We are traveling from Munich to what I call the "idyllic Switzerland". This will be the first and maybe only visit so we want to make the most if it. Lucern? Grindelwald? Is it possible to experience the alps, maybe trek down to Venice, then back to leave for home from Vienna.... All that in 4 days, 3 nights? If so should we take train trips to see the villages? Should we have a base for the three nights? The whole trip is 14 days, mostly in Vienna, to Salzburg for a night, to Munich for 2 nights. The Switzerland leg of the trip is at the end. So excited about the trip but we really have only a little time.
Posted by
NYC area
2908 posts
Hi,
Is this a serious plan? Just wondering if you're kidding. Hope so.
Munich to Switzerland, then maybe Venice and then to Vienna in 3 nights?
If you have only 3 nights to spend between Munich and Vienna, don't go to Switzerland and Italy.
Paul
Posted by
Vernon, Canada
32212 posts
Could you clarify your definition of "idyllic Switzerland"?
As the previous reply so succinctly indicated, it's going to be very difficult to get from Munich to Switzerland and then back to Vienna in that time frame. Forget Venice, because that's not going to happen. With that trip, you'd be spending the majority of your 4 days seeing Europe through the windows of a train.
However, it may be possible to fit in a short visit to Switzerland. A few questions.....
- Is there any possibility of re-structuring your other stops to allow more time for the Switzerland trip?
- Are you able to add more time to your trip?
- Have you already purchased flights?
I'm not sure I'd consider Grindelwald to be "Idyllic". The big favourite of many here are the towns of Lauterbrunnen, Mürren or Gimmelwald. I'd also highly recommend Lucerne, but with such a short time frame you'll only have time for one stop (with day trips).
Posted by
OP
3 posts
Yes, I understand it's a very short time. We can only add maybe one day... Spend only 1 night in Munich then on to Switzerland. Yes we have flights. Begin and end in Vienna where we actually will spend the most time. Not a joke at all... Quite the contrary, just have to deal with what I have.
Posted by
NYC area
2908 posts
Sorry to be gruff in my first post. Didn't mean to be disrespectful, it's just that many people try to cram in way too much spread too far apart and see things through a window instead of enjoying the actual experiences.
Personally, I'd say stay in the Salzkammergut or Berchtesgaden area instead of racing to fit in maybe 2 nights in Switzerland. Heaven forbid it rains and you went all that way with just 2 nights. I say 2 nights in Switzerland as 1 night will probably be used to stay over between Switzerland and Vienna. I'd re-think this. Otherwise cut what seems like 7 days in Vienna down to 4 days at the start of this trip.
Luzern and Grindelwald are not what I'd consider "idyllic Switzerland". Try either Wengen, Muerren or Gimmelwald.
Paul
Posted by
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2713 posts
If you don't mind spending the better part of two days on transportation, you could go to Murren or Wengen in Switzerland for three nights. Four nights would be better. You don't have time for Venice. If you want to minimize your time in trains but still see the Alps, why not spend time in a village in the Austrian or German Alps? The area around Salzburg and Munich is beautiful.
Posted by
OP
3 posts
Thank you. From what I've learned train travel is very enjoyable and scenic. I was hoping it would be possible to stay in Lucern and maybe see some of the highlights in surrounding areas on short train trips, sort of hop on hop off idea. I read about a 75 mile train, a circular trip over the Uri alps and that sounds doable in just a couple of days.
Posted by
Tennessee USA
30 posts
IMO the mountains we just saw around Luzern are not the glorious mountains we saw in the Berner Oberland. Are those considered the Swiss Alps range? We meant to ask someone while we were there. Luzern was an adorable town, but small mountains in the distance. The views from the train from Luzern to Lauterbrunnen were pretty, but not like the views taking the lifts and little trains up the mountains once you reach the BO. That was unlike anything I'd ever seen! Different from the Colorado Rockies, the Grand Tetons, Canadian Rockies, etc. So Lucern was an idyllic Swiss town, and the BO had the idyllic Swiss Alps IMO.
I'm no expert though. :)
Posted by
Forest Grove, OR
11328 posts
When are you traveling? That could skew the advice....
If you only have time for one place in Switzerland, the Lauterbrunnen Valley is more scenic than the other 3 areas we have visited, including Luzern. Spend 3 nights there if you can to take in the scenery all around: Muerren, Wengen, Jungfrau, Gimmelwald. You can hike or just ride lifts and trains to your heart's content. Muerren is an idyllic village.
Munich to Lauterbrunnen is over 7 hours by train according to Rome2Rio, so a full day.
Lauterbrunnen to Vienna is best done, IMO, by train + flight. There really is no time to go to Venice. Quality over quantity!
Posted by
New York, NY, USA
11294 posts
I agree with Laurel. If you want to take the time to go to Switzerland, just go to the Berner Oberland, realizing you will use a full day each way getting there and back. If you're not going to the Berner Oberland, it's not worth losing all that time just to go to Switzerland; instead, see the scenic areas closer to Vienna, Salzburg, and Munich.
Sure, train rides can be scenic, but passing through the scenery can't compete with actually being in the scenery.
If you want to see Venice, just go there (again, allowing much of a day each way) and skip Switzerland. While Venice is very crowded, the crowds all cluster in the same few places; the rest of Venice can be quite idyllic.