I now have Digital Voice / VOIP. Some time ago we had a discussion
about whether it is necessary to include an area code for local calls,
with mixed opinions on the subject. In my setup, I can enter the UK
code (44) and area code (141) and this allows me to dial all local
(0141) numbers without requiring a code.

I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
does the system cope with 999?

On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
> does the system cope with 999?

Similarly to how the network already does this.

Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
in
https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
handle 999 by matching the specific number.

Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>> does the system cope with 999?
Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>
>Similarly to how the network already does this.
>
>Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>in
>https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>
>Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.

I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
exchanges not use '8' for local codes?

On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>>> does the system cope with 999?
> Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
> NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
> sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>>
>> Similarly to how the network already does this.
>>
>> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>> in
>> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>>
>> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>> 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.
>
> I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
> exchanges not use '8' for local codes?

No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.

External line access was often acquired by a preceding 8 in the USA.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:10 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
>> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>>>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>>>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>>>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>>>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>>>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>>>> does the system cope with 999?
>> Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
>> NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
>> sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>>>
>>> Similarly to how the network already does this.
>>>
>>> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>>> in
>>> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>>> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>>> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>>> 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.
>>
>> I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
>> exchanges not use '8' for local codes?
>
>No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
>the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.

IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
cities? I assume they could if WES (Western or maybe Westminster)
translates to 937.
>
>External line access was often acquired by a preceding 8 in the USA.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:10 +0100
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
> > <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
> >>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not
> >>> realise it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101
> >>> (for NHS direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I
> >>> assume all these numbers are excluded from the conversion
> >>> process? I realise local numberes cannot start with 1 but they
> >>> can start with 9, so how does the system cope with 999?
> > Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111
> > for NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these
> > were sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected
> > at all?
> >>
> >> Similarly to how the network already does this.
> >>
> >> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those
> >> given in
> >> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
> >> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
> >> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
> >>
> >> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only
> >> needed 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central
> >> exchange.
> >

I used to live in Epping, Area Code 01992. I once missed off the zero
and 1, so dialling 992, and instantly the Emergency services answered.

--
Davey.

Scott wrote:

> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
> cities?

On phONEday, all Nottingham numbers became prefixed by 9, and since then
Nottingham numbers beginning with 8 have been issued, similar for other
cities.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:34:25 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
>> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
>> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
>> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
>> cities?
>
>On phONEday, all Nottingham numbers became prefixed by 9, and since then
>Nottingham numbers beginning with 8 have been issued, similar for other
>cities.

I think by then the local codes had been abolished so this was no
longer an issue. I was referring to the era of local codes (for I
think contiguous exchanges).

On 25/04/2024 08:21, Woody wrote:
> No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
> the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.

The source of my information was someone from BT working on System X in
Ipswich. They additionally said there was equipment to suppress the
effects of dialling the excess 9 if you made the call with the full 999,
from a central exchange. 9 was definitely used for PSTN step by step
routing for local calls. It looks like you could actually have up to
two of them:
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=110301&d=1435999777>

Scott wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
>>> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
>>> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
>>> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
>>> cities?
>>
>> On phONEday, all Nottingham numbers became prefixed by 9, and since then
>> Nottingham numbers beginning with 8 have been issued, similar for other
>> cities.
>
> I think by then the local codes had been abolished

Wiki says that local dialling codes persisted into the 1990s, can't see
any reference to when they were scrapped ...

I do remember the code from Spalding to Boston was 95 and then Fosdyke
numbers began 85, so to call Fosdyke 295, I called 9585 295, that was an
official code, not one of the "strung together" unofficial codes

<http://www.ringbell.co.uk/nostalgia/AAZ.htm>

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:50:02 +0100, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 25/04/2024 08:21, Woody wrote:
>> No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
>> the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.
>
>The source of my information was someone from BT working on System X in
>Ipswich. They additionally said there was equipment to suppress the
>effects of dialling the excess 9 if you made the call with the full 999,
>from a central exchange. 9 was definitely used for PSTN step by step
>routing for local calls. It looks like you could actually have up to
>two of them:
><https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=110301&d=1435999777>

Why would extra equipment be needed? Did it matter if the caller sent
extra pulses after the call was connected?

On Thu 25/04/2024 09:11, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:10 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
>>> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>>>>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>>>>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>>>>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>>>>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>>>>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>>>>> does the system cope with 999?
>>> Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
>>> NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
>>> sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>>>>
>>>> Similarly to how the network already does this.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>>>> in
>>>> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>>>> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>>>> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>>>> 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.
>>>
>>> I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
>>> exchanges not use '8' for local codes?
>>
>> No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
>> the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.
>
> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
> cities? I assume they could if WES (Western or maybe Westminster)
> translates to 937.
>>
>> External line access was often acquired by a preceding 8 in the USA.

