Itinerary help needed!!

No, that won't work. Norway and Switzerland are definitely beyond a reasonable distance from Ireland/England, where I imagine you'll begin your trip. And six countries within two weeks--just no. Germany depends on where you want to go in that country and how much you want to see elsewhere. But for me, two countries would be plenty (or more than plenty) for two weeks, so I'd immediately discard Germany and focus on Ireland, England and perhaps the Netherlands.

I suggest getting hold of guide books (they don't have to be current ones) and reading about the great sightseeing destinations in Ireland and England. What do you want to see? Will you have any time left for the Netherlands?

Now, if Switzerland or Norway is the #1 priority, you can attack this differently by researching that country, deciding how much time you'll want there, and considering taking a budget flight to somewhere like London or Dublin.

Often flights to London and Dublin are quite a bit cheaper than other European destinations, so you should take a look at fares from your origin now, to see what you will consider financially acceptable. You shouldn't fly in and out of the same city unless it happens that you decide to spend all your time in the same country. Use the "Multi-city" option when looking at airfares.

Technically speaking, yes you "can" do all these countries in 2 weeks but you will spend a lot of time looking at the inside of trains or airplanes. By 2 weeks do you mean 14 days counting arrival and departure? IMO I would not do more than 4 countries in 2 weeks and that will only give you 3 nights (2 days) in each location. 3 countries would be less hectic and that would mean only 2 travel days to free up more time to sightsee. The temptation is to try to do it all on your first trip to Europe. Plan to come back next year. Have fun

I agree with acraven. What you are planning is possible but not advisable. Trying to cram that many countries into your itinerary will have you seeing very little of each location. Picking a country or two and exploring them more fully will leave you with memories of other than airports and train stations. We just visited three countries this fall, on a five week trip. It was satisfying to be able to explore, have time for cafes, etc. and not feel like we were missing out on something we would like to see/experience because we were rushing to the next city. jmo

Too many countries in such a short time! Europe is small, but not THAT small!

I suggest you pick one country for the whole two weeks. There is more than enough in each of these countries to fill two weeks with the possible exception of Amsterdam.

The guy that sponsors this site has some basic itinerary planning articles to get you thinking.

Germany

Ireland

Scandinavia

England

Netherlands

Switzerland

Do pick up his "Europe Through the Back Door" book, available in any bookstore or your library. Great for first trip planning!

Two countries is more than plenty for two weeks three if they are very closely linked by train. Otherwise your trip will consist of trains and planes with little or no actual sightseeing. England and one of: Wales, Scotland, France, or the Netherlands. So would France and either The Netherlands or Germany.

With just two weeks I suggest choosing two or three locations within about 4 hours of each other by train. Fly in one and out the other. London, Paris, Amsterdam; London, York, Edinburgh; Paris, French Alps or Switerland; Baveria or The Rhine and Switzerland; Amsterdam and a smaller town in Belgium; the possibilities are endless.

I agree that you should not try to hit so many countries in 2 weeks.

But I think you are approaching this the wrong way. What I would suggest is you count the number of nights you will sleep in Europe and list them on paper (or in a spreadsheet). For each night, put down where you will sleep (what city, not what country). Then for each transition (where you sleep in two different places on consecutive nights) figure out how you will get from point A to point B (train, bus, car, plane) and how long it will take. Be sure to consider not just travel time but transit time (e.g. if you fly, and the flight is 2 hours, but it will take you 45 minutes to get to the airport, and you have to get there 90 minutes early, and after you arrive it will take you 90 minutes to deplane, get your luggage if necessary, and get to your next hotel, that's a total of almost 6 hours).

Once you start this exercise, you can decide how many times you are willing to relocate within the 13 or 14 nights you are spending and you can adjust your expectations.

Counting countries does not really make sense for a trip of this length. What constitutes visiting Norway, for instance? Two nights in Oslo? You could easily fill the entire 2 weeks just in Norway, as it is a large country and there are many sites worth seeing that aren't very close together.

My personal suggestion is that you limit yourselves to 4 cities, 3-4 nights each, or you could stretch that to 5 cities if you stick to places that don't require a lot of travel time.

Thank you everyone for the advice. I did get Rick's book, ""Europe Through the Back Door" last night. FULL of information but also overwhelming. I was just always told that countries are close together so it was possible to hit two in a day. Obviously looking at it, we won't be able to hit all of them in and not feel rushed. This is probably going to be a once in a lifetime trip so we want to get in as much as possible

Yes, if you look at the map, countries are close together. But in reality you would find out that it takes quite a long time to travel distances. Almost all first timers to Europe make that mistake. If you want to digest the country you need at least one week. If you try to squeeze in too many destinations then you would know pretty well how railroad stations and airports look.

