3 Nights Each Enough?

Visiting 3 cities in one country, perhaps. Visiting 3 cities in different countries, NEVER! You'll spend too much time traveling from city to city and not really enjoy the short and quick visits. Realize that Christmas Day, with the exception of going to church, will find everything closed. Settle on two of the three cities so you can savor them and enjoy yourselves.

This is an impossible question to answer. For some a drive by is enough - been to Paris, been to Rome for others a month is not enough. Three days is better than two and less so than five. So not knowing what you trying to accomplish it is hard to advise. You have a lot of distance involved - Paris - Barcelona - Rome. You absolutely have to fly. Train rides would be far too long. Put some pins in a map. I don't think you understand the distances involved. The 25th is a dead day -- nothing (of importance) will be open and most will start shutting down around noon on the 24th. Even restaurants will be very limited. What you are suggesting is not my style. I personally would do either Spain or Italy. Little further south and potential for slightly better weather. And, for obvious reasons, Rome is really packed at that time of year. Personally would save Rome for another time of year.

But to answer you base question -- Is it doable? Sure !! But what is the trade off? It has to be quick hit at each site because you don't have time for anything else. And second, you will lose at least a half day or more when changing locations. But good luck.

It's a matter of travel style, I suppose. I would hate that trip. I wouldn't accept it if you gave it to me as a gift.

You have eight days. When you're talking about major tourist destinations like this, I'd plan either one or two destinations even if there were not the complication of Christmas closures to deal with. I wouldn't want to take even one mid-trip flight on that short a trip; dealing with airports kills the vacation mindset. At most, I'd try to find two places I wanted to see that were a not-long train ride apart, preferably one of them smaller so I could spend over half my time in the large city.

Is it doable? Yes.
Is it enjoyable? No.

With really only two days in each city you're not experiencing them at any meaningful level which begs the question.....why bother? The last night in each city will be curtailed somewhat by the prospect of packing and getting up early for the next flight. Why not stick to one country and split your time between two cities?

I've read countless comments from people who have undertaken whirlwind itineraries such as yours and whilst they all said that it was doable the universal response was that they wouldn't do it again. Surely the whole point of travelling is to experience another country, culture, environment rather than rush from sight to sight ticking them off as you go along? I've been to Rome countless times, it's my favourite city, yet I still haven't seen it all because I've spent a lot of my time relishing it all, walking around taking time over lunch and dinner, spending time in small delicatessens or letting the kids run off a few hours in a park. I could spend hours in the Colosseum (I have done) just contemplating and imagining or strolling around the Forum, I could think of nothing worse than the quick, ram it all in and constant clockwatching to know when to move on to the next sight, it all seems so exhausting, frustrating and pointless.

However, my experience of such advice is that invariably people have already made their minds up and will go ahead with their original plans anyway so my advice is to make sure you have another holiday booked up straight afterwards, you're going to need it!

It's unanimous, all the above is spot-on.

However, my experience of such advice is that invariably people have already made their minds up and will go ahead with their original plans anyway so my advice is to make sure you have another holiday booked up straight afterwards, you're going to need it!

JC makes an excellent point there, too!

I travel at a fairly fast clip compared to most. We have to, because I have a lot I want to see, and my husband hasn't yet retired. I have been to Barcelona and Paris, not Italy, yet. Even for me, your plan is too fast of a clip, especially since these cities are REALLY far from each other. I love Paris, and I think I'd be ok, with just three days there, but you really only have two days. Barcelona is a city that I feel requires at least four full days. Regarding Rome, and again, I've never been, but you plan to be there for Christmas eve/day, I'd worry that things would be closed or busy or somehow affected by the holiday.

Where is home?

Your arrival and departure times seem unusual for travel from/to N America. If you are 3 hrs or less time difference, jet lag will be less of an issue and MIGHT make your ambitious plans not the suicide mission it appears to be on the face of it.

You seem to have worked out the transportation logistics to get from place to place, but I have trouble imagining the circumstance that would prompt me to try to do your itinerary.

Your time in Rome is what I see as the biggest issue. You arrival on the 24th really does not give you time to plan a major site; the 25th will be devoted to Christmas celebrations and most everything will be closed. That would be the day to 'see' the Colosseum, at least being able to walk around the exterior and see the Trevi fountain. I did not check but I am 99% certain the Vatican Museum will be closed the 25th ( would not be surprised if an early close on the 24th.. check it out) so you have only the 26th which may be a popular choice with a lot of other folks.

I suggest a re-think and 'pick 2'.

My $0.02

Another thought, sometimes people think that going to Europe is so expensive and they aren't sure how many trips they can make so they want to cover as much of their bucket list as possible. I totally get that, but, I'm guessing that it won't be cheap to go from Paris to Barcelona and then from Barcelona to Rome. Even just flying "open jaw" like you are doing can cost you more. If you didn't try to cover so much area, geographically, I think your trip would be a fair amount less expensive, thereby allowing you to do a subsequent trip. For me, nothing is worse than leaving a city feeling there was something I really wanted to see or do, that I missed.

