'0207 008 0000'
 

In message ,
Martin Underwood writes

By the way, how did changing from 0171 xxx yyyy or 0181 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx
yyyy or 020 8xxx yyyy help alleviate the shortage of available numbers in
London? It didn't increase the number of available phone numbers - all it
did was to change the mapping slightly. OK, so there's scope for additional
district codes beginning with digits other than 7 or 8, but it's not
districts that are in short supply, it's subscriber numbers (the xxxx in the
above example).

Just to add to John's reply, London numbers starting with 020 3xxx are
due to start being allocated this summer. Unlike 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx,
they will be assigned on a London-wide basis and will not be mapped to
any particular district within London.
--
Paul Terry

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

Just to add to John's reply, London numbers starting with 020 3xxx are
due to start being allocated this summer. Unlike 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx,
they will be assigned on a London-wide basis and will not be mapped to
any particular district within London.

Which, AIUI, was supposed to be the case with unallocated 7xxx and 8xxx
series numbers post-020 implementation - certainly what we were told prior
to the change was that it was merely to simplify the mapping exercise that
it was decided to use distinct number series for former 0171 and 0181
numbers and that the distinction between 'inner' and 'outer' London would
disappear, the two series (and subsequently others) becoming 'common user'
post-translation.

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , John Shelley
wrote:
What you can say is all esubscribers numbers on an specific
exchange number are within a specified area (excluding out of area
lines of course). The size of the area will vary and the area may
well cover some, or all, of the area covered by another exchange.

This came up in uk.telecom a good while back and someone pointed me
to a site that no longer exists (or I'd quote the URL) which at the
time told me that my home and business numbers, 020 8744 2xxx, are
from Garfield Road, Twickenham. Other 020 8744 numbers go to
Whitton, Hayes and Southall exchanges - the last two are nowhere
near Twickenham. If the site was right 020 8744 50-55 (600 numbers)
go to Whitton, 020 8744 56-59 (just 400 numbers) go to Hayes. Odd?

--
Tony Bryer

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
snip


Yeah, silly question, on reflection! I presume the equipment has to accept
a
fixed number of digits (previously seven, now eight) and identify the
first
four (previously three) as the district and the remaining four as the
subscriber number. If the stream of digits begins with a 0, an alternative
algorithm identifies from the digits that follow how many are the exchange
(eg "20" signifies London, "1344" signifies Bracknell). I can see that if
you only dial the final four digits, they could be confused with 0
signifying "what follows is an exchange" or 1 signifying special numbers
like emergency (112), directory enquiries (118xxx) etc.

Actually the local exchange simply routes all numbers that start with a 0 to
the associated trunk exchange (properly called a DMSU, for Digital Main
Switching Unit).

The DMSU does geographic mapping, routes the call to the relevant DMSU on
the other end which in turn routes it to the relevant local exchange.

If it is a non-geographic number (07*, 08*, 09*) the DMSU routes it to a
special platform that does really clever lookups. That is how a call to a
call centre number at 3am is answerd in India, at 3pm in, say, Sunderland
and at 11pm in the USA.

snip

digit exchange codes are actually located in the same building. Here in
Harrow the exchange building housed both the 8427 and 8863 exchanges and
probably others as well. With the arrival of electronic exchanges the
physical space needed for an exchange was vastly reduced so adding extra
switching capacity within a building that was built to house a
mechanical
exchange isn't a problem. The extra exchange numbers are also needed
for
the non BT operators.

Ah, so new suscribers in an area potentially get a brand new district
number
that's unrelated to that of all the other subscribers in that area? Yes, I
suppose that's one way of solving the problem. Do all subscribers in one
area get one new code and all those in another area get different code:
can
you still say "xxxx [a new code] is Harrow, alongside yyyy [the existing
code]" or is the code-to-location mapping lost?

The association of a single code with a geographic area disappeared decades
ago. Harrow has the 8424, 8427, 8861 and 8863 codes. In the predigital
days I believe these were normally co-located in the same exchange building.

Nowadays the exchange equipment is orders of magnitudes smaller, so in some
case your 'local' exchange is actually located in an exchange building in a
neighbouring area, along with half a dozen other 'local' exchanges.

Your 'phone line will physically be connected to a some sort of device
locally. However this could be a consolidation device that takes all of
those lines on to a neighbouring exchange building. Alternatively it could
just take *some* of those lines to a neighbouring exchange building if there
are logistcal reasons. For example the one room in the building still being
used for exchanges only has room for three and a half sets of lines - don't
forget that at some stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each local
exchange.

