Compare Europe by river vs. by land

DH and I are trying to choose how to best visit Prague, Vienna, and Budapest next year. We've never done a river cruise before, and it sounds very appealing. However, we're looking at the alternative: flying into Prague for a few days, then taking the train to Vienna and then on to Budapest. My main goal is to spend time in these wonderful cities, so the land option is very tempting. Although the cruise would be more expensive, that's not a major factor in our decision. For those of you who've done either, what are your thoughts?

DH and I are trying to choose how to best visit Prague, Vienna, and Budapest next year. We've never done a river cruise before, and it sounds very appealing. However, we're looking at the alternative: flying into Prague for a few days, then taking the train to Vienna and then on to Budapest. My main goal is to spend time in these wonderful cities, so the land option is very tempting. Although the cruise would be more expensive, that's not a major factor in our decision. For those of you who've done either, what are your thoughts?

If you are able to DIY, do it by land. Do your research, pick good hotels centrally located and you will have a great time.

European trains are easy to use. Just be careful of taxis in Prague

We have done both. We've done two river cruises (Rhine, Rhone) and have the Danube booked for next year. We've done a 2-week independent trip through Germany and Austria (trains, rental cars) in June 2013 (massive flood, river cruise canceled, we went anyway and made it up on the fly), and a 1-week independent trip through Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with a European delivery Audi. We are currently planning another independent car trip through Germany and Switzerland for September of this year.

They are very different trips, but we enjoy both types. A river cruise offers the chance to unpack once, have a floating home base that takes you to different locations (unless the water levels aren't conducive to cruising but that's a different story)... A land-based trip allows more flexibility to stay longer, visit whatever towns you'd like regardless of whether they are close to the river, and it forces you to experience more local culture (by not returning to the ship every night to eat).

The downside of the land trip is that you move every few days (or even every day) from hotel to hotel, and sometimes you have to live out of your suitcase. And your expenses aren't prepaid, and you have to do a lot more independent planning. But the reward is a trip that can be exactly what you want it to be. And if you are efficient, I've found that we can see a lot more on our own than we can see on a river cruise.

The downside of the river trip is that you're back on the boat every night, away from the very towns that you're trying to visit and experience. But you can sit back and relax and let the cruise company plan almost everything, if you want.

So it comes down to how much you want to plan, and whether you want to put forth some effort while on holiday - or whether you want to sit back more and let others do that work for you. Either way, it is a lot of fun! That is why we enjoy both types of visit. :)

If you are able to DIY, do it by land. Do your research, pick good hotels centrally located and you will have a great time.

 

European trains are easy to use. Just be careful of taxis in Prague

Absolutely! River cruises just give you a taste of any place they stop while these are city's worthy of days or weeks and not hours. Land for sure..

One thing to consider when planning is that strikes, especially involving transportation, are frequent in Europe. So best to have a back up plan such as renting a car if necessany. I don't know where you live but here in the U.S., we don't worry much about plane and train strikes but I have learned that just isn't so in Europe.

We have done both. We've done two river cruises (Rhine, Rhone) and have the Danube booked for next year. We've done a 2-week independent trip through Germany and Austria (trains, rental cars) in June 2013 (massive flood, river cruise canceled, we went anyway and made it up on the fly), and a 1-week independent trip through Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with a European delivery Audi. We are currently planning another independent car trip through Germany and Switzerland for September of this year.

 

They are very different trips, but we enjoy both types. A river cruise offers the chance to unpack once, have a floating home base that takes you to different locations (unless the water levels aren't conducive to cruising but that's a different story)... A land-based trip allows more flexibility to stay longer, visit whatever towns you'd like regardless of whether they are close to the river, and it forces you to experience more local culture (by not returning to the ship every night to eat).

 

The downside of the land trip is that you move every few days (or even every day) from hotel to hotel, and sometimes you have to live out of your suitcase. And your expenses aren't prepaid, and you have to do a lot more independent planning. But the reward is a trip that can be exactly what you want it to be. And if you are efficient, I've found that we can see a lot more on our own than we can see on a river cruise.

 

The downside of the river trip is that you're back on the boat every night, away from the very towns that you're trying to visit and experience. But you can sit back and relax and let the cruise company plan almost everything, if you want.

 

So it comes down to how much you want to plan, and whether you want to put forth some effort while on holiday - or whether you want to sit back more and let others do that work for you. Either way, it is a lot of fun! That is why we enjoy both types of visit. :)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. You gave us a lot to think about.

One thing to consider when planning is that strikes, especially involving transportation, are frequent in Europe. So best to have a back up plan such as renting a car if necessany. I don't know where you live but here in the U.S., we don't worry much about plane and train strikes but I have learned that just isn't so in Europe.

Good point!

