Is 3 nights really only 2 days?

You are spot on as how my wife and I travel. We tend to pack in much and move along faster than perhaps some of the regular posters. Their advice is often directed to first time travelers to Europe with highly unrealistic expectations about their itineraries.

You have a point that your arrival day can afford some time for touring. When we change locations we try for early trains and try to arrive in time to check in and have lunch and get oriented if it is a new-to-us location. By tyhe time we chevk in and eat it can eadily by 2:00pm. Sometimes we just do an orientation walk.

However, not everyone siezes the morning for travel and not everyone is organized enough to change locations and be out the door touring half an hour after arriving in a new city. If the train or flight is late, of course one loses time on the travel day. Despite traveling a great deal, we do not plan large tours or site for arrival days even if not jet lsgged, and certainly nothing pre-paid in case of delays.

I count 3 nights as 2 days. Sometimes my transfers are long and I really spend most of my day in transit. If my transfer is shorter, I still don't plan actual activities...my itineraries for the period of time from arrival to a new city to that first bedtime always just say "wander". And we do wander on arrival, just checking things out, but I save my planned sites for the following morning.

You are all right, I think. If travel takes four to six hours (maybe you can't get a train, bus or plane early enough to get you to your destination by 1-2pm, or if travel is six hours or more that day, you may be able to do something that day, but not a full day's itinerary. I consider that bonus hours.

I always advise people to count nights, because a night in a place is always a night, a day can be two to eighteen hours.

In my younger days of travel, I would arrive midday, walk around and get oriented to the new city. The next day I would see all that interested me, then be ready to move on the following morning. Sometimes even a day trip was satisfying. I visited Venice from Florence as a day trip. We rode the vaporettos all around and did lots of walking.
The travel industry would call two nights four days even though there is just one full day involved. Even RS does this.

Agreed, although I don't think I've ever stayed in a place that allows check in that early, but we can sometimes leave our bags. This doesn't work when we rent apartments, necessarily, though, but with carry-on bags, some sightseeing is doable anyway (just another reason to travel with carryon only).

So, no, one doesn't lose the whole day, but I probably wouldn't plan tours or day trips for a travel day, necessarily, since missed connections or delayed flights could mess those up.

Also, not everyone wants to pack every second in with sightseeing. My preference upon arriving in a new location is to get settled in the room, if possible, and then get oriented. Walk around the neighbourhood. Figure out where the bank, grocery store, good place to eat dinner, etc. is. Get transit tickets, if applicable. Figure out where the nearest transit stops are. All this is sightseeing, too, since, for me, sightseeing is not just ticking the boxes for the major "must sees," but seeing pretty little neighbourhood parks, noticing fun or interesting architectural details, etc.

I would guess that most people do get some tour and useful time out of travel days. And of course it depends significantly on how long the transit time is (big difference between 2 hours and 4 hours). It depends on when people can catch a train. An 8:00 AM train can be pretty early for many people and so they might lose the better part of a day traveling mid-day. Location of one's hotel makes a big difference: if it's close to the station one can hit the streets quickly. A big city or more distant hotel might require another 1-2 hours to get there, check in and freshen up. And many people need some time to get oriented in a new city: learn the metro system, figure out Medieval street systems, study maps.

When novice travelers post their itineraries here, it is usually obvious that they haven't figured in the travel time to their days. I am an experience and efficient traveler and can know how much time I'll have available and plan accordingly. The average traveler posting questions here needs more wiggle room.

I also really enjoy the train trips and find staring out the window to be a significant part of my experience too.

I guess that is my point - there are so many scenarios that applying this principle to every situation is doing a dis-service to new travelers. Perhaps it would be more helpful to look at the specific itinerary and assess which option is best suited.

There's no way anyone can offer the best advice for everyone because we don't know someone else's limits, travel style, or endurance. So better to err on the side of caution. Maybe it's more fair to say that the first day will need to be "discounted" somewhat because if one rolls in at 2pm, it's pretty likely that museum time would be curtailed if museums close at 5pm (and that's not even allowing time to freshen up and sit down for lunch). Some museums can literally take 4-6 hours if not days depending on size and someone's interests (and then there may be the odd "off-day" where an attraction happens to be closed). Rolling in at 2pm also means standing in line for longer than rolling in first thing in the AM.

