Heljan 128

[Removed a/c]

I have installed a Bachmann 21 pin four function decoder in this model. It all works fine, but whereas Function 1 latches and puts the lights on in one cab, Function 2 acts as a trigger and only flashes the cab light in the other cab.

Please, how do I make this latch?

David Mills.

Is it not based on the direction of the model? 

[Matabiau]

The cab lighting is independent of the direction of travel. Functions 1 and 2 control the cab lights while function 0 controls the directional lighting. 

[cheesysmith]

Does anybody know if the plastic sprues are to be avalible as spares, like they have done with previous models. The underframe and engine compartments look great, and would be useful to anybody making dmu kits.

[Guest 40-something]

Does anybody know if the plastic sprues are to be avalible as spares, like they have done with previous models. The underframe and engine compartments look great, and would be useful to anybody making dmu kits.

Keep an eye on the Howes website, Heljan section.  The Railbus spares have started to appear so it may only be a matter of time

[NickL2008]

Does anybody know if the plastic sprues are to be avalible as spares, like they have done with previous models. The underframe and engine compartments look great, and would be useful to anybody making dmu kits.

 

I did wonder that myself when I posted earlier on in this thread as I think the Heljan 128 has some nice parts that it could donate to other models .. Ive checked Howes' website couple times over the past few weeks but nothing yet

 

NL

[hmrspaul]

I haven't followed all of this (class 128 in the heading meant now't to me, was it ever used on a vehicle?) but in case not noticed, I supplied a few photos to Heljan a while ago as http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/dieselparcelvan  (well they are almost a wagon!  )

 

Paul Bartlett

[dibber25]

I haven't followed all of this (class 128 in the heading meant now't to me, was it ever used on a vehicle?) but in case not noticed, I supplied a few photos to Heljan a while ago as http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/dieselparcelvan  (well they are almost a wagon!  )

 

Paul Bartlett

Paul!! A parcels van with a DMU chassis - what more could anyone want!!

CHRIS

[hmrspaul]

Paul!! A parcels van with a DMU chassis - what more could anyone want!!

CHRIS

 

Dear Chris

 

You know very well that I like parcels stock, in all forms.

 

What I don't understand is this insistence on calling them class 128; did any of them carry this designation.

 

I notice you give them their proper name in the May Model Rail.

 

Paul

[scorpion]

Gloucester parcels bug, that's what they were called in the real world, but as they are class 128s you can't really object to them being described as that

[cctransuk]

Gloucester parcels bug, that's what they were called in the real world, but as they are class 128s you can't really object to them being described as that

For what proportion of their life?

 

This TOPS mania has got totally out of hand ! Since when was a Hymek a Class 35, or a Baby Deltic a Class 23?

 

These latterday designations are totally hypothetical, but a generation that never saw the originals thinks that the retrospective TOPS designations are the names that these classes were known by.

 

Another example of re-writing history ! (.... and I'm afraid that the railway press are largely to blame).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Oldddudders]

Gloucester parcels bug, that's what they were called in the real world, but as they are class 128s you can't really object to them being described as that

That all really rather depends upon whether you regard TOPS designations as the defining version. Some of us had known a railway before TOPS, and since this vehicle and many others had existed then, the new nomenclature seems a bit "fast", frankly. My Ian Allan ABC 1961/2 Combined Volume doesn't include TOPS.

[scorpion]

you need a newer book

[SRman]

Sometimes a TOPS code can convey more than the earlier designations. For example, class 24/1 or 26/0 narrow things down rather more than 'Derby type 2' or 'BRCW type 2'.

[Gwiwer]

They became class 128 under the system which lead to TOPS and were referred to as such from the late 1960s by some staff as far as I am aware.  They were more widely known as "Parcel bugs" or "Parcel units" among the platform-enders at Paddington and Reading just as the dominant passenger types were "bugs", bug-carts", "bog-carts" or "3-car" rather than "class 117" despite having gained the designation.  

