Shower fire revisited

[winston1]

RF Lighting said in the other thread: "You would use the local isolator to switch off your now on fire shower in an emergency. Well you would if some idiot hadn’t told you that you don’t need an isolator."


As I seem to have been locked out of that thread I'll answer here.

If I had a fire shower I would immediately isolate the shower circuit at the CU. No way I would go near a pull switch near a burning shower even if there was one.

 

[JohnD]

And yet, I have a three storey house, with a bathroom on the top floor, and the CU in the garage off the ground floor. Luckily I keep the garage key near the back door, so the house might not be completely destroyed by the time I cut the power off.

"Local Isolation" is a very handy thing in an emergency.

What will you spend the money on that you saved by not having a switch?

luckily I know that advice can be ignored if it is wrong, so I will ignore yours.

 

[RF Lighting]

For someone so keen on correcting other users “mistakes”, you could at least try and spell my name properly.

Which is safer. Pulling an insulated string which is readily available for operation within a second or two of noticing the problem, or trying to run through the house and down the stairs with wet slippery feet and faffing about pulling out the wellies and ironing board in the way of the consumer unit then trying to find the right circuit breaker in a poorly lit cupboard without my glasses on kneeling naked in a pool of water dripping off me?

 

[bernardgreen]

The majority of MCBs in consumer units are single pole devices. Switching OFF the single pole MCB that supplies the shower does NOT isolate the shower.

This means that the defective shower can due to a Neutral to Earth fault prevent the RCD in the consumer unit being reset.

No way I would go near a pull switch

You would probably have to pass it on your way to the CU.

 

[winston1]

For someone so keen on correcting other users “mistakes”, you could at least try and spell my name properly.

Now edited.

 

[JohnW2]

Which is safer. Pulling an insulated string which is readily available for operation within a second or two of noticing the problem, or trying to run through the house and down the stairs with wet slippery feet and faffing about pulling out the wellies and ironing board in the way of the consumer unit then trying to find the right circuit breaker in a poorly lit cupboard without my glasses on kneeling naked in a pool of water dripping off me?

I suppose that, in the context of 'a shower on fire' (which I imagine is an extreme rare occurrence), it somewhat depends on 'what one plans to do next'.

By the time there is an actual fire (flames and smoke), although I suppose that all our first reactions are to rapidly 'turn off the electricity', I don't think that would often, if ever, make any difference to the fire - which by then would be 'self-sustaining'. The only situation I can think of in which switching off the electricity would be 'needed' would be if one's plan was to then pour water over the shower in an attempt to put the fire out!

Having said that, I have to admit that, as a result of a different way of thinking (or not thinking!) in my younger years, my house is full of what a good few people have described as 'a ridiculous number' of 'local' switches/isolators - few of which I suspect have ever been 'switched off'! They certainly can be 'convenient' at times and, other than theoretically representing additional potential 'points of failure' (so, I suppose, theoretical fire risks), it does no particular harm to have them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Keithmac]

Apart from laziness, why would you not fit an isolating switch for the shower?.

 

[BS3036]

Apart from laziness, why would you not fit an isolating switch for the shower?.

Because you listened to some prat on the internet who told you not to.

 

[JohnW2]

Apart from laziness, why would you not fit an isolating switch for the shower?.

I'm not personally necessarily suggesting that one doesn't - but, as I've said, adding an isolation switch introduces an extra thing to go wrong (we see quite a lot of posts about problems with shower isolators) and, perhaps more importantly, is the fact that at least 'burned wires' (hence perhaps a risk of fires) seems much more common in shower isolators than in showers themselves. ... so it's not a totally one-sided decision, with only 'laziness' on one side of the argument.

In practical terms, one issue which has not been mentioned is that, even for the lazy, it is not too much effort to install a ceiling-mounted isolator (with a pull cord) on the ceiling IF the supply to the shower comes from above. However, if the supply comes from below, it is much more of a mission (which might put off even the non-lazy) to fit an isolator, not the least because of the restrictions as to where any sort of switch is allowed to be located in a room containing a shower.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I don’t think the poor training and incompetence of shower isolator installers is really justification to to not install them.

I can’t remember ever replacing a shower isolator which I have installed, but then I was trained properly and don’t install the cheapest junk I can lay my hands on.

If shower isolators were a mandated requirement then people would find a way to fit them, so not bothering can only be laziness.

 

[JohnW2]

I don’t think the poor training and incompetence of shower isolator installers is really justification to to not install them.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that it is.

I can’t remember ever replacing a shower isolator which I have installed, but then I was trained properly and don’t install the cheapest junk I can lay my hands on.

Probably all true - but, unfortunately, you are not the only person who installs and sources them - and, as I said, we hear a fair bit about problems with them. I also suspect that it's the 'installing them properly', rather than the 'cheapest junk', which is the main issue - since it seems to nearly always be 'loose connections' which are the cause of (or, at least, are blamed for!) the problems.

If shower isolators were a mandated requirement then people would find a way to fit them, so not bothering can only be laziness.

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by 'laziness'. As you say, if it were a mandated requirement, then I presume people would have to do it, regardless of the cost in time, money, disruption and 'damage'.

As a matter of interest, what sort of approach would you take to installing an isolator for a shower in a small bathroom that was supplied (with electricity!) from vertically below?

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

A problem with shower isolators is people will insist on turning them on and off every time they use the shower instead of say twice a year when they go on holiday. This is not helped by shower manufacturers incorrectly saying they should do this.

 

[RF Lighting]

Go away with your manufactures are incorrect nonsense. It’s boring and nobody cares.

 

[winston1]

Go away with your manufactures are incorrect nonsense. It’s boring and nobody cares.

It is not nonsense. It is frequent and people should care if the errors are dangerous like this one you will have seen before.

 

[RF Lighting]

As a matter of interest, what sort of approach would you take to installing an isolator for a shower in a small bathroom that was supplied (with electricity!) from vertically below?

Through the airing cupboard floor to ceiling, into the loft, through the isolator and a drop down the wall to the shower.