Double socket spurred off consumer unit?

[JohnW2]

Agreed, but as i inferred myself, my first instinct would be shocked to see it, then if was the only noted occurrence I would see no problem as such.

I suppose that, in some senses, to have each socket having it's own cable back to the CU would be the 'purest' form of a radial circuit, since all sockets would be supplied by cables 'radiating' from a single point. However, I've never seen that done and, like you, would certainly be surprised, possibly even shocked, when I first saw it.

I was about to say that I can't think why anyone would want to do that but, on reflection, I can think of one possible reason - namely if, for some reason (and I'm not sure that I can think of a 'good' one!) they wanted the possibility of more than 32A total being supplied by one circuit - i.e. multiple sockets, each supplied individually by Method C 2.5 mm² T+E from the CU, where they were all protected by, say, a 40 A or 50A (or even 63A) MCB. However, as below, separation into circuits' would usually be a far better idea (not to mention the amounts of copper utilised!).

Just like my suggestion of a two or three ring circuit being one circuit and being no more hazardous than as one larger ring, in fact rather better on volt drop and Zs considerations but yet again automatically "hey what!"

Agreed - but in these days of CUs with many 'ways' being readily available and little more expensive tn smaller ones, it would usually be far better to have each of the rings on its own, separate, MCB/RCBO (eggs in more than one basket!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

If the ring were 'disconnected' (or never had existed), then they wouldn't be spurs but, rather, multiple radials all originating at the 'fuseway' (interesting term ). As before, that would also be fine, if each of those radials supplied no more than one double socket and provided they were wired with Method C 2.5 mm² T+E - and all that more-or-less regardless of the rating of the upstream OPD.

It would concern me, trying to securely terminate that many individual wires, into each single terminal.

 

[JohnW2]

It would concern me, trying to securely terminate that many individual wires, into each single terminal.

Sure, that's a practical issue.

I suppose that if someone really wanted to do it (goodness knows why ), they could take a small ('manageable') number of conductors from the MCB/RCBO and then 'split' them- e.g. 3 conductors from MCB, each to a 5-way Wago, which would provide 12 'outgoing' connections for all those 'radials'!!

 

[ebee]

It would concern me, trying to securely terminate that many individual wires, into each single terminal.

Well, its easy enough to do three all doubled (two for the ring and one for the spur at the fuseway too at origin of each circuit in all of the consumer units I`ve used so yes up to six conductors in those terminals all mechanically and electrically sound is entirely possible therefore if all six of them were for a 2.5 T & E cable and each one feeding only one twin socket and on a 32A MCB in nearly all circumstances would be OK) - I`d never do that or , I suspect, most folk would not, but how could we fault it on safety considerations? it is no worse than a bog standard ring final with a few spurs.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Well, its easy enough to do three all doubled (two for the ring and one for the spur at the fuseway too at origin of each circuit in all of the consumer units I`ve used so yes up to six conductors in those terminals all mechanically and electrically sound is entirely possible

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible, rather it would be difficult to ensure all wires were making adequate contact in the terminals. When I terminate, I always, tighten down a little way, then settle each conductor in, do a final tighten, then give each wire a final tug - difficult to do properly, with so many wires.

 

[JohnW2]

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible, rather it would be difficult to ensure all wires were making adequate contact in the terminals. When I terminate, I always, tighten down a little way, then settle each conductor in, do a final tighten, then give each wire a final tug - difficult to do properly, with so many wires.

As I wrote, if one is concerned one can, at the price of having 'more joints', do it with something like Wagos. If you pust just one conductor into the MCB and connected that to a 5-wayWago, you could have 4 'outgoing' conductors. If you needed more than that, you could 'daisy-chain Wagos' - each additional 5-way Wago would give you 3 additional 'outgoing' conductors, other than the last one in the chain which would give you 4. Doing that, there is never more than one conductor in any terminal but, as said, the price is that there will be more terminals/joints.

 

[joe384]

Why do you assume that? If you can do it properly, you can do it.