Would it be easier to do: England, Ireland and Norway?

Yes, fly into Dublin, spend some days in Ireland, budget flight to London or elsewhere in England, some days there, budget flight to Oslo, some days in Norway, fly home. Looking at kayak.com, I didn't see any nonstops between Seattle and Dublin or Oslo, but Icelandair might be a good choice for one-stop flights. For flights within Europe, skyscanner.com is a good search tool.

Assuming 14 days in Europe itself, you'll be spending two of them dealing with airports and flights, leaving on average four days per country "hit." Good word for it. But if you really don't expect to return, it's much better than staying home.

She lives in New York so I would fly from Seattle to New York then we would leave the next day (to try and save time). Would England be too hard to try and fit in?

Be sure to fly into one city and out of a different one. I have been to all the countries you mention except Norway. There is so much to see in England and it is so accessible by train that I would limit my trip to England and one other city from which you fly home. London hotels are expensive, but it would be less tiring to stay there for a week and do some day trips. A lot of running around with different hotels wastes time and energy.

Hi Kristin,

I know planning your first trip can seem daunting, but once you trust yourself and dive in, it can be a lot of fun!

As others have said, there's no way to do all you initially posted in two weeks; even three countries might be hard and will require substantial transit time. I was wondering if you could tell us more about what YOU want to see. Not specifics, but a general idea. I look at your list - especially the mentions of Ireland, Norway and Switzerland - and to me it says you'd rather be out in nature than in the big cities. In fact, you only mention one city - Amsterdam - and refer to "England," not "London." Is that correct? There's no wrong answer, but knowing what your priorities are will help you (and us) craft a trip that best suits you. Another question to consider: When in the fall will you be traveling? My sense is that most places in Ireland and Norway (especially outside the cities) are still largely operational in September, but things tend to slow down once you get into October and November. When I visited Stockholm it was mid-November, and while everything I wanted to see was still open, hours were shorter, as, of course, was daylight (it was also really freaking cold!).

To save time, I'm going to quickly respond to your other thread question: If the idea of being on a cruise appeals to you, then do it; the pros and cons are well-listed on that thread. But if the only thing holding you back is the fear of not being able to plan something for yourself - Don't worry! Take the plunge! Once you get into planning, you might find you never want to stop!

Kristin: for context, many of the regular posters are truly old hands at travel in Europe and some, after a number of trips to Europe, think it's just great to plunk themselves down at a café (café they've been to multiple times in the past.) for the first half of each day and then see the same old delightful haunts in the same city. This, day in and day out. Not all are eager to plan a trip on our own and maybe forgot what it was like leading up to our first trip way back when. Lane's advice is very solid. Have a super trip.

First off, I apologize if I should have kept the two threads together :( I just did not want to get too much information and feel overwhelmed - since it does seem like it. We are looking at going September 9-23rd. After talking with friends, they said that summer tends to be too crowded (since so many people go) and hot. After a discussion with my sister, we decided that although we would love to see Norway, it is too far out of the way. That is like saying, I want to go see Washington, Idaho, Oregon and New York. However, Ireland is a must. We think it would be best to fly into Dublin, then work our way down.

The simpler you make this, the easier it will be to plan. Things will change as you figure out what you want to see and do, where you want to go and how much it will cost. Take to heart the reduced daylight hours. Expect bad weather.

With such limited time, you must prioritize. Both of you need to do some research on what you want to do and what kind of a trip you want to have.

Although it's not perfect, I usually recommend that people use Rome2rio to get a grip on distances between locations, ways to get around and hints about how long it will take. I use it myself and find the maps generated are great for showing routes.

In answer to your original question, I think you barely have time to learn anything about one country in 2 weeks, much less 6. You might be able to do 2 cities, spending a week in each one, possibly with side trips around the area.

Don't feel bad about skipping Norway this time. It's always important to give some thought to weather, and I think trying to hit both Ireland and Norway during a trip that doesn't start until September would not be ideal.

It's common when you are a new traveler to want to tack things on in an effort to see more, more, more. You end up with a less-than-satisfactory visit to each place. I used to do this when I was new at it too. Even now I have a hard time making the trade-offs needed to plan a two week itinerary in one country, England and Ireland included. Your more experienced traveler self of the future will thank you if you scale it back, as others have said. Sometimes it makes sense to combine two countries that are easy to travel between, if there is not that much in either one to fill a two week trip. We did Hungary + Czech Republic in 2011 and it was one of our best trips. Good call on Norway, I don't see grouping Norway with the British Isles as being logical, but then I don't like to fly during an itinerary. I guess you could do Ireland and Istanbul if you wanted to, but why when so many of these countries have plenty to fill up two weeks. The other downside of this approach is you will find yourself only seeing the big cities--which is very limiting. People come to California all the time for a one week trip, and they want to see San Francisco, the wine country, LA, Yosemite, the coast redwoods, all in one trip. And then they want to tack on Las Vegas too. It's human nature. Full disclose I did a bus tour of Spain, bracketed by solo stays in Madrid, then night train to Paris for five nights where my wife met me, night train to Florence for two, train to Rome for five, in 2001. It was a great trip but I would not dream of covering that much ground today, even though I had a full month.

