Ironroad

OK, but for the record the current arrangements will stand until at least Aug 12 and a lot of businesses in the US are depending on that. I won't debate the point any further but suffice it to say that I think that communication with every customer on each and every shipment is pretty onerous and even then it is still the pick and pack person that must get it right based on the paperwork in front of them. In either scenario they are not required to understand the tariffs.

Yes he did, but please read the CNN news extracts I posted earlier which explain what is in place for at least the next 85 days or so. All shipments sent via commercial carriers will have a tariff of 30% applied. All shipments sent via the post office with a value of $1 up to $800 will be subject to a 54% tariff, but with a option for the consignee to pay a flat tariff of $100. So if IRM/AS are offering their US customers a choice between having orders shipped by mail or courier a simple rule of thumb can be applied to minimise the tariff being paid by US customers. It makes no sense to send an order with a value of $334 or less via the mail, because the minimum tariff such a order would be subject to would be $100, whereas the maximum tariff sent via courier (@30%) would be $100. And It makes no sense to send an order valued between $335 and $800 via a courier because it would incur a tariff of between $101 & $240. Whereas sending that same order via the mail incurs a maximum tariff of $100. So the simple rule of thumb is to send all orders valued between $335 and $800 via the mail and all others via courier.

Hi John, I have my doubts as to whether US Customs or the USPS are in any position to manage the scale of the task that has been dumped on them nor do I think the man in the White House cares. For him it's about optics not practicalities. So I do expect some compromises will be made in the application of these rules. But In the meantime we need to be prepared which is why I'm suggesting a simple rule of thumb to IRM/AS. As to DHL deliveries in the US I'm surprised by what you say because any I've received (including from you) have been delivered by DHL itself and not outsourced to the USPS and the delivery times have been excellent. But perhaps they need to outsource in some instances depending on the destination and their own capabilities regionally. For sure the USPS are slower than the courier services internally but they are not too far behind the couriers when it come to international parcels, at least in my experience.

I fully appreciate the impracticality of modifying your software but that's not what I was suggesting. In practical terms I'm suggesting that at the point of picking and dispatching orders to the US that the decision as to how to ship them is determined by the value in USD. IE Shipments valued between $335 and $800 go via the mail and all others go via courier. As to the currency question it has been made very clear to me that all orders with an US delivery address are valued by default in USD by Shopify at the point of placing an order, so that question is already addressed at the point of pick and dispatch. As to testing this, I'm willing to be the guinea pig. So assuming shipment of my Park Royal order worth $700 for which you requested payment last week is imminent, please send that order via the mail and let's see how it plays out. Thank you Tom

I was drafting the question I've posed as Andrew posted his comment on offering a choice of shipping options and I appreciate the merits of that. However, that choice is going to be determined by a formula so why not simply apply that formula. The option to pay a flat tariff of $100 on shipments via the mail with a value of $800 or less, coupled with the option of paying a 30% tariff on shipments via couriers seems to make the concept of a 54% tariff irrelevant The only circumstance in which customer might be inclined to accept paying a 54% tariff is on parcel sent via the mail with a value of $185 or less. At $185 the 54% tariff is $99.90. But if there is an option to receive that same parcel via a courier the tariff would be 30% or $55.50 and logically the customer would take this option.. (a potential difference in mail versus courier costs may also have a bearing ). So it comes down to establishing the point where the customer suffers the least pain in deciding whether to ship via the mail service or via a courier and that point is $335, IE at and below this it makes sense to ship via a courier service and above this point up to $800 it makes sense to ship via the mail service. So yes James, orders need to be in increments under $800 in value which I suspect most are and using this formula, you would pay 30% on any order valued $335 or less, and anything from 30% down to 12.5% on orders between $335 and $800 in value (ironically this provides an incentive for orders on the high end of this scale). But it is a question for IRM/AS as to whether they can facilitate this. By the way I think we have to assume at this stage that both US Customs and the US Postal Service have had sufficient opportunity to contemplate how this will all work. Nonetheless considering the daily volume of two million parcels they may be forced into some compromises perhaps with them being more focused on shipments directly from China, we shall see.

Can we pause the academic debate on what may or may not be and concentrate on a question that is pertinent to the situation as it stands right now. These are extracts from a CNN news article;- The Trump administration has cut its tariff on “de minimis” packages, or shipments of goods worth $800 or less, coming in from China from 120% to 54% and slashed the rate from 145% to 30% for packages from commercial carriers. A $100 flat-fee option also won’t surge to $200 per postal item come June 1, as was previously planned, according to an executive order issued Monday and which goes into effect after midnight on Wednesday. Monday’s executive order eases the 120% tariff on de minimis postal packages down. The new 54% rate only applies to shipments handled by postal services such as USPS. Deliveries from UPS, FedEx and other express courier companies will instead face the baseline tariff on Chinese goods, which the US lowered to 30%, still crippling for many businesses and consumers. So an order containing goods manufactured in China coming via the mail with a value less than $800 appears to be subject to a tariff of 54%, with an option to pay a flat tariff of $100. On the other hand the same order shipped via a courier (DHL Fedex) etc. is subject to a 30% tariff. The logic of 54% on mailed parcels seems to be designed to target sellers such as TEMU and to push consumers towards the flat $100 option. But that option is also an indication that US Customs don't have the capacity to process the daily through put of two million parcels in this category and are looking for a simple pass through with responsibility for collection resting with the Post Office.(whether the PO can handle this remains to be seen). At the same time there seems to be an assumption that the commercial operators such as DHL already have the capacity to collect the tariff of 30% on small parcels as they normally would on everything else. Regardless of the logic behind these decisions, from my perspective as a customer in the US it seems to me that it would be preferable to have any order with a value in excess of $335 but less than $800 sent via the mail and any order with a value less than $335 sent via courier. Meaning the maximum payable by me on any parcel with a value less than $800 would be $100. So my question is can IRM/Accurascale facilitate this, without the need for separate conversations with each customer on every shipment, for at least for the next 88 days, when things are likely to change again. Thank you

