2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

[mikep83]

Hi folks.

I cut one of the cables on my ring circuit, attached the 2 now separate ends to a new 30a junction box, and then run 2 additional spurs from the same junction box, using 32a twin and earth, on the end of each of these new spurs is a twin plug socket with usb.

I did the work with my father in law, who’s an avid DIYer and has been doing diy for 60 years.

We did a really good job, cables cut nice, neat, secure, tested them, and all working.

Due to a rush to get the job done before decorators, I pre installed the new sockets and cabling, ready for the junction, and only then did I realise I should have extended the ring.....it was too late, I had sealed the walls up and could not get another cable in. We used a square 30a MK box, which had ample room for the cables.

These are bedside outlets, not for heavy consuming items.

Some forums and people have now put the fear of god in me that this is dangerous, however I have read mixed opinions (e.g. apparatly 1 spur from any point is the Reg, ok.....so I have 2 on mine, but is this really much different than if I added another junction 10 inches away for my second spur)

Is this really a concern to warrant me ripping it all back out?

It’s a good tidy job.
I know there’s regulations and partP......hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Views?
Many thanks.

 

[Kamikaze]

Thanks for the replies. It’s surprising do see so many differing views and opinions / interpretations of the regs from you experienced folks....says a lot in itself.

I have read the responses and conclude that it’s questionable if it’s regulations or not. Is it likely common in most older houses.....I reckon so, and a lot worse things out there.

Mathematically, it is possible to overload, is it likely....no.....I am very aware of it now, and we will be sensible about what we plug in and leave on.

I have a lot of trust in my father in law, we both did this, and I’m not an idiot either, we took care, and did a really good job, all be it, not the way I would have done it had I more time.

The irony of this, I had an electrician come out, and he wanted to run the new cables and 2 new doubles off the single socket on the ring, and through the joists alongside the central heating pipes.......yeah, you read that right.

The second irony, is my father in law, just had a new conservatory installed and they run 4 spur to spursnot on ring.....yep, you read that right too.

So I’m putting this into context, accepting I’m not an electrician, but have a new appreciation and learning to my bow......life is about learning......

My concern was not regs, but around safety, and they was a key point raised in the thread about ensuring the new installion works with the circuit breaker\trip switch........which I will get a proper sparky to check next room I do.

Downgrade the RCBO to 20A and that will be the end of that argument.

 

[johnduffell]

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

 

[Pete999]

In all honesty I've been in the trade 40 odd years and I cannot remember a single fault that I could attribute to uneven distribution of load on a ring. This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not at all Wirepuller, nothing at all to do with it being from a DIY er

 

[Pete999]

In all honesty I've been in the trade 40 odd years and I cannot remember a single fault that I could attribute to uneven distribution of load on a ring. This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not at all Wirepuller, nothing at all to do with it being from a DIY er

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

So as far as you are concerned say you have 10 sockets as a ring, you can take 10 infused Spurs from the same point on a RFC? is that correct?

 

[Toneyz]

If the OP installs another j.b. on the ring next to the other one and has one unswitched spur per j.b. as appendix 15 would that be acceptable?
To the OP where on the ring is this j.b.?

 

[johnduffell]

So as far as you are concerned say you have 10 sockets as a ring, you can take 10 infused Spurs from the same point on a RFC? is that correct?

Yes, as long as you could find a suitable junction box. Furthermore, assuming the short leg was clipped direct the point could be as close to the CU as 1/6 of the way round the ring.
Of course you would have to meet disconnection times and volt drops too.
It would be very weird and there wouldn't be much justification to do it on purpose.

 

[Octopus]

Downgrade the RCBO to 20A and that will be the end of that argument.

I think you missed the point being debated

 

[johnduffell]

Just to clarify my previous post, I misremembered the actual wording. The regs don't require you to balance the ring at all, it only requires you design the circuit to be unlikely to exceed the capacity of the cable for long periods. And just to inflame things further, you could even run a 4mm or greater unfused spur and that would be fine.

 

[Toneyz]

I have no issue with the j.b. cable current rating etc it would be more the load put on one side of the R.F.C. but saying that it is no worse than an appliance grid switch not being close as possible to the middle.

