Single traveler, is this too ambitious?

Yes a 4 country in 8 night trip seems “too ambitious” for any number of travelers. Getting from city to city will eat up 2-6 hours each day and spending only 2-3 nights in major cities with a day trip planned is hardly spending any quality time IN a city (Paris and London for example).

Wow debi, good for you!

Although past traveling trips included family or friends....

I traveled solo (not by choice, but just worked out that way - twice, lol) Both trips were to Rome for about two weeks. I stayed put and just wandered around - planned some things and gave wiggle room for some other things.

Things that were happenstance are some of my most memorable - meeting people (a few are now friends) and other events.

Sorry, I can't help with your itinerary, but I give a thumbs UP for solo. I am now "officially spoiled!" The family member who was to travel with me both times and had to cancel because of personal things, laughs and told me, "it's my journey." "Trust Your Journey" is one of my favorite sayings.

Have fun.

Hi Debi,

I agree with Mona. 8 nights is not much time to fit in 4 cities. Why not just do 3 cities in 8 days and use the 3 as a base to explore and do day trips to various towns or cities nearby.

Fly into Amsterdam:

1. Stay in Haarlem much cheaper then Amsterdam itself. Train from Schiphol airport will take you to Haarlem. Haarlem is only 15 minutes from Amseterdam. Spend 2 nights.

2. Skip Luxembourg, go straight to Paris and spend 3 nights

3. Next Head to London for 3 nights and that's your 8 nights.

Fly from Heathrow to head home to USA

4 countries in 8 nights is way too much in my opinion. I would at least cut Luxembourg and add the extra night to Paris. Your one day in Paris seems like it would be rushing around to a few major sites, and the best part of Paris, for me, it the atmosphere and the wandering around. Ideally, I'd pick 2 of the places you mentioned and focus on those.

Thank you. I am the type of traveler who believes I can sleep when I get home! I travel very light and love going from place to place. But some things are easier with another person - to help you figure out where to go, read street signs, etc. I just cannot figure out where I really WANT to go, what is an important place to go that I would regret if I missed it. France is a just because I'm close stop - I really don't have much desire to go there. Other than the couple things I listed, there is nothing else I want to do there.

Since it appears that you've never been to England, I suggest going to England only. There is so much to see there-I've been 7 times and still have items on my bucket list, and it's also really easy to travel there by public transportation. You could spend the entire 8 nights in London and do some day trips by train or spend 2 or 3 nights in Bath and go to Stonehenge and Salisbury or maybe do a Mad Max tour from Bath that includes the Cotswolds. Or spend 2 nights in York-2 hours from London by train and lots to see. I don't think you would go wrong making this trip totally England, since you said France was not very important to you.

Deb - If you don't have much interest in France and you are just making a stop just because it is along the way then why not go to Belgium for 3 nights, and then from there take a train to London. Belgium is next door to Amsterdam. Substitute Belgium for France on the Itinerary. There is plenty to see in Belgium plus it is somewhere new that you have not been to.

Ahh, that's easy then. If you don't really have much of a desire to go to France, don't! Add the valuable time and money towards somewhere you really want to see.

So many good ideas. I was stressing over this and you all are right - I don't need to do it all in one short trip! My two locations that I really want to go to are Amsterdam and London. I'll just follow the great advice and make those my home bases (or nearby, cheaper locations) and take a couple day trips from there. That will help avoid extra costs, changing rooms, packing/unpacking, plus then I could immerse myself a little more and not be on the run the whole time. Oh man! As I type this I realize how obvious the answers were. Thank you all so very much for all your help and tips.

You're welcome Deb

Bon Voyage

Good for you for striking out on your own! Solo travel can be very freeing as you get to spend your time (and money) exactly how you want to. I've traveled with family/friends and also done some solo trips and I'm 100% in agreement with your decision to pick just 2 places to hang out in for such a short trip. I find that, when I'm by myself, the actual "travel" part of traveling is a bit more stressful.

Maybe that's just me because I'm directionally challenged and not used to public transit and things like that, but I find I hate moving from city to city on my own. Once I get to a new place, I'm totally fine to wander around, explore, and visit sights and things on my own, but I really dislike the process of figuring out how to get there by myself. Your experiences may be totally different, but I think it's wise to not plan a rather rushed itinerary until you get an idea of how you feel traveling as a solo.

Congrats on the trip! I'm sure you'll have a wonderful time.

I'm glad you decided to pare down to 2 locations. I've traveled solo quite a bit and have just gotten back from 8 nights on my own in Paris before I met up with a Rick Steves tour. I love Paris on my own but if you've no real desire to include it you should leave it out. London is fantastic on your own as is Amsterdam.

While you can stay in Haarlem for Amsterdam, I'd encourage you to stay closer in for London. Look at a transport map and stay within range of the Yellow Circle line. If you are looking for budget accommodations in London plenty of people here can help you with suggestions for hotels. Sometimes in London it can be a false economy to get lodging in a distant location as you waste time and money getting to the main sights.

