Strowger Dial Equipment in Bell's Los Angeles Area - was Where's the finger stop

[Jack Ryan]

So is this a "mutt" phone?

I'm not totally sure what "mutt" means.

It looks like a WE candlestick with some issues:
1. it is brassed out
2. OK, the transmitter is upside down but that's not a biggie
3. It has a Mercedes dial with the (seriously) wrong number plate and a missing finger stop (don't know if it is otherwise complete & working)
4. There is a dial mounting adaptor but I don't know if it is correct because I can't find a detailed description or picture of what *is* correct.

Does that make it a "mutt"?

Are there any more pictures?

Jack

[G-Man]

 Jack, so far this is all that I have been able to find regarding AECo dials used in Bell System instruments. This document was printed in 1922 and references the dial being used by the Bell System in both Automatic Electric and Western Electric instruments. Unfortunately it only shows a small portion of the adapter that was used when the dial was installed in WECo sets.

[Jack Ryan]

Thanks G-Man.

I think the adaptor referred to in that document is the same one that used by AE to mount the Mercedes dial on its residence set (the black wooden wall telephone). The adaptor used at Norfolk looks like a 1/2" (or so) standoff. It is difficult to see in the newspaper image I posted earlier but looks similar to the adaptor used on this telephone. I do not know if they are the same.

I have attached an image of the adapter shown in the procedure.

Regards
Jack

[G-Man]

 Thanks Jack. Your photo presents a more detailed view.

On a separate note, I seem to recall Gary Goff with a wooden Western Electric wallset that had an early AECo dial, apparently factory installed by WECo.

I believe he told us that it was produced when Pacific Telephone took over the Home Telephone Company's Strowger automatic exchanges in Los Angeles.

[andre_janew]

I've always thought that even with the finger stop missing, there is a limit on how far the dial will turn.  Am I wrong on this?

[Jack Ryan]

G-Man,

On a separate note, I seem to recall Gary Goff with a wooden Western Electric wallset that had an early AECo dial, apparently factory installed by WECo.

Presumably a large 10/11 digit AE dial. I don't recall seeing such a thing documented but I see no reason why it should not be.

The merger of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Home Telephone and Telegraph Company retained the telephones already in place except that the AE telephones were upgraded to automatic ringing and some were apparently downgraded for LB operation. In addition, subscribers (other than PMBX subscribers) could choose automatic or manual service so it is likely additional auto telephones were required. The only additional auto phones I have seen documented were AE but there may have been others.

I would like to see a picture of the "upgraded" WE telephone – is there an image doing the rounds or do I need to contact Gary?

I believe he told us that it was produced when Pacific Telephone took over the Home Telephone Company's Strowger automatic exchanges in Los Angeles.

Pacific didn't actually take over Home. The city required a merger to produce a single telephone service and the Southern California Telephone Company was organised to acquire the assets of Pacific and Home.

Regards
Jack

[Jack Ryan]

I've always thought that even with the finger stop missing, there is a limit on how far the dial will turn.  Am I wrong on this?

I've never known a dial not to have a stop other than the finger stop although I don't know if that internal stop is always robust.

The finger stop is a bit of additional feedback for the subscriber - tactile and visual. It is to stop the subscriber from suffering psychological meltdown.

If there were no finger stop, the subscriber would always be wondering if the dial was rotated to the proper position before releasing it. He may abandon dialling and start again just to make sure - holding up the exchange equipment while he is at it.

It is related to - did I turn the gas off?...

Jack

[AdamAnt316]

Here's an example of a rotary dial without a fingerstop:



And no, that isn't a touch-tone (or touch-pulse) dial!

[Jack Ryan]

Here's an example of a rotary dial without a fingerstop:

And despite the awards won for the Grillo design, without a finger stop it is not immediately obvious how to operate the dial.

(Even with a finger stop, you would have to know to press the button before attempting to rotate (which way?))

Jack

[AdamAnt316]

And despite the awards won for the Grillo design, without a finger stop it is not immediately obvious how to operate the dial.

(Even with a finger stop, you would have to know to press the button before attempting to rotate (which way?))

Jack

Yep, it's less than intuitive, though there's some to be found. For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial (it would've been nice if they'd included a direction arrow on the center sticker, though). It was probably more intuitive in the days before manufacturers started making touch-tone/pulse phones with buttons in a rotary dial-style round pattern; nowadays, I've seen people try to press the 'buttons', and get puzzled when doing so doesn't dial a digit. And even if you know the 'correct' way to operate it, the likelihood of one's finger prematurely slipping out of the hole is far too common...
-Adam

[Jack Ryan]

For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial

Of course you would have to say which standard you meant. The position of the '1' varied by almost 90 degrees on the most common of the "standard dial numbering systems" used.

Jack

[AdamAnt316]

For example, the hole-button for 1 is in roughly the same position you'd expect to find it on a standard rotary dial

Of course you would have to say which standard you meant. The position of the '1' varied by almost 90 degrees on the most common of the "standard dial numbering systems" used.

Jack

Actually, best I can tell, the position of the first hole on 3" US dials seem to vary fairly little between what WE used (roughly the 1 o' clock position) and what AE/SC/etc. used (maybe closer to 2 o'clock). As for what most Italian phones used, I don't know for sure, but am guessing it was similar. If you're referring to phones in Norway or whatnot whose dials were laid out 0-9 or 9-0, perhaps, but the initial hole on the dial was roughly in the same spot, from what I've seen.

