Adding sockets to ring

[muffking]

Hi guys.
I'd like to add a couple of sockets to my bedroom so that they are easily accessible as the existing double is hidden behind the bed.

Am I better off splitting the ring with a couple of MF extension boxes and some 2.5mm T&E, or would a couple of radial sockets suffice?

Here's a pic for reference. The new sockets would simply be for bedside lights, alarm clock and charging mobile phones, although I've yet to decide if I would keep the old socket.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Any time you have both legs of the ring in the same place it's pointless.
Just connect as spurs to the socket. It saves two junction boxes.

Otherwise, it's up to you; it makes no difference electrically.

 

[muffking]

Thanks EFL, sounds much more practical. That means I can pull the cables back under the floor for the MF box and remove the existing double socket.
Can I still use 2.5mm T&E for the radial sockets? I only ask as my tutor has a bee in his bonnet about increases in impedance not being low enough to trip some MCB's in the event of a short to earth.

Modified drawing of the plan.

 

[flameport]

increases in impedance not being low enough to trip some MCB's in the event of a short to earth.

While that is a valid concern for any circuit, the increase in impedance from adding a couple of metres of cable will be insignificant.

 

[muffking]

Great stuff. I'll get a 32A Hager box on order then

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, that's alright if you want to remove the existing socket.

It could be handy - just connect the spurs to the socket.

2.5mm² will be fine.

 

[muffking]

Thanks again.
I may as well use this as an opportunity to remove the old socket as it won't be used when the 2 new ones are added.

Plus a box under the floor will save any issues of getting 4 cables in the back of the old socket

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Plus 4 conductors per terminal in the socket might not be OK.

 

[EFLImpudence]

On the other hand ...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They might be?

 

[sparkwright]

Crap way of doing it.

It's far superior to have the new sockets on the ring rather than adding spurs.

It's future proof if you decide you need to add more sockets later.

To keep them on the ring, you can do this with 2 junction boxes, and not 4 like your diagram implies.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Crap way of doing it.

No, it isn't.

It's far superior to have the new sockets on the ring rather than adding spurs.

No, it isn't. It makes absolutely no difference electrically or regulation wise.

It's future proof if you decide you need to add more sockets later.

Ah, the great future proofing - in case he gets a second alarm clock?

To keep them on the ring, you can do this with 2 junction boxes, and not 4 like your diagram implies.

It could be done with three terminal connectors.

 

[sparkwright]

Future proofing for TV equipment, or a socket in the next room.

Also makes fault finding easier if sockets wired in a direct ring, without hidden branches.

 

[flameport]

Future proofing would be to dispose of the ring entirely, and convert to radials.
Sockets can then be added wherever you want, no tiresome ring to identify, extend or even consider.

 

[sparkwright]

That may be the case, but it is a ring circuit.

So it might as well be done properly.