We have done it both ways, up until a couple of years ago I have planned and arranged 4 week trips for 2, 4 or 6 people to Europe and/or USA atleast 6 times in the last 10 years. I thought I would not enjoy river cruising or not doing the planning etc. How wrong could I be.

Yes you only get to see small parts of each town or city, but what I enjoyed most is not having to worry or think about anything, but having fun. Both cruises were with Avalon and they did everything so well. By only having free tours each morning we still had plenty of time to do our own thing each day.

I think age is partly to do with it, once I hit 65 I look at taking the easy way and let somebody else do the hard work.

As for your trip, I would suggest Avalon Prague to Budapest, have 4 extra days in both cities at start and end of cruise (this is what we did last year)and if you want to then go back to Vienna

Good Luck

If you have lots of vacation time available [i'm retired, so my vacation = 365/66 days a year!], you can do both. Fly to Prague and spend a few days there; take a 7-day river cruise like AMA's "Romantic Danube" that sails from Vilshofen and visits some interesting places that you wouldn't do on a land tour [as well as a taste of Vienna in one or 1 1/2 days] and ends in Budapest; spend a few days on your own in Budapest, then train to Vienna for a few days there and fly home. That's my plan when the Danube reaches the top of my to-do list.

We have done it both ways, up until a couple of years ago I have planned and arranged 4 week trips for 2, 4 or 6 people to Europe and/or USA atleast 6 times in the last 10 years. I thought I would not enjoy river cruising or not doing the planning etc. How wrong could I be.

Yes you only get to see small parts of each town or city, but what I enjoyed most is not having to worry or think about anything, but having fun. Both cruises were with Avalon and they did everything so well. By only having free tours each morning we still had plenty of time to do our own thing each day.

I think age is partly to do with it, once I hit 65 I look at taking the easy way and let somebody else do the hard work.

As for your trip, I would suggest Avalon Prague to Budapest, have 4 extra days in both cities at start and end of cruise (this is what we did last year)and if you want to then go back to Vienna

Good Luck

It's funny you should mention Avalon because that's the exact cruise we've been considering! Thanks for the advice.

I returned last week from a cruise which started in Vienna and went right through to the Black Sea. Going on this perhaps remoter and wilder route I'd say the cruise option was by far the best choice but going between Vienna, Prague and Budapest I'd say the ground-based trip is by far the best option. Easy travelling between the cities, the river scenery isn't that great and being on a boat means you miss all that European hotel and restaurant culture.

I returned last week from a cruise which started in Vienna and went right through to the Black Sea. Going on this perhaps remoter and wilder route I'd say the cruise option was by far the best choice but going between Vienna, Prague and Budapest I'd say the ground-based trip is by far the best option. Easy travelling between the cities, the river scenery isn't that great and being on a boat means you miss all that European hotel and restaurant culture.

We did a land trip in 2012. We landed in Vienna and spent 3 days there then picked up a rental car and drove to Prague for 2 days (our travel companions had only 10 days-Prague really needed at least one more day), then overnight in Bratislava, and finally Budapest for the remainder. It was a short trip to Vienna to return the car and fly home. We had great hotels mostly found on bargain websites that were roomy and in Prague and Budapest less than $100/night so we enjoyed the hotel and restaurant culture (and wine!) mentioned above.

We like river cruises too but I will mention just one thing we saw from a car trip that we would not have seen on a cruise. Let me start by saying that what we saw of the Danube on a day cruise to Melk and along the river in Hungary and Slovakia was nice but not overly scenic. Our day trip from Budapest stopped first at Roman ruins outside Budapest proper (worth a detour), then in Szentendre (good shopping and a stop on many river cruises), Visegrad, and Eziergom (great Basilica, also a stop on some cruises0. We had a lunch by the river gathered at the not to be missed market in Budapest and then stopped at the castle town of Visegrad. The river cruises do not generally stop at this town on the Danube Bend. If you are on a ship, you travel around the Bend but from the castle (a small hike uphill) you can see the entire Danube Bend and it is an impressive view. These are the things that make a land trip more fun sometimes even though you have to pack and unpack.

Our river cruise on the Rhone this summer will be followed by our renting a car and driving around Provence and Languedoc-Roussillon. We wouldn't want to forgo either part of this itinerary; we obviously don't see it as an "either-or" decision.

Hello tvmovielover,

We did a land trip in 2012. We landed in Vienna and spent 3 days there then picked up a rental car and drove to Prague for 2 days (our travel companions had only 10 days-Prague really needed at least one more day), then overnight in Bratislava, and finally Budapest for the remainder. It was a short trip to Vienna to return the car and fly home. We had great hotels mostly found on bargain websites that were roomy and in Prague and Budapest less than $100/night so we enjoyed the hotel and restaurant culture (and wine!) mentioned above.

