| Lonely Planet™ · Thorn Tree Forum · 2020 | |
European leg of an RTW tripInterest forums / Travel on a shoestring | ||
Hi everyone, As part of a RTW trip, this is the European leg of the trip, with the cities and the estimated duration spent in each country. It starts in early May, and this portion ends in October. I've also included a budget estimate per day for each country (in CAN $), which should include everything (accomodation, meals, entertainment, local transport and train/bus). Please let me know if you think the trip is too rushed, or the budget unrealistic. d is shorthand for days. All costs are for a couple travelling together and England - London 7 d $210/d This part of the trip is 156 days in total (there are 3 unallocated days in there so far for extra travel time), so just over 5 months. I think that the budget is reasonable: we can travel comfortably though not "in style". I'm a little worried that there is just too much to see and perhaps we have not allocated enough time to rest; however there are several cities in which we can spend some time doing nothing, and a few destinations where we're going for the specific purpose of resting. I tried to arrange the destinations in an order which would minimize travel time. Those pesky Schengen zone regulations were a pain, but in the end we spend exactly 90 days in Schengen countries. What do you think? Edited by: tavi | ||
By two days, I hope you mean 3 nights. Takes a day for travel, bed to bed. Takes a half day for your free b'fast at a decent youth hostel and get your barings. Breakfasts stop being served at b10 am. Don't rush. We learn valuable stuff by talking With folks. That's another plus of yh. Very important. You'll learn things that you wouldn't find in one or two books. These places are people too. From everywhere. They have much to teach us. And that's really why we go. Cordova can be a day trip. Maybe better to stay here, in Seville for a few. A good center for learning about Andelucia. And a hub for travel. But then, day trips don't do either party justice. | 1 | |
Also hope that x days = x+1 nights. If not - throw out 1/3 of the short "2 days" places - or reduce less interesting places (like Munich, remove the Disney-Neuschwanstein, Köln..) I do not think that a 90 days limit for tourists is unusual at all - EU citizens will meet that limit when visiting most states and unions | 2 | |
Hi everyone, Thank you for your replies. I shall take into consideration reducing the number of days spent in some places and maybe doing them as a day trip, to make sure the time spent looking for accomodation is minimized. Any other locations that people think we could spend less time in, without missing out on much? Also, any locations on my list where we really should spend more time than currently allocated? gawkabout, I'm aware of the time that should be allocated to travel. But I've arranged the itinerary so that with a handful of exceptions, all travel between the cities should take between 1-4 hours, so that we hopefully don't waste more than half a day going from one hotel to the next. We're also going to try to do some of the longer travel legs at night (the ferry from the UK to the Netherlands or the train trip from Fes to Marrakech). Bjoern, I'm fairly sure that I'm not exceeding the number of days spent in Schengen countries, as this was an important consideration when planning this trip. Keep in mind that my itinerary detailed above covers 153-156 days, and it includes Romania (21d), Morocco (18d), Turkey (18d) and England (7d), which are not part of the Schengen zone. I didn't say that the 90 days limit was unusual, but I think that the EU should re-examine its requirements, since it has extended so quickly over the past few years and never changed them. The Schengen zone now covers a very large area, with the 3rd highest population in the world and a myriad of tourist sites. I think that it should at least allow for the possibility that some tourists can buy a 6 month tourist visa if they so choose. Right now, the only visa a Canadian citizen like me can apply for is a work or residence one for a specific country. I appreciate the comments on travelling slower and the itinerary is not really set in stone. However, I wanted to have a good idea of it before leaving: we're going to be booking places only a few days in advance, so we can always skip some places if we feel it's all just a big rush. As for avoiding some places such as Neuschwanstein, because they are "Disney-like": I've been to some places which I would not return to because they are just too commercial, but I don't regret going there; I think that very touristy sites are that way for a reason and they should be visited at least once. We're planning on returning to Europe and we have already been to places like France and Italy, so it's not like we want to see all of it in this short amount of time. But at the very least we want to go to a good chunk of the places that we've always dreamed of. I think that right now we actually want to see the touristy sites before we feel like we need to go off the beaten path and spend time with locals. And if we get sick of rushing from one tourist-trap to another, nothing is set in stone and we can always change our plans. Also, another consideration for us is that we're going to Egypt, India and South-east Asia after this, so we can't extend the time we spend in Europe too much without making the other trips crammed. Edited by: tavi | 3 | |
Would it not be cheaper to fly from London to Amsterdam instead of getting the boat from Harwich? Have a look at ryanair and easyjet and see. Also, Schengen is fine as it is. I just wish that the UK were as strict with their laws instead of letting every tom dick and harry in to stay as long as they want, but that's another discussion and not one for this thread. If you intend returning to Europe as you say then why not save Spain and Portugal for another time? You're going a long way out of the way, geographically, to see those countries. | 4 | |
