needs to be adjusted in your planning.

Have fun, I am jealous!!

Cindywho

One other thing, I would highly recommend staying a couple days in Venice. It was my favorite and is like no other place.

suze

I would say the 21-day rail pass is not for sure the best bet for what you describe. As already suggested above, a combination of point-to-point 2nd class train tickets, overnight trains, busses, and/or budget airline flights might work better. And possibly cost no more than the $600 you mentioned?

Another thing I think helps sort out if an itinerary is do-able, is to write a list of the places and include the time it will take you to get from one to the other.
1st city - tour city in the morning, then a 6 hour train ride to 2nd city
2nd city - tour city in the morning, 8 hour train ride to 3rd city... etc.

StCirq

<<We saw all of London in a day and a half, and all of New York besides the statue of liberty in 8 hours.>>

No you didn't.

suze

I have to add (with a smile) that while you say this is a "trip of a lifetime" since you are young enough for student train discount passes (!) hopefully you will have many many more trips to Europe over the years to come!

suze

While not my own certainly, I'm not against the "I can see a city in a day" approach.

BUT what seems to be entirely missing from the plan is the time it takes to move from one place to the next. Amsterdam and Rome aren't exactly next door to each other!

scatcat

suze-I was thinking the same thing. My "once in a lifetime" trip has turned into almost 60 trips now.

nytraveler

Even if your only interests are architecture and beer - buildings have insides too you know, not just outsides. And there's no way you can really appreciate NYC architecturally in less than 4/5 days. Most cities in europe would take at least that to see a sampling of the various local styles through time.

Plus, as mentioned above you have left no time for actually getting from one place to another. and the days you have listed (as one or "a couple") with a travel day between would take you well over 30 days. So unless you plan on doing a bunch of night trains (and several can be done only with a couple of transfers along the way in the middle of the night) there's no way you can pull off the list you have.

What you so cavalierly as "cut down" or "jump up" may be 8 to 10 hours - just sitting on a train. And planes often are not much faster given that budget airlines often use airports a couple of hours from the city they "serve" - so when you include getting to and fro, time of flight, getting through security and the absolute need to check in on time - only trips 7 hours or longer begin to make sense by plane - if there are discount flights between the cities you want.

I really suggest you get a pad, a pencil, a map and consult the german rail site: bahn.de - which has the best info on train schedules through out europe. It's simply not possible to tour an entire city in 3/4 hours and then take a 6 hour train ride, grab a quick dinner, sleep and do it again.

suze

Another approach to this situation is the old-fashioned way. Backpackers/young people have been doing it for decades! Just buy your pass, get a map and start your trip. You will very soon see why it is simply not possible to do all you describe. But certainly you can manage a big chunk of it.