I like the idea of Amsterdam, England ( do you just mean London?) and Ireland. We found that Ireland was a bit trickier to get around with public transportation, perhaps someone can chime in with more Ireland experience? Maybe 3 nights in Amsterdam, which is really only 2 full days (we took a free walking tour one day and a bike ride in the countryside tour the next) 6 nights in the London area (we enjoyed Bath and The Cotswolds which aren’t too far away by train) and 5 nights in Ireland? In Ireland we took an “off the beaten path” tour for a week, it was nice not having to navigate or drive the narrow roads. If you do a tour like vagabond I’d omit Amsterdam.

You’d be surprised, I did my “once in a lifetime trip” to Europe, and have been back 3 times with another trip in the works. Where there’s a will, there’s a way!

As far as England goes, yes, we would only be going to London. My sister's old roommate has family in Ireland and would go all the time. She suggested 2-3 days there then continue on.

Any advice on how not to let this get overwhelming?

Our second trip in 2010, we had about 21 days on the ground (not including our travel in and out). We did France (Paris, Strasbourg), Germany (Augsburg, Munich), Austria (Salzburg), Italy (Venice, Milan/Como), Switzerland (3 1-night stays) and flew back to the UK (London and Portsmouth to visit my sister). Never. Again. Later on, looking back at photos, my husband didn't even recognize Munich - he totally forgot we were there since we only had a partial day.

I mean, it's doable. Enjoyable - not so much. And way more expensive - the money we paid out for the trains...whew!

My husband wanted to see as much as we could (vacation before we visited Italy and London/Portsmouth) because 'what if we don't get back.' Well, we've been lucky enough to go back 4 more times since 2010. And I'd never do a whirlwind trip like that again, unless I was on a tour and someone else was doing all the planning.

Our first couple of trips to Europe were England and Scotland. Then one year we got a crazy idea to hit 'all the hot spots' in one 3-week trip, which started and ended in London, using small cheap airlines for most connections. We flew to Athens, then Rome, drove thru Tuscany to Venice, and flew to Paris, and back to London thru the Chunnel. What I learned was not to ever do that again, but we did get to see some key sights. Also I learned that we prefer exploring the countryside and remote ruins, so we limit the number of days in big cities and break up those with a few slower paced days. But we had a very nice 2-week combo of Austria, northern Italy and Switzerland. Key is to map out the itinerary and travel routes to select spots that are really do-able. Try to spend minimum of 3 nights in a destination that you want to see, unless it really is just a one-night spot to sleep in order to make a connection somewhere. This year will be Ireland and ___ (still trying to decide!).

Kristin, I think we're still missing some critical information? This from Allison above:

I was wondering if you could tell us more about what YOU want to
see. Not specifics, but a general idea.

This is really important as you're not just choosing countries but what to see within those countries. What are you two interested in? This is usually a top priority for us when we choose where to go and how long to stay, For instance, we've spent full weeks (or more) in London, Rome and Paris, and nearly as long in some others without running out of things we like to do. Some other places? A couple of days were enough.

How you intend to get around is a big part of the picture? Cities are usually easy but depending on the country, rural areas/countryside can be more challenging. Also, the more moving around you do, the more time and money you expend on trains, buses, plans and getting to /from hotels versus seeing anything. The more moves you intend to make, the more you also increase your chances of something going awry: a transport strike, your one day in city X being the one a lot of the top attractions are closed; pouring rain on the "countryside" day, etc. Longer stays in one place provide flexibility to work around some of that stuff.

Longer stays also reduce some of the logistics. While you still have to research what you want see and how to do that, you have to pre-book fewer hotels and trains/planes. Sure, depending on the country and where you want to go, trains/plane tickets can be booked on the fly but last-minute tickets can also be the most expensive.

I was just always told that countries are close together so it was
possible to hit two in a day.

Sure, if all you want to see are stations and what's outside the window of a train/bus. I wouldn't try to do two good-sized cities in the same country on the same day.