 

[Toneyz]

Just to clarify my previous post, I misremembered the actual wording. The regs don't require you to balance the ring at all, it only requires you design the circuit to be unlikely to exceed the capacity of the cable for long periods. And just to inflame things further, you could even run a 4mm or greater unfused spur and that would be fine.

The 2.5 is ok as even if two 13A loads were plugged in the rating of the cable exceeds 26A. Those who are using Appendix 15 as their argument should that the whole of the page in consideration not just the picture of the ring final circuit.

 

[Pete999]

If the OP installs another j.b. on the ring next to the other one and has one unswitched spur per j.b. as appendix 15 would that be acceptable?
To the OP where on the ring is this j.b.?

If the OP put another job next to th one he has already,removed the cable between the twoj jobs, essentially having two ends of the RFC one in each job he could have extended the RFC to his hearts content by taking a 2.5 from each job and as I said extend RFC

 

[johnduffell]

Those who are using Appendix 15 as their argument should that the whole of the page in consideration not just the picture of the ring final circuit.

Yes indeed, in fact Appendix 15 is simply just suggested ways of meeting the requirements of the actual reg in 433.1. As long as you keep to the regs, you can design whatever circuit you like, however bizarre it is.

To go back to the OP, their circuit would be fine, unless they have a chance of running high power equipment off the sockets AND the spur point is relatively close to the origin of the circuit.

 

[Spoon]

Indeed, all that is happening here is some members are determined to shoot a DIYer down in flames, come what may.

This whole thread is about making a mountain out of a molehill because it's a DIYer.

Not sure where you are getting this from. Everyone has their own opinion I suppose.
This discussion is about the interpretation of the regs. The OP being a DIYer is irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I’ve given you a dumb, because your comment is very dumb

That's fine if it's your opinion, but given the post also got 5 agrees and 2 likes it seems I'm not the only dumb one!

 

[Pete999]

Someones asked for a regulation number can't recall who it was think it was SC.
Thinking about it, the reg number and Appendix 15, I believe that that Regulation is 433.1.204 with Appendix 15 and in particular Fig 15A, I think Fig 15A is there to help people with the complexities of Reg 433.1.204 starting at Reg 433.1, that's my take anyway, for what it's worth, not sure I really care anymore. What the OP dis in my opinion was wrong, not something I would do.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Not sure where you are getting this from. Everyone has their own opinion I suppose.
This discussion is about the interpretation of the regs. The OP being a DIYer is irrelevant.

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances, see #52) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

 

[Pete999]

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Wirepuller, there are no "elite members" on this forum, there are however some respected and older members who have been here a long time, you yourself are one of those people, being a member since 2009 I believe.

 

[Wilko]

... I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

Hi Wirey, although you are yourself part of the respected elite I will be brave and disagree with you .

 

[Pete999]

you're not supposed to have more unfused spurs than points on a ring, but you can connect them all to one point if you like if it doesn't cause any other issue. Although even the former "rule" doesn't preclude other safe designs such as a ring round above the ceiling with junction boxes dropping down to each socket.
You are supposed to have consideration of the balance of a ring, but if you sit down and work it out you can take the full 32A along all but the closest part of the ring to the CU for it to overload the cable. And in that case you would try to spur from the CU anyway.

I don't think the "rule" you talk of, doesn't preclude what you are saying, nothing wrong with running a ring around the top floor of a house and spurring down to sockets downstairs, except of course in areas of high usage, the Kitchen springs to mind. As for you're point where you say about as many "unfused spurs" all taken from one point on the RFC, I believe the only way to achieve this would be, by spurring off to a FUSED connection unit and running your extra sockets from this FCU.

 

[markc123]

I’ve read the first 3 pages of this thread only.

And I am absolutely baffled that nobody has called the OP out for being out of his depth.

I’m all for DIY ... if I wasn’t I’d be a hypocrite as I change car tyres on my vehicles. But DIY is absolutley not splitting rings and wiring fresh whether it be radials or extensions.

DIY is changing light fittings socket faceplates ect.

This. Is. Wrong.

Funny how the Client will pay for decorators to come in to make it look nice but won’t pay for proper electricians to get there actual safety right. All wrong.

Sorry OP this is aimed at everyone in your posistion not just you.

