What's The Standard Way of Switching Sockets Separately?

Joined
4 May 2016
Messages
256
Reaction score
4
Country
United Kingdom
I've only ever done this once which was for a washing machine... switch-less socket under the counter top with a switch in series before the socket: feed --> 20A DP switch --> socket.

But what if you have, say, a switch-less socket spurred off a ring on "wall A" and require the switch to be on "wall C" (direct opposite wall)... what method would you use for that?

First method that comes to my mind is to have a junction box/Wago connectors at the socket and run a switch line either through the floor or ceiling to opposite wall in the same way a switch line would be run from a light fixture?

Also thinking about it this way makes grid switching seem complex.

Cheers.
 
Sponsored Links
Are you suggesting basically having a socket as the 'light' in what would be wired like a lighting circuit?

If you're going to go the effort of running a wire from the switch to the switchless socket why not just fit a DP switch and switch it like the old way just with a longer run from switch to socket than would be the norm(regs allowing it obviously as I don't know)?
 
Its not a very conventional way to "Three plate" (the term for lighting) a socket, in all my career i have only ever seen it done once, though I cant think of a reg that forbids it.
 
Sponsored Links
I've only ever done this once which was for a washing machine... switch-less socket under the counter top with a switch in series before the socket: feed --> 20A DP switch --> socket.

But what if you have, say, a switch-less socket spurred off a ring on "wall A" and require the switch to be on "wall C" (direct opposite wall)... what method would you use for that?

First method that comes to my mind is to have a junction box/Wago connectors at the socket and run a switch line either through the floor or ceiling to opposite wall in the same way a switch line would be run from a light fixture?

Also thinking about it this way makes grid switching seem complex.

Cheers.

Like your washing machine, wire the switch at the circuit where you want the switch to be, and run a 3-core cable to where you want the appliance outlet go be.
 
I 'have' 3-plated a socket as described, with a 20amp DP switch only switching the Live.

Naturally this caused confusion to say the least when 6 months later the maintenance man decided to replace that socket with a double converter socket...

You may as well run two cables rather than one, so you could extend the feed with one cable by joining it in the back of the socket box, and run it to the DP switch.

Then from the switch, run the second cable to the socket, and wire this directly to the socket.
 
Not the way I read it.
Indeed - and, in any event, there's no regulation which says that it is never acceptable to 'take a spur from a spur' on a ring final.

I suppose some idiots may try to argue that, since the first accessory electrons would hit after leaving the ring would be the switch, that would be the 'spurred accessory', such that the socket was then 'spurred from that spur'. However, given that a switch is not a current-consuming item, that would be a totally daft argument, and not consistent with the 'do not spur off a spur' concept!

Interestingly, in these days of new-fangled gadgets, most people would not bat an eyelid (other than asking 'why?'!!) with having a socket which was 'switched remotely' by wireless - so I suppose there's no reason why they should have a problem when the 'remote switching 'is 'wired'. In any event, in electrical terms it's no different (other than probably being single-pole, rather than DP switching) from having a switch upstream of an unswitched socket - which is a common arrangement, particularly in kitchens.

Kind Regards, John
 
Indeed - and, in any event, there's no regulation which says that it is never acceptable to 'take a spur from a spur' on a ring final.
433.1.204 figure 15a does state (on ring final circuit arrangements) that 'an unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket outlet only' - so that sounds to me that you shouldn't take a spur from a spur.

However, it only specifies sockets.

I suppose in theory you could have two FCUs supplying certain fixed loads, one spurred from a ring, the other spurred from that one.

HOWEVER, THIS IS IRRELEVENT TO THE OP'S QUESTION, AS HIS SOCKET AND ISOLATION SWITCH WILL BE IN THE FORM OF ONE SPUR.
 
433.1.204 figure 15a does state (on ring final circuit arrangements) that 'an unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket outlet only' - so that sounds to me that you shouldn't take a spur from a spur.
The regulation (433.1.204) says no such thing. Figure 15a is in the ('Informative') Appendix 15 - hence guidance, not regulation.
I suppose in theory you could have two FCUs supplying certain fixed loads, one spurred from a ring, the other spurred from that one.
[I assume you mean the second FCU 'spurred' from the supply side of the first FCU]
Well, in the real world (in which there is nothing stopping a user plugging two 13A loads into a double socket), that's not different from one double socket - which even the guidance of Appendix 15 accepts. What is interesting (and often discussed here) is that that guidance also suggests that one should not spur two single sockets from a ring - which implies that they do not regard a double socket as potentially representing a 26A load!

Kind Regards, John
 
I take your point about reg number (whoops) and appendixes.

It was once a rule?, reg?, guidance? (help me out) that two single SOCKETS could be spurred from a ring (ie a spur from a spur) but not the case now - but as you indicate not the case now.
 
It was a regulation, so was the maximum floor area and several other things.
14th edition:

ring_sockets_14th_edition_1966.png


Now it's all in the appendix, which is not a regulation/
 
Does that not confirm that, at least some of, the regulation and, most of, Appendix 15 regarding the ring final are merely arbitrary and therefore cannot preclude any configuration based on electrical knowledge?

For example, were one to wire a ring final and/or spurs in 4mm² cable, with 32A OPD, then it would technically not be a ring final nor ring final spur in the accepted sense, and therefore not be subject to any of the restrictions stated for ring final circuits.

I am presuming A30-33 is similar to 433.1.204.
 
Does that not confirm that, at least some of, the regulation and, most of, Appendix 15 regarding the ring final are merely arbitrary and therefore cannot preclude any configuration based on electrical knowledge?
As often discussed, for what it's worth that would certainly be my view.
For example, were one to wire a ring final and/or spurs in 4mm² cable, with 32A OPD, then it would technically not be a ring final nor ring final spur in the accepted sense, and therefore not be subject to any of the restrictions stated for ring final circuits.
True, but there would be absolutely no point in having a sockets circuit wired in 4mm² cable and protected by a 32A OPD configured as a ring.

Perhaps more to the point (as you and I, and some others, often point out), there is absolutely nothing in the regs (and/or 'electrical knowledge') which prevents one having an unlimited number of sockets/whatever supplied by a 4mm² unfused spur from a 2.5mm²/32A ring final.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top