First Europe ever in 2 Weeks - Last week of July/First week of Aug

The nice part about booking a few nights in the Alps is that the rest of your stops are busy cities. The crowds can be exhausting and I think you would really appreciate 3 or 4 nights in the Alps.

If you're going from Amsterdam to London direct, check out the overnight Stena Line ferry "Rail and Sail." I really enjoyed that last year, but do take a seasick pill as the boat is departing. Seasick pills only work if you take them before you have symptoms.

Seat61.com and rome2rio.com are two good resources planning your trip from Venice up to Germany.

It's a lot for 14 days but everybody has their own travel style and tolerance for moving around. I would definitely drop London and possibly Amsterdam depending on how much time you want to spend in Rome and Venice. Rome and Venice with 1/2 day travel time between them will take 6-7 days. I would then go from Venice to Munich and do Neuschwanstein and/or Zugspitze as day trip/s from there. Then, depending on how much time you have (want) for Paris you can either go to Amsterdam for a couple of days before Paris or go directly from Munich to Paris. Way too much travel time to fit London in on this trip. It might work if you were flying home from there - then I would skip Amsterdam, go from Munich to Paris and then Eurostar to London.

For two weeks your schedule is over-crowded. I suggest leaving out London and Amsterdam, then seeing what's left. I always prefer train travel,. Traveling from one place to the other will take up,about half a day. Stay in each place two or three nights.

Thanks for such fast responses guys! You've given me some things to ponder...

One last question to ask, as far as traveling between cities, my boyfriend said he preferred flying to trains (take less time, direct, more comfortable). But to me it seems that Europe is set up for train travel ideally (minus larger distances, as in Munich to Amsterdam we might just fly to cut down on time). Thoughts?

You are not saying where you live so we don't know if you are used to oppressive heat because that's what you will encounter in Rome and Venice in July. Personally I would not enjoy vacation like that, I would suffer. I think you got too many destinations in 14 days. I would choose those with cooler climate in July. So fly to London. By train to Amsterdam. Fly to Munich. Go to Neuschwanstein Castle and Zugspitze, stay in the Alps somewhere around Zugspitze, back to Munich, fly home. If you don't mind oppressive heat, skip Amsterdam and fly from London to Munich, after Alps fly or train from Munich to Venice then train to Rome and fly home from Rome.

I'm from Michigan, probably flying out of Windsor or driving to Toronto to fly out directly. I will eat a lot of gelato!

I know you said your boyfriend prefers flying to train travel. I think in some instances, flying can make sense, but I personally prefer to take the train if at all possible. It's just a more relaxing experience (for me, at least) - it takes you from city center to city center, and you don't have to worry about going through security or arriving an hour or more in advance like you do with a flight. For me, a six hour train ride is usually about the max that I will do - beyond that, it starts to make more sense to fly, or else the train ride will take up my whole day.

Re: trains vs. flights. My rule of thumb (very rough, there are exceptions!) is that if the train takes 6 hours or more and there is a direct flight, I will fly. If the train is 4 hours or less, I will take the train. 4-6 hours is a gray area for me. The reason is that a flight requires going to the airport at least 1.5 hours ahead and the airport is almost always at least 30 minutes outside of a big city (more likely an hour, especially with traffic!). So you have a 2 hour or more lead time on the front, then a flight of maybe 1.5-2.5 hours, then at least 45 minutes to get out of the airport and get into the city. You're looking at 5 hours in transit. Vs. a train where you don't have to be there very early and the train station is usually a short trip on a bus or subway from your hotel in the center of the city, or even walkable. I also find the train more comfortable - seats are bigger, you can walk around and see things. Finally, it seems like trains are less often cancelled or delayed than planes. But I'm not going to sit on a train for 10 hours when there's a perfectly good flight that takes 3!

Your thoughts on which parts to fly and which to take a train are right, as far as I can tell! I am very familiar with Rome - Venice and London - Paris, and I would not fly those particular routes. I haven't done the others but the time seems right.

As much as I totally understand the mentality of wanting to see everything and not knowing if/when you will be back, I have to agree with those who are saying that itinerary is too ambitious for 14 days. On my first trip, my boyfriend and I went to Brussels, Budapest, Berlin, Prague, Munich and Amsterdam in 3 weeks, and while it was by no means torturous, I don't think I would do that again. It was definitely interesting and I enjoyed seeing all of these places, but it wasn't a particularly relaxing vacation. Your current itinerary has one more city and one fewer week, so I would personally recommend you pare it down.

The most logical option, IMO, is to cut out Munich, Amsterdam and London so your trip goes from Italy, through the Alps and up to France. The Alps would also provide a nice break between the heat and craziness of summertime Italy and Paris.

If you do have your heart set on, say, Amsterdam or London, you can fly north from Italy on a budget airline like Easyjet. For example, you could do: Rome > train to Venice > Venice > fly to Paris > Paris > train to Amsterdam > Amsterdam (fly home from AMS); or Rome > fly to Amsterdam > Amsterdam > train to Paris > Paris > Eurostar train to London > London (fly home from LON).