 

[gazdkw82]

My concern was not regs, but around safety, and they was a key point raised in the thread about ensuring the new installion works with the circuit breaker\trip switch........which I will get a proper sparky to check next room I do.

Think your misunderstanding the point of the regs. We all work within the scope of the wiring regulations for safety purposes. Deviating from the regs will need a risk assessment and also noted on your minor works form. Which you have completed I'm sure ;-)

 

[mikep83]

I’ve read the first 3 pages of this thread only.

And I am absolutely baffled that nobody has called the OP for being out of his depth.

I’m all for DIY ... if I wasn’t I’d be a hypocrite as I change car tyres on my vehicles. But DIY is absolutley not splitting rings and wiring fresh whether it be radials or extensions.

DIY is changing light fittings socket faceplates ect.

This. Is. Wrong.

Funny how the Client will pay for decorators to come in to make it look nice but won’t pay for proper electricians to get there actual safety right. All wrong.

Sorry OP this is aimed at everyone in your posistion not just you.

First, I didn’t pay a decorator to do anything, second, you should have read more than 1st 3 pages as you would have seen I did call out an electrician.

 

[Pete999]

I’ve read the first 3 pages of this thread only.

And I am absolutely baffled that nobody has called the OP for being out of his depth.

I’m all for DIY ... if I wasn’t I’d be a hypocrite as I change car tyres on my vehicles. But DIY is absolutley not splitting rings and wiring fresh whether it be radials or extensions.

DIY is changing light fittings socket faceplates ect.

This. Is. Wrong.

Funny how the Client will pay for decorators to come in to make it look nice but won’t pay for proper electricians to get there actual safety right. All wrong.

Sorry OP this is aimed at everyone in your posistion not just you.

Judging from the number of replies to this thread, I think the OP is totally confused, as to the correctness of what he has done, but in saying that, you are absolutely correct in your observations, as long as it looks nice when finished, it's end of, pay up and move on, jobs a good one, or not as in this case.

 

[Pete999]

Hi folks.

I cut one of the cables on my ring circuit, attached the 2 now separate ends to a new 30a junction box, and then run 2 additional spurs from the same junction box, using 32a twin and earth, on the end of each of these new spurs is a twin plug socket with usb.

I did the work with my father in law, who’s an avid DIYer and has been doing diy for 60 years.

We did a really good job, cables cut nice, neat, secure, tested them, and all working.

Due to a rush to get the job done before decorators, I pre installed the new sockets and cabling, ready for the junction, and only then did I realise I should have extended the ring.....it was too late, I had sealed the walls up and could not get another cable in. We used a square 30a MK box, which had ample room for the cables.

These are bedside outlets, not for heavy consuming items.

Some forums and people have now put the fear of god in me that this is dangerous, however I have read mixed opinions (e.g. apparatly 1 spur from any point is the Reg, ok.....so I have 2 on mine, but is this really much different than if I added another junction 10 inches away for my second spur)

Is this really a concern to warrant me ripping it all back out?

It’s a good tidy job.
I know there’s regulations and partP......hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Views?
Many thanks.

View attachment 45047

There is just one point that I can't recall anyone mentioning, that point being: how sure is the OP of which part of the RFC he has added this jb? it could feasibly be a spur in itself, which would be even worse, just saying.

 

[Spoon]

I said it because I am 100% certain that if one of the respected elite on here said they had done this (which is not impossible under some circumstances, see #52) Pete and all would not have questioned it.

I have to disagree with you again mate.
If anyone posts something that I feel is against the regs I would tell them. I have done this in the past. I con't care if the person is a DIYer, an electrician who has just joined the forum or an electrician been on here for 15 years.
Not sure why @Pete999 has been mentioned as @Murdoch and I were the first to disagree with the OP in posts 7 & 8.

 

[johnduffell]

I believe the only way to achieve this would be, by spurring off to a FUSED connection

Fair enough, which reg would that be? Or are you relying on it not being pictured in appendix 15?

 

[SparkyChick]

So my closing post on this issue...

Having read all the regulation put forth thus far, I can find no reason why two properly formed spurs cannot be fed from a single point on a ring final circuit.

So, lets take a look at what 433.1.204 actually says.

• