For the sake of not having to endure a long train ride between the two, my group was considering a flight. Is there anything worth taking the train for between the two (right near the line) that would otherwise be missed taking a flight (keeping in mind this is our first Europe experience) or more of what we would already experience in either Venice, Rome, or the immediate vicinity of the two?
Posted by
New Paltz, NY
9101 posts
Venice to Rome is only a 4.5 hour journey by train. When you factor in the time and expense to get to and from the airports, and all the check-in/airport security hassles, it's quicker and less of a headache to do this trip by rail.
Posted by
US Pacific Northwest
10344 posts
Michael said it well. A rule of thumb expressed here by many travelers has been: In Europe if the train is less than about 6 hours, it's usually faster and less of a headache to take the train. You catch the train in the city center and it drops you off in the city center, not 10 or 15 miles outside town. And you don't have to be at the train station an hour or two before departure.
Posted by
Tarentum, PA, USA
45 posts
I will be going from Venice to Rome by train in July, and opted for a 3/4 day in Milan, and then taking the overnight train from Milan to Rome. I found this a good compromise. I get to travel while I am sleeping. However, the downside is that the sleeper or couchettes on the trains are purchased per person, and if you have more than a couple of people in your party, it can be more expensive than a hotel. Still, probably cheaper and less of a hassle than a plane flight. And is an expereince I just couldn't pass up.
Posted by
OP
Chapel Hill, NC
9 posts
Thanks, I think that may be worth it in the end to just go on the train...like you said, it's an experience in and of itself and it looks like the location of the airports looks like more of a hassle than I thought.