While planning our trip to London, we've decided to add 5 days to include a quick side trip to Belgium and Amsterdam - the trains make it so easy! (This is for Sept)
Initially I thought we'd start in London (because it appears to be cheaper to fly into London and out of Amsterdam), but doing it the opposite way, has benefits too. Would love thoughts on our options.
A brief outline for reference: (We can start in London or in Amsterdam)
5 nights in London (3 days to putz around London, with a day trip to Bath and an afternoon to visit Windsor)
2 nights in the Cotswolds (to do a little hiking - no rental car, just public transpo and hired care if needed)
2 nights in Belgium (Brussels or Brugge)
3 nights in Amsterdam
Ok...which would you recommend and why?
1) If we started in London - the day we leave the Cotswolds, we'd take the train into London's Paddington Station, scoot over to St. Pancras Station and get the Eurostar into Brussels. We could base ourselves there for two nights - the next day heading to Brugge and maybe stopping in Ghent on the way back to Brussels. Then head to Amsterdam after that.
OR
2) Would it be better to begin our trip in Amsterdam? If we begin in Amsterdam, we can take the train to Brugge (vs Brussels) and spend two nights there instead. On the way to London, we could drop our bags in a locker at the train station, have breakfast or lunch in Brussels, stroll thru the Grand Market and then continue on to London. (Thinking if we want to see theatre in London, we'd be on the better side of jet lag to be able to stay awake too, if the London part is on the back end.)
Thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated! Thank you!