Spurring off a single socket in each room

[securespark]

Oh, hang on...

 

[jg321]

When faced with the same choice myself - I opted to extend the ring to allow me to easily add more sockets in the future. Another option I considered, providing the circuit isn't likely to supply large loads (i.e. isn't a kitchen ring) was to replace the 32A MCB for a 16 or 20A one, thus making it (edit: allowing it to become) a radial, and then any "spurs" effectively become branches. I understand this would be notifiable though, and for now the downstairs sockets including the kitchen are all on one circuit - therefore went for the "extend the ring" option.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That is obviously your choice if you actually are extending the ring.

However, if you are running two cables in the same place, then that would not be my definition of extending the ring.

Instead of presumably having unwanted connectors in the back box for one of the cables, why not connect both cables to the existing socket?
This would give you 5mm² (2 x 2.5mm² in parallel) conductors to your new socket - and the same if you decide to add more at some time in the future.

Of course the same could be achieved by using one 4mm² cable.


A lot of unnecessary work would need to be undertaken to allow all things which may be wanted in the distant future which are not wanted now.

 

[jg321]

That is obviously your choice if you actually are extending the ring.

[...]

A lot of unnecessary work would need to be undertaken to allow all things which may be wanted in the distant future which are not wanted now.

Agreed. In my case though, the places where I wanted sockets conveniently coincided with the cable route for the existing sockets in the room. As a result I was able to cut the existing cable, bring one end into my new socket, extend the remaining cut end, then bring that into my new socket - thus achieving the extended ring with only one join and no backboxes stuffed full of Wagos.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, if you are running two cables in the same place, then that would not be my definition of extending the ring.

Maybe not.

But it would be a correct definition.

Instead of presumably having unwanted connectors in the back box for one of the cables, why not connect both cables to the existing socket?
This would give you 5mm² (2 x 2.5mm² in parallel) conductors to your new socket - and the same if you decide to add more at some time in the future.

Any chance of you explaining why it is OK for you to suggest this:

and at the same time call this suggestion

"absolutely pointless"? (In both cases, connections etc shown at the cable level, not individual conductor)

Of course the same could be achieved by one using 4mm² cable.

Probably, but at the risk of some unusual topologies developing in the future.

A lot of unnecessary work would need to be undertaken to allow all things which may be wanted in the distant future which are not wanted now.

All things, yes.

But running two cables instead of one to the new socket doesn't involve a lot of work, does it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Any chance of you explaining why it is OK for you to suggest this:

I did not suggest it.
I was describing what had been suggested; hence my use of the words 'if you are'.

Then used a step by step progression in order to show that using one 4mm² cable would achieve the same result - should some future proofing be deemed a requirement.
It is clear from your diagrams that two cables in the same place is silly.

I then pointed out that to future proof all things would be a lot of unnecessary work.
You agreed but don't think it applies in this case.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I did not suggest it.

No, of course you didn't.

Instead of presumably having unwanted connectors in the back box for one of the cables, why not connect both cables to the existing socket?
This would give you 5mm² (2 x 2.5mm² in parallel) conductors to your new socket - and the same if you decide to add more at some time in the future.

No doubt in your mind you think that playing these sorts of games is of benefit to the forum.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why would I suggest it - having just dismissed the proposal as absolutely pointless - and then go on to describe why it is?

 

[EdTurtle]

Given that you will have to run a cable from the existing socket to the new one, why not run 2 cables and keep them all on the ring? (If it is a ring, which it probably is)

How would this work? Take one of the original cables from the ring into the original socket, new cable from same socket to next socket, then new cable from second socket back to the other original cable from the ring? Would you connect them with terminal block then in the original back box, or am I missing something? I installed some spurs in my house, but would have preferred to extend the ring, so is the method i described correct?

Thanks

 

[Steven Prentice]

Reading this, I keeping remembering the original question, in a bedroom the OP wants to add another (double) socket. I cannot see a problem with either adding it into a ring, or adding it as a spur.

Future proofing it? Its a bedroom... looking back at all the houses, flats, homes and apartments I have lived in, mostly with 4 sockets I cannot ever think of a situation where I personnaly have wished for a couple more. Now I'm a real grown up my socket requirements is actually decreasing.. future proofing for me would be taking sockets away!

Adding the socket as a ring, would be fine by me..so long as the cable went from socket to socket to socket without any joints in between - since you are dong the disruptive work ayway, why not do it that way and eleminate a weak spot? Hiding a joint under the floor or wherever is asking for trouble in the future if the conectiion fails, at least terminating the cables in the sockets gives easy access to check the connections rather than ripping up the flooring (and possibly expensive hardwood flooring). So adding it as a part of the ruing all depends where the new socket is going and where the cables run whether you can do that.


So for a bedroom - keep it simple, add a double socket on a spur (or a tripple if needed)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why would I suggest it - having just dismissed the proposal as absolutely pointless - and then go on to describe why it is?

Instead of presumably having unwanted connectors in the back box for one of the cables, why not connect both cables to the existing socket?
This would give you 5mm² (2 x 2.5mm² in parallel) conductors to your new socket - and the same if you decide to add more at some time in the future.

 

[bobbleoff]

Thanks all for your advice...and entertainment. I appreciate your suggestions.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How would this work? Take one of the original cables from the ring into the original socket, new cable from same socket to next socket, then new cable from second socket back to the other original cable from the ring? Would you connect them with terminal block then in the original back box, or am I missing something? I installed some spurs in my house, but would have preferred to extend the ring, so is the method i described correct?

Yup.

Instead of this:

this:

My contention is that it really is no harder, and no more disruptive, and doesn't introduce any hidden joints, to run 2 cables to the new socket instead of one.

And contrary to those with the imagination and foresight of an amoeba, I can see that there might come a day when you'd rather have the new socket on the ring than on a spur, and that it cannot be said with certainty that it is utterly impossible for that ever to happen.

 

[albuquerque]

Here we go again.
@bobbleoff if this degenerates into the usual 3 pages of point scoring, please ignore.
If you get really fed up send me a PM or start a private conversation and I’ll advise.

...and so it comes to be...

TTC - I suggest you take it up with EFLI, who was the one who started giving incorrect advice.

I cannot, and will not, accept responsibility for the fallout from challenging incorrect advice, and I cannot, and will not, allow it to go unchallenged for the sake of avoiding an argument...

So I know I'm new here, but I must have missed the part where b-a-s is solely responsible for all advice offered on this forum.
You certainly act as if this is your responsibility / gift whatever but why do you feel that you must challenge other people's opinions because you have some kind of deep-rooted requirement that you must protect all other forum members? I'm happy to sign up to a "I absolve b-a-s from all responsibility if, in turn, he stops commenting on my threads" clause if that makes you feel better?

 

[Keithmac]

Is BAS a qualified electrician?.