|
Vintage Telephony and Telecomms Vintage Telephones, Telephony and Telecomms Equipment |
|
Thread Tools |
8th May 2020, 4:06 pm | #21 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
In 1972, there were three Strowger Director exchanges known as 'Mercury' with the codes 061-437, 061-493 and 061-497 - the 061-437 being the exchange that was originally 061-MER before sectorisation. There was also a fourth unit a Crossbar K3 Director exchange with the code 061-436. The 061-489 numbers were on the 061-437 exchange - the origin one in the 'Mercury' group. Now a group of System X and Y exchanges for a short while longer |
|
8th May 2020, 5:02 pm | #22 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
Prior to STD, only the dials in a Director area had letters on them, plus those in the adjacent Non-Director area exchanges for which the Director area was a local call. However shortly after the start of 'All Figure Numbering' in 1966, 'sectorisation' took place in Director areas where the geographic area was split up with the initial digit being the same as other adjacent exchanges in the same sector (see attached map for Manchester Director Area). More by luck some exchanges initial digit remained the same as that of the sector and hence they were able to keep their original three letter code i.e. CENtral was 236 and was in Sector 2. Then when AFN was completed around 1968/69, CENtral was listed as 061-236 joining all the other new AFN exchanges which never had 'letter' equivalents. |
|
8th May 2020, 5:26 pm | #23 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
There were 69 out of the 549 Group Switching Centre/Trunk Switching Centre phone numbers that ended in 2211 - just as many in 2111 and way more ending in just 111. 2190 for originally the standard for UAX7 and UAX14's. Also used for some four digit Non-Director GSCs. UAX12 ad 13's used 290. |
|
8th May 2020, 6:10 pm | #24 |
Pentode
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 159
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Well explained by Pellseinydd lots of the local exchanges had 2211 as a 'special faults' number
|
8th May 2020, 6:39 pm | #25 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Cumbria (CA13), UK
Posts: 6,118
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
I can't see a map attached.
__________________
Mending is better than Ending (cf Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) |
8th May 2020, 6:48 pm | #26 |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Whoops, cat knocked it off! Good excuse
|
8th May 2020, 7:55 pm | #27 | |
Hexode
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Medway towns, Kent, UK.
Posts: 271
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
__________________
"Oh yes I love television, all those wiggly lines"! |
|
8th May 2020, 8:27 pm | #28 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Cumbria (CA13), UK
Posts: 6,118
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Yup, beats "the dog ate my homework" into a cocked hat!
__________________
Mending is better than Ending (cf Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) |
8th May 2020, 9:36 pm | #29 |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Derby, UK.
Posts: 7,735
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
The code for Etwall 4-figure numbers always used to be given as 028 373. To reach Etwall from Burton-on-Trent (0283) you dialled 73, followed by the 4-figure Etwall number.
I guess the idea of the spacing was more to balance the grouping for visual appeal, rather than to indicate exactly the division into parent exchange, satellite exchange and local number.
__________________
If I have seen further than others, it is because I was standing on a pile of failed experiments. |
8th May 2020, 10:49 pm | #30 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
See attached - camera must be doing odd things or I need new specs Don't think it's the cats this time ! |
|
10th May 2020, 1:02 am | #31 |
Triode
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 42
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
It must have been around 1970 that the Etwall code as listed in dialling code booklets will have changed to being shown as 028 373 instead of 0283 73. From Burton on Trent you would have only needed to dial 73. However...it wasn't always this logical. In the 1980's Leeds and Harewood both had the code 0532. From Leeds to Harewood you would just dial the number, whereas from Harewood to Leeds you had to dial 9 followed by the Leeds number. Harewood was eventually change to Leeds numbers, in 1986 I think.
|
10th May 2020, 6:13 pm | #32 |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Derby, UK.
Posts: 7,735
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Yes, if you were in Burton-on-Trent then you dialled 73 for an Etwall 4-figure number. From Etwall, you had to dial 9 for a Burton number.
The only changes really, going from 4 to 6 figures, were that (1) anyone in Etwall had to remember to put 73 in front of any number in the village and omit the initial 9 from any local code starting with a 9, and (2) the 963 short code from Derby (Burton from Derby was 962, and the other Burton satellites were 962 7x, but Etwall used to have its own special short code from Derby) no longer worked. For anyone calling an Etwall number from anywhere else, the digits dialled were the same. As for local dialling oddities, there were a few around my area. Derby to Ashbourne was 91, Burton to Derby was 93 but Burton to Ashbourne was just 939. I guess the inbound trunk dropped straight into the middle of a hunt group like that to prevent chaining of local codes. Absit omen someone in Etwall should get a call to Belper at local rate; even though they could dial all the way to Cannock in Staffordshire, some 50km away, at local rate! The Harewood thing might have been charging-related (and subsequently found not to be worth bothering to charge the extra for), or it might have had something to do with numbers of trunk lines between exchanges. @Pellseinydd -- nice find in the old dialling code books! The first one must have been around the very beginnings of STD, as letters did not seem to last long. The second one is different from the ones I remember, which had the figures grouped in threes; this was how I remembered them until PhONEday, after which codes for short local numbers were split after the "main exchange" code.