And second, you will lose at least a half day or more when changing locations.

This is true in the best of circumstances, but here it is even worse. The OP lists as a plan "Depart Barcelona @ 11.50 AM / Arrive Rome @ 01.40 PM" There is little if anything a tourist can do for sightseeing before leaving for the airport in the morning. 2pm or so is when they will be walking thru the FCO airport, they need to take luggage to their hotel. It is likely 3:30pm or later before they are out the door in Rome to explore, so most of the day is gone.

This isn't a vacation I would want, but everyone is different. Is it "doable"? Sure. Let us know with a trip report when you get back what you thought.

In the days before inexpensive airfares, we took an overnight train from Paris to Rome to save ourselves a day lost to traveling. The advantage is train stations are more central than airports and you don’t have to arrive as far in advance. Still I think we spent four nights in Paris and then five in Rome. If you want totally different experiences, I would pick 2 cities not three. There is always a trade off between breadth and depth but you have to take into account travel time too.

Beth

Beth

So I chaparoned a trip like this once. My two best friends from high school, single parents without a lot of money, managed to find cheap flights on WOWAir. They wanted to go to London, Stuttgart, and Paris. They had a total of 8 days, but it was 6 actually on the ground. I tried SO hard to talk them out of Stuttgart - it's lovely if you have a lot of time in Germany but there is no point to go there on a first/possibly only trip to Europe it was a waste of money and time to come here. But they wanted to see where I lived and go to the bierfest.

This was by far the hardest trip I ever did. I won't recount the details. It started out great - they adored London and powered through the jetlag, but after 2 nights in London we arrived in the evening in Stuttgart and they were dead. Rallied the next day for the fest but they enjoyed it a bit too much and we only managed to get a couple hours sleep before our train to Paris. That first day in Paris was essentially wasted - we were too tired to do anything but grab dinner after a nap. Because of the flights/trains/travel times what they actually did in their 6 days of 3 cities was: Tower of London/Parliament (from the outside)/Jack the Ripper London Walks tour; touring a medieval town and beerfest in Germany; Notre Dame, seeing the Eiffel Tower (from the outside), and the Catacombs in Paris.

As you can see, we missed a lot. They took off work 8 days, and saw 3 days worth of sightseeing. That's what happens when you move around too much on a short trip. Nevermind the Christmas issue which is a big problem, too.

Stick to 2 cities, tops. My friends wish they had.

Thank you for the real-world example, Sarah. It is apparently really hard to grasp the negative impact of traveling at a trot when you haven't yet been to Europe.

In addition to issues of travel time, please consider the stress of dealing with three different languages/cultures. One thing in common is the euro currency. For a trip of this length I would stick with one country.

Given the fact that we have all been mostly negative on billygoog's schedule, I don't think he/she will be back. As I use to tell my students, "If you are not prepared to accept any answer, then don't ask the question."

If this were a summer trip, 3 cities in 3 countries...maybe and that's really stretching it and only if you know exactly what you're doing.

You're going in the winter...then, how about 3 cities in one country given the time constraint you're under.

Appreciate all the insights.

Why I posted this query - I'm having reservations about this itinerary after my husband commented that it is too rush.

My son and I are meeting up with my daughter in Amsterdam on 13th Dec 2018 where she is doing her student exchange.
Her last exam paper is on 18th Dec 2018, so we can only leave Amsterdam in the afternoon of 18th Dec 2018.
Our return ticket to Singapore is from Amsterdam on 28 Dec 2018.
I have been to Rome and Paris, but not Barcelona. For my kids, this will be the 1st time for all 3 cities.

I'm thankful for all your sharing and $0.02 worth. To me those $0.02 are priceless!

We will now stick to Paris and Barcelona so that we can really enjoy and savor every moment instead of touch and go for 3 cities in 3 different countries.

I think that sounds like a lovely plan. It will still be a busy trip but you will spend less time in transit and more time experiencing what these great cities have to offer!

"Should we Train or Fly from Paris to Barcelona?"

I have done the Paris to Barcelona train (but in the opposite direction). We were coming off a week's cruise and used the long ride to process photos, work on the trip journal, admire the scenery, etc. Since we had been cruising we had more luggage than I prefer to travel with, which was our excuse for avoiding the airports. That plus being uncertain how early we'd disembark. On a train you save time on both ends by not traveling out of town to the airport and not checking in two hours early. It will be quicker by plane but maybe by only and hour or so.

Look into purchasing "multi-city" or "open-jaw" plane flights to and from Europe. Flying into one city and home from the other saves a day (and the cost) of traveling back to whichever one you visited first.

Thank you, Marty and Sarah.

Yeah, most probably we will train from Paris to Barcelona.

For all the details of the Paris to Barcelona train, here's the rail guru The Man In Seat 61: https://www.seat61.com/Paris-to-Barcelona-by-TGV-train.htm