Please sign in to post.

Venice to Rome Train question

I plan on taking a train from Venice to Rome. Has anybody taken that trip and how long is the train ride ? Thank You

Posted by
103 posts

Found my answer ....Most trains are between 4 and 5 1/2 hours train time.

Has anybody else travelled inside of italy from Venice to Rome and what have you done ?

Thank you

Posted by
805 posts

Flew, Alitalia and AirOne (Lufthansa subsidiary) both have 45-minute or so flights from FCO (Rome DaVinici/Fimuncino) to the main Venice airport for about 70 euros a person, slightly less than the train. Unlike in the US, you only have to show up for domestic Italian flights 1 hour in advance, so you do save time.

Posted by
7 posts

Yes, I have taken the trains to/from Venice and Rome. Most trains stop through Bologna. I took a morning train to Bologna and stopped off there for a few hours. The city is BEAUTIFUL and lots of great shopping and sights to see. Its not very touristy so the churches were free and the shopping was abundant. The cafes were plentiful too. Plus if you go in the summer the sidewalks are all lined with porticos and give you lots of shade from the sun. Ther is a luggage storage facility right there in the train station. We dropped off our suitcases, explored the city for a few hours (the train station is in the city center) and then caught an afternoon train to Venice.

Let me know if you need more info. lacy5 at hotmail dot com.

Posted by
705 posts

I flew from Venice to Rome in March and frankly wished I'd taken the train. The hassle of getting to and from the airport in Venice and Rome plus waiting for the plane (then it was late arriving and departing)saved me very little time. The train is so much easier and yes it can take around 5 hours but you can just relax and enjoy the scenery. I too liked Bologna. Not a tourist hub, more a commercial centre, but the old historic part is worth seeing so you could break up your trip if you liked.

Posted by
18688 posts

Flying - you have to be kidding. The only way flying looks good is when the proponents lie about the facts.

  1. Claim: "flights from FCO to the main Venice airport for about 70 euros a person, slightly less than the train." Fact: The Amica fare on Italian Eurostar from Venice to Rome is only €40,80. You can get that fare (if not sold out) up to midnight the night before your train leaves). Even if you have to buy full fare, it is only €51. I have monitored the fares for flying, and the best fares sell out well in advance. If you wait, you will pay far more than the train. Plus, for flying, add €12,50 (or more) for transportation to/from the airports.

Claim: "45 minute flight". Fact: That might be from the time the plane actually lifts off until it touches down, but that is not the real world. I have been tracking some of these flights, and they are never on time lifting off, and therefore notoriously late arriving.


Posted by
18688 posts


If you fly, you have to get to/from airports somehow, and transit times are not always (ever) coordinated with flight times.

For instance, the Leonardo Express (rail shuttle) to Termini does not meet you at the gate. You have to walk into the main terminal and across the street to catch it, and it only leaves every half hour.

I have worked through the times, and it is "possible", but not likely, that you can fly faster than going by train.

Posted by
357 posts

Additionally, it appears that you'd have to spend either a lot of additional money or additional time getting to the Venice airport. The water taxi is ~€100. The alternates appear to be rather time consuming. This is a main reason my wife and I decided to avoid flying out of Venice at the end of our trip and instead take the train to Verona the morning before we fly out, spend the day and night, and then fly out of Verona.
Plus, a train ride can be a relaxing break from what can be a busy time. I like the Bologna idea and we may do that when going from Rome to Venice on our trip.

Posted by
4 posts

We did the overnight train from Rome to Venice and it saved valuable sightseeing time. I assume it goes overnight the other direction.


Posted by
683 posts

Some people are so used to flying that they will recommend it to anyone. It is seldom worthwhile anywhere in Europe unless you are making connections at the airport where your plane is landing. Too much expense and wasted time going from airport to city center.Save flying for the USA or Canada, where there is no real option.

Posted by
4555 posts

Wow! Lee, and Paul n Sara! Such absolutes! And so incorrect! The statement that flights "are never on time lifting off, and therefore notoriously late arriving," is simply not true! A check of Marco Polo until 10 tonight their time shows 86 of 107 flights today arriving within 15 minutes, a better rate than U-S airports. And, "It is seldom worthwhile [flying] anywhere in Europe....too much expense and wasted time going from airport to city center," is also simply not correct. London-Rome, 17 1/2 hours by train...if you're lucky. Door to door flight time, 8 hours, and far cheaper than rail! Madrid-Venice, 7 1/2 hours door to door; by rail, 22 hours! Surely you jest! It's great to read your advice. But please don't blow everything else out, without some facts! That does a disservice to RS board readers.

Posted by
2 posts

Stay away from Night Trains period! Read our post in Graffiti Wall. Good luck with your trip.