Plus travel fatigue may mean it makes more sense to do lower-level unstructured stuff as opposed to something that requires more effort, attention, and energy. Everyone knows what "discount rate" they should apply if they truly know themselves and their travel style. Most posters who are not well-traveled suffer from overconfidence of how much they can do. Especially after jet lag, which is even more disruptive to trying to fulfill an ambitious schedule at 100% capacity.

"There's no way anyone can offer the best advice for everyone because we don't know someone else's limits, travel style, or endurance. So better to err on the side of caution."

This advice from Agnes is spot on! There is no one size fits all in travel advice.

"Perhaps it would be more helpful to look at the specific itinerary and assess which option is best suited."

And how often is this kind of detail included in OP's questions, especially first timers and those who, when asked, won't provide further details?

I too often feel myself getting frustrated hearing that answer thrown out there because, like Christi, I may or may not lose a day of sightseeing to travel between destinations, usually not. I also tend to travel by early train when changing places and will sometimes get a good 1/2 to 3/4 day sightseeing in at the new destination. But that's me and I can't assume that others will travel that way.

It really depends on how far you are going in between locations. In reality, too often on this forum, people are trying to plan a trip going, for example, from Paris, 3 days, then Rome, 3 days, where the trip in between takes almost an entire day. If you get to Rome in the evening and leave the third morning, then it really is 2 days, not 3.

But even with short travel between venues, 3 nights is more likely 2½ days or less, never 3 whole days. And, on top of the travel time, you do have some time for packing up and checking out of your old place and checking into your new place.

In 2007, when I did the Romantic Road, I took 5 days. A few days I only traveled 1 or 2 hours and spent most of my time in the towns, but that is not even how I normally travel.

Other times, although the travel day isn't part of the stay in either termini, it's hard to dismiss is as just travel. For instance, a couple of years ago, I traveled from Bayerischzell (near Schliersee) to Berchtesgaden. It would have been a 3½ trip is I had gone from Rosenheim to Freilassing directly, but I took the long way, about 9 hours via the Alpenstrasse with an hour stopover in Reit im Winkl. The trip was much more than just getting from one venue to the other.

I remember the first time we visited Florence - I had two nights booked, so I'm like, OK, we will have the afternoon arrival day fr Venice, then part of the morning of the day we are leaving. Well, of course, we lingered a little longer in Venice by a few hours. Messed up where to find the bus from the train stn to our room and wasted another 45 min or so. Our accoms were on the edge of town, so by the time we actually arrived, instead of 2-3 pm, it was more like 6pm, not enough time to get back into town, so we had to look around for somewhere to eat in the area (not many choices) and my half day of sightseeing was shot. So that 2 nights really turned into one full day and long enough to see the Pitti Palace on our leaving day.

This has happened more times than I care to admit. Last year, we had planned on picking up our car and arriving to Carcassonne in France mid-afternoon - hey - maybe we'll stop and see the Millau Viaduct on the way! Except - the fast train became the slow train and was late by three hours and we didn't arrive until way after supper. And didn't stop for the viaduct on the way. So now I def like to count nights, because something seems to happen about half the time to mess up my half days of sightseeing when changing locations.

So many variables - exactly my point. I've seen it use as a sweeping general rule even covering location changes of 2 hrs

Even if one is a new traveler does not mean they will be "lost" either. Our first trip we spent 3 nights in Paris, validated a rail pass, got on a night train to Frankfurt and were off. We had one mis-step on a train - took the "milk run" rather than a direct and missed the KD ferry. :( I am certain I am not unique in being able to grasp foreign travel easily.

I think many who come here with ambitious itineraries do so more out of a desire to see many things and the inability to self edit. I think they come here with an inkling of it being too much and just do not know the logical things to cut.

I know my first trip started out with a wish list of 22 places in 23 days... it took some editing before it was final - long before there were such places as here.

