Travel to Europe

My preference is spending more time in big cities than 3 days - you won't be able to scratch the surface in these places in that time frame before moving on somewhere else. Is your itinerary based on some random number of days (split more or less equally), or based on what you actually want to see there and the time it would take to see it? If it's random, then I'd hit some books first and use that to guide your itinerary.

I was going to say exactly what Agnes said. I would add to take Rick Steves' advice on how long to spend in each city with a grain of salt. He tends to prescribe really rushed itineraries not for the faint of heart, nor for the person on an extended trip like yours. I think he recommends only 3 full days in Paris, for example, which is far from enough to be really enjoyable in my opinion.

I only have a short amount of time off from work so I don't have any more than 5 weeks to spend in Europe and honestly I am treating this trip as if I may never get the chance to return so yes I am aware that we will see alot in a short amount of time and will not get around to seeing everything. For the most part I know what museums and sights we plan to see in the cities listed and for some of the cities we just plan to spend time relaxing and wandering around town.

Seems like your initial question was where to stop between Amsterdam and Milan. If you are going to travel by train, Munich is a good intermediate stop. There are good rail connections (including night trains) from Amsterdam to Munich and Munich to Milan. If you purchase your tickets well in advance on the German Rail (Bahn) website, you can get good discount fares, from Amsterdam to Munich and from Munich to Italy. Anyway, Munich is a good place to spend a few days. My only comment on your itinerary is that it is all big cities. Europe is not all big cities. I find natural venues, outside big cities, far more interesting than museums and buildings. And big cities are far more expensive to stay in. Your itinerary involves a lot of moving around, also expensive, and time consuming. With this itinerary, you'll spend so much money you won't ever want to come back.

My 2-cents (and that's all it is). I'd add days to London and Paris. Geneva is a 1-day town (or skip) in my opinion. I like Brussels, but unless you are planning a whole day touring the European Parliament or a day trip to Brugge, it can probably be done in a day or 2. As for taking a break between Amsterdam and Milan, I think it is a good idea. Strasbourg, Freiburg, Basel, Augsburg and Munich would all be nice breaks. I wish you a fantastic trip!

I have to agree with previous poster(s) on Brussels. I was there for about one and a half days all together, and I think the only thing I missed out on seeing was the Atomium. Unless you plan a day trip or something, it seems like 2 days will be plenty. I have not been to London, but given the sheer scale of that city, 3 days might not be enough unless you want to be in a constant rush. That's certainly how I felt having spent only 4 full days in Berlin, and I imagine London is no smaller. Perhaps you could take a day away from Brussels and tack it onto London instead?

Do you actually mean nights in each place rather than days? Are you flying into London and out of Paris?

Let me suggest another way to think about it --- .....I am treating this trip as if I may never get the chance to return.... In a way that is kind of negative and focuses on what you might miss. We had a similar trip - shorter time -- in 72. Lots of thoughts - spent all that money to get there so I cannot miss anything, we will never be back, Can never afford to do this again., etc., etc. However, my wife developed the attitude, "We have to save something for the next trip." "We can see that the next time." "It has been here a thousand year. It will still be here when we come back." That set the framework for a far more relaxing and enjoyable trip with less pressure or the feeling we had to see everything. It was 21 years before we were able to return. You know. Everything was still there.

You do not have enough time for this itinerary as written, because it does not account for 9 travel days. Unless you really mean one less day at most of these destinations, which I think would be a mistake. If you knock out Geneva (what's with that?) you are halfway there, because you also knock out a travel day. I also see a lot of missed opportunity in this plan. When we were fortunate enough to have time for a 5-week trip, we covered a lot of ground, like you. But we also punctuated our trip with a whole week in one place (Provence) right in the middle. It let us vary the tempo of things and recharge, and also do some sightseeing on a different scope and scale. Once can't do that very well in a 2 week trip, but you could in yours. It's also a shame to miss the smaller towns and the countryside, especially during what is perhaps the loveliest time of year. Instead the steady march of city, train, city may just wear you out in ways you do not expect.

I realize you're not getting much help on your specific question about a stopover, except from Lee, but I think you're getting some good general advice here from everyone. Five weeks is much longer than most people get for a trip, I'd slow the pace and smell some roses. Do you really think you'll never get back to Europe? But it's your trip. Let me make one suggestion though: consider rearranging so you go to Paris earlier in the trip, either after London or after Amsterdam, so you don't have to come all the way back north to fly home. Then you can head to Italy (via Geneva if you really want to go there) and fly home from, say, Rome. String your cities in a line instead of a loop and you'll save travel time and maybe money. Have fun planning all this, it can be half the fun of the trip.