To answer your specific question, I believe that anyone in Harrow will get
one of the above codes *if one is available*. If not they will get one form
one the exchange in the exchange building where their 'phone line ends up.

regards

Stephen

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:

The association of a single code with a geographic area disappeared
decades
ago. Harrow has the 8424, 8427, 8861 and 8863 codes. In the predigital
days I believe these were normally co-located in the same exchange
building.

Well it exists to the extent that there is one or more codes that relate to
a specific geographical area (eg a town or a collection of neighbouring
towns/villages) but don't relate to anywhere else: given a phone code, you
can say which places use it[*]. Maybe the boundaries have become a bit more
blurred and the regions have got larger (like a two-letter code in a car
registration number used to relate to a specific town, whereas now it
relates to a group of counties).


Nowadays the exchange equipment is orders of magnitudes smaller, so in
some
case your 'local' exchange is actually located in an exchange building in
a
neighbouring area, along with half a dozen other 'local' exchanges.

Your 'phone line will physically be connected to a some sort of device
locally. However this could be a consolidation device that takes all of
those lines on to a neighbouring exchange building. Alternatively it
could
just take *some* of those lines to a neighbouring exchange building if
there
are logistcal reasons. For example the one room in the building still
being
used for exchanges only has room for three and a half sets of lines -
don't
forget that at some stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each
local
exchange.

To answer your specific question, I believe that anyone in Harrow will
get
one of the above codes *if one is available*. If not they will get one
form
one the exchange in the exchange building where their 'phone line ends up.

What about the situation where the same code is used by several towns and
villages, each of which has a telephone exchange. My code is used by two
moderate-sized towns and many neighbouring villages. I know that my village
has its own exchange (the building is about 100 yards from me right now!).
Presumably some form of supernetting is used: the first one or two digits of
the subscriber's number determine which exchange (consolidation device) the
call is routed to.

[*] I used to work with a guys who was a walking look-up table. He had each
memorised the STD codes and could tell you the code for anywhere or which
places a code relates to (we tested him and he was spot-on every time!). As
if this isn't "sad" enough, he couldn't see that this skill was perceived as
"sad" rather than endearing him to people. He could also see a photo of a
car dashboard instrument (eg a speedometer) and tell you every make/model of
car that it had ever been fitted to.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

Maybe the boundaries have become a bit more
blurred and the regions have got larger (like a two-letter code in a car
registration number used to relate to a specific town, whereas now it
relates to a group of counties).

Actually, to be pedantic, they still do (to a degree). The first character
is the registration district, the second is the registration office. So, for
example, in a registration such as AA54 ABC: AA indicates Anglia district,
Peterborough office (as would AB to AN). AO to AU are Anglia district,
Norwich office and AV to AY are Anglia district, Ipswich office.

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...

The only country where I've ever noticed major differences in number
length is Germany, where they can be very variable, even on the same
exchange.

Is this because they show direct dialling inward with the PBAX as, say,
06857-2456-0 and the extensions as 06857-2456-154?
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

Maybe the boundaries have become a bit more
blurred and the regions have got larger (like a two-letter code in a car
registration number used to relate to a specific town, whereas now it
relates to a group of counties).

Actually, to be pedantic, they still do (to a degree). The first character
is the registration district, the second is the registration office. So,
for
example, in a registration such as AA54 ABC: AA indicates Anglia
district,
Peterborough office (as would AB to AN). AO to AU are Anglia district,
Norwich office and AV to AY are Anglia district, Ipswich office.

But once there would be far more offices, each with its own mark(s): now
they've merged the marks so you cannot tell so accurately where a car was
registered.

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia: at one time UA, UB, UM
were Leeds, YG was Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield. These
were merged so that all these letters signified "somewhere in West
Yorkshire". I think the size of the region covered was further increased
with the new-style AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format had a two-letter location
code (CD) so why not continue to use the same code in the new-style
numberplates? Methinks that they took the opportunity to rationalise (merge)
some of the issuing offices at the same time.

And of course so many cars have personalised numberplates these days that
you often cannot tell anything about a car's age or place of "birth".

I'd better shut up or you'll be thinking that I'm as obsessive as my mate
the walking look-up table ;-) Oh, too late...

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

But once there would be far more offices, each with its own mark(s): now
they've merged the marks so you cannot tell so accurately where a car was
registered.

True. Then again, it had become quite meaningless anyway with large-scale
commercial registrations or with garage chains registering vehicles in their
head office area before shipping them to their salesrooms.

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia: at one time UA, UB,
UM
were Leeds, YG was Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield.
These
were merged so that all these letters signified "somewhere in West
Yorkshire". I think the size of the region covered was further increased
with the new-style AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format had a two-letter location
code (CD) so why not continue to use the same code in the new-style
numberplates? Methinks that they took the opportunity to rationalise
(merge)
some of the issuing offices at the same time.