It can be.
My friend and I took the 0755 Eurostar from London to Paris, arriving in Paris ~1130, counting the time change. We waited in line to get money from the ATM, then after finding the RER entrance, waited in a VERY long line to get carnets. Then we had to figure out where to find our train to the hotel, then wait for the train. Our hotel was near the Bercy metro, so it was easy from there. It was close to 2pm by the time we got to the hotel and there was a long line ahead of us to get checked in. By this point, my friend decided that she was too filthy after a train ride so she needed a shower. By the time we got out of the hotel, it was almost 4pm. We had 2 full days after this and left on the morning of day 3.

I think it depends -- I think the overall "rule" is kind of an average -- on some travel days you'll get to fit one or two sites/activities in. On some travel days, not.

I'm doing a trip this summer with my family that makes me a little crazy and basically goes against everything we "preach" here - too many destination and hotel changes and too many sites -- but it's a kind of once-in-a-lifetime trip and that's just kinda how it's gotta be. Sigh.

I only plan one night stays when I have a car. If flying you typically lose a good part of the day so then the 3 nights 2 days adage applies.

I know what you mean... it is those blanket statements that can be annoying.... Sometimes a travel day is only a few hours, sometimes the whole day.... but any time I spend in Europe I do not consider 'lost':) You still have that day, you just might not be spending it running down the checklist, but I enjoy my travel days as well as the rest. Time to spend listening to music and seeing the countryside or talking to your travel partners (if driving) If taking the train you can look at the countryside, write in your journal make plans, talk to your travel partners, or think about your trip if you are traveling alone. I often look forward to my travel days as a sort of breather from non stop stimulation, and would never consider them as lost.

Two nights is a minimum of one day, but can often be far more....

I guess I'm one of those who always cautions people to consider three nights as being two days, recognizing that it won't apply to all people in all situations. But what I see is that many people, especially new travelers, are constantly assuming that they don't need to take into account the time it takes to get to and from transportation and hotels at each end of a location change. People also don't take into account how long meals take, restroom breaks, getting change for the public toilet, standing in line for museum entrance, checking in to hotels, etc. All the logistics eat up time. Its great if you and your travel partner are on the same page all the time, but if not, time gets wasted in shopping, calling home, checking email, charging phones, etc. Throw in some kids or other people traveling with you, and that few hours on arrival day disappear. So yes, smart, savvy travelers can plan and pace things to the max, but I think most people shouldn't count on a two hour train ride to mean it will only take two hours. If they do find time to spare, great - that's a bonus.

On arriving from the US I shoot for an early afternoon arrival, and use that 1/2 day to get oriented and usually manage to enjoy at least one major museum for a couple of hours, anything else is a bonus.

Travelling from one city/country to another I do the same--this last trip I found a direct 2 hour flight from Paris to Budapest on a Sunday, had to get up at 3 am to make the 7 am flight but I was out and about in beautiful Budapest by 10:30 am and it was a busy and glorious day for me.

So, I consider it a 1/2 day for the most part, and if I've done my research and have a plan I do make good use of it.

For new travellers especially I think the general 'rule' is a good reminder of several things.
1) travelling from place to place can be tiring
2) travelling from place to place can take longer than one expects
3) not to over schedule - you may find yourself out of time
4) you won't miss a 'must do' sight should something go wrong
5) have a list of secondary sights for "if I have the time"
6) consider it as an in built insurance policy

Obviously those who are more seasoned travellers have a greater appreciation of what is realistically possible and what their capabilities are.

"1) travelling from place to place can be tiring"

Now this I just do not get. Our last trip was 12 stops in 30 days by train - my DH was 75 at the time and handled it just fine. Like in all things I think there is no hard & fast rule.

Pointing out possible pitfalls or problems is in order but not to state all will be this way. I only say these things because if I had presented our first trip and subsequent trips here I may have been discouraged to do them in the manner we did - so glad I didn't as we have fantastic memories from those trips. Travel "style" is not a one size fits all so I think advising others of possibilities and options and sharing our experiences and knowledge should reflect this.