 

We like river cruises too but I will mention just one thing we saw from a car trip that we would not have seen on a cruise. Let me start by saying that what we saw of the Danube on a day cruise to Melk and along the river in Hungary and Slovakia was nice but not overly scenic. Our day trip from Budapest stopped first at Roman ruins outside Budapest proper (worth a detour), then in Szentendre (good shopping and a stop on many river cruises), Visegrad, and Eziergom (great Basilica, also a stop on some cruises0. We had a lunch by the river gathered at the not to be missed market in Budapest and then stopped at the castle town of Visegrad. The river cruises do not generally stop at this town on the Danube Bend. If you are on a ship, you travel around the Bend but from the castle (a small hike uphill) you can see the entire Danube Bend and it is an impressive view. These are the things that make a land trip more fun sometimes even though you have to pack and unpack.

I did the river cruise excursion version of your day trip, sort of!

The ship stopped at Esztergom, where we started our tour, then went on to a small restaurant on a hill (sort of cup-of-coffee-and-going-to-the-restroom-stop), saw Visegrad - which was impressive indeed - and had a quick walk around Szentendre. The cruise ship went round the Danube bend in the meantime. We keen bus tourers went through the outskirts and industrial areas of Budapest which I enjoyed for the difference to all that tourist sightseeing. We then met the ship for lunch in Budapest town centre.

I wonder if another company than Transocean does it this way...

As regards land versus cruise: I am undecided here, but would point out that starting in Prague always means a kind of land trip before the cruise anyway as the cruises all start in Nuremberg or Vilshofen (on occasion Passau). It is a coach tour to reach the canal/Danube, as no cruises can sail towards the Danube from Prague, of course. Geography forbids it. :)

If one is not interested in Nuremberg, leaving from Vilshofen on a cruise makes sense. Passau is a nice place to stop on a cruise. But travelling by train from town to town also sounds great...

notamermaid

For that itinerary and to maximize your goal of spending time in the cities you visit, a land trip is the best IMO.

We have done quite a few river cruises but many more DIY land trips to Europe. Our preference in most cases is a DIY land trip as we like to control our schedule and be able to spend as much time as possible in the areas we visit.

We choose a river cruise when (1) we travel with my mom, who is 83, as it is well suited to a family trip with a senior; (2) when the area we wish to visit is more easily done on the river; (3) when it is a theme cruise focused on wine or something else we really enjoy; (4) when we are in the mood for a more relaxing vacation.

In over 30 trips to Europe I have been affected 3x by rail strikes, all in Italy.

I agree that if the idea of a river cruise appeals, combine it with a pre or post stay in a city you are interested in. We spend 4 nights in Budapest when we cruised Budapest to Prague and 3 nights in Prague, DIY. We spent 4 nights in Paris before our Rhone cruise. This year we will spend 4 in Berlin prior to our Rhine cruise.

For that itinerary and to maximize your goal of spending time in the cities you visit, a land trip is the best IMO....

I agree that if the idea of a river cruise appeals, combine it with a pre or post stay in a city you are interested in. We spend 4 nights in Budapest when we cruised Budapest to Prague and 3 nights in Prague, DIY. We spent 4 nights in Paris before our Rhone cruise. This year we will spend 4 in Berlin prior to our Rhine cruise.

This is good advice. River cruises are relaxing and you see some smaller towns that you might otherwise miss even on a land trip. The larger cities, however, cannot be seen in one hurried day or even overnight to the best advantage so as said, combine the two. This reminded me that our first river cruise in China did just that-a combination of land and cruise. Our next river cruise too will combine some days in Paris and Dijon with a river cruise (though this one would probably work as either land or water) but your cities will be better as diy than on a cruise visit.

We will be doing Viking Budapest to Amsterdam. We were originally planning to do this with AMA as our first river cruise was with them and was fabulous. When we started looking to combine a land trip first, we realized that if we switched to Viking we would save enough to nearly pay for a land tour - Berlin, Prague & Vienna (12 days) with a company run by a PBS travel show host. (Not sure if we are permitted to name particular tour companies)

We had done a 2 week tour of England with this company last year and were very pleased with it. Small group of like minded people with a lot of local flavor & enough free time to not feel rushed. We think, for us, this will be better than doing the land part on our own - the transportation and lodging plus some meals & lots of interesting tours included. Also when we travel we enjoy meeting new people and sharing the experiences.

We were able to work the dates so we end in Vienna with the land tour & will take the train on our own for a night or 2 in Budapest before getting on the ship. We did book 2 nights on our own in Berlin before meeting the tour group just to get over jet lag.

I am SO looking forward to this. Just a bit concerned about packing for a month in a carry-on, but I'm sure we'll manage!

Barb (& Wayne)

We have traveled to most of the countries in Europe and lived in Germany for four years.

We have used trains, personal vehicle and river cruise, as well as bus tours.

All have some advantages.

