A recent submission to the database for Transport for London with the number 0843 222 1234. It had a note "020 Travel Advice number likely to be discontinued".  

The 0843 number is answered by a female voiced IVR, the same voice as is on 020 7222 1234. The menu options on the 0843 number are slightly different to those on the 020 number. They are both announced as "Transport for London's 24hr Travel Information Line".

The 0843 menu is:

1 Travel information (including journey planner)
2 Engineering works
3 Useful transport contacts

The 020 menu is:

1 Engineering works
2 Speak to a travel advisor
3 Useful transport contacts

It is interesting to note that speak to an advisor has been replaced by an automated journey planner service.

I have Googled the 0843 number and can find no trace of it. It may be in the design and testing stages.  

Source: Evening Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23764640-musicians-stage-protest-...

<<
Musicians stage protest over rules that could drive them off the Tube
Katharine Barney, City Hall Reporter
05.11.09

Tube musicians took part in a mass busk outside City Hall in protest at what they call draconian new measures.

The 250 performers who play across the network say many are being forced to quit.

Buskers are angry at being banned by Transport for London from selling CDs or handing out business cards which gave them extra earnings.

They are also objecting to new guidelines on noise and a higher-rate phone number to book their pitches.

The buskers say TfL has banned them from performing if they have not pre-booked, when it was previously accepted that they could play in a spot if no one was there 20 minutes after a two-hour slot began.

They claim problems began this year when TfL took over management from a private contractor.

Michael Ball, 47, who has been busking for 25 years and plays in West End Tube stations, said the changes would drive away talent. “It's cretinous and makes me despair.

“Previously we just rang a standard rate number once a week and booked our slots. Now we have to call an 0845 number and every time no one answers we get a message which costs 40p. The whole process ends up costing about £20 a week.

“They won't even meet us to discuss our concerns. Previously we had quarterly meetings. This is just incredibly bad management.”

[…]
>>

This is a classic issue for campaigning.

The Met Police set the standard in London last year by choosing 03 when a new non-geographic number was required. It will take time for all the existing 084 public sector numbers to change over, but there is no excuse for introducing a new one.

It is not too late for TfL to change their mind as the new number has not yet been publicised.

It is of course a call type g6 - the highest possible level of charge and revenue share short of classification as being a Premium Rate Service.

Conversations with TfL personnel have included casual use of the term "local rate" and extensive reference to BT charges - BT is the provider of the number.

The fact that regulation enables BT customers to call this number during the working day at less than the cost of a non-inclusive geographic call is little more than a red herring.

I understand that concern has already been expressed within TfL about this. It would be quite foolish to wait until loads of money has been spent publicising the new number before the level of complaint forces consideration of a further change.

TfL must either stand up now and justify charging callers for this service (why not use a proper PRS number?) or change its plans.

Since there are over half a million mentions of   020  7222  1234   out there on the web, they would have to be crazy to change that telephone number now.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22020+7222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22020+72221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207+222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207+2221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2202072+221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2202072221234%22

The number must get millions of calls per year. So, would they keep the old line open with a recorded announcement of the 'new' number, thereby causing customers to waste money on that call - or would they simply take the old number out of service and make that number unobtainable so that callers are not charged for ringing it?

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


Are they simply wanting to cash in on the millions of "Olympics Tourists" perhaps?

Dave wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 10:50am:


But as you know, there is nothing that can be done on an 08* that cannot be done on an 020 number.. and surely the cost of changing every bus stop and tube map and publicity item in London would be pretty significant..

I'm pretty strongly opposed to travel information lines being on 08 numbers, as it happens, since most callers to them would likely be away from home, wondering how to get back, and so be using mobiles or payphones!  (The same goes for local radio jam lines: why on earth would I want to spend 20-40p/min to tell them about some traffic just so they can get 2p out of me that they wouldn't have had if they used a normal number!)

Has anybody asked TfL about it yet? I'm happy to submit an FoI request about it - something along the lines of:
- do they propose to operate on an NGN, and if so, on what range [just to clear up the are-they-aren't-they question]
- what would happen to 020 722 1234
- what consideration have they made with regard to mobile and payphone users who would pay substantially more?
- what costs do they anticipate in changing all references?
- what income do they anticipate receiving?

anything else?

Don't forget that they have already had to change all the publicity for the number in 1990 (071), 1995 (0171) and 2000 (020), so they may not be too concerned about doing it again. Campaigning on the basis of the cost of the change is a non-starter; better to focus on the cost to callers.

It appears that I am in a minority amongst those contributing to this discussion.

I would urge those who understand the technical issues sufficiently, to recognise that the only purpose of non-geographic numbers (other than geographic anonymity) is making money, to share their understanding.

If the 03 issue was a total scam all along, why was not this brought out at the time and properly explained in published responses to the Ofcom consultation? I have been commending 03 and its use - will somebody who knows why Ofcom was wrong to introduce it, because it is totally unnecessary, please explain this. I support it from a position of ignorance. If technical benefits are claimed and there is no added cost to callers, then that is good enough for me.

Those who feel that they have sufficient expertise to be able to attack telecoms procurement decisions by public bodies on the basis of superior technical knowledge should make their arguments through the proper channels, which do not include this forum. We are concerned here with the cost to service users. The benefits of revenue sharing and the costs of number changes to taxpayers are a separate issue. Comments on these matters are likely to take a position quite opposite to that generally presented here. The present Mayor was elected on the basis that he would be able to rake off cash for taxpayers from the budgets set by his predecessor - it may stink, but that is democracy.

In the absence of a proper understanding of why 03 is bound to be unnecessary (as alleged), I will continue my campaign. I regret that in doing so I am pressing a position that is contrary to that held by saynoto0870, as seen from the balance of contributions to this thread.

I am not prepared to engage in arguments over technical issues when I have no idea what I am talking about. I do not believe that there is the time, or the need, to mess about with FOI requests, having learned all I need to know from conversations with TfL personnel, as reported above. If anyone wishes to try and persuade me to change my position, I am prepared to listen.