Is this Rev 2?  Rev 1 being done by DIY Dave previously?

Will you be replacing it or just make it complaint and safe?  It would be good to see a follow up on this. 

I mite be missing something here but if you don't want someone to use more than say 30 Amps you just fit a 30 amp fuse or trip switch. Why have all the extra gubbins they got there? Or does it transfer the load to a genset when it goes over?

Some notes I made about this:

1. It's an assembly of equipment - pretty much by definition a 'switchgear and controlgear assembly'. BS 7671 requires these to be constructed to appropriate standards (Regulation 113.1), which in this case would be BS EN 61439-series.

2. ESQCR (Britain and NI versions) Regulation 21 has provisions for switched alternative supplies. One of those is that BS 7671 applies ... and an issue for both ESQCR and BS 7671 conformity is whether the contactors provide isolation.

3. Whilst (arguably) not addressed as yet in ESQCR Regulation 21 and Distribution Code Schedule 1 documents "Have to"), in essence this is an importation limitation scheme by any other name, and should (going forward for new installations) conform to ENA EREC G100.

An installation that someone should be proud of - it has so many things that are not really right that you wonder where to begin. Its not a 'spot the hazard' exam question is it ?

And the layout, while to its credit avoiding tight bunches of cables that can overheat, also seems to be avoiding any sense of logical routing , labeling, or suitable strain reliefs and mechanical support. The colour choices for the wiring are a bit off. (and what is that great tangle of shielded twin ?)

I must say  that it looks almost automotive. 

Despite that I presume it has been working as well as the day it was made for some years, and that someone is happy to read the meter and not blink.

I'm rather hoping you are there to improve it. Or buy a padlock.

Mike.

Or buy a padlock.

The innards look like they might just meet IP2X or IPXXB - if so it would seem to meet the requirements of 412.2.2.3 even if the door can be opened without the use of a key or tool.

what is that great tangle of shielded twin ?)

I was wondering that too (I couldn't quite see what it would connect to...) - maybe it's FELV?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Or buy a padlock.

The innards look like they might just meet IP2X or IPXXB - if so it would seem to meet the requirements of 412.2.2.3 even if the door can be opened without the use of a key or tool.

This is a photo from one of our recent periodic inspections for which I was out doing QA.  It will end up as part of a portfolio of images that I will pop up on the screen during my 2391 classes. 
It will serve to demonstrate that the initial verification process is a tad easier than assessing whether an installation is safe for continued use, which is the key tenet of periodic verification.

My guy seems to have opened the enclosure, witnessed the evident mess and gone for his code two gun. I am not saying he is wrong, but he failed to point out the reason for his concerns. 

I think that the client deserves a clear explanation for the observations and associated codes arising from any professional periodic inspections where EAW Regs apply.
The code two given  for the inner cores of the HO7RNF cable being exposed might be just an obvious one-liner for the inspector but I require it to be explained. It would seem that most guys have difficulty in presenting a clear summary of their findings, but it isn’t good enough to simply tut and say “that’s a code 2 mate!”

The tangle of shielded conductors are part of a multi-core cable that runs to the generator control panel to instruct a start. 

 It will end up as part of a portfolio of images that I will pop up on the screen during my 2391 classes. 

so, it really is being put in for a 'spot the hazard' competition....

But I understand the uncertainty - not  to regs, for certain,  but what to code it, as it is poor work, but maybe not an immediate danger, and maybe even borderline for a very stern C3 if the door actually locked,  - mind you what is protecting the white singles - is any of that just on a company fuse?

And  ideal as an example of something  less "textbook" to make the trainees think about what they may one day encounter.

Mike.

Yes, get you on the first two GK but never really considered the G100 perspective. I thought the G100 was an export limitation for generators in parallel with the DNO. 

mapj1 said:

It will end up as part of a portfolio of images that I will pop up on the screen during my 2391 classes. 

so, it really is being put in for a 'spot the hazard' competition....

I spend a couple of hours towards the end of the course just to engender a bit of debate and discussion on the coding concept. It is interesting to see how different the candidates determinations can be. I have to be careful not to supplant my own views over those promulgated by ESF on the subject. Whilst there is much common ground, I often find myself oceans apart with them on occasions. 
The on-line City and Guilds exam could have several questions on “what code” given a certain scenario. They seem to stick rigidly to what it says in ESF Best Practice Guide 4. Unlike the written exams of old, that our dear friend David Stone would laud, there is no room for logical expansion of one’s opinions in a multiple choice paper!

Are the silver cables some kind of control cable like a SY or CY cable possibly?