Western Europe, 3 weeks, is this too much?
 

Hi everyone, checked out this forum and figured it might be a good place t o get some advice into planning an upcomming trip me and my girl friend plan to take in May of 2014

So.. the original plan is somthing like this over 3 weeks, about 21-22 days

Berlin - 3 days, 2 nights

Munich - 2 days

Zurich into Interlaken - 2 days

Through Milan/Genoa to Cinque terra - 4 days

Genoa - Monaco - 1 days

Nice/Cannes - 3 days

Paris - Fly home - 4 full days

here's a quick google maps version:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...g?t=1375234684

from everything i've read the trains and what not would line up well, but i'm just wondering if this many stops in this many places is too ambitious for 21 days?

Any input would be greatly appreciated

Are you sure you've accounted for travel time? Berlin to Munich is 6.5 to 7 hours on the train plus time at each end to get to and from the train station (1 hour) plus packing and unpacking (1 hour). That's 8.5 to 9 hours out of your 2 days in Munich.

Then you have the same amount of travel for Interlaken. Your itinerary is:

Berlin 3 days
Travel to Munich 1 day
Munich 1 day
Travel to Interlaken 1 day
Interlaken 1 day
Interlaken to La Spezia travel 1 day - 7 to 10 hours on the train
Cinque Terre 3 days
La Spezia to Monaco Travel most of 1 day (Train 5 to 6 hours)

You're allowing the same amount of time to Cinque Terre as to Berlin, a large city with a lot of sights.

I'm not sure how you will see Genoa on the way to Monaco since the train ride is long and you need to do something with your luggage.

Why not stay in Nice and do a day trip to Monaco. Why change hotels for a half hour train ride. It will take you longer to pack and unpack.

Overall, way too many locations for 21 days. It looks like 5 very full days on trains, leaving 14 days of vacation. But I guess you already know this since you said the trains would line up well.

Just a quick comment - It looks like you are miscalculating from the get go . . . >>Berlin - 3 days, 2 nights<<

Two nights in a city will not net you three days. More like 1.5 days . . . and if it is your arrival city, at least the fist day will be jet laggy.

Those are just kind of rough days and most of the train trips we were looking at are overnight or late night so it wouldn't be burning up the day on the train

The alternate option would be to cut out Germany and fly in and out of Paris

> The alternate option would be to cut out Germany

I think that would be a step in the right direction, as I agree that your original itinerary was too ambitious. Of course it depends on what the two of you want to see and experience, but anything you can do to maximize the time you have for actually seeing the places you visit is likely to improve your plan.

> The alternate option would be to ... fly in and out of Paris

Since there are MANY international airports in Europe, I am confused by this statement. IME, open-jaw flights (into one city, out of another) are typically time-savers.

It might help if you say a bit about the kinds of things that interest you and your friend.

It's more difficult to help when you only give partial information. Have you looked at night train schedules? Munich to Interlaken will not be on a night train because of the many transfers. Interlaken to La Spezia the same. You won't be getting much sleep.

As to late night trains...are you planning to arrive at destinations in the middle of the night? Again, little sleep.

You can;t assume there are night trains between any 2 places. In fact, true overnight trains - with sleeping compartments - are quite few.

Naturally you can start in one city at night and get to another the next day - but if you have to change trains 3 or 4 times you will be sitting in a variety of upright seats and stations - and not getting any sleep.

And do understand that sleeping berths in a compartment are not cheap - and not covered by rail passes.

IMHO you have way too many places and you are miscalculating how long you have in each. And not sure what you would do in CT for 3 days - it's 5 tiny villages with hiking trails between them - not upscale resorts or a lot of sights.

Hmmm ok we looked into various train schedules and its somewhat hard to read in terms of transfers etc because most of the sites we've looked at show the routes but not how you actually have to transfer etc

Main parts we'd like to see are the cinque terra and south of France

Also how feasible is it to be in Monaco during the F1 gran
Prix? Not staying in Monaco but being there for a practice day or day of the race?

Nice seems like the best place to stay in as a hub for the south?

