In article ,
Richard Steinfeld wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Phil Nelson wrote:
| I just got email from a guy who checked a 90+ pound military
boatanchor as a
| piece of LUGGAGE on a flight from the UK to the US. This was
some time ago,
| so apparently he wasn't charged for the extra weight.
|
| You should see what I've taken as "carry on" luggage on an
AMTRAK train!
| Shop the bargain fares and a round-trip ticket can be less than
shipping
| for a medium serious boat-anchor.
|
| I've "shipped" two R-390s that way.
|

Yup.
I was waiting at the LA station for the train to San Diego. I
watched baggage staff (men and women) loading baggage into the
Southwest Limited's baggage car (the direct train between LA and
Chicago).

Nit: The train to Chicago is the "Southwest Chief". There is also
the "Sunset Limited", L.A. to Florida
The people were careful. As far as I recall, the rates
are high, and they don't run everywhere, but it may be worth it.

For "package express", the rate card is in 50 lb increments. but circa
$30 will get station-to-station service for 50 lbs anywhere Amtrak handles
baggage. Coast-to-coast is, worst case, about 4 days.

However, what I did was _ride_ the train, with the *un-packaged* 390
as a 'carry-on'. Parked it on the lower-level luggage storage shelf, as
I was getting on, and picked it up as I was getting off.

This was one of those things where "timing was right" -- Amtrak had a
"rail sale" bargain $28 *round-trip* fare between 'where I was', and
"where the radio was".

I've taken considerably _bigger_, _heavier_ stuff as carry-on on the train,
too.

Rumor mill has it that they _have_ put a weight-limit on baggage nowadays.

Trans-shipment (where most damage probably occurs) is minimized
because you deliver and pick up at the station.

On the other hand, if certain federal politicians keep trying to
zero out Amtrak's paltry budget, there may be no more passenger
trains to ship on.

*DON'T* let me get on the soap-box on that issue! wry grin

Suffice it to say that every time service has been reduced, losses have
increased. And that on those rare instances where they have managed to
increase service, losses have *decreased*. The corollary to _that_
seems obvious to everyone *except* politicians. *snarl*