Whatever you end up doing, I hope you enjoy your trip! :)

I really like Ron's suggestion because it lets you stay put rather than constantly packing and unpacking, and it gives you a good mix of big cities and quieter regions.

I loved Orvieto and on a longer trip would recommend multiple nights there, but your trip is short and there are many sights to see in Rome. I don't know whether you'll end up deciding to buy train tickets before you leave (see below). If you make train reservations as you go, fall in love with Rome, and are traveling very light, you could stop over in Orvieto for a while on your way up to Venice. I'm not saying that you should cut Orvieto short like that, but Rome is big... The internet consensus is that there's no luggage storage at the Orvieto station, but it's possible that one of the hotels near the station might be willing to fill that role if you walk in holding a 5-euro note. Worth a try.

Two budget matters since you mentioned that as a consideration:

• For legs on which you really want a fast train, a lot of money can be saved by buying train tickets as soon as they become available. But this ties your hands. If you want to retain some flexibility and buy after you get to Europe, be sure you see all the available rail fares before making a decision. Sometimes the fast train only saves 30 or 40 minutes (depending on destination; obviously it can be far longer) but costs much, much more. Times 2 in your case. It's your call whether the time saving is worth it. The slower train may be about the same price as you would have gotten by buying the fast-train ticket months before. The automated ticket-sale kiosks in the train stations in Italy and Germany (only places I've used them) lay out all the options, running times, and prices for you.

• When comparing plane vs. train, don't overlook the trek to the airport. Yes, a taxi will often get you there pretty quickly, but if you're on a budget I assume you'll prefer public transportation. That will take longer if it's a bus, plus you'll have to allow extra time due to (usually) limited frequency. And especially if said public transportation is a bus, you'd be right to be a bit nervous about schedule reliability.

I'm sure you'll have a fabulous trip.

I think 7 stops in 14 days is too much. You will be packing up and traveling every other day, which is tiring. It also takes up a lot of time, meaning you aren't seeing anything. I think four places is ideal, or five if you like faster pace travel. What to cut is up to you. One thing to consider is that Italy will be really really hot. Unless you have a high tolerance for heat, you might want to save it for another trip. If you go, make sure to get air conditioning.

kris,

I haven't read all the previous replies, but I have a few thoughts to add.....

The first thing to consider is that you'll lose two days in flight so you really only have 12 days for touring. With that very short time frame, it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to visit all the places on your list. Also keep in mind that each change of location will require at least half a day (when all is considered) and will have a cost in both time and money.

With that in mind, you might consider something along these lines.....

• D1 - Flight to Europe
• D2/N1 - Arrive Rome
• D3/N2 - Rome
• D4/N3 - Rome
• D5/N4 - Rome
• D6/N1 - Train to Venice (departure station Roma Termini, arrival station Venezia Santa Lucia / time 3H:45M, direct via high speed train / on that route you can use either Trenitalia or Italo Treno / use a departure at about 10:00 so that you arrive in early afternoon).
• D7/N2 - Venice
• D8/N3 - Venice
• D9/N1 - Train to Munich (I'd probably consider using the direct train, which departs at 13:50, arriving 21:09 as that will allow a leisurely breakfast in Venice and perhaps a bit more touring / if you'd like to go a bit earlier, there's a departure at 11:12, arriving 19:01 with one change at Verona Porta Nuova).
• D10/N2 - Munich
• D11/N3 - Munich (day trip to Neuschwanstein / you can visit the Castle on your own or with Radius Tours / if you go on your own, you'll have to book the timed entrance tickets to the Castle).
• D12/N4 - Munich (visit Zugspitze / you may find it interesting to have a look at their website / the trip from Munich to Garmish-Partenkirchen is ~1H:22M).
• D13/N5 - Munich
• D14 - Return flight

Of course there are many possibilities and this is only one suggestion. As this is your first trip to Europe, you may enjoy reading Europe Through The Back Door prior to your trip. Use the RS Italy or RS Germany guidebooks to plan your sightseeing in the places you'll be visiting.

"my boyfriend said he preferred flying to trains (take less time, direct, more comfortable)."

That's NOT entirely true. Air travel is often a more stressful, hectic experience than travel by train. It also often takes longer (depending on circumstances) when all is considered - travel to and from airports, check-in, security, waiting, boarding and de-planing, etc.). There's also the matter of restrictive and expensive luggage rules. The high speed trains travel at up to 300 km/h so those are often a much faster and more relaxing way to travel.

If you're willing to commit to specific departure times, you can save some money with advance purchase tickets on some of the trains. The fast trains have compulsory seat reservations which are specific to train, date and departure time, so the tickets can ONLY be used on the one train listed on the ticket. The cheapest advance purchase tickets are non-refundable and non-changeable, so choose carefully before hitting the "Buy" button. You can buy tickets online for Italy and Germany from www.captaintrain.com (a very user-friendly website).

One important point to mention is that there are some potentially expensive "caveats" to be aware of when using trains and other public transit in Italy. If you need more information, post another note here and I'll forward my usual "boilerplate" on the subject.

I'd suggest getting some flights booked soon, and then start booking hotels (the guidebook has good listings). That time of year will be busy, and many hotels will already be starting to fill up. The group here on the forum should also be able to suggest hotels.