This is probably going to be a once in a lifetime trip so we want to
get in as much as possible

Why? You two are young enough to have many trips still in front of you, if you save the $. Looking at this as your only chance is probably creating a lot of your confusion/anxiety over where and how to go. Shoot, we weren't able to take any of our European adventures until we were in our late 40's! Young, healthy, mobile....the is the best time of life for independent travel. :O)

Day
1. ARRIVE London (4N)
2. Tower of London / Tower Bridge (photo stop) / St Paul's Cathedral / Tate Modern
3. Buckingham Palace (photo stop) / Westminster Abbey / Houses of Parliament & Big Ben (photo stop) / Trafalgar Square & National Gallery
4. Hyde Park / V&A Museum / Piccadilly Circus (photo stop) / Covent Garden / British Museum
5. EUROSTAR to Paris (5N)
6. Sainte-Chapelle / Cluny Museum or Panthéon / Luxembourg Gardens / Musee d'Orsay (Closes late Thu at 9.45pm)
7. Arc de Triomphe / Palais Garnier Opera / Tuileries Gardens (Orangerie) / Louvre Museum (Closes late Wed,Fri at 9.45pm)
8. Notre-Dame de Paris / Picasso Museum / Place des Vosges / Centre Pompidou (Closes late at 10pm - ex Tue)
9. Eiffel Tower / Sacré-Coeur & Montmartre / Evening Seine Cruise
10. THALYS via Brussels to Bruges (2N)
11. Bruges
12. THALYS via Antwerp to Amsterdam (3N)
13. Amsterdam
14. Amsterdam
15. DEPART Amsterdam

Day
1. ARRIVE Zurich. Train to Luzern (3N)
2. Luzern
3. Day for Mt Pilatus or Bern
4. Tran to Munich (4N)
5. Munich
6. Day for Neuschwanstein or Salzburg
7. Munich
8. Train to Berlin (4N)
9. Berlin
10. Day for Potsdam
11. Berlin
12. Train to Amsterdam (3N)
13. Amsterdam
14. Amsterdam
15. DEPART Amsterdam

2 weeks isn't long. Here's a rough outline that gives you a glimpse at four of your stated destinations.

• Fly into DUB for several days.

• Fly Ryanair (or other cheap airline) one way to Amsterdam/Netherlands for several days.

• Then make a series of train journeys that take you south into Germany and Switzerland; if you take the standard direct route following the Rhine River in the direction of Basel, Switzerland, there are many good options on/near your path:

... Middle Rhine Valley, old-world towns and castles (and hit a fall wine festival.)
... City options: Cologne, Mainz, Frankfurt, Speyer, Heidelberg, Strasbourg (FR), Freiburg
... Black Forest (in/near Gutach?)

• From Basel, head to Lauterbrunnen in the Bernese Oberland - a great place to enjoy the Alps.

• Fly home from Switzerland.

Different people will probably prefer different stay lengths at different places. My planning technique is to first figure out what I want to see. I consider a good touring day to be two major sights, one in the AM and one in the PM, with lunch in between. I also make a list of lesser sights I can add as time allows but aren't my top places to visit. I leave evenings open for dinner and whatever seems like a good idea at the time (music, theater, dancing, evening hours at another sight, extra sleep...). For example, if you find six must sees in a city, plan a three day (four night) stop. The next day is a travel day with maybe time for a short stop along the way, then the same plan at the next place.

I like to map out sights that interest me(mark them on Google maps) using tour guides from the library and websites. After I put a bunch down, I start grouping them into logical sequences. When you have two weeks worth, you have an itinerary. You will probably find plenty of sights for multiple two-week itineraries. I usually go with the one I can get a good deal on a plane ticket. For a first trip, take the one that appeals most to you.

Different people will probably prefer different stay lengths at different places. My planning technique is to first figure out what I want to see. I consider a good touring day to be two major sights, one in the AM and one in the PM, with lunch in between.

Brad, The above and the rest of this response are golden! I do not know how someone can decide how long to stay in a place if they have not first decided what they plan to do.

this all has been such amazing advice - especially yours Brad! We defiantly want to make the most out of this trip that's for sure. Rick's book has been amazing as well; I've highlighted a bunch of things so far!

Hi,

If you've never been to Europe, I heartily suggest reading an introductory book on traveling such as that put out by Rough Guide, all the so since you have a 2 week time constraint. If you had a month to two months, it isn't all that urgent. Decide on which towns/cities you want to see, ie the usual US tourist cities, or a mixture of them and those you find interesting that are not among the tourist sites. Bottom line, don't lock yourself in time wise, come up with your own itinerary.

"...is it possible to hit all these places in 2 weeks?" Normally, no, depending on your travel style and disciplined habits. You take the ferry from Oslo to Germany, otherwise choose a discount carrier. To make the itinerary more doable logistically, drop Switzerland or Norway.