Desperate For Help With Planning Itinerary

Planning by how many nights you have is the best way in my opinion. But...if you have for example 3 nights somewhere you don't have 4 days. You actually only have 2 full days, and you must also account for the time it will take you to move between those places. Figure a minimum of a half day to check out, get to the train station or airport, time in transit, and getting to your new hotel. It could easily take longer. I see you only have one stay of 2 nights. That's good, but you might consider taking a night from London and allowing for 3 nights in Venice.

Planning is half the fun and second guessing yourself is totally normal. Well, I think it is. I always second guess myself. Happy planning!

Thanks for that, do you think I need to add a night on to each place? My arrival date is flexible. Also wondering if you would do Amalfi over Vienna? Could also do some places post cruise?

I was going to make the same point Andrea brought up. Listing dates the way you have, with the travel date shown for both the city you are departing from and the city you are traveling to (when it's barely useful at all), tends to give any casual reader the impression that you have much, much more time in each place than is actually the case.

This is what you're really working with:
1st Aug arrive from Hong Kong in London (7 Nights, 6 full days)
8th Aug fly to Amsterdam (3 Nights, 2 full days)
11th Aug train to Paris (4 Nights, 3 full days)
15th Aug train to Lucerne (3 Nights, 2 full days)
18th Aug early train to Salzburg (3 Nights, 2 full days)
21st Aug train to Vienna (3 Nights, 2 full days)
24th Aug train or fly to Venice (2 Nights) This is wrong; it's only 1 night, not even 1 day
25th Aug train to Florence (3 Nights, 2 full days); includes day-trip to Tuscan village(s)
28th Aug train to Rome (3 Nights, 2 full days plus time prior to cruise on Aug 31)

You are cutting a lot of destinations short. You have essentially no time in Venice. If you can't give it 3 nights (2 full days), I would scratch it. I love Venice, but you will not enjoy it if you try a hit-and-run visit, because you'll be moving in lockstep with all the other short-term visitors, with no time to get to the charming corners of the city. You'll be surrounded by a mob all.day.long.

The next-biggest shortfall is in Switzerland. Most people want to spend time in the Alps; Lucerne is nice but usually the secondary target. Swiss weather is unpredictable; mountain weather is even more so. If you want a reasonable chance to enjoy decent weather in the mountains, you need a minimum of 4 or 5 nights there. If you don't have that much time, I'd scratch Switzerland. Its hotels, restaurants and trains are very expensive, and you won't get a lot of bang for your buck if you only have about 2 days of sightseeing time there.

London, Rome (because of time after the cruise) and Salzburg are the only stops that wouldn't leave me feeling seriously cheated. Depending on where you're traveling from and your sightseeing plans, you might possibly be able to take one night away from Salzburg, which is quite small.

Purely from a logistical standpoint, I'd drop both Austrian destinations to provide more time in Venice and Switzerland. But for me that still leaves Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna and Florence short.

If you want the Amalfi Coast, you would probably do better to drop Venice and Switzerland as well as Austria.

I take long trips, and I can tell you that a pace that is manageable (though I wouldn't enjoy it) for 8 or 10 or 12 days will not work for 31 days followed by a 3-1/2 week cruise.

Edited to add: From a geographical standpoint, you could certainly see the Amalfi Coast after the cruise.

Thanks for that, this trip is on my bucket list and I will not be returning to Europe, I am able to bring my trip forward and add extra days but also mindful of costs. The reason for Lucerne is to do Mt.Titlis and Salzberg the Sound Of Music tour, happy to leave out Vienna and add those days onto another destination like Venice and Lucerne. What about a Lake Como is that worth a visit? Any further suggestions would be great?

Add time in Venice, stay for at least 3 nights. (4 are better.)

Luzern is nice, but the Lauterbrunnen area with the Jungfrau and Schilthorn is better. 4 nights is a good start. I did not care for Luzern and thought the mountain excursions there paled by comparison to the Lauterbrunnen area, aka the Jungfrau Region.

Can you add more night? An extra week would allow the extra time in Venice and also to add the Jungfrau Region.

Lake Como is very nice. Most of the folks on the forum seem to think Varenna is the best place to stay.

Thanks I will check it out?
Any thoughts on Amalfi Coast?