 

To avoid confusion I cannot fault Heljan's logic in referring to them as "Class 128" even if that was not how they were known by spotters and most staff for much of their lives.

[StaffsOatcake]

Hatton's have replaced my errant DPU.  The problem appears to be limited to just a small number of models.  Heljan sent me a reply to my request which basically was aphoto of a pair of xuron cutters nipping off the offending pin.  Impressed with this? I was not!  So back to Hattons it went who had offered to replace it for me.  Anyway waiting to catch up with my friend from Liverpool who has my new model.

[Captain Kernow]

Am I right in thinking that these models are fitted with 12mm disc wheels?

 

Presumably that is correct for this kind of unit?

 

Anyone tried converting one to EM or P4 yet?

 

Thanks.

[Sasquatch]

 (class 128 in the heading meant now't to me, was it ever used on a vehicle?)http://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/dieselparcelvan

 

Paul Bartlett

It`s a sign of the times Paul, Try googling "parcels bug" and you will draw a blank!

[the-gog]

you need a newer book

Indeed, *all* my motive power books (which date from the 1970s onwards) all have class numbers for DMUs, as well as things like Hymeks, Westerns, Warships, etc. This DPU will have been known as a Class 128 for around 40 years or so, 20 years of which under BR service. Go figure.

[Oldddudders]

you need a newer book

For what purpose? I began to lose interest in numbersnatching about the time they started painting yellow panels on the ends of diesels, DMUs and EMUs, so my aforementioned 1961/2 edition has my full and final record of all sorts of trains I saw. When I was shown the staff information video about TOPS somewhere about 40 years ago, I recognised a former colleague. The benefits that TOPS brought to the industry are by no means lost on me, even if it arrived a couple of decades too late, and was initially provided with obsolete hardware - IBM had to re-open production of some items they'd discontinued. I think I was responsible for a TOPS office for a couple of years in the mid-70s. None of that makes the slightest difference to my understanding of trains and their nomenclature. This item is a Gloucester parcels car to me, TVM.

[dibber25]

For what proportion of their life?

 

This TOPS mania has got totally out of hand ! Since when was a Hymek a Class 35, or a Baby Deltic a Class 23?

 

These latterday designations are totally hypothetical, but a generation that never saw the originals thinks that the retrospective TOPS designations are the names that these classes were known by.

 

Another example of re-writing history ! (.... and I'm afraid that the railway press are largely to blame).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

No! The railway press certainly haven't re-written history. When TOPS came out BR gave everything that had an engine a Class number. Once they sorted out the DMUs and stopped giving the individual cars separate class numbers, it was a good way of identifying the classes and its a lots simpler than calling them a Gloucester RC&W motor parcels van. True, not all classes carried their unit designations, and I don't think any 128s actually had numbers in the 128 001-10 series but you really can't 'blame' the railway press for using the official designation and it certainly isn't re-writing history. I bet if we didn't call them 128s there would be loads of people jumping on us for failing to do so, and saying "So what's a Gloucester parcels car, then" especially as W17W was also a Gloucester RC&W motor parcels van. I suppose in that case you would have to add (streamlined) but that makes it sound more modern than the unstreamlined version.....As usual for the railway press, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

CHRIS LEIGH

[cctransuk]

As usual for the railway press, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Chris,

 

Whoops - touched a nerve there - sorry!

 

Like many others of my generation who frequent this list, I lost interest in the current railway scene when the all-pervading blue and double arrows came along. TOPS means nothing to me, I'm pleased to say. If a TOPS code is quoted I have to refer to Google to translate.

 

TOPS may have made the railway journalists' job easier, but remember which way the model market has gone in recent years. Who is buying the majority of Heljan early diesels; the Bachmann Midland Pullmans; the Hornby Brighton Belles; etc., etc. I'll tell you - the aging pre-TOPS enthusiasts who now have considerable disposable income!