Thanks, I'll look into flyign from London to Amsterdam. The good thing about the ferry is that it runs overnight, so we can use that to save some money on accomodation. I'm not quite sure on whether we would save any sight-seeing time or not by taking a boat vs air. Spain is one the countries we're looking most forward to on our trip, and it also provides a convenient spot from which to go to Morocco. Portugal we may still skip though. | 5 | |
"But I've arranged the itinerary so that with a handful of exceptions, all travel between the cities should take between 1-4 hours, so that we hopefully don't waste more than half a day going from one hotel to the next." The reality is that even a move of 2 hours by train from one place to another ends up taking the majority of your day to do. A good rule of thumb is to plan on no less than 3 days/4 nights anywhere unless it is just an overnight stop enroute to somewhere. I count 52 travel days in your plan (including 3 for Greek island hopping). That's a THIRD of your time on the move! It's not that it can't be done, but I don't think you will find anyone here who thinks it is a good idea. Go slow, see more. "I'm a little worried that there is just too much to see and perhaps we have not allocated enough time to rest;" Your worry will without a doubt be justified with this hectic schedule. From my point of view, you have made one of the two classic mistakes of travel. Trying to cover too much in too little time. The other classic mistake is packing too much stuff. You now have 5 people who have responded to your post. All 5 have said it's too much. Why did you post if not to listen? Take heed. Edited by: BpGuruagain | 6 | |
Second #7: you check out at hotel/hostel - take bus or tram to main railway station - probably (hopefully) arrive far to early (you do not know how long it takes in city where you have only been 1-2 days) - stand in line for booking a seat (maybe) - wait for train - travel your 1-4 hours. arrive - walks around to find an ATM to get the currency - find the right bus/metro to hotel, realize that you must go to a kiosk to buy tickets - get tickets- back to bus - gets off two stop to late - walk back - get your bed/room (if booked - if not have to locate another ho(s)tel) - get back downtown to start you holiday in that city..... | 7 | |
Thanks everyone. It's not that I don't want to listen to what people have to say, it's simply that I want to make sure that I properly explain my rationale before people pass judgement on it. I will think about taking out some stops here and there, reducing both travel days and extending time spent in other places. What would people say is a reasonable ratio of days spent travelling vs days spent in one spot. 1 to 5? I guess it depends on people's personality, age and fitness, but I would like to hear from people who have taken extended trips before. My wife and I are both in our late twenties, by the way. | 8 | |
As I said tavi, a good rule of thumb is to plan on no less than 3 days/4 nights anywhere unless it is just an overnight stop enroute to somewhere. Here are a couple of other things to consider. Every day actually travelling generally costs double what a day sitting somewhere costs. So the more days you stay in a place the better for your budget. Many places in Europe will give you a better price for a room if you book 3 nights or more. The tendency of many travellers is to try to cover too much in too little time. Depending on our country of origin this manifests itself in one of two ways, both having to do with distance. People from Europe going to Canada, the USA or Australia for example tend to underestimate distances between places of interest. So they write about going to the USA for 3 weeks and driving from NYC to LA and ask, 'what are the must sees'. Ignoring the fact they will spend 8 hours a day every day in the car driving. Conversely, people from Australia will write about going to Europe and spending 3 days in each of France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, etc. They ignore the fact that there is as much to see in any 1 of those countries as there is to see in Australia and very little distance needs to be travelled to see something new. So when you ask how much time to spend in a place vs. days of travel, I would suggest you think like this. Ignoring travel days for the moment, how many days would you say I need to really see your country? Allow the same number of days in each country in Europe. Of course that means you will visit far less countries than you originally wanted to but the point is you will see and do far more in those you do visit. It's all about finding a balance. That balance will vary by individual depending on interests etc. but a day in Florence and 2 in Venice does not equate to having seen Florence and Venice. If you only have 4 days to spend, pick one or the other, it still won't be enough but it will be better than trying to do both. You could spend your 150 days in just 3 countries and really get a feel for them. Spending 50 of those days travelling between places though would still be a real waste of your time. Five nights in each of 5 places in each of 3 countries is a far better balance than 3 nights in each of 5 places in each of 10 countries. One has 12 travel days and the other has 40 travel days. One allows you to find those little out of the way villages with the memorable little family restaurant where the food cooked by 'mama' deserves a Michelin star. The other only allows you to find food that good if you are willing to book and pay for a Michelin starred restaurant listed in a guide book. One lets you discover a little back street gallery with original old book prints of the area that will make an excellent souvenir when framed and hung at home. The other lets you visit only the major national galleries where you'll pay through the nose for a cheap reproduction print of a famous painting which when taken home and hung could have as easily been bought at home. I have neighbours who are going to visit Greece in April. Only for 3 weeks, only to 5 places in Greece, on a cruise. Not what I would suggest for you, but then, they are 85 and 78 years old. They don't have as much time as you do. You'll have time to come back again. | 9 | |