The Amalfi Coast is, of course, lovely, but only add it if you can avoid subtracting from elsewhere. The Jungfrau Region in spectacular and Venice is so special. Your time in Rome is short, too.

Lots of good input here already, I'll just add this...

this trip is on my bucket list and I will not be returning to Europe

Of course I don't know your personal situation, but assuming the above is a choice you're making, I'd urge you to reconsider and take a different approach. One can not "see" all of Europe in the 4 weeks you have (or 4 months or even 4 years), but trying to do so will surely result in a lot of compromises. If you have no choice, then so be it, but consider that travel to Europe has become a lot more affordable and accessible in recent years, so for many people (yes, even coming all the way from Australia), it makes more sense to approach trip planning with the expectation that "I shall return". Otherwise you can go crazy trying to squeeze everything in.

One thing not mentioned yet: you're going in August. Southern Europe gets quite hot in August (it's also at it's most crowded). Your cruise is in September. I don't do cruises, but you might consider doing the land-based travel around Europe after the cruise, rather than before it. Looks like the cruise ends around 23 September. That's a great time to wander around Europe (in fact, much better than August IMHO): the crowds will thin considerably, and the weather should still be nice. If you traveled for 4 weeks then, say 9/23 thru 10/23, it could be lovely. If you do move the land-based travel after the cruise, the one "trick" I'd suggest would be to work from north-to-south, so you would need to get off the ship, fly to London, then work your way back to Italy. That may sound inefficient, but the cost of a flight from Rome to London is basically pocket change when viewed in the context of what you'll be spending on this trip, but that would allow you to optimize the weather as summer wanes.

Hope some of the above helps.

Some of the targeted destinations are places that I, personally (as a hater of chilly, damp weather), would prefer to hit in August rather than October: London, Amsterdam, Switzerland. Probably also Salzburg. Though there's a slight risk of a punishing heat wave, I think raw weather in October is more likely in those areas. But ones tolerance for heat vs. cold is a very personal thing. Venice-Florence-Rome-Amalfi are definitely not at all ideal in August.

Thanks for all of your advice will tweak itinerary.

Plan more days in Rome. A week in Rome is not enough.

It looks like you are doing 2 cruises back to back on the same ship (return to Civatavecchia on 13/09 and departing on 14/09). On 23/09 you dock at Naples, then get back on in the evening for a short trip to Civatavecchi and get off the ship 24/09 (typo in your dates). Why not just leave the ship at Naples on 23/09 and go to the Amalfi coast straight from the ship? Then take train back to Rome. You can stop at Pompeii on the way. Finish in Rome for however much time you want, then fly home. That would free up the time 28/08 to 31/08 to add on to Venice and Florence.

You've gotten a lot of great advice. I'll just emphasize this: "Is place xxxx worth a visit?" is the wrong question. Lots and lots and lots of places are worthwhile, or even extremely worthwhile. The better questions are, "Does place xxxx work with the rest of my itinerary?" and "Do I have enough time to see the things in place xxxx that interest me?" and "Given my limited time, does place xxxx make my personal A-list?" (as opposed to some generic "must see" or "must see before you die" list).

I like the idea of getting off the ship early; a coworker did this for similar reasons and it worked well. Just be aware that you have to arrange this with the cruise line in advance (you can't just do it on the fly) and you get no refund for your "unused" days of the cruise. But the time and money saved by not backtracking can be worth it.

"...Amalfi over Vienna?" It all depends what you are tracking down, what your priorities are in making a decision on these two places. I would choose Vienna, no way Amalfi would take priority here.

I want to second the poster who suggested that you spend fewer days moving around during the land portion of your trip. I find it exhausting to check out of a hotel, travel, and check in somewhere else. It's also a waste of valuable vacation time. I'd be very tempted to cut the number of locations in half and give more time to the places you do see. That way if it rains one of your six days in Paris (for example) you don't feel cheated.

Marty that is excellent advice! The more we travel the slower we move. A week in places many people spend 2 or 3 nights has allowed us to "go deep" and get to know the community, find some out-of-guidebook experiences, repeat restaurants we like, and navigate without a map In Italy, particularly, it is nice to find "your" bar for morning coffee, "your" market, "your" cafe for aperitivo. Repeat customers are recognized and appreciated.