First Great Western trains are reported to be moving their existing 0845 number to the matching 0345 number in the near future.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13049

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13054

Calls to 0845 numbers incur a 2p/min Service Charge to the benefit of the called party. 0845 numbers are very expensive on mobile phones and rarely count towards inclusive allowances on landlines.

Calls to 03 numbers are charged at the same rate as calling 01 or 02 numbers and count towards inclusive allowances. This applies to all mobiles and landlines.

This shouldn't be in "Government and Public Sector" - the railways were privatised rather a long time ago!

kasg wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

This shouldn't be in "Government and Public Sector" - the railways were privatised rather a long time ago!

Wishful thinking, maybe.


I wonder if putting "03457" was a slip.

As of 07:00 on 21 January 2014, FGW is now using the equivalent 0345 number to their old 0845 number.

The change was pre-announced on their Facebook page around 20:30 on 20 January 2014.

The contact page on the FGW website was updated to reflect the new number around 15:50 on 21 January 2014.

Both the 0845 and 0345 numbers answer exactly the same way and connect the call through.

Ian G wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 4:04pm:

As of 07:00 on 21 January 2014, FGW is now using the equivalent 0345 number to their old 0845 number. The change was pre-announced on their Facebook page around 20:30 on 20 January 2014. The contact page on the FGW website was updated to reflect the new number around 15:50 on 21 January 2014. Both the 0845 and 0345 numbers answer exactly the same way and connect the call through.

It is great news that First Great Western and East Coast have got the ball rolling among the train companies.

The published web support number for First Great Western is still 0844, so that still needs doing. It could be that this is outsourced and requires the provider to make the change.

Dave I had a little check on Transpennine Express which is also operated by First..

They appear to have a very similar number for web support.. so it could be outsourced...

It might be worth investigating.

Dave wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 5:25pm:

The published web support number for First Great Western is still 0844, so that still needs doing. It could be that this is outsourced and requires the provider to make the change.

The department currently reached by calling the 0844 number is set to be merged in as an additional option on the main 0345 number at some point. It's on the "to do" list, but no timescale is known.

You'll notice that the other 0845 number listed on the FGW contact page has since been annotated with "provided by National Rail Enquiries" making it clear that FGW are awaiting action elsewhere.

Quote:

Calls to 0845 numbers incur a 2p/min Service Charge to the benefit of the called party. 0845 numbers are very expensive on mobile phones and rarely count towards inclusive allowances on landlines. Calls to 03 numbers are charged at the same rate as calling 01 or 02 numbers and count towards inclusive allowances. This applies to all mobiles and landlines.

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1392935385

I love it, this is typical of the gall fo 98% of the postings on this site. I only pick thsi one out at random. No particular, offence meant to thsi OP. [You were the first cab off the rank]. More the wider point, here we are,  the man even tacitly admits he runs a NGN number and still, yes still , yes still  he wants Great Western to make his calls to them cheap.

Until he has entered his own number into the "Hall of Shame", and ported thru' to a Local-rate or Free-call, entered it in the alterantive numebr database with its 01/02/03 alterantive, what is his point exactly? For most if he got an 0870, we could call him for less that he would have us charged now.

Yessiree, for most, calling Great Western (wahtever NGN they use)  is likely cheaper than calling him!

Jesus H Christ.

You couldn't make it up...

03700000000 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 7:49am:

I love it, this is typical of the gall fo 98% of the postings on this site the man even tacitly admits he runs a NGN number and still, yes still, yes still he wants Great Western to make his calls to them cheap. Until he has entered his own number into the "Hall of Shame", and ported thru' to a Local-rate or Free-call, entered it in the alterantive numebr database with its 01/02/03 alterantive, what is his point exactly? Jesus H Christ. You couldn't make it up...

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not run any telephone numbers beginning 055, 056, 070, 076, 084, 087, 090, 091 or 098.

Quit trolling.

No troll. My humblest, humblest  apologies, no mobile? No 07XXX or you've ported it.  However me, or anyone would call you it is at local or free-call rates... really? You Sir, are one of the few on here that can indeed take the high ground. I salute you.

Well done, I shall now lay prostrate at your feet.

Unlike calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers, calls to 07 mobile numbers do not include a Service Charge to the benefit of the called party.

The high price of calls to mobiles from some landlines is, nowadays, caused solely by the pricing policy of the originating landline network and not by the mobile networks.

Once the new "unbunded tariffs" system is in place for 084, 087 and 09 numbers, there may well be some serious questions to ask of some providers, both landline and mobile. These enquiries will revolve around the levels and the difference in the levels of their call prices for calling geographic-rate numbers, for calling mobile numbers and their Access Charge for calling chargeable non-geographic numbers.

Oh dear, my reverence was clearly  misguided. Whatt he meant to say was,

I accept your apology. You are correct, I too do not expect people to call me at anyhting other than 01/02/03 rates, all my calls where terminated at a mobile or other premium-rate number, it is possible to call us vai a 01/02/03 rate number.

03700000000 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:01am:

However me, or anyone would call you it is at local or free-call rates... really?

I decided to pick out one point you decided to make.. just to point out a small issue with it..

Local-Rate does not technically exist any longer.. in fact I think (and some is more then welcome to clarify) it's NOT existed for at least 10 years!  So it you want to come on to this forum and start picking holes in others comments at least get your info right...!

01/02/03 is charged at a geographic rate

and Free-Phone is only free from a land line, call box and SOME mobile networks at this present time..

>:( >:(

Rant over!

Whether I use the 01/02/03 rate or technicallly the incorrect term 'local rate' (and I can't believe most don't know what I was meaning by either), the point still stands.

Essentially how can any on this forum have a problem with organisations having numbers (revenue sharing or otherwise) that cost no more or often less to call (with a few exceptions) than the premium numbers via their mobiles, many doing the complaining use.

Terminolgy aside, it is a simple question...

Just because there are far more of them, why are these people not shamed in the same terms? They take up the larger proportion of most phone bills too.

Now how you would have me or others  refer to any particualr tariff and be technically correct, is a non-point.

Unless your own number is at 01/02/03 rates or lower, you have no complaint, not with an 0870 etc anyway, you should indeed welcome these numbers. They often cost less to call than your own.

If you have a case, can you tell me what it is?

'Pot and kettle' springs to mind.

I see none.

03700000000 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:24pm:

Whether I use the 01/02/03 rate or technicallly the incorrect term 'local rate' (and I can't believe most don't know what I was meaning by either), the point still stands. Essentially how can any on this forum have a problem with organisations having numbers (revenue sharing or otherwise) that cost no more or often less to call (with a few exceptions) than the premium numbers via their mobiles, many doing the complaining use. Terminolgy aside, it is a simple question... Just because there are far more of them, why are these people not shamed in the same terms? They take up the larger proportion of most phone bills too. Now how you would have me or others  refer to any particualr tariff and be technically correct, is a non-point. Unless your own number is at 01/02/03 rates or lower, you have no complaint, not with an 0870 etc anyway, you should indeed welcome these numbers. They often cost less to call than your own. If you have a case, can you tell me what it is? 'Pot and kettle' springs to mind. I see none.

I have my own 01 number which is given to companies to call! So that now answers your question. Satisfied? I doubt it...

I have a mobile phone, and if anyone calls me from a genuine land line number I offer to call them back... such as friends or family...

If the organisation is a business then I am usually as brief as I can be on the telephone, not only because it may cost them more but because I am usually outside and do not wish to discuss private matters in public.

As another example, if my local Dr's rang me I usually offer to call them back... as they now call out with an 01 number, but when they were still using an 0844 number I didn't offer as it would have cost me more..

Am I unfair in doing that? I don't think so.. and I don't think the companies using the numbers are strictly "wrong" I actually think that the industry has not moved forward with the times and supports the companies using the numbers or selling them and NOT the callers ringing them!

It is unhelpful that discussion not related directly to the title is peppering this thread. It would be useful to keep the discussion on the topic of mobile numbers in the thread started by 03700000000: I've never really understood this site's premise?

Guilty as charged your 'onor.


Quote:

Satisfied? I doubt it...

Better than most. Yes... satisfied.