Yes, Yorkshire is an oddity in the new system, in that the Yorkshire
registration district only covers South and West Yorkshire (YA to YO being
Leeds office and YP to YY being Sheffield office). For some reason East and
North Yorkshire are lumped in with Teesside and Tyneside as the North
registration district, split into three offices (NA to NM at Newcastle, NN
to NT at Stockton and NU to NY at Beverley).

And of course so many cars have personalised numberplates these days that
you often cannot tell anything about a car's age or place of "birth".

Whoever decided that '0' should represent March registrations and '5'
October? What happens if, at some time in the future, they decide to use
every month as a registration month?

I'd better shut up or you'll be thinking that I'm as obsessive as my mate
the walking look-up table ;-) Oh, too late...

I wouldn't dare suggest such a thing! Especially from someone who has the
registrations table saved in a Word document!! ;-))

Have a Happy New Year, Martin.

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , Richard J.
writes
It wasn't a simple change, as a digit which was part of the exchange
code was moved into the subscriber's number. It was actually the 4th
number change that London has endured.

I think it was actually the fifth, as explained below. I think also
that the current inability of people to format numbers correctly (i.e.
in accordance with ITU recommendation E.123) arises partly from the fact
that the last "change" was actually two transitions about six months
apart.

The first transition was the introduction of the "020" code running in
parallel with the old codes, but with the local numbers staying at seven
digits. During this short period you could call (e.g.) London Transport
enquiries from a telephone in London by dialling any of the following:
"222 1234" or "0171 222 1234" or "0207 222 1234" so that the new area
codes were then genuinely "0207" and "0208".

But then the second transition occurred, with three components: firstly
0171/0181 codes were withdrawn, secondly local numbers changed from
seven digits to eight, and thirdly the "new" area codes changed from
0207 and 0208 to just 020. Thus the LT number became either "7222 1234"
or "020 7222 1234" - the latter form is almost the same as in the
interim period but the position of the space changed. Unfortunately
nobody bothered to explain these three components properly to the
public. In the confusion many people in London started quoting and
dialling the entire national number as they found by trial and error
that this always worked (I guess the increasing use of mobile phones
tended to reinforce this habit).

Hence the continued confusion, or at least lack of concern with putting
the space in the right place when quoting a number.

One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of shop-fronts and
commercial vehicles appear to have been re-painted in the brief period
during which the area codes were 0207 and 0208, and not to have been
re-painted afterwards. What a pity that nobody told them to wait for
the second number change of the pair. :-)


--
Clive Page

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of shop-fronts and
commercial vehicles appear to have been re-painted in the brief period
during which the area codes were 0207 and 0208, and not to have been
re-painted afterwards. What a pity that nobody told them to wait for
the second number change of the pair. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was so
spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or disinformation that was
received by the general public at large made such a shambles a foregone
conclusion. If I had been the owner of a property or vehicle that had been
erroneously numbered as a result of this mismanagement then I would have
been making a considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating
me for correcting the situation!

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

True. Then again, it had become quite meaningless anyway with large-scale
commercial registrations or with garage chains registering vehicles in
their
head office area before shipping them to their salesrooms.

And of course there's the notorious dodge used by most coach companies: they
register their coaches in Northern Ireland which for some strange reason has
never adopted any of the ABC 123A, A123 ABC or AB05 ABC formats used by the
rest of the UK - hence their coaches don't bear any recognisable clue about
their age, to prevent the punters worrying about travelling on 10-year-old
(but imacculate) coaches. Take a look at the next few coaches you see, and
you'll see that I'm right!

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia: at one time UA, UB,
UM
were Leeds, YG was Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield.
These
were merged so that all these letters signified "somewhere in West
Yorkshire". I think the size of the region covered was further increased
with the new-style AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format had a two-letter
location
code (CD) so why not continue to use the same code in the new-style
numberplates? Methinks that they took the opportunity to rationalise
(merge)
some of the issuing offices at the same time.

Yes, Yorkshire is an oddity in the new system, in that the Yorkshire
registration district only covers South and West Yorkshire (YA to YO being
Leeds office and YP to YY being Sheffield office). For some reason East
and
North Yorkshire are lumped in with Teesside and Tyneside as the North
registration district, split into three offices (NA to NM at Newcastle, NN
to NT at Stockton and NU to NY at Beverley).

And of course so many cars have personalised numberplates these days that
you often cannot tell anything about a car's age or place of "birth".

It probably says something about my personality, but if someone offered me a
personalised numberplate I'd say no thanks: if a code exists, it seems only
right to use it and not to buck the system. Plus I don't want my car to
stand out from all the rest.

