Europe for 98 days, input on route and ways to get to each city needed- Close to final version

Are the numbers the number of nights? If so, then each of those places is only getting 1 day... plus all the flights, you will end up spending as much time to/from/in airports as in the cities. I would definitely waaaay cut down the # of 2 night stands... not only will it be exhausting, which you may be able to live with, but you won't really have much chance to enjoy the city that you are in.

What about adding in a cruise to the Northern/Baltic stuff? That way you could settle in for 7+ nights and then still get to hop to a lot of those places. We did a med cruise last year with the kids as part of a bigger 3 week trip, and although I prefer really immersing, we stopped in Nice, 5 Terre, and Pompeii, all places we probably wouldn't normally have gotten to. Plus you will need some much needed downtime and it would be nice to have people to socialize with, plus not having to worry about where to eat for a week. It can;t be more expensive than all of those flights....

Something like this:
http://cruise.expedia.com/Itinerary5.aspx?item=909155

Or there are others that hit Norway, etc... If I were going to have so many one day stands anyway I would much rather do it from a cruise!

Have you read about the Schengen rules? You're limited to 90 days with a passport only (this does apply to Australians - I looked it up). I also agree that it would be a lot more interesting and enjoyable to spend more days in fewer places.

Figure that you will lose one-half to a full day of touring every time you change cities – pack, check out of hotel, get to the airport, check in 1 hour before your flight, fly, and then reverse the whole process in the new city. That doesn't take into account the touring time wasted in getting lost, flight or train delays, figuring out the logistics of a new city, and waiting in lines.

As noted in the responses above, that doesn't leave you much time to actually explore the city, particularly when you have 1- or 2-day stops.

On a quick look, ~27 of your 94 days are spent on a formal tour. In the remaining ~67 days, you visit more than 25 cities. You aren't going to see much, other than trains, planes, and airports/stations. I would cut your destinations at least in half.

Thanks for all of your responses.

The reason I came up with the 2 days is that Contiki and Topdeck normally only allow that long in those cities, and I thought I'd have more time because the flight times are alot less in most of the places I've picked than a bus trip would be. Lots to think about, so thankyou.

For Stockholm to Helsinki, I'd suggest you take the overnight ferry (either Viking or Tallink Silja line). The ferries are nice and the price is quite reasonable when you consider that it takes care of both transportation and accommodation.

For Paris - Bruges - Amsterdam, take the train.

London to Paris: Eurostar is better than flying.

While on paper, flights may look like the fastest way to travel, keep in mind that a one hour flight probably means five hours of travel time (1 hour from city center to airport, 2 hours waiting at airport, 1 hour flight, 1 hour to get from airport to city center). Train stations are generally on the city center. As a general rule, if the train is under 6 hours, I usually choose train over flight.

I just saw your response about how you planned your schedule. I understand how you came to the conclusion that you would move more efficiently than a bus tour, but that's just not true in reality.

On a bus tour, all the logistics are preplanned and handled for you. They get you to attractions and hotels as efficiently as possible – when you're doing it on your own, in a new city, and probably not speaking the language, it takes a lot longer. Also, on a tour you're not going to be spending a lot of time buying tickets, standing in line, looking for a restaurant, etc. Finally, at an attraction, a tour will get you in and out relatively quickly, showing you what they decide you should see. It takes longer, but can be far more satisfying, to spend the time seeing what interests you.

Thanks Laura and Sherry! Great advice!

Congratulations on your extended holiday!

This being said, I have one overall major, gigantic red flag over your plans: it will be more a transportation vacation than anything else. As you are relatively young (I'm thinking around my age), and will have several decades to come back, I'd not rush it so much. You will spend the best part of every other day in a train, plane or somewhere waiting for either.

So my first measure would be to bring the average number of nights spent on the same bed to 4. Cut at least 6 of your proposed destinations. That doesn't mean seeing less, just enjoying more what each place has to offer.

I'd cut out Russia entirely due to the uncertain political situation and the possibility harsher hostility/sanctions break out at any moment.

Madrid, Barcelona, Rome and Berlin are all well worth 4 or 5-night stays considering how much time you have.

I'd stay well clear of any organized tour except for the sailing part. You don't need them.

