London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

"contrex" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.



Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:


"contrex" wrote in message
groups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.



Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

Your winding me up.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:


"contrex" wrote in message
roups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.



Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 11:25 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:

"contrex" wrote in message
roups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.


Quite so. 020-7222 1234, or +44 20 7222 1234, would be the correct
number.

Still, I doubt they will divulge the information you seek.

Adrian

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

If you know how many there are, finding most or all of them shouldn't be
that hard. I've found a few, and I wasn't particularly looking for them. I
think the only one which you would never find unless you knew it was there
would be the one inside the Greathead statue on a traffic island in the
middle of Cornhill.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On 14 Nov, 19:25, James Farrar wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:

"contrex" wrote in message
roups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

Yes, I use the 'correct' format, but I don't let the fact that others
don't wind me up! You should get over to uk.telecom - this 'mistake'
regularly has the inhabitants thereof completely frothing at the mouth
and winding each other up into a state of absolute indignation - I kid
you not!

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 1:09 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 14 Nov, 19:25, James Farrar wrote:





On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:

"contrex" wrote in message
roups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

Yes, I use the 'correct' format, but I don't let the fact that others
don't wind me up! You should get over to uk.telecom - this 'mistake'
regularly has the inhabitants thereof completely frothing at the mouth
and winding each other up into a state of absolute indignation - I kid
you not!

Would that it were that simple. The implication is that one can dial
222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work. However the standard is now eight digit
local numbers within London. Dialing eight digits within STD code
"020" will always work.

Adrian

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In message om, Mizter
T writes

Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

Yes, I use the 'correct' format, but I don't let the fact that others
don't wind me up! You should get over to uk.telecom - this 'mistake'
regularly has the inhabitants thereof completely frothing at the mouth
and winding each other up into a state of absolute indignation - I kid
you not!

Except that living in London, the implication of that spacing is that I
can dump this non existent 'area code' of 0207 and just dial 222 1234,
which we all know won't work.

London never ever had 0207 or 0208 dialling codes. It's some myth put
about by the media every time they have a slow news day and they attempt
to provoke some outrage that Londoners will be confused by these 'new
0203 codes' or somesuch rubbish. London dialling codes went from 01 to
071/081 to 0171/0181 to 020. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

John Rowland wrote:
If you know how many there are, finding most or all of them shouldn't be
that hard. I've found a few, and I wasn't particularly looking for them. I
think the only one which you would never find unless you knew it was there
would be the one inside the Greathead statue on a traffic island in the
middle of Cornhill.

I can think of a fair few which one wouldn't be able to find unless
you knew *exactly* where to look.

A few examples off the top of my head:-
1) Southampton Street
2) one in the middle of a plant depot in Bow
3) one in the middle of a council estate between Stratford and Leyton
4) Elephant & Castle Sidings (in the bowels of the shopping centre)
5) Cambridge Park
6) Bressenden Place
7) Grass Area 14

Et cetera...

And are we sure that the Greathead statue is actually atop a vent
shaft?


BRB Class 465.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Adrian
gently breathed:

Would that it were that simple. The implication is that one can dial
222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work. However the standard is now eight digit
local numbers within London. Dialing eight digits within STD code
"020" will always work.

Why do people want to only dial part of the number? Why not just dial
the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the UK,
including mobiles?

Back in the days of electro-mechanical exchange switching and physical
connections number-shortening may have made sense, but surely by now
it's an anachronism?

Or is there a good reason for still doing it - I suppose it makes it
easier for a person with limited hand mobility to dial, though it won't
help them use a mobile or if they're in a different area.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
Hard Rock, Leeds http://www.hard-rock.org.uk
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Pyromancer wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Adrian
gently breathed:

Would that it were that simple. The implication is that one can
dial 222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges
within London were that does work. However the standard is now
eight digit local numbers within London. Dialing eight digits
within STD code "020" will always work.

Why do people want to only dial part of the number? Why not just
dial the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the
UK, including mobiles?

If I'm in London using a landline phone, why would I want to dial 11
digits when 8 would do?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

London never ever had 0207 or 0208 dialling codes. It's some myth put
about by the media every time they have a slow news day and they attempt
to provoke some outrage that Londoners will be confused by these 'new 0203
codes' or somesuch rubbish. London dialling codes went from 01 to 071/081
to 0171/0181 to 020. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be a bit fair the phone code change was not very well advertised in this
form. Rather in 1995 the big message was "it's 1 to remember" aka "phone
codes get an extra 1 added" and in about 2000 the message was more "numbers
beginning 0171 become 0207, 0181 become 0208" than "0171 & 0181 merge back
into a single district of 020 with numbers that used to have the 0171 prefix
now having a 7 added to the start and those with 0181 having an 8 added".

Now I realise the latter is not the easiest message to convey, and splitting
the reorganisation in two would have taken much longer and given everyone
another huge bill to rearrange their hoardings, letterheads etc... but was
any attempt made in the advertising to actually drive home the point that
all of London was becoming a single area? Everything I can recall was a much
simpler "this number becomes that number" or even "the area code changes
again".

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes

London never ever had 0207 or 0208 dialling codes. It's some myth put
about by the media every time they have a slow news day and they attempt
to provoke some outrage that Londoners will be confused by these 'new 0203
codes' or somesuch rubbish. London dialling codes went from 01 to 071/081
to 0171/0181 to 020. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be a bit fair the phone code change was not very well advertised in this
form. Rather in 1995 the big message was "it's 1 to remember" aka "phone
codes get an extra 1 added" and in about 2000 the message was more "numbers
beginning 0171 become 0207, 0181 become 0208" than "0171 & 0181 merge back
into a single district of 020 with numbers that used to have the 0171 prefix
now having a 7 added to the start and those with 0181 having an 8 added".

Now I realise the latter is not the easiest message to convey, and splitting
the reorganisation in two would have taken much longer and given everyone
another huge bill to rearrange their hoardings, letterheads etc... but was
any attempt made in the advertising to actually drive home the point that
all of London was becoming a single area? Everything I can recall was a much
simpler "this number becomes that number" or even "the area code changes
again".

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I understood it perfectly
at the time and subsequently. I don't ever remember an official message
saying or implying that numbers went from 0171/0181 to 0207/0208.

The only thing that may potentially have confused things was that during
the changeover, there was a period towards the end of the 0171/0181 era
when you could use the new 020 dialling code, but because the numbers
hadn't been converted, the local portion was still 7 digits and you had
to dial the full number. This happened for a few months but was never
officially communicated. I only knew this at the time as I worked for a
company where my job involved dealing with telephone connections and I
had a lot of dealings with BT in those days.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 1:09 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

And many of them get very confused when I tell them my WC1 address and
020 3xxx xxxx number, because to them it's 'not a London number'...

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 6:33 pm, contrex wrote:
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:

Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

I take your point, though I was just planning to walk some underground
routes overground, using the ventilation shafts as waymarks. Its sad
you cant pay an interest in transport matters these days without
arousing suspicion your a terrorist.

If I was a terrorist I wouldnt do my recce by ringing up TfL or
posting on the internet using my real name either.

Rob Smith

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 8:12 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

If you know how many there are, finding most or all of them shouldn't be
that hard. I've found a few, and I wasn't particularly looking for them. I
think the only one which you would never find unless you knew it was there
would be the one inside the Greathead statue on a traffic island in the
middle of Cornhill.

Thanks John

So much has been written about London Underground infrastructure, Im
surprised no ones written a book or website that covers the subject.
Looks like Ill have to research it myself. The Greathead statue one is
interesting. Others Ive heard of -

Pavillion in Park Crescent
One in a building in Cloudsley Sq Islington
Opposite Warren St station
Half way down City Road

Ill keep looking

Thanks for your help

Rob

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I understood it perfectly at
the time and subsequently.

Erm but your job "involved dealing with telephone connections" - maybe you
had reason to understand the logistics behind it.

I don't ever remember an official message saying or implying that numbers
went from 0171/0181 to 0207/0208.

I was out of London at the time and missed some of the actual BT adverts but
my recollection is that it was certainly summed up as "numbers beginning
this become that" in the media. But putting it the other way round - was the
remerger of the two areas highlighted much?

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Rob wrote:

The Greathead statue one is
interesting. Others Ive heard of -

Pavillion in Park Crescent
One in a building in Cloudsley Sq Islington

Are you sure? I heard there was one in Gibson Sq, which is very close by.

Opposite Warren St station
Half way down City Road

....which is of course the closed City Road Station.

This is definitely one in Rotherhithe Street...
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...9214&encType=1

ISTR this being one, in Downtown Road...
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...2759&encType=1

And ISTR this being one near Culling Circus...
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...5807&encType=1

Definitely one in Netherton Road...
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...7938&encType=1

Two close together at London Bridge...
One aligned north-south (Northern line?)
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...2636&encType=1
One aligned northwest-southeast (Jubilee Line)
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...2636&encType=1
....although I can't think why fanshafts would have structures which indicate
the orientation of the line beneath.


This can't be a fanshaft, I wonder what it is?
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...5313&encType=1

There are of course various holes in the roof of the Circle Line, such as
the one next to Great Portland Street station.

I'll keep an eye out for more fanshafts and email you when I find them.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 15, 11:57 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Rob wrote:

The Greathead statue one is
interesting. Others Ive heard of -

Pavillion in Park Crescent
One in a building in Cloudsley Sq Islington

Are you sure? I heard there was one in Gibson Sq, which is very close by.

Opposite Warren St station
Half way down City Road

...which is of course the closed City Road Station.

This is definitely one in Rotherhithe Street...http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...33149&style=a&...

ISTR this being one, in Downtown Road...http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...8146&style=a&l...

And ISTR this being one near Culling Circus...http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...tyle=o&lvl=2&t...

Definitely one in Netherton Road...http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...tyle=o&lvl=2&t...

Two close together at London Bridge...
One aligned north-south (Northern line?)http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...87027&style=a&...
One aligned northwest-southeast (Jubilee Line)http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...88078&style=a&...
...although I can't think why fanshafts would have structures which indicate
the orientation of the line beneath.

This can't be a fanshaft, I wonder what it is?http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...tyle=o&lvl=2&t...

There are of course various holes in the roof of the Circle Line, such as
the one next to Great Portland Street station.

I'll keep an eye out for more fanshafts and email you when I find them.

Many thanks - you are quite right, its Gibson Sq

Rob

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In article .com,
Adrian writes
The implication is that one can dial
222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work.

I would very much doubt that, unless you're talking about PBXes. If you
can identify one, please let me know and I'll ensure it gets fixed.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In article , Pyromancer
writes
Why do people want to only dial part of the number?

Because it's six digits rather than 11.

Why not just dial
the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the UK,
including mobiles?

Because when I'm at home I don't need to ensure it works from anywhere
in the UK.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In message , G
writes
On Nov 14, 1:09 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

And many of them get very confused when I tell them my WC1 address and
020 3xxx xxxx number, because to them it's 'not a London number'...

Same problem here, in leafy Surrey. Non geographic numbers might seem
good to some people, but I don't like them.
--
Alan

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

bin me wrote:

In message , G
writes

And many of them get very confused when I tell them my WC1 address and
020 3xxx xxxx number, because to them it's 'not a London number'...

Same problem here, in leafy Surrey. Non geographic numbers might seem
good to some people, but I don't like them.

Why have you got one then?

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
17:37:17 up 4 days, 6:15, 1 user, load average: 0.28, 0.27, 0.22
50,000 watts of funking power

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

John Rowland wrote:
This can't be a fanshaft, I wonder what it is?
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...-90&dir=0&alt=
1000&scene=15645313&encType=1

It's Parkway Pump Site, service the Piccadilly Line. Can you spot the
vent shaft between Hatton Cross and Hounslow West? ;)

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

Pyromancer wrote:


Why do people want to only dial part of the number? Why not just dial
the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the UK,
including mobiles?

For the same reason that people don't prefix their numbers with +44 so
that they can be sure it will work from anywhere in the world.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 6:04 pm, Pyromancer
wrote:

Why do people want to only dial part of the number? Why not just dial
the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the UK,
including mobiles?

Back in the days of electro-mechanical exchange switching and physical
connections number-shortening may have made sense, but surely by now
it's an anachronism?

If I had to take a guess, I would say that, for some countries,
telephone area codes will dissappear with a few decades. In the age
of mobile telephones and VoIP they are becoming increasingly
anachronistic.

Example: I have numbers relating to Bognor Regis, Edinburgh, Leeds,
Portsmouth, Anaheim, Beverly Hills and Reno. Very few of them connect
to telephones in the locations indicated!

Adrian

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 15, 5:35 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

I would very much doubt that, unless you're talking about PBXes. If you
can identify one, please let me know and I'll ensure it gets fixed.


A lot of people at work do not realise they are on a PBX if its been
set up with some form of access codes and/or least cost routinf and/or
speed dial numbers that resemble short forms of the full number.

--
Nick

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 15, 12:49 pm, Adrian wrote:

If I had to take a guess, I would say that, for some countries,
telephone area codes will dissappear with a few decades.