Whoever decided that '0' should represent March registrations and '5'
October? What happens if, at some time in the future, they decide to use
every month as a registration month?

I presume that this possibility was considered and rejected when the
numbering scheme was planned. The code that they've used is quite cunning:
for vehicles registered between March and September, the two digits are
always the last two digits of the year; for vehicles registered between
September and March, the two digits are always (year of the September) + 50.

I'd better shut up or you'll be thinking that I'm as obsessive as my mate
the walking look-up table ;-) Oh, too late...

I wouldn't dare suggest such a thing! Especially from someone who has the
registrations table saved in a Word document!! ;-))

Have a Happy New Year, Martin.

And you!

PS: I have to confess that I have all the STD codes saved as a Word
document, mainly so that if someone gives me a phone number I can tell
roughly where it relates to...

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of shop-fronts and
commercial vehicles appear to have been re-painted in the brief period
during which the area codes were 0207 and 0208, and not to have been
re-painted afterwards. What a pity that nobody told them to wait for
the second number change of the pair. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was so
spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or disinformation that was
received by the general public at large made such a shambles a foregone
conclusion. If I had been the owner of a property or vehicle that had been
erroneously numbered as a result of this mismanagement then I would have
been making a considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating
me for correcting the situation!

I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but I hadn't
appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx yyyy and xxx yyyy
were valid: I thought they went straight from 0171 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx
yyyy. What a shame the Oftel made such a dog's breakfast of the changes in
London and didn't have the foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020
7xxx yyyy in one go :-(

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone numbers
such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly applied the "insert a
1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg to 0113 or 0118.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia: at one time UA, UB,
UM
were Leeds, YG was Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield.
These
were merged so that all these letters signified "somewhere in West
Yorkshire". I think the size of the region covered was further increased
with the new-style AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format had a two-letter location
code (CD) so why not continue to use the same code in the new-style
numberplates? Methinks that they took the opportunity to rationalise
(merge)
some of the issuing offices at the same time.

The 1966 vehicle registrations letters can be found on my web site, in a
link from http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/gallery.htm at the bottom
of the page. There were earlier lists which used to appear in each year's AA
handbook. Back when H and HX and lots of Mx combinations were Middlesex, for
example.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

'0207 008 0000'
 

In message , Clive Page
writes
Hence the continued confusion, or at least lack of concern with putting
the space in the right place when quoting a number.
If there was meant to be a space, then just type it in and see just how
far you get before getting number unobtainable.
--
Clive.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia: at one time UA, UB,
UM
were Leeds, YG was Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield.
These
were merged so that all these letters signified "somewhere in West
Yorkshire". I think the size of the region covered was further increased
with the new-style AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format had a two-letter
location
code (CD) so why not continue to use the same code in the new-style
numberplates? Methinks that they took the opportunity to rationalise
(merge)
some of the issuing offices at the same time.

The 1966 vehicle registrations letters can be found on my web site, in a
link from http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/gallery.htm at the
bottom
of the page. There were earlier lists which used to appear in each year's
AA
handbook. Back when H and HX and lots of Mx combinations were Middlesex,
for
example.

Gosh, I'd forgotten that single letters could also be used to denote the
place. Mind you, the whole subject of pre-1963 number plates and the variety
of forms that were used over the years has got me baffled. Interesting to
see that the code included the Republic of Ireland at that time, before the
modern 05-D-12345 or 03-WX-12345 format came into being, the letter/letters
denoting the county - Dublin and Wexford in my example.

Why do modern diaries not carry this list: it used to be in the front of
every pocket diary at one time.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

The code that they've used is quite cunning:
for vehicles registered between March and September, the two digits are
always the last two digits of the year; for vehicles registered between
September and March, the two digits are always (year of the September) +
50.

What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March 2011, if
they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0' to indicate March
registrations and '5' to indicate September and the other digit to represent
the last digit of the year! There will still be plenty of vehicles on the
road registered in March 2001 as aa01 abc. Should be interesting!

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

The 1966 vehicle registrations letters can be found on my web site, in a
link from http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/gallery.htm at the
bottom
of the page. There were earlier lists which used to appear in each year's
AA
handbook. Back when H and HX and lots of Mx combinations were Middlesex,
for
example.

Interesting! I shall have to fish out my pocket book, which was (I think)
from about 1971. I notice that EG, EW and FL were all ascribed to
Huntingdonshire and Peterborough. In practise, EG and FL were used for
Peterborough registrations and EW for Huntingdonshire. Additionally, AV was
transferred from Aberdeenshire to Peterborough from about 1974.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

Jack Taylor wrote:
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

The code that they've used is quite cunning:
for vehicles registered between March and September, the two
digits are always the last two digits of the year; for vehicles
registered between September and March, the two digits are always
(year of the September) + 50.

