News:

"The phone is a remarkably complex, simple device,
and very rarely ever needs repairs, once you fix them." - Dan/Panther

Main Menu

Plant letter

Started by Babybearjs, February 20, 2015, 04:44:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Babybearjs

enclosed is a copy of the plant from the 1950's about the usage of the 5300 usage. I have a question.... the reference of "HC". what is it, and how was it used.... its definitely a code, so I understand that part, but I've never seen it used before... was HC3 a reference to the 300 series phone? HC5 the 500 series and so on???
John

Phonesrfun

I think the last paragraph of page one answers your questions....
-Bill G

Babybearjs

Bill, so "HC" was used to identify the telephone?  so....HC1 would be a 102?, HC2 would be a 202, HC3 would be a 302, HC4 would be a 400 series phone, and HC5 would be a 500 series set??? 
John

andre_janew

It also sounds like they would like to install the 300 and 5300 series of telephones rather than installing the more modern 500 series telephones.  As a result, they are making it more difficult for a customer to get a 500 series telephone.  This is back in April of 1958 when they wanted to keep costs down by keeping older models in service as long as possible.

Phonesrfun

I really don't think this was for anything other than the "combined" set.  Not for the sets with separate subsets.  It als appears that this nomenclature was not intended to be a substitute for normal references to a 300 series set or a 500 series set, but just an abbreviation for the particular ordering of the combined desk set during a particular time.  Remember tat once the 500 came out, everyone and their brother wanted the new phone, and there were not a sufficent supply of new phones available.  Add to that the fact that there were millions of 300 sets that had not yet been fully utilized, at least for getting their money's worth as far as the phome company was concerned.  So, I think the "HC3, HC5 and HC53" only related to those phones and none others. (personal opinion)
-Bill G

unbeldi

You cannot generalize this.  The letter is for a specific period of time after which is was supposed to be destroyed.  Notice that it ends with close of the year.  Also this memo is also only for New Jersey Bell.

Each company had certain budgets for new equipment, for used equipment (B or C stock), and what not...  This reason for this practice may simply be that they had certain financial constraints for certain classes of equipment and tried to balance new phone installation w/r/t those budgets.

This is just a little glimpse into the operating constraints or practices at one particular time and place.

andre_janew

Yes, the letter describes what was going on at New Jersey Bell in 1958.  No more, no less.  Other companies could've adopted similar practices at that time, but we don't know that for sure.