On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:06:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



wrote

I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. When did
Britain go to all number calling?

Outside London (and other large cities) exchange names lasted into the
1980s.

.... but only dropped for public usage. The name actually generally
defined a group of exchanges**, originally those within a city or
large town but later including those satellite exchages in "linked
numbering" schemes which provided a uniform 6 (sometimes 5)-digit
numbering arrangement for all of area using main exchange name so
that local codes were disguised within the numbering or made
unneccesary once exchages were able to translate numbers.

** Using Watford (15 miles NW of London) as an example - there were
three exchanges in a 5-digit numbering scheme, each exchange being
identified (and calls routed by) the first digit 2, 3 or 4. Smaller
surrounding exchanges gradually lost their own identities as the
Watford area progressed to 6-digit numbers and modernisation of
exchange equipment let the exchanges rather than the users worry about
how a call reached another exchange in the group.

However, the letters of the exchange name were not directly used in
dialling. Long distance calls used the national dialling code for the
exchange, but local calls to a nearby exchange could use a local code
instead, and calls to the same exchange still do not need the exchange code,
only the number.

Not calls to the same exchange but calls within the same numbering
group which can still consist of several exchanges/concentrators;
local codes were abolished some years ago which in some cases means
that local calls require the full national number to be dialled (but
are still charged as local). The "director" areas continue to require
the full 7 or 8 digit number (local exchange code+local number) on
local calls except for the special case of 020 0xxx xxx numbers which
require the full national number to be dialled).