What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March
2011, if they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0'
to indicate March registrations and '5' to indicate September and
the other digit to represent the last digit of the year!

The logic is to use the last two digits of the year for Mar-Aug
registrations, ditto plus 50 for Sep-Dec, and the same code for Jan &
Feb of the following year. So Mar-Aug 2011 will be 11 and Sep 2011 to
Feb 2012 will be 61. This formula will be valid until 28 Feb 2051, the
last two 6-month periods using the codes 50 and 00.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

'0207 008 0000'
 

Clive Page wrote:
In article ,
Richard J. writes
It wasn't a simple change, as a digit which was part of the
exchange code was moved into the subscriber's number. It was
actually the 4th number change that London has endured.

I think it was actually the fifth, as explained below. I think also
that the current inability of people to format numbers correctly
(i.e. in accordance with ITU recommendation E.123) arises partly
from the fact that the last "change" was actually two transitions
about six months apart.

It may have something to do with the fact that people have no idea what
ITU or E.123 are. Please provide a reference to these alleged
standards.

The first transition was the introduction of the "020" code running
in parallel with the old codes, but with the local numbers staying
at seven digits. During this short period you could call (e.g.)
London Transport enquiries from a telephone in London by dialling
any of the following: "222 1234"

Not true. Since there was at that time an 0181 222 exchange as well as
an 0171 222 exchange, the 222 xxxx format would not have been unique.

or "0171 222 1234" or "0207 222 1234" so that the new area codes
were then genuinely "0207" and "0208".

I doubt it. Do you have any evidence of official approval of "0207 xxx
yyyy" formats?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

I know the situation in Yorkshire better than Anglia:
at one time UA, UB, UM were Leeds, YG was
Bradford, CX was Huddersfield and HL was Wakefield.
These were merged so that all these letters signified
"somewhere in West Yorkshire". I think the size of the
region covered was further increased with the new-style
AA05 BBB numberplates. I'm not sure why they even
bothered to use new letters: the A123 BCD format
had a two-letter location code (CD) so why not continue
to use the same code in the new-style numberplates?

With the old system, the hooligans of Dunfermline weren't finding it easy
enough to recognise the English cars.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

'0207 008 0000'
 

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of
shop-fronts and commercial vehicles appear to have been
re-painted in the brief period during which the area codes were
0207 and 0208, and not to have been re-painted afterwards. What
a pity that nobody told them to wait for the second number change
of the pair. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was
so spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or
disinformation that was received by the general public at large
made such a shambles a foregone conclusion. If I had been the
owner of a property or vehicle that had been erroneously numbered
as a result of this mismanagement then I would have been making a
considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating me
for correcting the situation!

I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but
I hadn't appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx
yyyy and xxx yyyy were valid: I thought they went straight from
0171 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy. What a shame the Oftel made such a
dog's breakfast of the changes in London and didn't have the
foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy in one
go :-(

See my other post; I think Clive is mistaken. In any case, they
couldn't go straight from 01 to 020 7 because 0207 was already the code
for Consett, Durham (now 01207). Similarly, 0208 was Bodmin, Cornwall.

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Richard J." typed

See my other post; I think Clive is mistaken. In any case, they
couldn't go straight from 01 to 020 7 because 0207 was already the code
for Consett, Durham (now 01207). Similarly, 0208 was Bodmin, Cornwall.

Ummm... The 1 was inserted in 1995 to all trunk numbers. London numbers
changed from 071 to 0171 etc
London got the 020 prefix _much_ later (?2001)

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

01532 and 01734 were valid dialling codes for several years

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.

My memory must be playing tricks with me (nothing new there!) - I could have
sworn that Leeds changed to 0113 2 at the same time as most other exchanges
had a 1 inserted in their code. I used to phone my grandpa in Leeds every so
often and I'm sure I had to change from 0532 671xxx to 0113 2671xxx without
an intervening 01532 671xxx. Now I think about it more, I believe that
Reading did change from 0(1)734 to 0118 later than phONEday, so maybe 01734
was valid for a while.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

The code that they've used is quite cunning:
for vehicles registered between March and September, the two digits are
always the last two digits of the year; for vehicles registered between
September and March, the two digits are always (year of the September) +
50.

What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March 2011, if
they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0' to indicate
March
registrations and '5' to indicate September and the other digit to
represent
the last digit of the year! There will still be plenty of vehicles on the
road registered in March 2001 as aa01 abc. Should be interesting!