What we are into is just general site seeing, museums, historical sites and so on but we'd also like some days just to people watch and relax

Would flying in and out of Paris be ideal? I know that the posts above have said there are plenty of international airports etc but we will be flying from Vancouver and could most easily get direct flights to Paris?

Just a couple of quick comments: >>Would flying in and out of Paris be ideal? I <<

No - flying into one city and home from another is much better. This is called open jaw or multi city. It save a huge amount of hassle/back tracking.

>> Also how feasible is it to be in Monaco during the F1 gran Prix?<<

Not really -the whole area is a zoo over the GP and very expensive. Anyplace w/i a reasonable commute will be booked up at premium rates. Unless you are big into F1/racing it is best to avoid the area during race week.

Hmm ok so how does this sound

Eliminate Germany completely

Fly into Italy and work from a Milan, etc to the cinque terra

From cinque terra go up into the south of France, Monaco, nice, Cannes

From there train into Switzerland into the alps

From Switzerland train back into France perhaps to some of the wineries around the middle of France for a day?

Then up to Paris for 4-6 days and fly out of Paris to end the trip

We would schedual it to be in the south of France earlier on in may to avoid the GP and the film festival

Does that plan sound more feasible for 21 days?

I would take a few days out of the Cinque Terre which would bore many folks after a few days and put them into the fabulous Jungfrau Region in and around Interlaken - so so much to do here and a day or two only whets the appetite. If doing all that by train in 21 ddays - I have no problem with it and I often move fast too - then look into some kind of railpass - anyway some great sites on European trains to help you figure out the train part - www.budgeteuropetravel.com; www.ricksteves.com and www.seat61.com.

It's not reasonable to go from the Swiss Alps to the middle of France and back in a day. Do you have an idea of what wineries you want to visit in the middle of France, which is a huge area?

I'm not sure if you meant to return to Switzerland but I would not do that. Find a winery that is accessible to a train line between whatever Swiss town you'll be visiting and Paris and then go from there to Paris.

For train schedules, the easiest site to use is the German one.

http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml

Unless you have a reason to go to or land at Milan, you should start at Pisa.

After you've studied train schedules, you may decide to go to southern France (French Riviera) or central France (Burgundy?) but not both... unless you rent a car, which would free you from the time and geographic constraints of using only trains/buses.

You've also got to narrow/define your focus in Switzerland. The Alps cover more than half of the country. If you hope to see more than what passes by the train window, you need to spend a few days in Switzerland.

ttt

It's not reasonable to go from the Swiss Alps to the middle of France and back in a day. Do you have an idea of what wineries you want to visit in the middle of France, which is a huge area?>

The closest famous wine district closest to Swiss Alps would probably by Burgundy but yes it takes 4-5 hours probably by train to go to say Beaune, the capital of Burgundy wine industry.

Just returned from a similar trip, although mine was almost five weeks but included some other areas as well. I'll be posting a trip report and photos eventually.

I would suggest flying into Switzerland - maybe 4 or 5 days

Then train to Cinque Terra region. I stayed in Rapallo (on a previous trip stayed in Camogli) and prefer that to staying in one of the CT towns. I had five days in the area and did all the CT towns (some hikes, some more than once), Portovenere, Portofino, Santa Margherita and had a fabulous time. I would suggest 4 or 5 days in this area.

Then train to Nice - also 4 or 5 days with day trips

Then train to Paris and fly home from there. Number of days there and whether you stop somewhere in Burgundy or Alsace regions between Nice and Paris depends on total length of trip. If you have never been to Paris I think 3 or 4 days there is a minimum.

The longest train trips will be between Switzerland and whichever town you choose on the Italian coast (NOT La Spezia)(you will have to change in Milano and maybe one other time) and between there and Nice - but I did both those trips last month and while each took the better part of a day they were not unreasonably awful. If you are in Switzerland for at least 4 days look into the Swiss Pass. Tons of posts here debating that but I had one (I was there 7 days and got the 8 day pass) and it did save me money plus made travel around very easy.