Also, when you are calculating, realize that 4 nights in a location = just 3 full days for touring. You'll shoot at least a half to 3/4 of a day transiting between London and Amsterdam. With 3 nights in London, I'd not really recommend you try to visit Stonehenge unless this is a must do for you. There are bus tours that go out there on day trips but they often combine them with other locations with the result of not being able to spend quality time anywhere. If you want to do it on your own, you can take an early train to Salisbury, take the local bus route's shuttle out to Stonehenge which picks up at the station and do this on your own. It will take a full day to do.

Check you plane fares as well as you may find less expensive flights IN to Heathrow and out of Amsterdam. Or not, depending on the airline you use. Book open jaw (in to one city/out of another) and book directly with the airline. If you are on a budget be really cautious about any of the 3rd party online travel agents. The ones that advertise low, low prices often are not quoting you real time prices and are a nightmare to deal with if anything goes south. To be honest, as a solo traveler, I want to know that if something happens and a flight is cancelled that the airline will rebook and take care of me.

I'd also suggest you get Rick's Europe Through the Back Door book and read it before you start booking anything. Then get his Amsterdam and London (or England) books to help you figure out what is important to you. You should be able to access these at your local library as well.

Have fun planning. Don't book anything that is not able to be cancelled until you make sure this is what you want to do!

I was going to suggest keeping it to Amsterdam and London but I see you already decided that! I have been to both solo and both are extremely easy to explore and have excellent public transit. Both can keep you very busy for many days, but at the least for a first visit I'd say 4 nights in each would be great.

Focusing on London and Amsterdam sounds like a great idea. But you should arrive in London and leave from Amsterdam as it makes transfer between the cities easier. There are direct trains from London to Amsterdam, but going in the other direction requires a change in Brussels.

I am so thankful I joined ricksteves.com today! You all have been so very helpful and given me so much wonderful advice! I really appreciate you all helping me narrow down my itinerary, and the advice about flights, etc, is helpful!

I'll definitely pick up Rick's books for Amsterdam and London. I've picked up his books for each country I've traveled to.

Thank you so much!

debim,

I'm also glad to hear that you've narrowed down your trip down to two cities. Your first Itinerary was FAR too ambitious for the time you have and perhaps not even realistic, even for someone that's not going to sleep.

A few thoughts......

• I assume you'll be using open-jaw flights, inbound Amsterdam and outbound London?
• As I recall, no photos are allowed in Anne Frank house. I'd suggest taking one of the earliest tours in the morning, as it can be busy at times.
• the easiest and quickest method for travel between Amsterdam and London will probably be via EuroStar (train). While flights may appear to be shorter, by the time all factors are considered they will probably take longer and will certainly be more stressful than the train. If you book early, the train will probably be the cheapest option. You may find this website helpful - https://www.seat61.com/London-to-Paris-by-train.htm .
• When you have the RS England guidebook in hand, you'll need to decide which part of London you want to stay in. I think all of us here have a favourite and in my case I prefer to stay in the Belgravia / Victoria Station neighbourhood. There are some nice hotels in that area, and it's very convenient for transportation.
• Be sure to budget accordingly for England. Even though the Pound has lost a bit of value lately, it's still a somewhat expensive place to travel.
• You should be able to fit in a tour to Stonehenge, however it will probably use the better part of a day. You may find this website helpful - https://www.premiumtours.co.uk/category/stonehenge-tours?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4c_wt4je4QIVEh-tBh0EVwhOEAAYAyAAEgK_S_D_BwE .

You’ll need longer in London. Stonehenge is not in London itself, and will take up most of a day (especially if you combine it with some time in beautiful Salisbury, which I highly recommend.)

The day trips you propose are really eating into limited time. I'd also add I know many who insisted they "must do Stonehenge", only to come back and report they were underwhelmed or outright disappointed. If you've never been to London, you will not run out of things to see. My first trip to London I spent two full weeks with zero day trips and I still missed out on fitting everything in I wanted to.

I understand you've now decided to not go to Paris and only planned to stop there because it was on the way. If you have strong feelings you really don't want to visit France, then by all means skip it, but I will say that sometimes the place you had the least interest in turns out to be the best and most memorable. I spent years dreaming about going to Australia and as I finally planned that trip I threw in New Zealand at the last minute with absolutely zero expectations and only "because it's close to Australia and I may never get to this part of the world again". I can tell you New Zealand turned out to be not just more memorable than Australia, but by far it was the best trip I've ever taken anywhere.

Glad you're scaling back to Amsterdam and London (or vice versa). Though I was looking forward to hearing more about your "Mont Saint Michel day trip" along with the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, and Arc de Triomphe on your one full day in Paris! ;-)

I agree with others about Stonehenge. On your timeframe there's a great deal to see and do in London without going further afield.

I traveled solo in my youth, more recently with my wife, now more solo as she is traveling less. There are pros and cons, but one of the pros is being able to move as fast or slow as you want. With even your scaled-back plans, you'll want to move fast.