Conside the following examples:

Mar 2004 04
Sep 2004 54
Mar 2009 09
Sep 2009 59
Mar 2010 10
Sep 2010 60
Mar 2020 20
Sep 2020 70
Mar 2049 49
Sep 2049 99

So for vehicles registered in Mar-Sep, the digits will be the last two of
the year; for vehicles registered in Sep-Mar, the digits will be the last
two of the year in which the September occurred + 50. This will last until
2050, when a new system will be required.

'0207 008 0000'
 

"John Shelley" wrote in message
...

Instead of 2 x 10,000,000
numbers there are now100,000,000.

No, a significant proportion of those 100,000,000 are unusable, because they
start with 0, or 1, or 999.... also one leading digit (possibly 2) will
never be used, because that will be added to the beginning when the numbers
eventually become 020 abc def ghj.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

Your 'phone line will physically be connected to a some
sort of device locally. However this could be a consolidation
device that takes all of those lines on to a neighbouring
exchange building. Alternatively it could just take *some*
of those lines to a neighbouring exchange building if there
are logistcal reasons. For example the one room in the
building still being used for exchanges only has room for
three and a half sets of lines - don't forget that at some
stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each local
exchange.

What might the rest of the exchange be used for? I know that part of the
WIllesden exchange in Harlesden Road is being / has been converted to flats,
but what about others?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

'0207 008 0000'
 

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:00:43 +0000 (UTC), "Terry Harper"
wrote:
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...

The only country where I've ever noticed major differences in number
length is Germany, where they can be very variable, even on the same
exchange.

Is this because they show direct dialling inward with the PBAX as, say,
06857-2456-0 and the extensions as 06857-2456-154?

Yes, that's part of it, but "normal" single-line numbers can have
varying lengths - perhaps longer for newer numbers - and some (mainly
business) users have 4 or 5-digit numbers even in a large city that
otherwise has up to 8-digits. As an example, I looked for hotels in
Frankfurt on www.gelbeseiten.de and found 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and even 10
digits in the local number, though that last one may have been a DDI
as Terry says, without the usual hyphen.

Richard.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:49:11 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

The code that they've used is quite cunning:
for vehicles registered between March and September, the two digits are
always the last two digits of the year; for vehicles registered between
September and March, the two digits are always (year of the September) +
50.

What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March 2011, if
they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0' to indicate
March
registrations and '5' to indicate September and the other digit to
represent
the last digit of the year! There will still be plenty of vehicles on the
road registered in March 2001 as aa01 abc. Should be interesting!

Conside the following examples:

Mar 2004 04
Sep 2004 54
Mar 2009 09
Sep 2009 59
Mar 2010 10
Sep 2010 60
Mar 2020 20
Sep 2020 70
Mar 2049 49
Sep 2049 99

So for vehicles registered in Mar-Sep, the digits will be the last two of
the year; for vehicles registered in Sep-Mar, the digits will be the last
two of the year in which the September occurred + 50. This will last until
2050, when a new system will be required.



As I understand it, the idea is to use the format XXX 01 PP from March
2051, and XXX 51 PP from September 2051 where XXX are random letters
and PP is a place designator, so the present system could actually
last until 2100

Martin

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...
"Richard J." typed

See my other post; I think Clive is mistaken. In any case, they
couldn't go straight from 01 to 020 7 because 0207 was already the code
for Consett, Durham (now 01207). Similarly, 0208 was Bodmin, Cornwall.

Ummm... The 1 was inserted in 1995 to all trunk numbers. London numbers
changed from 071 to 0171 etc
London got the 020 prefix _much_ later (?2001)

'phONEday' was in 1995 and all STD codes that did not start 01 had a 1
inserted.

The flash change over for London numbers (from 0171 xxx xxxx to 020 7xxx
xxxx) was at 1 am on 22nd April 2000.
That was Easter Saturday so there more time than usual to sort out any
problems, also the network load the following week would be lower than
normal.


I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

01532 and 01734 were valid dialling codes for several years

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.

Reading was changed to 01734 in 1995 as part of phONEday but that number was
already getting close to full and the change to 0118 was already planned.
It was not implemented until c. a year later to let people get used to the
previous set of changes.


--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.


One thing that I think is important is who had responsibility for number
changes.
When London was changed from 01 to 071/081 this was done by BT who had
control of all 'phone numbers then.
The change from 071/081 to 0171/0181 (as part of phONEday) was done by Oftel
who had taken over responsibility by then, but not that long beforehand.