"Pointing out possible pitfalls or problems is in order but not to state all will be this way"

And that's exactly what djp_syd did when saying new travelers need to be aware that traveling between places can be tiring and can take longer than expected. He didn't say it would be either of those things. And that's also what many posters on here say to those asking for advice on their itineraries.

"Our last trip was 12 stops in 30 days by train "

Well 12 stops in 30 days is a lot different from those OPs who come here and say they want to visit 7-8 places in 10 days. Those OPs are the ones that get the advice that they need to be a bit more realistic in their plans. It's always better to allow more time than needed than the other way around and there is nothing wrong with calling this to someone's attention. Until someone has traveled a few times in Europe and really knows their own travel style and limits, expecting too much of themselves is a recipe for a let-down.

Nancy - I think you may have misinterpreted my intent. I am not trying to make anyone wrong. I really do not get that - I really find train travel relaxing not tiring - and I usually associate travel by train within Europe. Flying on the other hand - more exasperating than tiring - but exasperation in itself can be wearing.

We have done the 10 stops in 21 days as well - we have been fortunate to always go over for at least three weeks at a time.

What is generally sound advice is not the same as a golden rule that should never be broken.
There is a worthwhile saying, you know, "to always err on the side of caution".
In 2012 I had a fantastic time in Italy where I went from Chianti to Milan in less than a week, including stops in Siena, Ferrara, Padova, Vicenza, Verona, Mantova. Distances were small, travel times not great, and travelling solo I was extremely well organised, and knew exactly what I wanted to do.
So no, it's not a cookie cutter rule, just sage advice to know what is possible and realistic within yourself, whilst at the same time doing justice to the destination.

It depends upon a lot of variables, the country, the time of year, and how close point A and B are. Also how disciplined you are about getting moving on early in the day. When the days are long and you get going early, and are not worried about open hours for museums, and/or in a country where the hours are late, you can certainly squeeze in more. If you are getting on a plane to transit from city to city, definitely plan on that pretty much killing the better part of a day. It also matters what age you are and how heavy you pack, how long a walk to the train station, etc. It's best to just realistic about what you can do in how much time, relax and be in the that you are in, and not be too ambitious. Expect it to take longer than you expect it to take to get from place to place.

That "rule of thumb" is often my response, and invariably it is to a newbie with an unrealistic itinerary. Many of the proposed itineraries I see are based on spending full days in places and not taking travel time into account at all (or at best, thinking that a 2-hour train ride takes 2 hours, or worse that a 1 hour flight takes 1 hour). Yes, in Florence you can get from the train to your hotel (in a great location) in a 10-minute walk. But if you're staying near the Academia bridge or San Marco in Venice, you and I know it will take an hour just to get to the train station, and another few minutes to get to the train platform. They don't.

Experienced travelers know how long it takes them to pack/unpack, get oriented to new cities, and are realistic about how much time they'll have before/after going from point A to point B. Newbies may not do their homework and won't know how to get from the train to their hotel quickly. And some forget during the planning that they will have luggage with them and will have to pick it up and/or drop it off.

When planning my trips I do count full days in a location versus the partial travel days. The tone of full days versus partial/travel days is different. My travel days are not just about getting from point A to point B, but to enjoy the travel time as well, if differently. Also, I find the travel days a little more stressful, particularly when traveling solo with varied transportation combinations. Consequently, because of the change in stress level, I have learned to take a different approach so I enjoy the travel days as much as the full in place days. If I am only thinking about my time in place, I get stressed over delays or missed connections, etc. This way I appreciate the day of change for what it is, new experiences, people watching, people meeting, exploring, etc. Obviously, this is just a little psychological game I play with myself (perhaps I am too easily entertained). Wray

I agree that a travel day is in many destinations, not a lost-day. It is partially in the place you wake up and an early walk or site visit is possible. Then, there is the part in transit which is totally enjoyable and can involve stops along the way. Finally, there is the part after you arrive in the new place where you will sleep. Finding the new place is part of orienting to the new location and then you may have time for walking, site seeing, or dinner, depending on the time spent on the other parts.