 

Is it a coincidence that I, and many other modellers of my generation, have stopped purchasing the model railway press offerings; (with the honourable exception of MRJ)? The use of TOPS designations for models in pre-TOPS liveries, many of which never carried TOPS numbers, is only one symptom of the general 'dumbing-down' of the model railway press.

 

How many times do we need telling how to change the number on an item of rolling stock, or how to weather items? What is needed is some more erudite background information and some more creative modelling. I'm afraid the broadcasting industry's 'sound-bite' approach has invaded the printed press, too.

 

Now that I'm retired, I spend most evenings browsing through my extensive collection of model railway magazines, dating back to the late 50s / early 60s. I still find far more inspiration in articles that are fifty years old, and that I've read several times before, than I will ever do in what is published nowadays.

 

If the model press continues to devote itself to that section of the market that thinks railway modelling consists of, at best, inserting a DCC chip and, if really adventurous, adding sound, it'll be out of a job pretty soon!

 

I have also noticed an increasing trend for wholly fallacious statements to be made in editorials and articles, which then acquire 'factual' status. At one time I took the trouble to correct these but the frequency of such errors became insupportable.

 

My analysis is that, increasingly, the model railway press is run by career journalists from wholly unconnected backgrounds. Any knowledge of model railways would be fortunate, but by no means essential; (I except yourself from this condemnation, of course).

 

A tirade - yes; but only the manifestation of several years of frustration. I weekly visit WHS and browse, in the forlorn hope that some enlightened editor will have seen the light. No luck yet - one can only hope!

 

Respectfully,

John Isherwood.

[dibber25]

The model press does what the market requires it to do. As a 1960s train spotter I'd call it a Gloucester parcels car. The model trade - including the Heljan box - calls it by its official BR TOPS code, which was Class 128. Surely anything which makes it easier for the majority of people is to be applauded. There are lots of TOPS codes that I don't know but they are easy to look up. Equally, Paul, I'm sure is familiar with ALL the three-letter wagon codes but I'm not and a 12ton ventliated van still means more to me than a VVV. (which always looks like a well-known German car when I read it).

Anyway - to change the subject and answer a question. The Model Rail limited edition Heljan Class 128 (GlosRCW parcels car) in Red Star two-tone blue will be 55993, complete with GWR coat of arms and GWR-style lettering as applied at Tyseley. The run will be just 300 and it's 01209 613984 for advance orders. Delivery expected in the autumn 2013.

CHRIS LEIGH

[dibber25]

Chris,

 

Whoops - touched a nerve there - sorry!

 

Like many others of my generation who frequent this list, I lost interest in the current railway scene when the all-pervading blue and double arrows came along. TOPS means nothing to me, I'm pleased to say. If a TOPS code is quoted I have to refer to Google to translate.

 

TOPS may have made the railway journalists' job easier, but remember which way the model market has gone in recent years. Who is buying the majority of Heljan early diesels; the Bachmann Midland Pullmans; the Hornby Brighton Belles; etc., etc. I'll tell you - the aging pre-TOPS enthusiasts who now have considerable disposable income!

 

Is it a coincidence that I, and many other modellers of my generation, have stopped purchasing the model railway press offerings; (with the honourable exception of MRJ)? The use of TOPS designations for models in pre-TOPS liveries, many of which never carried TOPS numbers, is only one symptom of the general 'dumbing-down' of the model railway press.

 

How many times do we need telling how to change the number on an item of rolling stock, or how to weather items? What is needed is some more erudite background information and some more creative modelling. I'm afraid the broadcasting industry's 'sound-bite' approach has invaded the printed press, too.

 

Now that I'm retired, I spend most evenings browsing through my extensive collection of model railway magazines, dating back to the late 50s / early 60s. I still find far more inspiration in articles that are fifty years old, and that I've read several times before, than I will ever do in what is published nowadays.

 

If the model press continues to devote itself to that section of the market that thinks railway modelling consists of, at best, inserting a DCC chip and, if really adventurous, adding sound, it'll be out of a job pretty soon!