If you want to visit the Alps properly, book at least 4 nights near the mountains, and leave them towards the end of your trip. That way you stamp out both the risk of bad weather clouding the mountains (sic) and the possibility of a harsh winter postponing the summer season start for some of the higher elevation trails/gondolas.

I'd also start my trip in Italy, where summer crowds would have the worst effects when combined with heat and busy sights/places.

I know bus tours companies like Contike have a lot of brand recognition in Australia, but I'd avoid them as much as possible. They propose itineraries that are too rushed, and frankly they don't deliver value for money for those willing to research in advance and have more time like you do. If you had just 10 days and wanted to get a taste of some part of Europe, that would make sense, since that isn't your case, I think all these fast-paced tours, including RS ones, are not a good fit for you.

This is like having a whole day and the money to eat out and then opting for lunch at Subway and dinner at Chipotles with some rushed midday snack at McDonalds.

Considering you have this much time, the only general omission I spotted in terms of different and unique landscapes are the Norwegian fjords. You definitively have time.

If you want to cut back the number of destinations, this is how I'd suggest you do to: take out different cities that belong to the same category and reduce their number. For instance, take out one of your Eastern European capitals, one of your Scandinavian capitals, adjust your itinerary in Austria/Germany, book just one 4 -night stay in the Alps.

Avoid these super crammed day-long trips that propose you to take to several sights in one day like the "Busabout adventures in Italy". Do your research (you have time), select the ones you like most, and spend quality time there.

Then, split the days you were proposing for Russia to all other European destinations.

Thanks very much Andre! So start in Italy instead of London/Paris/Spain?
Russia is the top place that I want to visit, I studied it when I was at school and always wanted to go. You are right though I do have a question mark over it, and that's why I wouldn't consider doing it by myself and have looked at an organised tour. If I take out Russia, I'd take out all off Scandinavia, which would give me an extra 16 days to split over the rest.
The reason I haven't opted for more tours is they don't go to the exact places I want to go, but the above comments have got me thinking that it may be worthwhile.
Such great advice, and Iove you MacDonalds analogy!!
Where would you suggest in the Alps?
Thanks again for you comment!!

Interlaken is a very good base for the Alps. It has 6 tall (>2000m) mountains within easy reach by trains/gondolas/cable cars, but it is also within easy reach of low-altitude places (Bern, Luzern) in case weather is bad. You can't go much wrong with Interlaken, and they have some hostels there.

Amaaaaaaaazing! You seem to be zigzagging a lot though, like why leave France to go to Spain only to go back to France? Why bass Croatia and all those Eastern European cities in route to Greece when you can hit them along the way? If you get an ink pin and literally draw this route you would see clear overlapping backtracking, not quite the best use of time.

As you revise and hone your plan, do be sure to follow the advice give well up thread about the 90 days in any 180 limit within the Schengen area, and those 90 days include days where you are only in the area for a part of the day, such as when you move in and out of the area.

Your initial plan is legal, but as you revise and add nights into countries in the area instead of some you had outside the area, be careful. Miscounting, even by accident can be pretty expensive and difficult.

I agree that you need to halve the number of destinations. Split to Budapest - there are no direct flights and the train takes 15 hours and isn't a direct service and only runs 6 times a week. No bus service either.

Bruges to Amsterdam - take the train. Seat61.com will help with train travel across Europe.

If you are on a budget, scrap the overpriced and overrated Santorini and Mykonos and visit some of the more genuine Greek islands or mainland. When will you be in Greece? It maybe a little early in the season and some places may not be fully open. Plus who knows what is going to happen with the Greek economy?

It would make sense to cover the hot places first before they get too hot, but without doubling back on yourself.

Definitely an ambitious plan!!

Looking at a map will help sequence your trip to reduce backtracking. For example, Venice is on the east coast of Italy and Nice is closer to Florence/Pisa/Cinque Terre on the west coast. And Lucern to Bruges goes through Paris. Many of your stops seem to zig/zag around. Europe can seem so small on a map but it has a lot packed into each place and travel time really adds up. Less bactracking and fewer cities will give you time to see some of the sites. A fun site for mapping cities is http://www.rome2rio.com which show estimates of travel time.