But a travel day is never a full-day in any location and planning needs to account for that. The morning part can take longer and transit time cannot be ignored but many "ambitious" plans seem to involve teleporting between far flung cities. I suspect that everyone's travel ideas probably start that way but plans need to account for the partial segments of travel days.

I think the basic rule is 2 nights is 1 full-day, so when a place is worthy of a full day, if you plan a one night visit you can end up with just a few very late/early hours.

Thinking in nights is also practical since you have to book hotel nights.

I think this discussion is why the RS guidebooks always ask us to consider doing the location change in the evening after dinner, even if it requires a coffee-fueled drive, so that you can get settled in to the new location while the sun is down, and leave maximum daylight for sightseeing.

Like many of us keep saying, the trains are usually scheduled so that the virtuous among us are moving early in the day, and getting to the new location early enough to have to drop off our bags and then go out and reconnoiter before actually checking into a room. It makes sense from an efficiency standpoint, since otherwise you're using up the prime part of the day for the move.

I feel like either strategy gets me off on the wrong foot with my hotelier: If I arrive before noon because I was a good boy and caught the early train, but am then not allowed to actually settle into the room and freshen up, then being able to leave my bag at the desk still seems like a consolation prize, not like an extra nicety. OTOH, if I get my things together after dinner and sit on a train in the dark so that I can get settled in to the new location before bedtime, I feel like I'm paying for a night that didn't get me anywhere in terms of my to-do list. And lodging staff are not always on their A game in the evenings.

What I really don't like is when it gets me on both ends -- I don't get to occupy the room until a late arrival, and then I have to checkout early to catch a flight such that no one is awake yet. That means I'm paying for 3 nights but getting just two days and 2.5 nights...

I may be the person who gives the advice more than anyone else. The reason I give this advice is many people who haven't traveled much don't factor travel time into their equations. When you watch a travel show, it's easy to think you can tour the leaning tower of Pisa in the morning and the Roman Coliseum in the afternoon, because the shows simply fade from one to the other. The reality is it takes time to relocate.

I also advise planning only two major sights a day, one in the morning one in the afternoon, with lunch in between. Can you see more sights in a day? Sure. Should you plan more than that? I'd say no. It's better to find yourself with extra time and add a sight than constantly try to keep up/catch up with your schedule.

Travel days are exactly the same. Might you be able to see some sights on a travel day? Certainly. IMO, however, it's better to start with the understanding that packing, checking out, eating breakfast, getting to the train station/airport (or getting out of town in a rental car), finding the right train/plane/car route, transit time, eating lunch, getting into town, finding parking or transportation from the train station/airport, checking into a new lodging, getting unpacked, getting oriented, etc. as well as the inevitable missed connections, delays, wrong turns will consume most of a day; each step consumes some time. Give yourself extra time for things to go other than perfectly without compounding the stress by having too tight of schedule.

I'd say consider any time for sight seeing on a travel day as serendipity rather than building an itinerary that relies on it.

As an example, I'm flying to Boise Friday to pack up my mom and bring her back to Virginia to live with me. I've moved her across several states before. She's a good packer but until I see the load, the van I'm renting, etc. I don't want to build a schedule that relies on me packing in three hours. I built another day into the schedule just as slack time in case everything isn't perfectly smooth. It might end up being a wasted day but the alternative may have been to plan an impossible schedule.

I'd say consider any time for sight seeing on a travel day as serendipity rather than building an itinerary that relies on it.

This.

I'd say the exception would be for very small places, if one is prepared to miss out if travel is delayed.

As an example, on our Norway trip a couple of weeks ago, we flew into Bergen from Copenhagen with our flight landing at around 9 a.m. We were able to leave our luggage at the hotel and see what we wanted to of Bergen all in that day (except for the nearby Stave church, which we decided not to try to get to because of heavy rain). In fact, we ended up going up the funicular twice, because we went up in the afternoon when weather reports were predicting a break in the rain. Instead, it socked in more, and we couldn't see much. The rain did break around dinner time, so after a fabulous whale dinner at Pingvinen (thanks, Rick), we went back up the funicular. We also saw parts of the town and the harbourfront.