I don't think any wine area is worth going to for one day, but if you wanted, you could take the train from Switzerland to Paris, stopping around Dijon on the way, that is very do-able. In fact, I think I did that once, talking the fast train from Lausanne, I think, to Dijon.

It seems clear to me you didn't intend to go to the middle of France for a day and then go back to Switzerland, you intended it on the way to Paris, as I suggested. Sounds fine. Burgundy isn't really what I would call the "middle" of France, but you might be thinking of it that way.

YOu'd have to check your airline possibilities for direct flights to European cities. Most direct flights to Europe are to Dublin, London, Frankfurt, Paris and maybe Rome or Madrid or Berlin, but it varies by city. I live in Wash DC and you'd think we would have one to all those, but there isn't a direct flight any more to Madrid from here.

I would avoid the dates of the Monaco Gran Prix and Cannes Film festival. We were on Nice at that time and everything was very crowded was packed full of those attending both events. Talked to some who had bought a package to go see the races on Monaco, transportation and viewing area was included.

why stay one night in Monaco then move onto Nice - rather base in Nice from the get-go here and do a day trip to Monaco by train and or bus - otherwise you have expensive hotels in a place that bores many folks after a quick look.

ttt

The one day thing in Monaco was moreso like a "stop over" while going to Nice from the cinque terra

We would definately make Nice our home base when we are in the south of France but if we could knock off Monaco as we are passing through then we could focus on Cannes and nice? (Also is Cannes a must see? I guess if your in nice it's the kind of thing you might as well go see?)

As well, in regards to going to Switzerland then "back" into France, we were thinking more along the lines of training from Nice to Geneva then staying the 2 days +/- In the jungfrau region? Would this work? So train into that region stay then train back into France to work our way up to Paris?

In terms of initial flights into Europe, ideally id like to use my "infinite avion points" which I have enough for long haul world wide flights, however the best case for this would be to fly into London, use my points for this Initial
Flight, then pay seperately for a flight from London to say Genora, Pisa, or Florence, then from there cinque terra and upward?

I'm very appreciative of all the input so far thanks alot to everyone who has contributed

The next time I post I will try to have a better layed out itinerary

Sniperslayer you are so all over the place it isn't funny and the numerous suggestions you are getting isn't really helping you in my opinion.

First, you need to understand that more places does not make it a better trip. It actually makes it a less effective trip. In travel, less is always more. The less you move the more you see/do.

The common phrase people use is 'to see as much as possible.' It seems clear to me that that is what you want to do. But the word 'much' is not synonymous with the word 'many'. All 'many' gets you is check marks on a list, not quality time spent IN places seeing/doing things.

The way to maximize use of your time and get as MUCH as possible out of your time is to spend it IN places, not in BETWEEN places. So I suggest you go back to the drawing board unless you want to run around like a chicken without ahead.

I also suggest you think of Europe in terms more familiar to you. Think of each country in Europe as you would provinces. Now think of what you are proposing like this. Fly into BC and spend a couple of days and then go to Ontario for a couple of days and on to Nova Scotia for a couple of days. Make sense to you or not? The answer should be not. You can't see Canada in 3 weeks and you can't see Europe in 3 weeks. Not even 3 countries in Europe in 3 weeks.

You need to cut it down to a reasonably small geographic area. That might all be in one country in Europe or it might include a small part of several countries.

Three weeks might be enough to visit Vancouver, the Okanagan and the Rockies around Banff/Jasper for example. In Europe it might be enough to visit Paris, Nice and Interlaken. The bigger you make the geographic area, the more time you are going to waste moving around.

A good rule of thumb to use when planning is the Rule of 3s which says, never spend less than 3 full days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B. Note the 'less than', it is a minimum. Most people would agree that Rome or London or Paris for example need more time than that. Also note the 3/4 which allows for travel time between places. Not allowing for travel time is a common mistake. Every time you move you lose most if not all of a day.

So using that rule and removing you arrival and departure day which are basically a write-off, you will see that with 21 days to start with you have enough time to plan on staying in only 4 or 5 places.

Prioritize where you want to spend your time based on interests and your research on those interests. Then look at each one and think through exactly what you are likely to do there.