Almost.

When STD was on the horizon in the late 50's and early 60's the GPO
started concatenating numbers by effectively combining the local dial
code into the front of the local number. At that time we lived just
outside Leicester and our number was 4146. The local code from Leicester
was 81 so our number became 814146. However it was still necessary until
much later to precede a Leicester number with 9.

My parents moved elsewhere where their number was 6166 but it was direct
STD both ways - no codes - until the number was preceded by 56 in the
late 80's.

Until STD took over completely, 9n was a common local code to get from
one exchange to another. For instance Chesterfield calling Sheffield
was 92 and 93 was used the other way. Under certain circumstances codes
could be serialled so the code for Barnsley from Sheffield of 95 (which
by STD code was 01226) of 9295 would work. If you could use a
combination of 9n and 8n codes you could get quite a long distance
(relative) except that you might have very low audio as there is no
amplification on 8n codes and only limited on 9n codes.

Also don't forget that the original STD codes were 0??n where ? is a
letter and n a number - so Cambridge was 0CA3, nowadays 0(1)223 - and
on many exchanges that is still true to this day if you replace 01 with 0!

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:53:34 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Thu 25/04/2024 09:11, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:10 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
>>>> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>>>>>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>>>>>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>>>>>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>>>>>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>>>>>> does the system cope with 999?
>>>> Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
>>>> NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
>>>> sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly to how the network already does this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>>>>> in
>>>>> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>>>>> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>>>>> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>>>>> 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.
>>>>
>>>> I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
>>>> exchanges not use '8' for local codes?
>>>
>>> No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
>>> the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.
>>
>> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
>> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
>> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
>> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
>> cities? I assume they could if WES (Western or maybe Westminster)
>> translates to 937.
>>>
>>> External line access was often acquired by a preceding 8 in the USA.
>
>
>Almost.
>
>When STD was on the horizon in the late 50's and early 60's the GPO
>started concatenating numbers by effectively combining the local dial
>code into the front of the local number. At that time we lived just
>outside Leicester and our number was 4146. The local code from Leicester
>was 81 so our number became 814146. However it was still necessary until
>much later to precede a Leicester number with 9.

Thanks. I don't quite follow this one. If your number became a
Leicester number (814146) when was a '9' needed? Would calling your
neighbour be 9-81xxxx? Were the Leicester numbers five digits or six
digits? Was the same STD code used for calling into Leicester and to
where you lived?
>
>My parents moved elsewhere where their number was 6166 but it was direct
>STD both ways - no codes - until the number was preceded by 56 in the
>late 80's.
>
>Until STD took over completely, 9n was a common local code to get from
>one exchange to another. For instance Chesterfield calling Sheffield
>was 92 and 93 was used the other way. Under certain circumstances codes
>could be serialled so the code for Barnsley from Sheffield of 95 (which
>by STD code was 01226) of 9295 would work. If you could use a
>combination of 9n and 8n codes you could get quite a long distance
>(relative) except that you might have very low audio as there is no
>amplification on 8n codes and only limited on 9n codes.

I remember trying this as a student. It didn't work :-) There was also
some claim about tapping the handset instead of using the dial.
>
>Also don't forget that the original STD codes were 0??n where ? is a
>letter and n a number - so Cambridge was 0CA3, nowadays 0(1)223 - and
>on many exchanges that is still true to this day if you replace 01 with 0!

I do remember that. We were 0KM3. I don't think this mnemonic was ever
applied to the director areas, though it could have been (outside
London) as 0B1 for Birmingham. 0E1 for Edinburgh, 0G1 for Glasgow, 0L1
for Liverpool and 0M1 for Manchester.

I also remember TIM for the speaking clock. I don't know if there were
any issues with 'Tim' being an offensive term for Catholics.

> Until STD took over completely, 9n was a common local code to get
> from one exchange to another. For instance Chesterfield calling
> Sheffield was 92 and 93 was used the other way.

And those codes might be chained, you dialled 9 from a village UAX2 to get the
nearest town, then 98 or something from that town to get another town, so 998
from the village to the second town, easy to misdial.