__________________
If I have seen further than others, it is because I was standing on a pile of failed experiments. |
11th May 2020, 11:47 am | #33 | ||
Triode
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 37
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
The Special Faults phone in my GSC was 22221, and frequently received calls for the city's cop shop, which was 22222. One day someone rang asking for PC Collins, so the phone was handed to an engineer whose name was Phil Collins, and happened to have the middle initial C. Cue much confusion. |
||
11th May 2020, 4:40 pm | #34 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
The smaller exchanges off a main' exchange were 'dependent' exchanges - mainly UAXs but larger ones could be Non-Director exchanges as in the case of Etwall. You'd be surprised how things changed over the years. 'Burton-on-Trent' was originally a Linked Numbering Scheme including Tutbury and Swadlincote exchanges. In those days they were both Non-Director exchanges - however in 1955 Tutbury was replaced by a UAX14 becoming 88 off Burton but moved back into the LNS when it became a K1 Crossbar satellite in the 0283 Linked Numbering Scheme. Swadlincote (Non-Director) was later to become 87 off Burton (moving back to being a satellite in the 0283 LNS on 31st March 1976 as 'Burton-on-Trent numbers but still on 'Swadlincote' exchange which just became the 'engineering' name for the exchange. A number of the exchanges in the Burton-on-Trent 0283 group had direct junctions to Derby Exchange - 0332 Group Switching Centre. |
|
11th May 2020, 5:05 pm | #35 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
Then by March 1967 it was in the 'logical' format '0283 73'. The change to 028 8373 seems to have come between January and March 1969 judging by the several hundred STD codebooks that I've got. So was 028 8373 2190 a 'London' number ? |
|
11th May 2020, 6:50 pm | #36 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Cumbria (CA13), UK
Posts: 6,118
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
I may have totally misunderstood the question, but when did London numbers start 028?
I thought they were: 1st 01 2nd 071/081 3rd 0171/0181 currently 020 ... 028 now having moved across the water to Northern Ireland.
__________________
Mending is better than Ending (cf Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) |
11th May 2020, 6:58 pm | #37 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Flintshire, UK.
Posts: 707
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
In 1975 Harewood was moved into the Leeds 'Linked Numbering Scheme' (STD code 0532) by prefixing the three digit UAX13 numbers with 886. Thus other exchanges in the 0532 group just dialled 886XXX and STD callers dialled 0532 886XXX. However the junctions to Harrogate would not be accessible as the code to Harrogate from Harewood might have 'clashed' with other codes within the 0532 LNS or would not be sufficient to carry all the traffic from the Leeds LNS so 'Harewood' was kept partially out of the LNS by having 'Harewood' subs dial the '9' to reach other exchanges in the LNS. However by 1988, Harewood is listed as a UAX13S - the 'satellite' version of the UAX13 Which looked at the initial two digits of those dialled and routed to the rest of the UAX13 for local calls and dropped the junction to the main exchange (Leeds 'main') otherwise it dropped the local exchange side out as all the digits had been pulsed out to Leeds. There would have been no need for the '9' at this time. Then on 15 March 1988, it went 'digital' with a System X concentrator and the 'subscribers' became 'Leeds' numbers - fully within the Linked Numbering Scheme. The 'Harwewood' setup was not unique. Deeside exchange in the 0244 Chester Charge Group was originally Connah's Quay Non-Director was originally 0244 51 (level 51 off Chester). 'Deeside' was originally a mobile exchange on level 86 off Chester. Both dialled 9 to reach the GSC 'Chester/a' main exchange. There were at the time other exchanges in the 0244 Chester LNS. However when Connah's Quay, Deeside and another mobile Estuary on 69 off Chester were moved into the LNS now to be known as 'Deeside', they were in a separate group which needed to dial a 9 to reach Chester . This was because Connah's Quay had direct junctions to exchanges in adjacent charge such as Mold (0352) on level 85. The code could have clashed with other codes off Chester which was getting short of codes. Where I live with a Mold phone number I could dial either 91 or 95 to reach Deeside - 91 took me via Chester/A main exchange and the 95 took me over the direct junctions from Mold to 'Deeside' |
|
13th May 2020, 5:05 am | #38 |
Triode
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 42
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Thanks Pellseinydd for that comprehensive information about Harewood exchange!
In the Leeds telephone area where I used to live, Wakefield had the STD code 0924 and was obtained by dialling 97 from Leeds. Some other exchanges such as Dewsbury and Batley were also 0924, but were obtained by the single-digit code 9 from Leeds: these numbers began with 4 so the equipment would have recognised it as a Dewsbury or Batley number, rather than a Wakefield number, as soon as you dialled 94. One day I wondered what would happen if you dialled 97 for Dewsbury instead of 9. I had occasion to ring a Dewsbury number and tried this, it worked and would have been charged the same, but was rather a pointless exercise as all I had done was dialled one more digit than necessary! The Post Office often included a caveat in their Dialling Code Booklets: "Only codes which are authorised for use from the telephone you are using may be dialled". I reckon there were many cases where you could reach a local exchange using any of several different, though unauthorised, codes. This is all gone nowadays, everybody uses the national area codes. |
13th May 2020, 9:46 am | #39 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edinburgh, UK.
Posts: 805
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
Quote:
I remember in the public phonebox having to hold my finger under the Dialling Code on the board whilst mother dialled it slowly, then dialled the subscriber number. No point in writing the Dialling Code in the address book, as they varied depending on from where one was calling. We'd saved up twopences for the phone, and felt rather swizzed when they changed the phones to 5p. |
|
13th May 2020, 9:57 am | #40 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Cumbria (CA13), UK
Posts: 6,118
|
Re: The space in the STD codes
As I understand it, the trade-off was that the signal got weaker the more links you made, as the amplification used for long-distance calls was not employed for local calls.
__________________
Mending is better than Ending (cf Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) |