First time to Europe for 11 days, London-york-edinbrugh or London-Brussels-Amsterdam

London and Paris via the Eurostar train for the first trip.

I am avoiding Paris because of Olympics this summer. It hard to find reasonable accommodations in Paris.

Travelworld,
Either sounds fine, but Brussels was disappointing for us, so I would skip it. I would choose London 4 days and Amsterdam 3 days, or choose your London/York/Edinburgh option. A bit rushed, but doable. Of course, London alone could fill up your week, with maybe one or two days trips from there. You are wise to skip Paris this year.
Have a wonderful trip!

Just realized you said 11 days. I am assuming you are counting two of those days as travel days. Still, 9 days on the ground is better than the 7, which I mistakenly assumed. Yay! 8 days of fun, with one travel day between two locations. Good call Travelworld09!

I would fly into Edinburgh for maybe four days then train to London and then home or the other way around. Buy multi city tickets. Definitely not one way as that is very expensive. This fall we arrived in Edinburgh, spent four days and then train to London. We went to York for the day by train and then spent rest of the time in London itself. We had been in London three times before so this time was to finish up our list of must see places. Good luck and enjoy.

I am thinking of buying multi city tickets, flying to London and returning from Edinburgh. I don't do well with traveling longer period so trying to keep it under 2 weeks with the travel time to and from home. I will check the option of doing day trip to york instead as well.

I would do London-York-Edinburgh.

I’m with Mary. Of the 5 places you list, i love York and Edinburgh. Not a fan of the others.

While I LOVE Brussels and think Amsterdam is a great city, for this trip, especially for a first time, I would do London, York, Edinburgh. This will give you a less intense itinerary, and you can determine what sort of travelers you are. If you are a hit-the-highlights-and-go family, you can take on more next time. If you really want to SEE and feel like you are getting to know a city, the more relaxed pace allows you to become familiar with which Tube line you need to get to which area of town, to explore and take in a few minutes or even hours at a street food festival, to enjoy a museum or exhibit, etc. You can also do a day trip to Stonehenge or the Harry Potter studio or anything else that suits your interests. This is far better than spending a full day of your trip preparing to depart London, traveling to Brussels, and settling into / getting oriented in Brussels, especially if you are lugging suitcases and are unfamiliar with either location.

11 days, why not stick to England there is much to see away from large cities.

Consider visiting Cambridge, Canterbury, Oxford, Bath, Winchester, Stonehenge, Windsor Castle, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwick, York (especially York).

Brussels- been there, it is OK, but I wouldn't add it to my itinerary.

Amsterdam is nice, but pick somewhere close to reduce travel.

Save Scotland for another trip, there is much to see in Scotland and you could spend 11 days just doing Scotland.

I don't disagree with the good replies you have. But another option would be to go to London and take the (longer) Eurostar ride to Amsterdam for more than 3 days, and daytrip to some of the MANY nearby Netherlands cities, then fly home from Amsterdam. That's specifically because you said "first time to Europe", and Amsterdam is a great way to find out that you don't have to speak the local language to have a good time.

I prefer the Paris idea, but I accept your statement about Olympics. I'm also leaving out Brussels because it's not a "high point", and it leaves out the places people will ask you about, like Bruges or Ghent. It's also less effort to take a single train to Amsterdam. I'd also remind you "If this is Tuesday, This must be Belgium." Sitting on a train is not "experiencing" Europe. Take it easy your first time.

Regarding "online", have you been to the Public Library to look at our host's books? "Rick Steves England" and "Rick Steves Netherlands and Belgium", something like that? His free Travel Tips, top left blue menu aren't quite as thorough as the introductory sections of his books, and he specializes in first-trip-to-Europe.

Since Edinburgh is my new favorite city--right up there with London and Budapest--I vote for London, York and Edinburgh. My first trip out of the US was a solo to London and I found it to be a wonderful start to traveling; familiar, very easy to get around and full of endless wonderful things to do and see. Keeping it simple with the same currency is helpful, too. Last September I flew to Edinburgh for 5 days, then LNER train to London (5th visit) for 4 days, home from there.

Assuming you have a special reason for going to York, my suggestion would be the London, York, Edinburgh option. If your interest in York is just so-so, then consider splitting the time between London and Edinburgh. If you do that, also consider a cheap no frills airline between the two rather than the train which will take longer.

City Centre to City centre air is no faster than train, by the time you have included transit at either end + check in and security time. And train is far kinder to the environment, and far more frequent.

Backing the last comment: train London King's Crossing to Edinburgh Waverly (in the heart of Edinburgh) is roughly 4 1/2 hours. An hour to Heathrow, 2 hours ahead of the flight, an hour and 20 minute flight, deplaning, 1/2 hour to get to the center of Edinburgh from the airport...train is both faster and easier. And likely less expensive (I did not check the airfares). Also an open-jaw ticket that flies into London and out of Edinburgh will be cheaper than flying out of London due to the exit taxes for London.

I definitely would not want to waste any time on my first trip to Europe by going to Brussels. And 3 days in London is not enough. I feel safe saying your son would enjoy London and York much more than Brussels.

You have already considered what I would suggest for a first-time trip--London and Paris. The Olympics don't start until late July and should not affect hotel prices in Paris in June. I don't doubt that the hotel prices will be high in Paris in June, but they will be high in London, Amsterdam and perhaps Edinburgh as well.

Regarding the two options you listed, I recently visited London, York, Edinburgh, Amsterdam and Bruges. Travel logistics and costs favor a UK-only trip. I have to believe that Amsterdam would be more expensive than Edinburgh (and Paris). And Edinburgh is a smaller and more manageable city than Amsterdam. My only other comments are that Bruges (which you did not mention) is lovely and perfect for a two-night stay and that London merits more than three days.

I don’t mean to step into your question but I am hoping for information about the multi city flight verses one way. I recently booked a trip almost solely because I could fly round trip… It’s a guided group trip but I’m using points for the airfare and didn’t realize that there was an option other than one way. Obviously I am a novice traveler and will be traveling solo after having to change a trip to Israel…

I sent you a private message.

Ann