Europe Itinerary thoughts

I count 3 places in a row where you only plan 2 nights. Keep in mind that 2 nights in a place is only one full day. That seems like a lot of moving around considering there won't be much time in each place. There would be a little more time in Munich with a night train. Each time there is a location change you have to factor in a least a half day wasted. If they opt out of Paris that would help in Italy time-wise, but I wouldn't add a location. What time of year is this trip?

I would take a night from Rome and add to Venice since Venice is far from Munich.

What I was thinking is that from Prague to Munich about 5 hrs...you'd have a bit of a day (arrive mid-afernoon), sleep, another whole day, sleep and another whole day before catching the night train (and I know they aren't great for sleeping, but...) so that gives you 2 1/2 days Munich. Arrive early morning Venice on train, have the day, sleep, another whole day, sleep then head to Florence early afternoon, so you have 2 full days in Venice...I guess Florence is the one that loses as you'd really only get about 1 1/2 days... maybe take a day from London, add to Florence? (and of course, if they opt out of PAris, they'll get the day added to vENICE AND fLorence and Rome)

I think taking the night train Munich>Venice is good idea (why, because I've done it and that automatically makes it a good idea). Venice will be your priciest lodging so you can get 3 full days for the price of 2 nights. Florence is just a couple of hours away on the Freccia trains. I would maybe split Florence and Rome 3 & 3, but that really depends on what you want to see and do. And what have they got against Paris?

Well I think its way too much moving around, hope they pack VERY light, there are always stairs, there is alot of lifting of luggage on and off trains etc.
I personally would never miss Paris, but then I personally have little desire to visit Berlin, so to each his own tastes. I just hope they don't have a lame reason for elimanating Paris( don't like french food, afraid they will be treated poorly, can't speak french, all lame reasons). lol As pointed out, a two night stay is only one full day, so I would limit those kind of stays completely or just do one or two.. Venice is pretty done for me after 3 days( it is expensive too!) , and keep in mind if going in fall they could hit rainy weather there. Rome and Paris can easily absorb another day ,, tons to see and do there. Also CT is rainy and closed up quite abit after early October.. Eurostar from Paris to London is great, and if booked well in advance can be cheap, but if flying out next am perhaps flying over and staying near airport may be better option.

I think he is more interested in nature/ancient sites/architecture rather then art, so Rome may be a better fit then Florence...Venice on a budget is doable - we've stayed at a great b&b for 72 euro twice (and have it booked again - 2 weeks and off we go!)...of course, I booked it 6 months agolol, no telling what you'd find on short notice...and I think the only thing about Paris is maybe he s worried about price...he also said smaller cities interested him - any suggestions for maybe a half-day trip from any of these spots?

I think he is actually going to be travelling soon - maybe by end of Sept - he's only 24, so in good shape - he planned to backpack it, so I think he's OK with stairs and such - he's just coming off a cross-Canada trip, which is why he isn't 100% sure of when he can leave here. He hasn't been to Europe at all, so hoping this would give him a taste without being to crazy...yeah - I guess CT in mid-late Oct would be really not worth it...and I know moving too much - our last trip over, we had a few 1 (!) nighters - hubby trying to pack too much in, not listening to me when I told him...oh well, we saw the highlights! This trip, we are 2 nighters everywhere - but we are returning to places we've been already (Venice/CT/Paris/London) so they are more to see what we missed last time...lol

I agree with Pat. This is 6 countries in 4 weeks - that's a lot of moving around. I'd visit one country per week (London with daytrips, Paris with daytrips, etc.) or several cities/regionsin 4 weeks (London, Paris and Amsterdam; Berlin, Prague and Munich; Italy and southern Germany; etc.)).

RS's own Best of Europe Tour has ten 2-nite stops and two 1-niters. So 3-niters should not be that big a deal. If you want spectacular mountains and hiking, you can't do better than the Dolomites. If you are locked in on your Venice dates, you could squeeze that in after Venice and before Florence. Still, miss Paris? (sob, sob)

Oh, I know, we were to PAris 2 years ago for 3 nights, and are returning this trip for 2 more...it is an amazing city...I'm just wondering, if for him at this time, it's a little bit, hmmm, overkill with all the other spots? Kind of a 2nd thought maybe? But I guess it's up to him...

Hi, If he is uncertain or indecisive as to where to place the priority on this trip, then propose an itnerary basically fitting your priorities. I can understand dropping Paris, may not necessarily agree with it to replace Paris with Italy, but then my travel priorities in Paris take precedent over places in Italy. If you take time from a place, take from Prague and Amsterdam, add it to Berlin. Take the Munich-Venice night train, esp. because it is direct.

Sam you cannot compare the RS tour speed with independent travel, having done both I can assure you huge difference. First , with the tour, you get up , have breakfast at hotel ,, and ta da walk out front door with luggage and get on bus. You will then some time later arrive at door of next hotel. This bypasses the finding the train or bus station, or getting to the airport, arriving early enough to figure out where to go to get the transport , then the travel, then the arrival and finding next hotel , which may entail either walking, taking a taxi, or using the local bus or underground system.
Two nighters are harder on your own. I did three of them this summer and found them tiring, and that the travel itself always wasted minimum of half a day , often spend unglamourously in airports or train or bus stations. Now, there are some younger folks who do like to go go go ,, and to them I say, "go for it" cause you can do alot at 25 or 30 yrs old that doesn't seem quite as fun at 50 or 60 yrs old + lol

I have been to all the cities you are planning to visit. I would say that it would be a perfect trip if you could just add a day to Munich and Venice. In my opinion, I would drop Florence and add a day to Venice and Munich. I liked Florence, don't get me wrong. But I liked Venice better than Rome and FLorence. And Rome needs as many days as possible (4 nights is the bare minimum). I like Florence better than Rome, but one needs to visit Rome because the sites are so important....and to make the decision on whether they are Team Venice or Team Rome:) But in this trip I would try to drop a city to give Venice and Munich one more day each.