For example, you list the Cinque Terre. Personally, I don't think it is worth more than a day trip from somewhere. Do you know that it is only 8 miles on the shortest and most popular trails from one end to the other of all 5 villages? It's less than a day's walk end to end! There are other trails and you can spend more time walking but it ain't Banff National Park. It's hardly more than Stanley Park. So what do you plan to do with your time there?

While the scenery is still what it always was, the atmosphere that existed 30 years ago is long gone. There are now so many tourists in season, that they have to have a quota of walkers allowed per hour on the trails!

If you want great hiking, the Bernese Oberland (Jungfrau)region of Switzerland has far more to offer you and yet you are talking about perhaps 1 or 1.5 days there.

First, you need to understand that more places does not make it a better trip. It actually makes it a less effective trip. In travel, less is always more. The less you move the more you see/do.>

This is a subjective thing - to me and some others - not many here it seems - seeing the Europe in between the mega tourist cities is also great - so it depends on what you mean by seeing Europe - a handful of big tourist cities or also the Europe in between - indeed a car trip with lots of moving around can be a lot of fun - more fun for some than traipsing thru yet another church or museum in a crowded tourist mecca.

The statement that "you can't see Europe in 3 weeks. Not even 3 countries in Europe in 3 weeks" is a very subjective one. Depends on what you mean. I totally agree you can't see an ENTIRE European county in a week. But spending one week in each of three European countries on a three week trip can be a very enjoyable trip. In fact, lots of people could easily do a couple locations per week. A trip of only three weeks, many people do not get so tired that they can't move every three or four days. I do agree that you need to factor in travel between locations which always takes longer than you might think, and for that reason day trips are a good solution - you see more "places" without needing to change hotels as often.

ok, a few more points before i post up a revised version of my itinerary, so, here are new destinations if i was to start in Italy:

Fly into Florence/Pisa [is there somewhere like Frankfurt/London that would be best to connect to these places?]

Florence - Cinque Terra

Cinque Terra - South of France [visiting Monaco on the way in]

Nice/Cannes - Geneva

Geneva - Grindelwald

Grindelwald - Geneva

Geneva - Paris

is this more reasonable? the only backtracking would be coming back into France to go to Paris, this seems reasonable for 3 weeks no?

I've been to Europe before [scandinavia/Russia] and have experianced a fairly hectic schedual, i think this schedual would probably be less hectic than what i did before. As well me and my girl are looking to see and feel more places in our three weeks moreso to see/know where we want to come back to so we are open to a more sightseeing type thing than just spending extended time in each place.

Monaco is only 20 minutes on the train from Nice, and Cannes is 40 mins. Make Nice your stop, and you can easily visit Monaco and Cannes in one day, but I would recommend Monaco at night if you like nice cars. The last train back is midnight, or a taxi is about 60-70 euros.

I'm wondering why so much time in Geneva. Not my favorite place in Switzerland. The northern shore of Lake Geneva is beautiful, however. Montreux and Vevey make nice places to stay.

You can go direct from Grindelwald to Paris, no need to return to Geneva.

Oh I figured Geneva would be the hub to get to grindelwald

If I can get from nice to grindelwald and then grindelwald to Paris then id cut out Geneva then

Nice to Grindelwald - two routes - one via Geneva and one via Milan - Milan potentially shorter but both long long hauls - how about breaking your trip and staying overnight in Stresa, on gorgeous Lake Maggiore and about half-way to Grindelwald from Nice via Milan.

Or a novel route Nice to Chamonix - premier Alpoine resort where glaciers tumble nearly into town - again about half-way - go via St-Gervais-les-Bains and then a narrow-gauge thrilling mountain train to Chamonix and down into Switzerland at Martigny - one of the most incredibly scenic rail routes in Europe!

Grindelwald to Paris is best to go to nearby Bern and get direct TGV trains from there to Paris - much much quicker than going via Geneva.

Use sbb.ch for Swiss train schedules.
Use trenitalia for Italian train schedules.
Use SNCF for French train schedules.