 

I have also noticed an increasing trend for wholly fallacious statements to be made in editorials and articles, which then acquire 'factual' status. At one time I took the trouble to correct these but the frequency of such errors became insupportable.

 

My analysis is that, increasingly, the model railway press is run by career journalists from wholly unconnected backgrounds. Any knowledge of model railways would be fortunate, but by no means essential; (I except yourself from this condemnation, of course).

 

A tirade - yes; but only the manifestation of several years of frustration. I weekly visit WHS and browse, in the forlorn hope that some enlightened editor will have seen the light. No luck yet - one can only hope!

 

Respectfully,

John Isherwood.

Was going to let this pass because it is way off topic but I really couldn't let it go. It is SO completely WRONG that it cannot go unchallenged, although the mods might like to move it elsewhere. I'm a career journalist. I took my semi-scratch-built MK1 Pullman car to my interview in 1963. I've been a railway journalist for nearly 50 years. We have four journalists on MR. We are all life-long railway enthusiasts and active model-makers. I cannot think of anyone on our competitor magazines who is not also a lifelong railway enthusiast and modeller. I think I was the first Editor to publish Steve Flint's work. Mike Wild learned his craft here in Bauer's railway section. I really have no idea who these 'career journalists with no subject knowledge or interest are.' True, some of them grew up post-TOPS and know it well, but I sit between our two youngest journalists - one is a dedicated modeller of post-war Southern Railway steam and the other a student of all things GWR and M&GN. I find myself asking them an awful lot of questions and they do the same with me. Believe me - the hobby is alive and well among railway and model railway journalists and the products we produce and the way we produce them (and the way we word them) is what sells. There would be absolutely no point in doing, or being, otherwise.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Dave47549]

.

[The Stationmaster]

For what proportion of their life?

 

This TOPS mania has got totally out of hand ! Since when was a Hymek a Class 35, or a Baby Deltic a Class 23?

 

These latterday designations are totally hypothetical, but a generation that never saw the originals thinks that the retrospective TOPS designations are the names that these classes were known by.

 

Another example of re-writing history ! (.... and I'm afraid that the railway press are largely to blame).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Quite agree John.  On the railway they were identified in the diagrams as 'DPU' and everybody called them either a DPU or a 'Parcels Car' (transferring that name forward from the old GW Parcels Cars, see below).   To the more discerning they were referred to with the prefix 'Gloucester' added to either DPU or 'Parcels Car'  and on one depot (Southall) they were known by some staff as 'Albions' because of their engines.

 

I must admit that having worked in the London Division on the Western for some years (including preparing working notices for alterations to trains worked by these cars) I never ever heard them referred to as 'parcels bugs' and can but presume it is a bit of trainspotter terminology; it certainly pays no heed to what was basically a longstanding linguistic tradition on the Western of referring to self -propelled and push-pull units as 'cars' (e.g the Greenford car, which stabled at Ealing Broadway between trips in a siding officially titled 'The Car Park').

 

So what are they - simples, they are Gloucester RC&W parcels cars, officially referred to as 'DPUs'  (and when they were announced as 'Class128' I had to look up that to see what it actually meant in plain English/railway terminology).

 

PS Incidentally I vacan also see Crhris's point of view on this as magazines and manufacturers do have a market to serve out there but one thins more than anything else in thsi whole business gets a very long and painful way up my nose - these are NOT 'TOPS numbers'.  At the risk of getting extremely hoarse the standardised BR system of traction class designations predated TOPS by a good 5 years.  I can remember first coming across during a Freight Train Loads training course in 1968 - the time when it first came into operational use albeit only for locos at that time and it had been a gleam in certain M&EE eyes for a couple of years before that.  So everybody - call them TOPS numbers if you like (and yes Chris I can understand that your readership understands them in that way so you have to use it) but TOPS classes they are not.  The renumbering of locos into Class identifier led numbers was done at the time of TOPS - probably as it offered a good excuse, and a budget, to make the change - but that is all.  Rant over, normal mode re-engaged, I hope.