planning a trip to Europe

Just curious - have you been to any of these places before? If not, it seems you are stretching yourself a little thin, particularly in Paris. Even adding the extra day to Paris doesn't give you a whole lot of time to take in what the city has to offer.

With 5 different locations (3 of which are large cities) and 11 days, you may want to consider scaling back. It's a lot of ground to cover!

Never been overseas before. Did want to see the Eiffel Tower though.

Weeeelll, honestly, I think it is too much. I haven't been to London yet, so am very unqualified to solicit an opinion on how much time would be recommended there.

But I've been to the other places and know that on our trip to Paris we spent 5 full days (going full speed ahead) and needed more time. I've spent 2 1/2 days in Venice and wished we had more, spent one hour in Pisa and felt that was good, did 3 full days in Rome and again, could've used more time. This doesn't even begin to consider day trips from any of these places...

It's my humble opinion that because you want to see the Eiffel Tower, this trip should focus mostly on London and Paris (with possibly an overnight or two in a smaller town in the vicinity of either) and that Italy should be saved for a future trip.

But to help us with further advice, what sorts of things are you and your daughter interested in? Museums, historical sights, etc.?

If I were helping a friend plan this trip, here is what I would suggest:

Fly into London and spend 3 nights there. Take the fast Eurostar train to Paris (under 3 hours, I believe) and spend 3 nights there. Take the overnight Artesia "Palatino" train to Rome and spend 3 nights there. Take the fast train to Venice (saving the best for last) and spend 2 nights there. Skip Pisa. Fly home from Venice.

Information on the Artesia night trains:

http://www.eurorailways.com/kb/brochures/sleeper/france_italy_night.pdf

Personally, for a first trip, I'd pick 2 major cities. London and Paris (easy to do with Eurostar) or London and Rome (get a cheap flight). Then split the time between them. Plan on several day trips to the surrounding area. London has my heart and I could easily plan 11 days (with some GOOOOD day trips) just for there.

I would also opt for spending your trip in two places, either London and Paris (with a side trip to Bath or Warwick) or Italy (Rome and Venice)leaving time for Florence if you like.

Thanks for all the advise. Biggest part of the trip is choosing what to cut out. We are interested in awesome sights. Was looking into the hop on/off tour buses. Has anybody had experience with them? Wasn't sure what Venice had to offer except the experience of getting around by boat rather than car. Any awesome sights there?

Stick to London and Paris this trip. Traveling between places (and packing, finding your new hotel, and unpacking) eats up a LOT of time, and since you haven't traveled outside the US before you can't factor in the challenges of being somewhere that you don't speak the language. You would probably be happier really seeing some things in two cities than seeing Europe from a train.

I'm with Angela and Nancy...I'd split the time between London and Paris. Even then you'll wish you could stay longer.

I agree with London and Paris. Fly into London and stay 6 days. Take the Eurostar to Paris. Stay 5 days. Fly home from Paris. Then start planning your next trip because you will be hooked!

I suggest starting in London because there will be less (notice I did not say no) language barrier for you. The reason I suggested the extra night in London is because you might have some jetlag there. Hopefully not. In 3 trips to Europe (I am also on the West Coast) I have never had it. Also, London is an 8 hour difference and Paris is 9, so slightly less to adjust to.

Paris is my favorite city and you will discover it is much more than the Eiffel Tower!!! Have a fantastic trip!

Oh Deborah,, I have 20 days on the ground in Europe this coming May-June,, and will be staying in Paris,, I am slicing off 4-5 days for London. I have been to London 3 times,, and Paris,, um,, at least a dozen times.. so I think one day is Paris is actually,, horrifying,, LOL

I like what all the other posters are saying.. cut out Pisa ( it is not worth going out of your way,, but you can build it into another trip to Italy perhaps) and I would do either Rome - Paris or Paris and London.

The Eurostar between Paris and London takes 2 hours and 30 minutes, city center to city center,, so is by far the most efficent use of time. Flights to Rome from Paris are only 1.5 hours, but build in airport time, and travel to and from airports.

London and Paris or Paris and Rome, maybe with some day trips. London-Paris the easier of the two, logistically, which counts for something on such a short trip.

All are magnificent destinations, you won't be bored.

I'd also suggest: to heck with resting for a day, just go back to work. I'll bet fatigue won't really hit you until Day 3 anyway.

Deborah, with only 11 days it would be best to keep it to two cities....and as others I would highly recommend London and Paris.

Deborah, on my first trip in 07, I wanted to go to all these places but my much younger but more traveled sister who I was going with suggested to keep it closer geographically so you don't waste time travelling in between. This means cutting out Italy. We spent 4 days in London, including a day trip to Bath and Stonehenge, and 3 days in Paris and the time wasn't even close to seeing everything I wanted. We added 2 days in Amsterdam since my sister hadn't been there yet. I would suggest dividing your time between London and Paris since there is so much to see and doing Italy another time. For me, I finally get to see Italy this October, I know 10 days there will be merely scratching the surface!

And to answer one of your questions, Deborah, hop on hop off buses are great. Did it in London and it even includes a Thames river cruise. Great way to get oriented to any city . Didn't do it in Paris, went the cheap way with Rick's bus 69 tour but definitely plan to do it next time I go. Typically, you use the metro to get around any city which is easy, problem is, you don't get to see the actual city because you're underground so these buses are a great introduction.

Problem with a multi-city itinerary is you eat up a lot of time with things that aren't really fun to do and can be expensive...Catching trains, waiting for flights, long car/coach trips,

I'd pick London/Rome, Paris/London or an all-Italy trip which you could easily do in 11 days.

If you still wanted to see all those sites in the 11 days I would look into finding a tour operator. It would probably be cheaper and easier than trying to figure out transportation on your own.