I was thinking more about in terms of regulations, since it would involve doing some work on the consumer unit.

Also I'm not planning on using more loads then I already am (not sure why everyone assumes that)

There is already a separate circuit for TV sockets and kitchen. There are a total of 4 sockets on ground floor circuit and I currently using 1!

It was perhaps added, as an extra, after the ring was installed and completed, therefore easier to just spur it off the CU..

Possibly, although it would only require one extra connection, probably a couple of minutes?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I was thinking more about in terms of regulations, since it would involve doing some work on the consumer unit.

Yes, I know but my comment also applies to that.
If you can do it properly, you can do it.

Possibly, although it would only require one extra connection, probably a couple of minutes?

There is no point discussing why one perfectly acceptable method was used rather than another perfectly acceptable method.

 

[flameport]

I was thinking more about in terms of regulations, since it would involve doing some work on the consumer unit.

There is no magical thing that's required to attach circuits to a consumer unit, and whatever 'regulations' you think exist apply equally to all electrical installations.

The only difference is that a new circuit from a consumer unit in a domestic property located in England or Wales is supposed to be notified to Building Control.

 

[ebee]

There is no magical thing that's required to attach circuits to a consumer unit, and whatever 'regulations' you think exist apply equally to all electrical installations.

The only difference is that a new circuit from a consumer unit in a domestic property located in England or Wales is supposed to be notified to Building Control.

Agreed,
and in England if you add or alter to a circuit it is not notifiable, so you could alter or add a bit at a time until you reach a stage where you have equalled adding a new circuit in effect, piecemeal, some people dream up such things to justify doing a job in a non notifiable way, daft or what?

 

[JohnW2]

Agreed, and in England if you add or alter to a circuit it is not notifiable, so you could alter or add a bit at a time until you reach a stage where you have equalled adding a new circuit in effect, piecemeal, some people dream up such things to justify doing a job in a non notifiable way, daft or what?

If I understand correctly, other than (I think) in the case of a kitchen or zones in a bathroom, even in Wales (i.e. as with the pre-2013 situation in England) one can still add whatever one likes to an existing circuit without the need for notification.

It has even been suggested (for both England a Wales) that one could employ a 'self-certifying' electrician to install a 'new circuit' about 1 metre long from the CU, feeding some accessory (or maybe even just a JB) - after which 'additions'to that circuit could be made without notification being required. As you say, not necessarily all that 'sensible' a bit of bureaucracy

 

[flameport]

Or do what most do - sling whatever they want in and notify nothing.

 

[martygturner]

I would ask the OP what that circuit is for....whats hanging off the back of it, just because its a ring that can carry 32amps is that actually needed ? Its pretty rare to get 32amps draw on any circuit these days.

 

[ebee]

Or do what most do - sling whatever they want in and notify nothing.

Oh Flameport you old cynic you.
LOL.
yes indeed, I think that Part P was made with the best of intentions, however not worked out very well, I think that Parliament were lead to believe that it would cost each enterprise about £500 per about 5 years, oh dear.
One good thing, more folk bought test meters and the price went down (whether folk actually use them or use them properly I will not comment)

 

[JohnW2]

Oh Flameport you old cynic you. LOL.

Indeed, but there is undoubtedly a fair bit of truth in what he says. In fact, I suspect that a substantial proportion of DIYers (and others!) who undertake electrical work are probably not even aware of the notification system or requirements.

yes indeed, I think that Part P was made with the best of intentions, however not worked out very well, ....

.... and nor am I convinced that it ever 'saved lives' to a significant extent. AsI often say in relation to all sorts of things done (or 'required') in the name of electrical safety, there (surprisingly) been so few domestic electrocutions that there has never been much scope for anything to reduce the (already incredibly small) numbers very much.

In any event, the 2013 'relaxations' (in England) essentially made the whole thing a joke. There is little electrical in the zones of most bathrooms, and 'replacing CUs' is something done very rarely, so the only fairly common electrical work which remains notifiable (in England) is 'installing a new circuit' - and, as per my previous post, there are even potential partial ways around that!