Also, for each place you want to stay, identify what you want to see and do there. Then you can determine how much time it will take to see/do the essentials (for you) of each place. So far you have a list of cities, what is your top 1 to 5 reasons to visit each?

For each 2 night stop you have one day in that city, plus a few moments to hours on the day of arrival and departure. Prioritize and trim down to ensure you do the important things. You have the time to do a lot but no one can do everything on a first trip to Europe.

Enjoy the planning and the trip!

Thankyou to everyone who has contributed. Some very good advice. You'll notice that in my updated version I don't have many flights at all, and will be catching mainly trains. I've also taken out Russian, Scandinavia and Istanbul, and added longer in a lot of places, and I'm now considering getting a rail pass. I still don't know where to slot Venice in, and if my Eastern European cities and central are in a logical order.

I've updated it again. Now it fits in with tour dates to do Greek and Croatian tours with either Contiki or Busabout. It also works well because I will be having friends with me for the first 8 weeks and they aren't very interested in the trip from Prague onward. I'm after constructive advice on whether this trip is doable. Thank you for al the advice you have given already.

2 days Prague plush 9 day tour Prague-Olomoc(1)-Krakow (2)-Zakopane(1)-Budapest (2),
Plitvice (1)-Split

Short by half if you include travel time unless your goal is to just pass through each; which I am not entirely critical of. Some times it can be more about the travel and not the end locations. But If you want to play tourist then Prague is 4 nights, Olomoc is one night (or two), Krakow is two nights (or three), Zokopane is on night (unless you use it as camp from which to see some great mountains, rivers, castles and villages, the maybe 3 nights), Budapest is 4 nights (better five), Plitvice is worth 1 or 2 nights and Split at least 2 and 3 would be better. That's 15 and 20 would be better.

Thanks for the info, I'm spending two nights by myself in Prague, then one night on the tour, That part of my trip is fixed though so I can't slow it down. I found Croatia a hard place to get to/from so I chose to get there with a tour, the Busabout Rhapsody tour as it goes to places I want to see along the way to my end destination of Split.

Are the numbers listed still days or did you switch to nights? I've been following this forum for awhile and it really is better to count by nights as everyone says... 4 nights gives you 3 full days, etc... If you are counting somewhere as 2 days, does that mean you have just an overnight?

Kim

Check into flights from Dubrovnik to Vienna . That would eliminate the ferry back to Split & the ferry to Venice, and the complications that would arise should either ferry be cancelled (which happens sometimes). If that works out, add Venice to your Italy schedule.

Also , regarding the Greek islands, it's really easy to do those on your own ... Not sure a tour is needed. The islands you mentioned are close together with frequent ferry connections.

Looking much better! I agree you dont need a tour for the Greek isles. I've done similar trips twice before and I'd suggest cut the tour of the area south of Rome and spend more time Assisi and Cinque Terre. 2 night to see Rome to Naples, Sorrento, Capri, Amalfi and Rome means you won't really see much.

Also if you can, plan a vacation within your touring schedule. What I mean by that is plan a few days (3-5) midway through your trip where you are in a low key place (beach, mountain village, etc) with nothing to do but relax. Sounds silly but someone gave me similar advice before my first big trip and they were absolutely correct. You will need a break from the constant go-go-go and stress of such a long trip to recharge and relax.

DJ

I think your new itinerary is a huge improvement. However, I would suggest you stay in Murren, instead of Interlaken, which is too far away from the mountains that you go to Switzerland to see. Other options you might consider are Wengen or Lauterbrunnen (in the valley).

I agree with Carroll. If you need or want a large supermarket, large tour groups, a sex shop, or a "Paksitani" restaurant (that's exactly what the sign said, which reminded me of Punxsutawney Phil from Groundhog Day), then stay in Interlaken. Otherwise, stay right in the Berner Oberland, either on the valley floor (Lauterbrunnen), up one side of the mountains (Gimmelwald or Mürren), or up the other side (Wengen).

There is a hostel in Lauterbrunnen, from there you can walk to the falls. The entire town is walking distance from the train station.

On a clear day take a train to the Top of Europe and hike on a glacier :-) take the first train and you will see climbers heading up the Monk.

Switzerland is amazing and expensive.

Great planning for your trip of a lifetime!