<< we are the type of people who like to see as much as possible in one place and then move on >>

You will be able to see very little of these cities in the time you've allotted. You need to factor in travel time from one place to another plus packing/unpacking, checking in and out of hotels, etc. Minimum is 1/2 day per location change and it could be more.

<< We are looking for some advice on what the best starting location will be and what’s the best way (plane or train) to get from one location to the next >>

Best starting location is the city where you can find the best airfare. You'll have to play with some combinations to find flights at good rates. Fly into one city and home from another.

Obviously you'll need some logic when booking airfare (for instance, you don't want to be traveling from Rome to Amsterdam to Venice).

One location to the next - obviously Venice, Florence, Rome have short distance so take trains. Paris/Amsterdam to Venice is a long route so fly. Paris to Amsterdam is short therefore a train would be best.

Get a map and look at where these cities are located. Use the German train site for schedules.

http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml

elizabethd897, This is a Europe travel forum. Your post needs to be in the lounge.

You're aware of course that the more destinations you squeeze in the less you will see due to time lost in transit and moving in/out of hotels.

If you are still determined to stay in all 5 cities for your two weeks, then flying into Amsterdam, taking the train between all cities and flying home from Rome is the best option. The train from Paris to Venice is an over-night and the other trips are all a few hours each.

elizabethd897 is advertising only - the Lounge doesn't want her.

I trianged elizabeth.

Best way plane or train? Well for most of your places train for sure - like in Italy and also from Amsterdam to Paris is now a short few-hour train ride.

Paris to Italy is a long all-day train ride but there are overnight trains that save time and the cost of a night in a hotel. Or cook a cheap flight on this segment - all others are best done by train.

For loads of great stuff on European trains I always spotlight these IMO fantastic sources - www.budgeteuropetravel.com; www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com. You may want to look at a Eurail Select Railpass valid in 3 countries (Benelux - Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg as one country for this purpose, France and Italy but it depends on your routing as Thalys trains can have a steep supplement for pass holders and overnight trains Paris to Italy do not honor railpasses any more. But if you want to say visit gorgeous Bruges, to many the absolute highlight of Belgium - not Brussels - then you can do Amsterdam-Bruges-Paris by normal trains and only have to pay a small 3 euro supplement with a pass.

And if taking a day train to Italy from Paris then the pass would perhaps be a good deal - it is also first class for your ages only and first class travel on trains in my decades of such travel is significantly more relaxed than 2nd class - especially for folks with luggage in tow as first class is much less crowded typically than 2nd class.

I agree that this is an awful lot to pack into 2 weeks. I would strongly encourage you to scratch at least one location off your list (2 would be better). As stated above, you'll spend at least half a day in transit each time you move cities... You are losing 2 full days to intercity travel. Plus, don't forget about jet-lag.

Limiting your trip to Rome, Florence, and Venice would make a really lovely 2 week trip and give you a nice feel for Italy. Paris- Amsterdam- Rome would also be a nice "Big 3" of Europe.

However, if you are sticking to your original plan, as adrienne says, group the 3 Italian cities together, and Paris and Amsterdam together as you can train between them. Then look at flight options, flying into one and out of the other, with one flight in between. Something like fly into Paris, train to Amsterdam, fly to Venice, train to Rome, fly home for Rome. (Yes, I've cut Florence out because there really isn't time for it, but you could train there if you choose).

elizabethd897 has posted her advertising in a number of places today. Editors???

Like everyone else, you are trying to pack too much into your itinerary with all those cities. I like the Rome, Florence, Venice option with an open jaw flight (fly into one city and fly out of another). The only issue that I would have with this combination is that there will be plenty of tourists on this same trek. This is the most popular route for tourists going to Italy. All 3 should be seen for sure and as long as you don't mind, I would suggest this for your first trip.

I also like Rome and Paris. With this you could fly into Rome, take a European flight to Paris (do a google search for european flights, like Ryanair or Air Berlin). I flew from Paris to Vienna for $35 USD! YUP! It can be done... And then maybe take a train to Amsterdam since it is close and leave from there.

If you want 5 countries in 10 days, you should look into a tour. Most travelers on this site are "do it yourself-ers" as far as all the travel arrangements go. Personally, having been to Europe almost a dozen time, I would not do it any other way.

It's all doable in 2 weeks.

Cut Amsterdam by one day, add a day in Paris.

Land in Amsterdam. To get to Paris take an evening train (travelling in the evening allows you to devote the entire day to sightseeing).
From Paris there is a suitable evening flight with Ryanair (19:35-21:10) or Easyjet (18:45-20:25) to Venice. From Venice travel by train to Florence, then by train to Rome. Fly out of Rome.

You might want to check my Italy travelogue, which describes pretty well the Italy section of your trip (except for Venice which we didn't visit on this trip):
http://www.molon.de/travelogues/Italy/2005/

We have recently done most of the places you are going. You might want to check out my reports at http://www.rimerson.com/ The reports tell where we stayed, what we did and how we got around on public transportation.