As push pulls in suburban service I believe the speed limit was 70 mph. When displaced and used more widely with upgraded bogies as push pulls the speed limit was 90 mph hauled and 70 mph pushed. Maximum number of coaches in push pull formation was six, probably capped by generator capacity. I was previously unaware that the MK3 push pull coaches with the hopper windows were later used as hauled stock with a generator van. It means all the more possibilities for use of the long promised Murphy Models release of these coaches. Video of a push pull set with intercity branding and a generator van being hauled by 087 at Connolly July 2007

Hi Josh, something you may wish to consider. To my recollection the Mk 3 coaches used on the outer suburban push pull services in Dublin, did not have sealed window units as per these Lima models. These push pull trains didn't run with generator vans and depended on a smaller generator in the driving trailer (underfloor) and accordingly did not have air conditioning. These trains were also operated at least initially with 121 class locos.

This is probably true but what piqued me was the "check the box" comment.

If you can't do it right then don't do it at all. Writing drivel makes no sense no matter who the audience is, have some respect.

Yes, to put this in perspective, the number of parcels with a value of less than $800 arriving annually in the US is estimated to be more than a Billion. So the level of chaos that now exists in the clearing centres may take some time to sort out. and it may be the case that to clear the back log they will be forced to arbitrarily allow some parcels a free pass. That may already be the case for my H van order as it looks like that parcel may have been released earlier this morning but the tanker order is still stuck. This is not the only instance of chaos in the US in recent weeks as a result of executive orders and some backtracking has been necessary. Pausing shipments to allow things to settle down might be a good idea.

As it stands it looks like my order for these tankers and the H vans are stuck with US Customs in New York which is something new and most likely related to the abolition on Feb 5th of the exemption to duties on small parcels under $800. This action is specifically intended to target such parcels either originating in China or containing products made in China. It also looks like the paperwork requirements are more stringent and accordingly I'm expecting both orders will be returned to IRM/AS. https://www.easyship.com/blog/section-321-de-minimis-changes

Also interested in two pairs

Given the direction this thread is taking it is worth mentioning that Some of the postings in the thread "We Got a Flat" -Announcing the Bullied & PWD Flat Wagons" are relevant to this conversation for example; https://igg.org.uk/rail/5-unit/unitload1.htm Fig ___ Standard closed containers

Yes, I've also seen that, but a rerun with improvements in the future is quite probable and producing and offering Ride Control Bogies as an accessory (in the interim) as preparation for that rerun would make some sense.

Many thanks, that is very informative and prompted me to check back on the thread covering the announcement of IRM's Project 42. It seems that producing these flats with Ride Control Bogies was on the agenda and hopefully IRM can still be persuaded to produce these as an an accessory for the many of us that might be inclined to replace the Sambre et Meuse bogies. This is the post that caught my attention. https://irishrailwaymodeller.com/topic/7600-project-42-update/page/2/#comment-109425

As I've been reading this thread I must admit to being a bit confused by the nuances. Can we clarify which of these flats IRM modelled in their Project 42 ?

Sold

PM sent

Yes, please send me a PM

Happy & Sad

Thanks for that Noel, very informative. My immediate thought as regards the problem with the units fitted inside the Bell Containers is that perhaps it's a matter of distance and maybe a stronger magnet (creating your own wand with say a neodymium magnet), may work or perhaps simply attaching the battery/control units directly under the roof of the container, (access to do this is fairly easy because the floors pop out). As for coaches, as an example I currently have a Craven Buffet in a dismantled state, and the units will fit inside the toilet compartments, so I would expect switching with the wand should be possible by passing it over the exterior side of those compartments (albeit you have to swipe both sides). Seems like I will be needing quite a few of these tail lights.

Hi Noel, I purchased just one pack of these tail lamps recently with a view to establishing how they might be fitted to various pieces of rolling stock, so your success with them is interesting. In the absence of any information or suggestions on the IRM website (the support page, a note in the pack directs us to, does not exist), may I ask if you can be a bit more specific as to where you are locating the battery/control unit, I'm assuming that you are utilising the interiors of containers etc to the best extent possible? As regards the fertiliser wagons, while I have yet to attempt this, it seems to me they can be fitted with minimal surgery limited to removing a piece of the cross bracing inside one of the double stacked pallets, and simply pushing the battery/control unit inside and threading the wire and lamp through a small hole in the floor of the wagon beneath that pallet. The question Dave is asking about an unladen 42' bogie wagon was the first one that came to mind when I had these lamps in hand so I'd also be interested in your thoughts on that. thank you Tom

A picture published Jun '71 IRRS JNL (no. 55) of a Charles Roberts ESSO tank wagon arriving at North Wall. This photo was originally posted on this site by josefstadt in the Irish Shell & BP thread Dec 17 2014.

Sauna or Turkish bath more like. Well that's what we got every day in winter on the old AEC rail cars (pre DART). At least 90% of them leaked steam in enormous volumes. The experience of travelling into the city on a wet December or January morning when they were jam packed with passengers with already wet coats and dripping umbrellas, still doesn't bear thinking about.