IMHO a lot of the subsequent problems were caused by Oftel not really
knowing what they were doing. Oftel did say that this would be the last
London change for a long time (decades?) which was patently untrue to anyone
who knew about the telecoms market. Sadly that does not include the staff
of Oftel who are civil servants w/o telecoms expertise.

regards

Stephen

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:

The association of a single code with a geographic area disappeared
decades
ago. Harrow has the 8424, 8427, 8861 and 8863 codes. In the predigital
days I believe these were normally co-located in the same exchange
building.

Well it exists to the extent that there is one or more codes that relate
to
a specific geographical area (eg a town or a collection of neighbouring
towns/villages) but don't relate to anywhere else: given a phone code, you
can say which places use it[*]. Maybe the boundaries have become a bit
more
blurred and the regions have got larger (like a two-letter code in a car
registration number used to relate to a specific town, whereas now it
relates to a group of counties).


I said the association of a *single* code with a geographic area disappeared
decades ago.

In an earlier post there was a comment along the lines of
"my number was CHIselhurst xxxx, then 244 xxxx, then 01 244 xxxx ..."
and I was just saying that that simple linkage was long gone.

Two people move into adjacent houses (pre 2000) in, say, Harrow and one gets
a 424 xxxx and the other gets 863 xxxx. One thinks that the code for Harrow
is 424 and the other thinks it is 863 and *both* are wrong.

BTW, I do know that 244 is not used for Chislehust, I was just doing a
simple 2=A/B/C, 3=D/E/F ... substitution.


Nowadays the exchange equipment is orders of magnitudes smaller, so in
some
case your 'local' exchange is actually located in an exchange building
in
a
neighbouring area, along with half a dozen other 'local' exchanges.

Your 'phone line will physically be connected to a some sort of device
locally. However this could be a consolidation device that takes all of
those lines on to a neighbouring exchange building. Alternatively it
could
just take *some* of those lines to a neighbouring exchange building if
there
are logistcal reasons. For example the one room in the building still
being
used for exchanges only has room for three and a half sets of lines -
don't
forget that at some stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each
local
exchange.

To answer your specific question, I believe that anyone in Harrow will
get
one of the above codes *if one is available*. If not they will get one
form
one the exchange in the exchange building where their 'phone line ends
up.

What about the situation where the same code is used by several towns and
villages, each of which has a telephone exchange. My code is used by two
moderate-sized towns and many neighbouring villages. I know that my
village
has its own exchange (the building is about 100 yards from me right now!).

The building is still there but how much of it is still used for exchange
purposes?

Some have been sold off / leased out, with perhaps a new small brick 'shed'
holding the equipment that used to fill the building. Some, especially the
larger ones, have been converted into BT offices, with perhaps ... . Some
of the smaller ones have equipment in one room and the rest is used for
other purposes, storage, hot desks for non office based staff, etc.

Presumably some form of supernetting is used: the first one or two digits
of
the subscriber's number determine which exchange (consolidation device)
the
call is routed to.

I would make the same presumption but I don't actually know. My knowledge
is much more about numbering and about network infrastructure only as it
affects numbering.


regards

Stephen

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

BTW, I do know that 244 is not used for Chislehust, I was just doing a
simple 2=A/B/C, 3=D/E/F ... substitution.

We still use Imperial measure in Chislehurst, none of this metric nonsense.
;-)
--
Malcolm

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:10:16 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Tony Bryer
writes
Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work

That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory only check
the last 6 digits.

On mobiles that's true but both of the home phones we've had in recent
years require the full code with STD for caller display to work. Maybe
we were just "unlucky"?

Isn't that due to BT sending the CLI for local numbers with the full
code tacked on? In other countries local numbers' CLI is the pure
local number (why else have shorter local numbers?). In most other
parts of the planet local numbers can't be dual-dialled with area
codes in front.

Except of course in the good ol' US of A where local numbers *must* be
dialled including the area code.

Not everywhere, but where numbers have run out, rather than splitting the
area or some other form of renumbering they just assign a second area code.

So Massachusetts - Eastern (the Boston area) used to be 617 but is now 617
and 508. From 617 xxx xxxx to call your next door neighbour you have to
dial 617 yyy yyyy. Also 508 xxx xxxx may well be in use, so you have to
quote your number including the area code.


regards

Stephen

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:49:11 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


So for vehicles registered in Mar-Sep, the digits will be the last two of
the year; for vehicles registered in Sep-Mar, the digits will be the last
two of the year in which the September occurred + 50. This will last until
2050, when a new system will be required.

As I understand it, the idea is to use the format XXX 01 PP from March
2051, and XXX 51 PP from September 2051 where XXX are random letters
and PP is a place designator, so the present system could actually
last until 2100

Seems logical that they simply reverse the current format, as they did in
the mid-80s when ABC 123 Y was followed by A 123 ABC.

