Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 157 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 10608 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Ring Main at Consumer unit

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
My daughter has just had an electrical safety check done and I suspect that the electrician has been over zeleous..

Would anyone care to comment.


There is no grommet where the meter tails enter the consumer unit and the outer insulation stops just short of the knockout.

He has graded this C1.   Now my opinion is that that does not present an  an immediate threat to the safety of personell

It needs fixing but surely only a C2?


More intriguing.  He gives a C3 to the ring circuit because the two legs enter the consumer unit through separate knock outs.  I can't find that in the regs


And finally an old chestnut which has been discussed before.   A C3 because two radial "circuits" are served by a single breaker..  I have always argued that the definition of a circuit is that it is served by a single breaker.  Certainly if both radials were brought to a junction box outside the CU and then connected to the breaker by a single cable it would meet the definition of a radial..


Thanks for your attention

Parents
  • 0
    I know what you mean Zoom. I have a friend who is a NIC approved contractor and his comments of "circuits doubled" in the consumer unit causes me always to inform him there is no such thing. I keep reminding him that a radial can take any form, not just from fuseway then one to tother to tother etc till the end but also teed and treed in any config including two or more conductors in the fuseway . He`s happy with all of that but considers doubling at the fuseway a no no yet doubling immediately after the consumer unit (say the first fitting) is OK. I realise he`s unhappy that people often get two lighting circuits (say upstairs and downstairs) then combine them to be one circuit is a bit naughty (not good practice usually) but if someone redesigns it as such then it becomes only one circuit. 

    The word "minimise" when talking about circuits is a misnomer too though because the only way to minimise is to put each point on its own circuit and none of us do that. Spreading ccts out to reduce disruption when losing a cct is what we usually do. and again its up to the cct designer, not always good designs though I`m afraid and I do realise that is what he is trying to avoid. I must admit when I see such I always think "has someone put two ccts in one fuseway as a cheap way of freeing up a way for something else thereby comprising , a little, a decent design. It often is, although I`d avoid the comment "circuits doubled"
Reply
  • 0
    I know what you mean Zoom. I have a friend who is a NIC approved contractor and his comments of "circuits doubled" in the consumer unit causes me always to inform him there is no such thing. I keep reminding him that a radial can take any form, not just from fuseway then one to tother to tother etc till the end but also teed and treed in any config including two or more conductors in the fuseway . He`s happy with all of that but considers doubling at the fuseway a no no yet doubling immediately after the consumer unit (say the first fitting) is OK. I realise he`s unhappy that people often get two lighting circuits (say upstairs and downstairs) then combine them to be one circuit is a bit naughty (not good practice usually) but if someone redesigns it as such then it becomes only one circuit. 

    The word "minimise" when talking about circuits is a misnomer too though because the only way to minimise is to put each point on its own circuit and none of us do that. Spreading ccts out to reduce disruption when losing a cct is what we usually do. and again its up to the cct designer, not always good designs though I`m afraid and I do realise that is what he is trying to avoid. I must admit when I see such I always think "has someone put two ccts in one fuseway as a cheap way of freeing up a way for something else thereby comprising , a little, a decent design. It often is, although I`d avoid the comment "circuits doubled"
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines