TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering

Re: More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering

Joseph (
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:24:06 -0700

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:17:16 EDT, wrote:

> I lived in a small place that had terminal-per-line SxS. Terminal per
> line means that the line is designated by a number; an additional
> number is required to desginate the party and the number is listed in
> the directory that way without any hyphens or other distinctions.

I lived for a time in Whitefield, Maine which was served by the North
Whitefield CO (207-FIieldstone 7 later 207-549 when EAS to Augusta,
Maine was added.) The original machine that was installed was a #356
SXS machine. The difference between a #356 SXS and a #355 is that a
#356 SXS machine was installed as TPL i.e. terminal per line so
FIeldstone 7-2391 to 2390 were individual lines with the tip and ring
side of the line had five possible ringing cadences with the
possibility that if it was required you could have 10-party service.
Each person on the line by their directory number you would know what
their ringing cadence was. This provided a real problem if there was
a disconnection on the line for providing any sort of intercept. IIRC
there was only one "specialized" intercept machine that had to be used
if a line was disconnected or changed for any reason.

The #355 SXS machine on the other hand was a terminal per station
machine so a party (if you had a party line) could be anywhere in any
bank of numbers in that CO. Later the CO was rebuilt and new
selectors/connectors were added adding terminal per station capability
and all parties in that CO were changed to new numbers. This
facilitated easier switching of people from 8 party service to two
party and private lines. Eventually of course the SXS machine
(installed ~1952) to be replaced with some sort of digital machine
(I'm guessing either a 5E or DMS.)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A friend of mine who lived in
Lafayette, Indiana in the 1950-60's had no working phone service (the
line had been cut off) but he said he was still able to recieve calls
even if not make them. If you called his number, the phone would ring
once, you picked up the receiver, listened through the 'not in service'
intercept message, then went ahead and talked to the caller anyway. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Mark Roberts: "Re: Remote Call Forwarding Question"
Go to Previous message: USTelecom dailyLead: "TDC Buyout Maneuvering Heats Up"
May be in reply to: Mark Roberts: "More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering"
Next in thread: Robert Bonomi: "Re: More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page