My advice is not to do more than 1 country a week. You can always go back

Wow! Thanks for all the comments. London with a day for Stonehenge is a must. Does anyone know how many days to adequately see the sights off of the hop on /off bus. What else can be seen from London? Where would the best castles to see be?

One circuit (can't remember if it's 2 hrs or 3) in London on the Hop-on Hop-off bus and you'll see all the big sights.

My favorite in London is the Tower of London, and just outside London (45 by train??) is Hampton Court Palace where Henry VIII and Elizabeth I lived.

In addition to Hampton Court, you can visit Windsor Castle, probably on the same day. That might satify your appetite for royal residences.

Also, certain times of the year, you can do a tour inside Buckingham Palace, and I've heard inside Kensington Palace (where Diana lived).

We had afternoon tea at the Orangery located next to Kensington Palace and toured the Palace afterwards. It was a nice way to spend the afternoon.

When I took the hop on /off in Washington DC 2 days wasn't enough to get off and visit the sights and then get back on. For New York City however, one day was plenty. Whats it like for London, Paris and Rome?

We don't usually get off, we stay on and do the whole circuit so we can see everything. Then we go back to the sights that interest us. The time it takes to visit the sights depends on how many sights you want to visit and how long you spend at those sights.

Deborah, I don't think the hop on hop off bus tour in Paris is particularly good. The narration is minimal; it's mostly horrible music. It's a good way to get an overview of the city, but you won't learn anything. I was sorry we did it. I would have preferred to have spent the time walking around one of the neighborhoods like the Latin Quarter or the Marais.

The London tour is better -- at least when I was there, they had live guides, so the quality of the tour depends primarily on the guide you get. If you get a good one, the tour is very good. You could probably spend two days on it, but I get impatient to get out and walk, so one day would be plenty for me.

Kensington Palace has a display of Princes Diana's gowns. They are very much a work of art!
The Hop on/Hop Off buses I like, but the traffic in London is so much, it does take awhile to get from place to place. But at least you wont waste time getting lost since they drop you off near the major sights! I did London and Paris in October 2009 and just loved it! One of my favorite trips! I hope you can work it out to stay in Paris longer! Have fun!!

My own personal opinion is that there are very good, very reasonable walking tours in all major cities that will give you so much more than any HoHo bus tour will, and usually for less money.

When done, you will have a good orientation of the city, you won't have contributed to the traffic congestion, you will have a deeper sense of the history of the things you have visited or seen, you will have been able to ask all the questions you like or get tips on good places to visit, and most walking tours are run by local people. Most of the HoHo bus firms are run by either Yellow Cab or Greyline tours. For those that dislike giving money to big international franchises like Starbucks or McDonalds, those bus tours are almost as bad.

Once you do a walking tour, you will be spoiled and never want to go on a bus tour again. (well, unless it is pouring rain or freezing cold) :-))

Deborah, I have done the HOHO tour in Paris twice,, both times we got the two day pass( it was only 3 euros more then the one day).
I wouldn't have used the bus at all, but in each case I was with one of my sons( 14yrs ), and it was their first times to Paris,( two seperate trips) , and we do not have "double decker" buses at home, so they thought they were very cool. In both cases it was also the heat and height of summer, so travelling on the open top deck was a way to get a great view of the neighborhoods as you drive through them, something you don't get when you use the metro( where you are sort of like gophers, popping up and down but missing the inbetweens, LOL ) ( I love metro for speed and ease of use though) . I wouldn't use in rain, since you wouldn't then want to ride up on the open top.

They are not a tour, but they do take you to each main site , and they do give you a small taped blurb on each site. Not enough for anyone who really wants alot of info, but enough for some people. They are also a way to get to each site without using metro, which seems to intimadate some( but shouldn't its great).

In Paris there are two main HOHO buses. The red ones , name Rouge Cars, and the bright yellow and green ones, named L'Open Tour. The L'Open tour is the one we used, they had more routes and covered more sites.
For what they were I though they were fine.

I used the HOHO in Rome with my daughter(11 yrs old). I thought it was ok,, but it didn't seem quite as good,, not sure why.

I haven't used them in London, I think mainly becuase I can't imagine not using the Tube there, I mean there is not language issue for me( I guess I am used to hearing accents ?) and I have only taken one son there and that time we were with an English friend.

I think whether you use the hoho or not is a personal taste thing, they are what they are,,and you can certainly do each city cheaper on your own if you do some homework,, and have a decent guide book .

Deborah, I'd stay in London the whole time. You can get a taste of Paris on a day trip (take the first Eruostar there and the last back) (and one small taste was more than enough for me- I'm one of the few who do NOT like Paris). Then do day trips to Windsor (by train- on your own is best)Bath/Stonehenge - again by train and pick up a Mad Max side trip to Stoneheng and maybe one or two other places- I'd wait on Edinburgh unless you want to make that your "second" city. Here is a link to an article I wrote about doing this :
http://www.aaacarolinas.com/Magazine/2008/Jan-Feb/britain.htm?zip=28208&stateprov=nc&city=charlotte

Feel free to private message me- we've been to London more than 40 times.

Thanks for all the replys. I am now putting together a revised trip. Definitely London with its HOP ON/OFF (just not sure if we should schedule one or two days for it)With 3 different day trips so far. One to Stonehenge/Bath/Windsor; one to Edinburgh Scotland (not certain about this one);and one to Paris. My question is ... is this possible in subsequent days as some are 15 -17 hours long. Also, wanted to get a mid-evil banquet in there. Should these day trips be every other day with 1/2 days of London hop on/off in between. After I get London figured out I'll work on which city to add on to the trip.