Angus

On Thu 25/04/2024 17:39, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:53:34 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu 25/04/2024 09:11, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:21:10 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed 24/04/2024 20:59, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:00:06 +0100, David Woolley
>>>>> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/04/2024 18:22, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> I wondered about special numbers. 112 works (though I did not realise
>>>>>>> it was equivalent to 999 and cops called back) and 101 (for NHS
>>>>>>> direct). I cannot now try 999 for obvious reasons. Can I assume all
>>>>>>> these numbers are excluded from the conversion process? I realise
>>>>>>> local numberes cannot start with 1 but they can start with 9, so how
>>>>>>> does the system cope with 999?
>>>>> Sorry, this is wrong. It was 101 for police non-emergency and 111 for
>>>>> NHS 24. However, now that I look at the call record I see these were
>>>>> sent as 0141112, 0141101 and 0141111. How were they connected at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly to how the network already does this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically the phone or adapter will have rules similar to those given
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> https://james-batchelor.com/index.php/2021/08/10/provisioning-polycom-phone/#more-747
>>>>>> for Polycom phones. In this example, I think T is a timeout. They
>>>>>> handle 999 by matching the specific number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incidentally, pre-subscriber trunk dialling, main exchanges only needed
>>>>>> 99, and the first 9 was the 9 that sent the call to central exchange.
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to recollect this from the recesses of my mind. Did some
>>>>> exchanges not use '8' for local codes?
>>>>
>>>> No, the requirement of 99 was so that the first 9 of three acted upon
>>>> the internal exchange to acquire an outside line.
>>>
>>> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
>>> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
>>> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
>>> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
>>> cities? I assume they could if WES (Western or maybe Westminster)
>>> translates to 937.
>>>>
>>>> External line access was often acquired by a preceding 8 in the USA.
>>
>>
>> Almost.
>>
>> When STD was on the horizon in the late 50's and early 60's the GPO
>> started concatenating numbers by effectively combining the local dial
>> code into the front of the local number. At that time we lived just
>> outside Leicester and our number was 4146. The local code from Leicester
>> was 81 so our number became 814146. However it was still necessary until
>> much later to precede a Leicester number with 9.
>
> Thanks. I don't quite follow this one. If your number became a
> Leicester number (814146) when was a '9' needed? Would calling your
> neighbour be 9-81xxxx? Were the Leicester numbers five digits or six
> digits? Was the same STD code used for calling into Leicester and to
> where you lived?

IIRC to call a Leicester or Leicester area number you had to dial a
preceding 9 - indeed some places needed more than a single 9. Leicester
city was six digits.
However dialling an 81nnnn number required number only as they were
physically in the same exchange.

Tim was 123 when we first landed in Leicester, then became 8081.

>>
>> My parents moved elsewhere where their number was 6166 but it was direct
>> STD both ways - no codes - until the number was preceded by 56 in the
>> late 80's.
>>
>> Until STD took over completely, 9n was a common local code to get from
>> one exchange to another. For instance Chesterfield calling Sheffield
>> was 92 and 93 was used the other way. Under certain circumstances codes
>> could be serialled so the code for Barnsley from Sheffield of 95 (which
>> by STD code was 01226) of 9295 would work. If you could use a
>> combination of 9n and 8n codes you could get quite a long distance
>> (relative) except that you might have very low audio as there is no
>> amplification on 8n codes and only limited on 9n codes.
>
> I remember trying this as a student. It didn't work :-) There was also
> some claim about tapping the handset instead of using the dial.
>>
>> Also don't forget that the original STD codes were 0??n where ? is a
>> letter and n a number - so Cambridge was 0CA3, nowadays 0(1)223 - and
>> on many exchanges that is still true to this day if you replace 01 with 0!
>
> I do remember that. We were 0KM3. I don't think this mnemonic was ever
> applied to the director areas, though it could have been (outside
> London) as 0B1 for Birmingham. 0E1 for Edinburgh, 0G1 for Glasgow, 0L1
> for Liverpool and 0M1 for Manchester.
>
> I also remember TIM for the speaking clock. I don't know if there were
> any issues with 'Tim' being an offensive term for Catholics.

On 25/04/2024 12:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> IIRC '0' was used for STD codes and '9' for local codes. I thought '8'
>>>> was also used for local codes. I seem to recall that '8' and '9 '
>>>> codes were slightly different. I assume this meant no subscriber
>>>> numbers could begin with '9'. What about director codes in the major
>>>> cities?
>>>
>>> On phONEday, all Nottingham numbers became prefixed by 9, and since then
>>> Nottingham numbers beginning with 8 have been issued, similar for other
>>> cities.
>>
>> I think by then the local codes had been abolished
>
> Wiki says that local dialling codes persisted into the 1990s, can't see
> any reference to when they were scrapped ...

Flint was local codes until approx 1991. My grandmother died in summer
92 and they were gone by then.

To trunk dial Flint was 035 26 plus a 4fig number.

This change to 0352, with 73 added to the old 4fig number.

James