Good luck with your planning!

You need to cut half your destinations ot add another week.

You say you are on a budget, but you are planning on visiting expensive locations such as Rome and Venice in peak season. Having just spent a week in Venice in quiet January, the thought of squashing it all into 1 or 2 days when there are thousands more people there and the queues are hideous doesn't bear thinking about. At that time of year, you need at least 3 full days each in Rome and Venice. If you don't like heat, then Italy in August isn't for you.

I find Berlin much more interesting than Munich.

The advice given above re trains vs planes is sensible. The no frills airlines such as Easyjet and Ryanair have had seats for the summer available for months and you will therefore have missed out on the cheapest prices. At that time of year, it may make little difference, but try to fly midweek and antisocial hours for the best prices. Trains are generally quicker door to door.

Think half a day to change locations and 3 days in each place and that fills your time. You are right to consider open jaw flights.

For an intense journey...
Sat Jul 23 - Fly into Rome - 3 nts
Tue Jul 26 - Train to Venice - 2 nts
Thu Jul 28 - Train to Munich - 2 nts
Sat Jul 30 - Train to Berlin - 3 nts
Tue Aug 02 - Train to Amsterdam - 2 nts
Thu Aug 04 - Train to Paris - 3 nts
Sun Aug 07 - Fly out of Paris

For a leisurely journey...
Sat Jul 23 - Fly into Rome - 4 nts
Wed Jul 27 - Train to Venice - 3 nts
Sat Jul 30 - Train to Munich - 3 nts
Tue Aug 02 - Train to Paris - 5 nts
Sun Aug 07 - Fly out of Paris

Hi.. a couple of things.
Yes.. you have too much.. you are not really counting the actual travel time that eats into sightseeing time.. you don't want a tour of train stations and airports right?

Secondly.. trains are actually better for shorter distances then flying.. faster ,, and can be cheap if you purchase your point to point tickets well in advance. For instance..I personally have a 5-6 hour rule. If it would take longer then that on a train , I look at flights. Flights are pretty short in Europe ( rome to paris is 1.5 hours) but you must count the time you will spend commuting to and from airport ( for instance, if you fly into or out of Paris it takes almost an hour to get to airport , closer to 45 minutes, but then you have to count the time to get to the station and buy your ticket ).. also , even for inter europeon flights you need to be at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight.. so that 1.5 hour flight is actually still going to be 4-5 hours of your day travelling.. more or less depending on airport commute. )

I think cutting London and Amsterdam make sense for this trip.. they can be another trip when maybe you lump them in with Dublin, Scotland ,, the whole western side of Europe.. they are fun cities.. but so are all the other places you are going to see.

Lastly.. do look at Airtransat out of Toronto.. they do open jaw flights ( into one city out of another ) and are cheap.. and remember how great it will be to pay in Canadian dollars.. cheap cheap cheap( for you.. boo hoo, not so good for us)

Hey guys thanks for the input. We are buying the tickets tonight, I'm going to see if I can leave a day earlier (work 6 days in a row since I work my weekend and have my off day on Friday). We are flying in/out Rome and Paris.

Looks like Rome to Venice is 8 hour train so maybe we should fly (over most if your cut offs of 5-6 hours). Venice to Munich is 7 hour train, so fly there as well!?

Do you think it's possible to rent a car in Munich and drive to Neuschwanstein and Zugspitze in one day? That way we can have an excuse to drive on the autobahn? If we started the day early enough (before the Crack of dawn- summer so days are longer), 2 hour drive to Neuschwanstein, looks like tours of the actual castle is short, then 1 hour drive to Zugspitze, ride to top, drive back 2 hours to home base of Munich? Total of 5 hours. Or better to plan a stop/night between Neuschwanstein and Zugspitze with the rental car?

Ken's itinerary is close to what I would recommend. You didn't mention Florence at all. I would recommend perhaps 1 night there between Rome and Venice

Where did you get that time for the train from Rome to Venice? The fast trains between Rome and Venice are a bit less than 4 hrs. And purchased well ahead of time they're only $23 - for specific day and time, non-refundable. You certainly couldn't do better on a flight.

You're right about the train from Venice to Munich though. You can get cheap flights between those two that would save a couple of hours. Personally that's one train ride that I would do anyway (during the day) just for the scenery but I understand people who don't want to be confined on a train that long.

Nancy's right about the train between Rome and Venice - at under 4 hours, it's much faster than flying when you figure door to door (in particular, getting from the Venice airport to the city is either expensive or time-consuming).

To find accurate train times for almost all of Europe, use the Bahn (German Rail) website http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en, following Rick's tutorial: http://www.ricksteves.com/travel-tips/transportation/trains/online-schedules.

Note this will only show prices for trains that start or end in Germany. For your Italian trains, you should look at both Trenitalia http://www.trenitalia.com/tcom-en and Italo http://www.italotreno.it/en. Note the Italian names of the stations you want:

Rome: Roma Termini or (farther from the center) Roma Tiburtina
Venice: Venezia Santa Lucia. Don't look at Venezia Mestre, as that's on the mainland.