Left & Right - Not Upper & Lower

[caveman2]

Has anybody heard of houses where the power and lighting rings are not uniformly Upper & Lower.
I heard years ago where one room on each floor of a house would obtain lighting power from the other ring. So that there would always be a single light on that floor if the fuse blew.
But while at my son's house I was changing the wall plates and power sockets. The problem was that when I disabled the upper ring fuse. I found that the power existed on one side of his house and if say I wanted to work on the upper right hand side of his house, I had to disable the lower ring.
Now that is not a problem providing you are aware. Has anyone seen this before and how did you assign the fuses eg. East & West?

 

[mwatsonxx]

Nothing wrong with that, just assign them logically. Maybe be put a label on the CU stating circuits split front to back or LHS to RHS, whatever makes sense.

 

[securespark]

Yes, that sort of thing has been going on for donkey's.

As you suggest, suitable labelling of the CU and if necessary a diagram should ensure confusion does not reign.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Now that is not a problem providing you are aware.

It is also not a problem if you adopt safe working practices, whether you are aware of the way the circuits are arranged or not.

 

[winston1]

Has anybody heard of houses where the power and lighting rings are not uniformly Upper & Lower.

I have never heard of a house with a lighting ring.

Lights are wired on radial circuits not rings.

 

[caveman2]

I have never heard of a house with a lighting ring.

Lights are wired on radial circuits not rings.

I may have got that wrong, I don't know. The lighting may well be a radial circuit. My only interest was to whether the practice of East / West rings / radials was unusual.

 

[John D v2.0]

Unusual yes but as long as it's designed to minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault, it's up to the designer to decide how to wire it up.
My only criticism is the labelling, as they should have labelled which circuit covers where, so if they're described as upper and lower then that is incorrect documentation.

 

[caveman2]

Unusual yes but as long as it's designed to minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault, it's up to the designer to decide how to wire it up.
My only criticism is the labelling, as they should have labelled which circuit covers where, so if they're described as upper and lower then that is incorrect documentation.

100% agree. It was labelled Upper / Lower and completely threw me at first. Fortunately I double check before working on the circuit. But I'm sure everyone is not so thorough and would be caught out.
Off to finish it tomorrow and will take sticky labels to change labels in CU.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Though anyone seriously caught out should not be working on electrical circuits.

 

[ianniann]

My house is wired more or less with the kitchen on one ring and essentially everything else on another plus some radials. Helpfully the CU wasn't labelled at all when I moved in. I think it is partly a historical quirk since the downstairs was originally just one room and a kitchen, and perhaps partly practicality because of the layout with a large extension. The lighting is split strictly by floor though.

 

[mwatsonxx]

In the average house, most of the load is in the kitchen. So it's standard procedure for a separate ring for the kitchen and another for the rest of the house.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What is an average house?

 

[mwatsonxx]

What is an average house?

I was anticipating that pathetic response. But to educate you, where I'm from 6 beds and servants quarters because we are wealthy. obrigado

 

[EFLImpudence]

One ring circuit for the rest of the house might prove inconvenient, then.

 

[mwatsonxx]

One ring circuit for the rest of the house might prove inconvenient, then.

No I was thinking of a two bed hovel in portugal, not where I live.