Thanks for the replies and thoughts. How often are there night trains from these locations? In response to Geneva part I just want to see Switzerland and of course had heard of Geneva. If anyone has recommendations on a town in Switzerland that was a great representation of Switzerland, granted since it will be summer I suppose we will miss out on the great skiing. Also to clarify it is not that we do not plan to come back to Europe, it's just after that trip we plan to visit Greece, Australia, India, Norway, Sweden, German and on and on. This will just be our first big trip to Europe and flights are not cheap and we have the time to do a longer trip so we would like to squeeze what we can in the Western Europe area. So taking in suggestions what if itinerary looked this instead: London Amsterdam Bruges Paris Strasbourg Montreux? Milan- Monaco/Provence Venice Florence
Rome

How often are there night trains from these locations? The best way to answer that question is to point you to the DBahn website at http://bahn.hafas.de/bin/query.exe/en which can be found in the sticky at the top of the page. Put in your origination city, destination city, date of travel, and time of travel. For night trains start looking about 18.00. Note that many trains run into the night but for true night trains you will look for ones without changes and that both leave and arrive at somewhat civilized hours; and maybe have beds or couchettes. From memory - London - one to Scotland and one to Cornwall, none to Europe. Amsterdam - a few Bruges - used to be one to Munich (I rode it a few years ago, never again) but none now as far as I remember Paris - a few, including one to Munich and one to Nice, one to Italy Strasbourg - don't think so Montreux? - why the question mark? Don't think so Milan- yes, to Paris and, arriving from Paris to various Italian cities, and entirely within Italy all the way to Puglia and Sicily Monaco/Provence - one to Paris from Nice Venice - There may be one to Munich and one to Vienna, there may be one south, but with the very high speed trains, why?
Florence - on the line between the south and Milan Rome -see Florence and Milan For more accurate answers see the link above EDIT: missed out the out in without; it only reverses the meaning of the sentence. Underlined above.

Your first cut itinerary had 10 destinations. Your second iteration has 12 (since Monaco and Provence are two separate places). A general suggestion: Since you will be returning to Europe, save some of these great destinations for a future trip, to give you the time to enjoy the others. Amsterdam and/or Switzerland will work with Germany and Scandinavia as well or better. Two specific observations. I'm sure that Montreaux is lovely, but the best of Switzerland is in the mountains. Switzerland takes a disproportionate amount of travel time because of those mountains. So it will cost you a full day to get there, and another full day when you leave. (Okay, there may be night train opportunities, but those take their toll in other ways.) So be sure to spend enough time at your Swiss destination to justify that effort and expense. And be sure that your plans will not be totally wrecked if it rains on the wrong day. Second, going Milan - Monaco - Provence - Venice is wildly inefficient. There are mountains between France and Italy that you do not want to cross more than one time. Once you start checking travel times at the German rail site you will start to get the idea. Sitting down with a good map may be a useful exercise too. Great trips are built on brutal honesty about priorities and constraints. It can be hard work, but really worth it. Good luck!

Careful Heather.. there are a few things you may not have figured in timewise.. First off , three nights in one city is only two full days.. the first day you may arrive midday or later, spend time getting from train station to hotel, check in , leave luggage and then be off sightseeing after 1 or 2 oclock (obviously this assuming you are only taking shorter 4-5 hour train trips that leave first thing early in the morning.. ) At that time of day major sites may be very crowded with long lines already formed, and that may mean waiting an hour or more to get into a sight,, meaning you may only be able to see one or two indoor sites the first day.
On your last day there is packing up, checking out, getting to station . and the cycle begins again.. I have a feeling you are looking for that special Switzerland we all know exists.. but personally wouldn't be Geneva for me.. consider Lauterbrunnen area.. google that and see if thats what you are thinking.. You changed your mind on Brussels ? ( good , I don't think its "sponge worthy" , lol old Seinfield reference) its fine ,, blah blah, but you have so many other choices. You visit Monaco while staying in Nice,, its only a 40 minute bus trip on the public bus, and get this, its only ONE euro!!

I guess your reason for taking night trains is so you don't losing sightseeing time. I have not taken a night train anywhere, but I have the comments here from people who did. I don't remember any that were positive. Please do some searching and read what's been said. If you aren't a very sound sleeper, it could be a bummer. At the pace you are going, if you have a lousy night it will take a toll on you for that day and possibly the next as well.

Just a positive note about night trains. A few years ago I took the night train from Venice to Munich. I had a cabin all to myself with toilet, sink and shower, so there was no need to leave the cabin during the night. The bed was very comfortable and there was a complimentary bottle of water on the bed when I entered.
At about 5:30 a.m. a chime awakened us for a continental breakfast, delivered to the cabin, before the arrival in Munich at about 6:30 or 7.

I agree with what just about everybody else has said. I would skip Switzerland and combine it with Germany later. We did an Alps driving trip a couple of years ago where we did a loop through southern Germany, Austria, northern Italy, Switzerland, and eastern France before driving back just over the border from Basel to Germany to drop off our car. It was great. You could probably do something similar by train, but you would want to be awake for it. I especially agree with Adam who said that going west to the south of France and back east to Venice made no sense. There is a fast TGV train from Paris to Avignon and/or Aix-en-Provence or Nice. It only takes 3 hours for the 1st two without any train change and 5.5 hours for Nice, also without any changes. If it were me, I'd go directly from Paris to the south of France, THEN head east to your Italian destinations. Here is the link to the DB BAHN query page again, although others have provided it. If you haven't already, you really need to use it to figure out the itinerary, then get your tickets from the appropriate country's rail service. One more thing, I don't think Venice is worth 4 nights or days unless there is some specific reason for going there for you. I've been there twice, but my husband hated it. I'd shorten that stay and put the time toward Florence or Rome, going to Florence first and ending in Rome.

Heather, Your plan looks great but do you have any down time planned? You are going to all large cities. If you want to see the real Europe plan some time in small towns or villages. We spent 24 days in Germany in 2011 and some of our favorite times were the small communities!