To a certain extent NTL (or rather whoever they call themsevles this
week ex NTL) already works like that - its actual exchanges are not
necessariliy physically located in the ''area codes'' that they serve.
It was a bit of minefield to understand sometimes - one of the
franchise areas I ran tech support when it was called NTL was straight
forward but the other was complex - it was possible for a residential
service to have two lines from the same exchange but with different
''area codes''.


--
Nick

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

In article
,
D7666 writes
To a certain extent NTL (or rather whoever they call themsevles this
week ex NTL) already works like that - its actual exchanges are not
necessariliy physically located in the ''area codes'' that they serve.

The same is true for BT. The Cambridge exchanges (DLEs) serve numbers in
Ely, Newmarket, and Bury St. Edmunds among others. There are many, many
area codes in northern Scotland, but the five northernmost exchange
sites are Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, and Lerwick.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On 15 Nov, 13:35, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work.

I would very much doubt that, unless you're talking about PBXes. If you
can identify one, please let me know and I'll ensure it gets fixed.

Dear Clive pls can you give me the keys to your DMSU k thx

:P

Neil

--
Rehab is for quitters

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 14, 10:05 pm, Adrian wrote:
On Nov 14, 1:09 pm, Mizter T wrote:



On 14 Nov, 19:25, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:13:02 GMT, wrote:

"contrex" wrote in message
roups.com...
On 14 Nov, 13:42, Rob wrote:
Hi

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of London
Underground ventilation shafts, used and disused? I went to a lecture
recently and they said there were 190 of them in total.

Thanks in advance

Rob Smith

If I were TFL I'd keep quiet about them. You might be a nutter or
terrorist for all we know.

Have you tried calling 0207 222 1234?

No such number.

Let me be a pedant back at you - there is such a number, the spacing
between the individual digits doesn't change the fact that if one
dialled it it would work - hence it is a valid telephone number.

Yes yes it isn't written in the 'approved' format, but thousands
(millions?) of Londoners do the same and manage just fine.

Yes, I use the 'correct' format, but I don't let the fact that others
don't wind me up! You should get over to uk.telecom - this 'mistake'
regularly has the inhabitants thereof completely frothing at the mouth
and winding each other up into a state of absolute indignation - I kid
you not!

Would that it were that simple. The implication is that one can dial
222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work. However the standard is now eight digit
local numbers within London. Dialing eight digits within STD code
"020" will always work.

Adrian

I'm well aware of all of this - though I'd eat my hat if there was a
public telephone exchange in London that still accepts 7-digit numbers
for local calling but I see that is being dealt with elsewhere in this
thread.

And I always just use the 8 digits to call London numbers from a
London landline. Indeed I normally give my number to other London
residents as just the 8 digits (unless perhaps they're specifically
entering into a mobile phone as I speak, though even sometimes then) -
and this can often cause confusion, so sometimes (dependent upon the
context) I might take that opportunity to briefly tell the recipient
that only 8 digits are needed for dialling within London. I also
normally write London numbers in the format (020) xxxx xxxx.

However I don't make a song or dance about it - that way lies the path
towards becoming a bore! If people use the 'wrong' format I do notice
but it isn't something that grates - life's too short to get fussed
about such inconsequential matters.

It is mildly disappointing to see the 'wrong' format used on official
documents / letterheads / signs, as I think those who work in
communications (in the PR sense rather than telco sense) should know
better, but it's hardly the end of the world.

Lastly "the kids" might well ignore any such distinction and just work
on the principle of an 11-digit number given the requirement to dial
the whole hog when using a mobile. I'd definitely point to mobile
phones as being a significant reason why the whole number is often
given - and if the whole number is given, then people care less about
breaking it down and putting the spaces in the right places.

Plus even the CLI on one of my BT brand phones connected to a BT line
displays the number incorrectly, which is a bit shabby!

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 15, 8:49 pm, Adrian wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:04 pm, Pyromancer
wrote:

Why do people want to only dial part of the number? Why not just dial
the whole thing and be sure it will work from anywhere in the UK,
including mobiles?

Back in the days of electro-mechanical exchange switching and physical
connections number-shortening may have made sense, but surely by now
it's an anachronism?

If I had to take a guess, I would say that, for some countries,
telephone area codes will dissappear with a few decades. In the age
of mobile telephones and VoIP they are becoming increasingly
anachronistic.

Example: I have numbers relating to Bognor Regis, Edinburgh, Leeds,
Portsmouth, Anaheim, Beverly Hills and Reno. Very few of them connect
to telephones in the locations indicated!

Adrian

The US (or more precisely those countries participating in the North
American Numbering Plan) is an interesting case to look at.