With a personal vehicle or rental car, you see more of the countryside but have to deal with traffic and finding you way to your hotel. Driving in London, Paris, Munich or Rome is a royal pain in the ----.

However, if you want to go to out of the way places, a car is the best.

If you mainly want to visit big cities like those I listed above and distance is modest, taking trains works well. Trains are nice, since most have a dining car and or sleeping arrangements, which is nice.

Still, once at the train station, you still have to take a taxi to your hotel (those costs add up).

Bus tours can be economical and at least your tour group is taken right to your hotel and site seeing is included in the tour, but riding a bus for a long time gets old.

River Cruises are confined to the rivers, so you may not see what you would see driving our taking a bus or train, but the scenery is usually pretty nice. Also, Since you don't have to move to your hotel, pack and unpack, it has a big advantage over the other choices.

The river cruises that seem to work well are on the Danube, Rhine, Mosel, Douro, Seine and Rhone rivers. This means that if you want to visit Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, France or Portugal. Also, Russia, SE Asia and China.

If you want to visit Scandinavia, UK, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Italy or Greece then a land trip is your way to go.

River cruises are special and we very much enjoy them. Hope it works out for you.

The river cruises that seem to work well are on the Danube, Rhine, Mosel, Douro, Seine and Rhone rivers. This means that if you want to visit Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, France or Portugal. Also, Russia, SE Asia and China.

 

If you want to visit Scandinavia, UK, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Italy or Greece then a land trip is your way to go.

 

River cruises are special and we very much enjoy them. Hope it works out for you.

National Geographic Expeditions has a river cruise in Scotland:

http://www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com/expeditions/scotland-cruise/detail

Optional extension to Edinburgh gives pretty complete coverage of Scotland. I haven't been able to find any reviews of it, but it sounds very interesting.

I think the best of both worlds is to combine the two. We are also retired, and have the luxury of time.

We had never been to Switzerland, but did a 7 day tour using rail passes and one hotel as a base.

Here is that story:

http://stevekathytravels.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/backroadsofswitzerland.pdf

We then took trains from the Bernese Alps all the way to Monte Carlo to pick up a Rhone River cruise.

Here is that story:

http://stevekathytravels.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/burgundy2012.pdf

We thoroughly enjoyed the train trip through Switzerland and France. We left at 8:30 AM and were in our hotel at 8PM. BUT, we were refreshed and relaxed from the train trip. We walked around the train, had lunch with wine, relaxed in our seats,and looked at the scenery.

Otherwise we would have had to take a train to Zurich or Basel, and fly into Nice. No waiting to go through security, waiting to board, paying for our extra bags etc.

National Geographic Expeditions has a river cruise in Scotland:

http://www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com/expeditions/scotland-cruise/detail

Optional extension to Edinburgh gives pretty complete coverage of Scotland. I haven't been able to find any reviews of it, but it sounds very interesting.

This was also the same cruise that Tom Harper was selling before they went belly up.

This was also the same cruise that Tom Harper was selling before they went belly up.

Yes, but Tom Harper's bankruptcy didn't affect the boat owner or the other vendors chartering their vessel. National Geographic is a much larger operation [although still not listed in the Supplier Default coverage of my Allianz policy].

I know the UK is small and Scotland a part of it but 9 days to say you've done Scotland is a bit out of the box, it's like me saying oh I've been to Texas (which I have) and I've seen it all which I most certainly haven't, would go again in a flash. We have a place in Scotland and over the years have seen a lot but not nearly enough. Mind you the Nat Geo trip looks good you would get a good flavour of the highlands the Caladonian is stunning.

CC 🇬🇧

Yes, but Tom Harper's bankruptcy didn't affect the boat owner or the other vendors chartering their vessel. National Geographic is a much larger operation [although still not listed in the Supplier Default coverage of my Allianz policy].

You are absolutely right. I apologize if any one inferred that NatGeo was in any trouble.

Tom Harper just booked space on these cruises, sort of like a travel agent would.

Hello Canal archive,

I know the UK is small and Scotland a part of it but 9 days to say you've done Scotland is a bit out of the box, it's like me saying oh I've been to Texas (which I have) and I've seen it all which I most certainly haven't, would go again in a flash. We have a place in Scotland and over the years have seen a lot but not nearly enough. Mind you the Nat Geo trip looks good you would get a good flavour of the highlands the Caladonian is stunning.

CC 🇬🇧

I agree, you only get to see the highlands. The lowlands - the only part I have seen so far - is not part of that itinerary, neither is the grand old industrial town of Glasgow.

I would also hesitate to call this a river cruise in the traditional sense as the inland stretch is the Caladonian canal. From what I could see the rest is all or mostly around the coasts. Have I missed a river? :o

I hope to further venture into Scotland when I am next in Carlisle.

notamermaid