Is there more to see and do around Bergen? Undoubtedly, but the balance of our travel day was good enough for us. Had things gone awry, causing us to miss out on seeing any of Bergen, it would have been a bit disappointing but not the end of the world.

I agree with you Brad and I think it's good advice. There are other stock answers given to questions on this forum that make me cringe whenever I see them but this isn't one of them.

If you're looking at one of Rick's itineraries, suggesting 1 night here, 2 nights there, etc., you can be certain that he intended you to get an early start (whether for travel or sightseeing) to accomplish that plan. And our tour members experience that, often leaving the hotel between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. You can sleep in on your 1-day-in-7 "vacation from your vacation."

I'd say that the part of a transfer/travel day that's most likely to make it tiring is too much luggage. In my years of carrying a backpack, I could indeed carry it too far and too heavy, then upon arriving at the hotel, lose the afternoon to a nap. A wheeled bag also requires lifting at many points of the journey and still requires packing light. A day with multiple transport connections can multiply this effect. Of course, some travelers also get stressed by the transport connections themselves (stress uses energy), which is just part of the learning curve.

If you're looking at one of Rick's itineraries, suggesting 1 night here, 2 nights there, etc., you can be certain that he intended you to get an early start (whether for travel or sightseeing) to accomplish that plan. And our tour members experience that, often leaving the hotel between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m.

I was going to stay out of the thread until I saw this post, although I have frequently advised people that a travel day (even if its just a 2-hour train ride) can easily take up half or more of the day. But I have to say here that I half-blame RS for us attempting too much the following year ;-) We thought we had seen the light, that with careful planning and organization we could visit at a pace similar to the tour. And that is the bone I have to pick with the RS books; love the descriptions and the advice, but I think the pace is unrealistic.

What Laura writes is true. But it leaves out some advantages a tour provides. When you arrive the bus pulls close to the hotel and you hop off. Rooms are assigned and ready, it just takes a few min for everyone to get their key and go to their room. Arriving in Paris or Florence by train things are not so quick. Your guide leads you w/o getting lost to sights where you have a reservation to enter. And a day or two later when its time to leave the bus is again nearby, you hand your keys off at the front desk and go. Not so quick to get out of town when you're traveling on your own. My estimate is that it would take 3 days on your own to duplicate what a RS tour does in 2, at least in non single-city tours.

I think most people count 3 nights as 2 1/2 days, which is more or less accurate. Sure, you could arrive by noon and have half a day and evening, or arrive by 3-4 o'clock and have less time- but for planning, I do think it is accurate to be counted as a half a day of sight seeing on the travel day. I think it is good to make the point for new travelers who don't really understand the logistics of getting out of a hotel, train/air/car travel and back into a hotel, etc. I think it takes a lot more time than most people realize, especially factoring in the getting lost possibilities!

I guess I look at the "3 nights=2 days" differently than some of you. To me, it isn't about travel days, but about how much time you have in a place. If you are somewhere for three nights you do have two days there. You might also have more, depending on how the travel works out on either side, but you do have two days you can plan for. When I say it to someone, I am usually doing it to point out that 3 nights are not the same as 3 days. Some newbies have trouble understanding that.

I'm an early riser and I enjoy getting to sights before they open so I can be among the first in with no crowds. But I dislike early trains, flights, or busses. I like a little time to say goodbye to my hotel, and get organized for the trip. So I might take a 10AM train (which means leaving my hotel at 9 depending on the city). 4 hours means a 2PM arrival. To hotel by 3. I often stay in apartments and arranging to meet the host for keys, and then going out to get groceries takes up a good chunk of the afternoon. So maybe 4PM before I'm in the hotel, bags down, food stocked, ready to go out.
Plenty of time for a walk, orientation, get the feel of a place. Nice meal, see sights lit up at night. But not enough time for many museum type sights, if they close at 5.
So I'd say 3 nights is 2 days plus a bonus. New travelers especially shouldn't count on that "bonus" time to see all they want, but it is real time. I kind of see it as hang out and enjoy the place time, which is just as important as sight hopping.