Bringing this back around to the topic at hand, I'd like to see where the 1 position is on the number plate, vs. the first hole on that Mercedes dial. I have a feeling they'd be different, given the location of the fingerwheel notch in the OP's pic, which seems to be closer to the 3 o'clock position........
-Adam

[G-Man]

 Jack, I found the photos and it turns out that my memory was faulty and it is a Strowger set that was modified by WECo with their own transmission components. Also, Bell improved the by then antiquated Strowger offices by converting them from 3-wire to 2-wire service and as you have already mentioned, provided common-battery and automatic ringing.

Actually the "merger" back then was much the same as now; "Merger of Equals" typically is a mask for a takeover. In this case, as you have already pointed out, Pac Tel was about to have their franchise expire without any prospects of it being renewed and with a hostile City Council  and the subsequent referendum preventing discontinuation of dial service, they were left with no other clear cut choice  than to absorb their competition.

Due to service complaints regarding the poor condition of the outside plant the acquired from the independent company, the State Railroad Commission, forerunner of the Cal PUC, forced them to create a subsidiary of Pacific Telephone, The Southern California Telephone Company. In turn, the Pacific Company was owned by AT&T.

A further order issued by the Commission dictated that the president of Pacific Telephone move from Northern California and reside in the L.A. Basin until the problems were finally cleared up. In its order, the Commission lamented that if were in their power they would have also forced the president of AT&T to move to Southern California as well.

Interestingly, even though the referendum and Commission ruling prevented Pacific from discontinuing automatic service and to provide it to any subscriber who wanted it, for many years, until the manual offices were cutover, subscribers were almost evenly split almost 50-50 between those subscribing to manual and automatic service. I believe the last manual exchange in the L.A. Basin was cutover in the early 50s.

I believe is was also during this decade that Pacific Telephone also cut-loose their Pacific Northwest subsidiaries located in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.

Thanks

[Jack Ryan]

G-Man,

Jack, I found the photos and it turns out that my memory was faulty and it is a Strowger set that was modified by WECo with their own transmission components.

OK, thanks for that. I guess it is still possible that some WE telephones were converted to auto but I haven't seen a record of it.

Also, Bell improved the by then antiquated Strowger offices by converting them from 3-wire to 2-wire service and as you have already mentioned, provided common-battery and automatic ringing.

It looks like the contemporary historians I have read (most by Lee W Campbell and DE Wiseman) disagree with others on exactly what changes took place. The technical write-ups say that automatic ringing (already a part of modern Strowger) was added but that because of war shortages, only LB three wire equipment was available and that was used in the conversion from manual to auto.

The first of the "two wire" dials were converted "three wire" dials but the only conversions I have read about were part of the development of the two wire system. Have any two wire Strowger dials survived?

Actually the "merger" back then was much the same as now; "Merger of Equals" typically is a mask for a takeover. In this case, as you have already pointed out, Pac Tel was about to have their franchise expire without any prospects of it being renewed and with a hostile City Council  and the subsequent referendum preventing discontinuation of dial service, they were left with no other clear cut choice  than to absorb their competition.

The same fellows also state that both Pacific and Home were taken over by a new identity, the Southern California Telephone Company. However, the circumstances leading up to the "takeover" and the end result were as you stated. Company records would tell an accurate story but I have not attempted to research them. Where does your information come from?

Interestingly, even though the referendum and Commission ruling prevented Pacific from discontinuing automatic service and to provide it to any subscriber who wanted it, for many years, until the manual offices were cutover, subscribers were almost evenly split almost 50-50 between those subscribing to manual and automatic service. I believe the last manual exchange in the L.A. Basin was cutover in the early 50s.

That is interesting but I don't know what it means; was there reluctance to convert from manual to auto on the part of the operator or were there subscribers who preferred manual exchanges?

It'll be interesting to compare sources.

Regards
Jack

[G-Man]

 This part if from memory but as I recall, Bruce Toomey, the engineer for Pacific Telephone, in charge of Strowger switching for the entire Southern California area and was later was loaned to Bell Labs to improve Strowger switching, told us that part of Bell's agreement for the Norfolk and subsequent purchases of Strowger equipment, automatic ringing was one of their required specifications. Some of those improvements were already made by the time (circa 1916) Bell standardized on Strowger 700-pbx's, There were a number of other improvements that Bell engineers worked with AECo to refine their product.

Lack of C.B., 2-wire, automatic ringing, party-line signaling, etc., features on early Strowger were some of Bell's objections to its use in Bell exchanges.

The CPUC (Railroad Commission) dictated a separate operation under Pacific's umbrella. For one thing, if Pacific was not directly involved, then the CPUC would not have had the authority to force Pacific's president to move to SoCal nor consider forcing the president of AT&T to do likewise. 

It's been a long while ago but I read extensively through old company and CPUC records while I was still at the Pacific Telephone Pioneer Museum in S.F. Admittedly my memory may be a bit hazy on some particulars but the this is the essence of what I recall.

The archives have since been moved to San Antonio under the Auspices of Roger Coughlin who is a great person to deal with. You may be able to persuade him to provide you with further information.

Pacific was not required to immediately cutover their manual exchanges and used p.c.i. to  automatically interface them with the automatic equipment. Back in the day, many people actually preferred manual over automatic. The common complaint then was why should they have to perform the telephone company's work.

There were a number of positive aspects to manual working and a well run manual exchange was competitive to automatic workings.  Plus, it was cheaper to install and rates were lower which I am sure factored in to some subscriber's decision to stay with operator service.

One of the biggest complaints about telephone service in the L.A. Basin was subscribers being forced to pay for service from two companies in order to call businesses or other subscribers.

Unlike today, people as a whole were certainly much more thrifty than they are now.