2100 - I don't think any of us will be around to see what they decide to do
when that format runs out!


By the way, why was the letter U not used as a year letter? I can understand
why I, O, Q and Z were omitted because they are too similar to digits 1, 0
[O and Q] and 2. But what digit could U be confused with?

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:10:16 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Tony Bryer
writes
Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work

That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory only check
the last 6 digits.

On mobiles that's true but both of the home phones we've had in recent
years require the full code with STD for caller display to work. Maybe
we were just "unlucky"?

Isn't that due to BT sending the CLI for local numbers with the full
code tacked on? In other countries local numbers' CLI is the pure
local number (why else have shorter local numbers?). In most other
parts of the planet local numbers can't be dual-dialled with area
codes in front.

Except of course in the good ol' US of A where local numbers *must* be
dialled including the area code.

Not everywhere, but where numbers have run out, rather than splitting the
area or some other form of renumbering they just assign a second area
code.

So Massachusetts - Eastern (the Boston area) used to be 617 but is now
617
and 508. From 617 xxx xxxx to call your next door neighbour you have to
dial 617 yyy yyyy. Also 508 xxx xxxx may well be in use, so you have to
quote your number including the area code.

At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring exchanges:
these varied from one place to another - so you might precede a person's
number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede it with 61 from exchange C
to B. I worked out fairly early on that it was possible to dial the STD code
from *any* exchange, even when a local code existed. I've heard it said that
before local codes were abolished it was possible to go from one end of the
country to the other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that
the resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

'0207 008 0000'
 

Martin Underwood wrote:
snip
At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring
exchanges: these varied from one place to another - so you might
precede a person's number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede
it with 61 from exchange C to B. I worked out fairly early on that it
was possible to dial the STD code from *any* exchange, even when a
local code existed. I've heard it said that before local codes were
abolished it was possible to go from one end of the country to the
other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that the
resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

That was possible, but as you used local links all the way many repeaters
(amplifiers) were bypassed which resulted in a very quiet call with lots of
background noise.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

'0207 008 0000'
 

"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
snip
At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring
exchanges: these varied from one place to another - so you might
precede a person's number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede
it with 61 from exchange C to B. I worked out fairly early on that it
was possible to dial the STD code from *any* exchange, even when a
local code existed. I've heard it said that before local codes were
abolished it was possible to go from one end of the country to the
other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that the
resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

That was possible, but as you used local links all the way many repeaters
(amplifiers) were bypassed which resulted in a very quiet call with lots
of
background noise.

Ah, those were the days:

- Telephones with dials that took forever to return so you could dial the
next number - a real pain when you had to keep re-dialling because the
number was engaged.

- A loooooooooong delay after dialling the last digit before you got a
ringing tone, as the relays chugged away

- The brrrrrr dialling tone that was often so faint that you didn't know if
you'd "got a line" - at least the modern 350 Hz + 450 Hz dialling tone is
audible.

- Button A / Button B or pay-on-answer callboxes: remember those wretched
pips

- Recorded announcements made by women with cold, unwelcoming, cut-glass,
plummy accents who sounded as if they were speaking from the moon. They
probably came from the same place that trained the dragonesses in my local
library!


At least things are better these days.

One thing I wish they'd sort out: if someone calls you and they fail to put
their receiver back, the line remains connected for ages, even after you've
put your phone back, blocking you from making an outgoing call. When my
grandma had a stroke a few years ago, she phoned me for help but forgot to
put her phone back. I eventually had to go next door to phone for an
ambulance because the line wouldn't disconnect. Surely it's not difficult to
enginner things so *either* handset being replaced drops the line - or else
to shorten the delay to just a few seconds if it's needed to avoid the line
dropping if you accidentally blip the handset switch.

'0207 008 0000'
 

In message ,
Martin Underwood writes
Button A / Button B or pay-on-answer callboxes: remember those
wretched pips
I remember button A/B phones but not with pips, if I recall they came
with the slightly more modern type where when the call was answered you
then got the pips to insert the money.
--
Clive.

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

Jack Taylor wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:

What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March 2011, if
they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0' to indicate March
registrations and '5' to indicate September and the other digit to represent
the last digit of the year! There will still be plenty of vehicles on the
road registered in March 2001 as aa01 abc. Should be interesting!


They won't. March 2001 will be XX11, and September XX61. That way, the
present system will last until September 2049, by which time we'll
probably not have any oil left to run cars on anyway!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:

By the way, why was the letter U not used as a year letter? I can understand
why I, O, Q and Z were omitted because they are too similar to digits 1, 0
[O and Q] and 2. But what digit could U be confused with?


I think it was considered too similar to V.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004