Hi all, I'm in the early planning stages for my first trip to Europe. I just bought plane tickets, and will be flying into London on September 27th, and out of Amsterdam on October 13th. So about 16 days, and I'm trying to not get too overstuffed with moving from place to place and seeing mostly train stations. My original plan was to use London and Paris as a base with one or two day trips thrown in at each place along with seeing the sites in the cities. So: 5-6 nights based in London 5-6 based in Paris
1 night or so in Brussels/Bruges 3-4 in Amsterdam But then I got to thinking, I'm not uber interested in Brussels/Bruges and was mainly stopping there since it seemed an interesting place on the way to Amsterdam from Paris. I"ve been thinking that going a bit further out into the Rhine Valley may be more interesting (to me) and a break from the city touring. Plus I really like German wines. :-) About me: 36 year old female, traveling alone. Likes history, neat old buildings, bicycling, and like I said, wine. ;-) I'm traveling mostly by train but am not totally opposed to renting a car. So, should I consider adding the Rhine in or should I stick to Belgium and save the Valley for a dedicated Germany trip later on?
Posted by
Clawson, MI, USA
199 posts
Hi Jen, your plan sounds good but I think you would have to eliminate one day from both London and Paris and eliminate Brussels/Brugge entirely. I think even then you are still stretching it a bit. Perhaps you could head to Trier, Germany from Paris and head up the Mosel Valley instead? Many of the things you're looking for on the Rhine can be found on the Mosel. I would then head to Cologne and take a high speed train to Amsterdam. If you still insist on seeing the Rhine then you can probably make a day trip from somewhere on the Mosel. Good luck, Mike
Posted by
Paradise
7072 posts
I like Bruges, but if you can make it with 5 in London, 5 in Paris + the one night dedicated to Belgium and give your stay in Germany 3 nights, I think the trip is worth it. I think Mike has it right about staying on the Mosel, which will perhaps save you a little travel time from Paris. A visit to Trier is worthwhile, but I'd push on past Trier to Cochem and stay there for 3 nights for the most atmosphere and better scenery. Burg Eltz castle is nearby and Reichsburg Castle (great falconry show there) right in town, there are lots of wineries, and you'll find biking there and nearby scenic and fun. You might enjoy a short river cruise too, like the one to Beilstein; schedule from Cochem is here: http://www.moselfahrplan.de/fahrplaene_bereiche.php?filter=Cochem&bereich=Bernkastel Check Ben's pages for lodging suggestions w/reviews and photos: http://www.bensbauernhof.com/accommodationsrhinemosel.html The Rademacher winery is right in town and offers accommodations: http://www.weingut-rademacher.de/en/index.shtml To visit Trier, you might hop off the train there for a few hours on the way from Paris; there are lockers at the station for your bags.
Posted by
Kirn, Germany
331 posts
Jen, I think Russ and Mike have given you great advice. The Mosel is just as pretty as the the Rhein and from Trier, with all its Roman history, you can travel to places like Bernkastel Kusel on the Mosel, and possibly even Cochem, for a day trip, (both well worth a visit). Trier is almost on the border with France. I live in this area and if you would like any more information please send me a private message.
Posted by
Wyckoff, NJ, USA
7889 posts
Everyone has their preferences, so my advice isn't necessarily better. We recently stayed in Koblenz on the Rhine and Mulheim on the Mosel (we're not three-towns a day tourers... .) I heartily agree with Rick's advice about the scenic part of the Rhine. I also think the Rhine river is much more scenic than the Mosel, but the towns are larger and busier than those of the Mosel. The Mosel river is gorgeous-pastoral, like a landscape painting, but not "scenic". The towns are smaller and quieter. And even more than the Rhine, the meanders of the Mosel make boat distances at least five times the auto or train distances. If you can walk 1km along the Mosel from your hotel, I don't think you need the boat ride. Alternate suggestion: During the Federal Garden Show in Koblenz, there are day excursions from the nearer Mosel to Koblenz for the day. But this doesn't cover Rick's most-scenic part of the Rhine. On the other hand, Deutsches Eck and Koblenz's riverside are certainly attractive. I also thought that Traben-Trarbach was a pleasanter tourist experience than Bernkastel-Kues. There are more half-timbered houses in Bernkastel, but the former twin towns provide a much more "Rick Steves" (that is, closer to what the residents live) experience. We were also soured by going to the most famous winery in Bernkastel without an appointment. After a 2km walk, outside the door of Dr. Loosen we found a rack of flyers. In English and German they said about the same thing: (This is an impression, not quoting from the actual flyer) If you don't have an appointment, we don't need your money. These three stores downtown sell our wines. Bruges is nice, but Antwerp might be a better compromise (for train route reasons) between Brussels and Bruges. (I really love Antwerp, so this is a biased opinion.)
Posted by
OP
Grand Forks, ND, USA
7 posts
Thanks all! If I do end up going into Germany on this trip, I'll be cutting a day each from London/Paris and skipping Brussels/Bruges. Thanks for the suggestions for the Mosel, I'll definitely have to look into it. (Hello more guidebooks!) The Rhine came up mainly because it's a name I'm more familiar with.