All numbers there are stuck in being in the format (xxx) xxx xxxx,
with the first three digits being the area code. But of course there's
a massive demand for numbers as people get second lines and cell phone
numbers also exist within this numbering plan too.

So the initial solution was to split a single area code into two areas
and hence two area codes, so a group of people in one of the two areas
would then have a new area code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_plan

But this was unpopular exactly because peoples area codes changes, so
eventually it was agreed to overlay new area codes on top of old area
codes - i.e. any particular place could be covered by two (or more)
area codes. This thus means that anyone dialling a number on another
area code - even if it's the house next door - would have to dial a 10-
digit number. And so as to ensure a level playing field between
different telecom companies, the FCC has made it compulsory for 10-
digit dialling even for local numbers in areas where there is an
overlay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_plan

A bit of an undignified solution, not helped by the inflexible NANP
rules which mean all numbers are in the (xxx) xxx xxxx format. The
other issue of course is that there's more people - both the UK and
the NANP are fundamentally 10-digit systems, but the US alone has a
population of 300 million, compared to the UK's 60 million.

But perhaps it matters less now that more and more people are using
cell phones and hence dialling the whole number, including the area
code (though I'm unclear of whether this is necessarily the case with
all US cellular networks- an internet search didn't immediately reveal
the answer to that).

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:07:50 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

And I always just use the 8 digits to call London numbers from a
London landline. Indeed I normally give my number to other London
residents as just the 8 digits

So do I, although when giving out my work number -- (020) 7580 xxxx --
the following tends to happen:

Me: "7580..." pause
Them: "07580..."

sigh

Lastly "the kids" might well ignore any such distinction and just work
on the principle of an 11-digit number given the requirement to dial
the whole hog when using a mobile. I'd definitely point to mobile
phones as being a significant reason why the whole number is often
given - and if the whole number is given, then people care less about
breaking it down and putting the spaces in the right places.

I agree with all of that.

Plus even the CLI on one of my BT brand phones connected to a BT line
displays the number incorrectly, which is a bit shabby!

One of the mobile companies -- Vodafone, I think -- that displays the
area the mobile is in on some handsets' screens displays 0207 / 0208,
too.

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Nov 15, 10:58 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

To a certain extent NTL

The same is true for BT.


I rather thought that might be the case but when working for NTL, BT
people at Oswestry seem to perceive any questions on that sort of
thing as nosiness from a competitor.

I'm sure the inof is probably in the public domain, I just never
looked for it.

--
Nick

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:05:15 -0000, Adrian
wrote:

The implication is that one can dial
222 1234 within a notional STD code of "0207" AND expect to be
connected. I have heard that there are a handful of exchanges within
London were that does work. However the standard is now eight digit
local numbers within London. Dialing eight digits within STD code
"020" will always work.

It's then very unlikely that dialling seven digits would ever work.
In a (notional) exchange with 020 7 numbers, how would you know
whether somebody dialling 722 2123 wanted 020 7722 2123, or whether
they were going to dial a final 4 because they wanted the travel
enquiry number? True, you could build a timeout into the system so
that it waited to see whether you'd dialled a complete number or not,
but phone numbers don't work that way - at least in the UK.

Martin

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:21:06 +0000, James Farrar
wrote:

One of the mobile companies -- Vodafone, I think -- that displays the
area the mobile is in on some handsets' screens displays 0207 / 0208,
too.

I put that down to the silly numbering conventions:

Large cities (e.g. Birmingham) = 4 digits (0121)
Provincial towns = 5 digits (e.g. 01772)
'02' numbers (e.g. London, NI, Cardiff) = 3 digits
Mobiles = 5 digits

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:49:29 -0800 (PST), Adrian
wrote:


If I had to take a guess, I would say that, for some countries,
telephone area codes will dissappear with a few decades.

In Spain, they already have.

--
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com

London Underground Ventilation Shafts
 

G wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:21:06 +0000, James Farrar
wrote:

One of the mobile companies -- Vodafone, I think -- that displays
the area the mobile is in on some handsets' screens displays 0207
/ 0208, too.

I put that down to the silly numbering conventions:

Large cities (e.g. Birmingham) = 4 digits (0121)
Provincial towns = 5 digits (e.g. 01772)
'02' numbers (e.g. London, NI, Cardiff) = 3 digits
Mobiles = 5 digits

Yes, most people seem to group the first five digits of a mobile number
(07xxx) together, but I'm not aware of any written convention that says
you should. Personally I quote mine as 0787 xxx xxxx because it easier
to remember that way.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)