Rob

When considering budget airlines like Ryanair, Easyjet, etc., take note of which airports are used and find out how much time (and effort/expense) is required to travel between city and airport. Most cities have very good, reasonably-priced direct transportation between main airports and city centers, but secondary airports are not always well served by public trans.

Taking evening transportation does save sightseeing time but deprives you of a nice dinner. Just an observation...

This is more like meta-advice, but are you sure you want to do it this way? Its kind of like a plan to visit Boston, New York, New Orleans, Orlando, and Miami, spending 2 or 3 days in each place.

It can be done, but your plan has a high ratio of travel to site-seeing, which adds cost and wears you out.

But the travel times between cities are not that high. They are in the 2-3 hours range, only Venice-Florence by train will take a bit longer. So the travel to sightseeing ratio will be low.

Correction: even Venice-Florence is only two hours.

<< even Venice-Florence is only two hours >>

That's true but you need to pack your bags, check out of the hotel, and get to the train station and arrive at least a few minutes before the train leaves. On the destination end you need to get to your hotel, check in, and unpack your bags. This all takes time so the two hours will turn into a half a day very quickly as all will be unfamiliar.

I would drop Amsterdam. Fly into Paris. Fly from there to Venice. Then home from Rome.

You have to keep in mind that when you say you want to see "the main attractions", you have to account for when they are open (which days of the week and what times), how big the crowds are, what kind of weather there is, etc.

There are many, many seasoned travelers here. We're not lazy, we're practical.

If you stick with your original plan, I believe you will regret it. But I wish you a happy trip, just the same!

OK, I thought New Orleans was closer to Florida, but otherwise the distances are correct. Driving times according to google:

Amsterdam to Paris 5 hours, Paris to Rome 20 hours, Rome to Venice 5+ hours. These times would be longer by train.

(Swap NO for Jacksonville). Boston to NYC 4 hours, NYC to Jacksonville FL 14 hours. Jacksonville to Miami 5 hours.

Amsterdam to Paris 5 hours, Paris to Rome 20 hours, Rome to Venice 5+ hours. These times would be longer by train>

Amsterdam to Paris is 3 h 20 minutes by train - far faster than driving and 5 hours IME can be iffy if you hit the ubiquitous IME traffic backups going near big cities.

3 cities would be a lot better trip than trying to squeeze 5 in. What you list does not take into account (when you say "2 days", "3 days", etc.) is any time to move place to place. Some of those cities will take most of the day to change from one to the next. I would either cut Amsterdam at the start, or cut Florence/Rome at the end.

Personally I think Amsterdam, Paris, and Venice would make a lovely 2 week trip.

Amsterdam to Paris 5 hours, Paris to Rome 20 hours, Rome to Venice 5+ hours. These times would be longer by train.>

where you getting these train times from - some 1970s timetable? Paris to Rome is just 13 hours by day train vs 20 hours by car - car is much longer and if going straight thru much much more fatiguing.

Thanks for all your responses. We are still in the early stages of planning and the information you all gave us are very helpful.

The reason we tried to fit so many places is because we are not sure when we would be going back to Europe in the future. We did something similar in Asia a few years ago and were quite satisfied with that trip. We may eventually cut out one of the locations once we create an itinerary and realize how much time we really have to spend.

I would suggest yuo list your must sees in each place, check what days they are closed and what hours they are open, then see how long it will take you to visit you must sees. The louvre can't be done in an hour - not can Versailles. And when do you have time to spend an hour sitting in a cafe and watching whatever city go by - and get a feel for what it's really like.

Certainly you can rush through all of these cities - tours do it all the time - but what have you missed?

will only have about 2 weeks (15 days) total for this trip. We are thinking about Amsterdam(3-4 days) , Paris(3 days), Venice(2 days), Florence(2 days), and Rome(3-4 days) and we will be coming from the United States.>

I travel at this pace all the time and love it - and yes you may never get back to Europe, you never know - go for it - a little rushed but not all that much - I might cut a day out of Amsterdam and add it to Paris.

Most of the Americans that go to Europe go on tours and like nytraveler says they do even faster itineraries - much faster from the ones I've seen and they all seem to have a great time. At least you'll be on the train and not cooped up for the typically long bus rides group tours entail.

<Most of the Americans that go to Europe go on tours>

No they don't. I don't know anyone who takes tours, everyone I know travels independently.

Well I've seen stats that I can't quote that says the majority of American tourists who go to Europe indeed do go on escorted trips and would never ever go on their own. Now I should not have said 'most' but 'many'.

Well certainly not the "Americans" posting here on Fodor's. I'd guess "us" at about 90% traveling independently, 10% with organized tours.

I normally plan my own trips but I've been on several tours and they have NOT been fast itineraries. Several nights (up to 5) in each location and reasonable departure times in the morning.

I don't think anyone can say what the "average American/most Americans" does or does not do.

adrienne - most of the large tour brochures I read have a really really fast-paced schedule that often shocks me - unfortunately I think these mass tours may have to beat the competition by offering more places, more countries - still having it seem 'if it's Tuesday it must be Berlgium' bent.

Not to say that even big tour groups may not offer snail-paced tours too and there are some tours that do go much slower. But I think typically most are fast paced.