I think it is difficult to give such a fixed ratio - although 1:3 or "better" (I mean 1:4 1:5 etc.) is a good starting point. My general observation/opinion: The largest problem I see is that ppl. from outside Europe are so focused in visiting an many countries as possible. Wonder if they also try to visit as many states and provinces as possible in the US, Canada, Australia...?? In this way they end up travelling LONG distances between a few stops, that seem to be selected from the names that they somehow remember from a movie or which by some reason unknown to me are very popular in the country they come from - a few examples are Nice or Cinque Terre or Neuswanstein (there are 1000s of castles in Germany more interesting - and they are even genuine and old) .. and literally all capitals belongs to that list! Why are capitals so interesting? Why do you see trips that simply are "capital-hopping"? This in addition to the "must-see"-idea is ruining so many trips IMHO. | 10 | |
why are you planning so far in advance? Things will change anyway... you will want to stay longer in one place, get bored of another place, hear about something different and go over there. Why don't you arrive and see how you go once you are there? | 11 | |
I suppose that based on the limited amount of information that I have written and on the general pattern of North-Americans that visit this forum, I can see how some people would get the general impression that I am am just one more of those North-Americans who don't know much about Europe and want to simply check off the cities from a list. But that's not the case. I was actually born in Europe and I have already travelled through a few European countries. I really think that the choice of destinations is dependent on one's priorities. The reason for picking a lot of capitals and larger cities, as someone was wondering, is that high on our priority list is seeing architecture and art and imersing oneself in history. I have a degree in history and my wife has one in art history. Capitals tend to excel in offering that kind of experience, whereas charming little towns don't necessarily (though they may sometimes). So there's going to be a higher proportion of larger cities for that reason, than smaller towns. Small towns offer a different kind of experience, and we want that too, but to a smaller extent. The time that I have assigned in each city is adjusted for the activities that we think we will do in it. As Bjoern remarked, some cities just don't warrant staying for too long, whereas for others even staying for weeks doesn't do them justice. So I've adjusted the number of days in each place to best account for that in my opinion... To answer to meyay, yes things may change, but it's a good idea to at least plan an itinerary and know where you may want to go next. I appreciate the advice and the time that you people put into answering these questions. But I think that some of you jump to conclusions based on your own opinions and think that everyone should think the way you do. For instance two of you already remarked how going to Neuschwanstein is just a waste of time because it's not even "authentic" and it's "Disney-like". But have you even considered the fact that some people may want to go there for other reasons? I personally would think it very interesting to see what the 19th century romantic view of medieval history was, which after all is what this castle is all about. I've seen authentic castles, but this one I want to see precisely because it's not. And what's so wrong about that? Besides, it lies fairly conveniently on my itinerary, and it's got a beautiful location... Anyway, I did take the advice of some of you and revised my itinerary. England - London 7 d $210/d This way I reduced the number of destinations to 39 (including 3 Greek islands), for 156 days, thus averaging a more reasonable 4 days per destination. | 12 | |
I sure understand what you say (except the calculation of 4 days/destination - it is still 3 days (4 nights) average as you will be travelling most of day 4. But, but ...the "small towns" you are leaving out in each country are also 1+ million inh. places, and historical gems - just a single example: You stay 4 nights in Bruxelles - ok a fine art museum, but for history (and art): you should visit Brugge, Mechelen, Gent, Leuven, Antwerp - just to mention a few - that rank at level with Bruxelles IMHO for a history/art tour. ANd you cannot make all of these on daytours with 3 days to spare. You are not really visiting Germany - but if you did - you should go to smaller (still talking ½million towns) and not the big ones as most were totally destroyed after the WWII bombings. (And then we could discusss why wasting time visiting a modern place like Neuschwanstein - but I know ppl. from Disneylands homecountry like the recognisable sight ;-) ) All this said - I am now sure you have chosen places spread out all over southern and middle Europe and Turkey and Morocco thet YOU want to see - and no one should critisiese that, I guess. Just remember that many here think you are missing a lot in some of the countries in order to cover so widespread places. | 13 | |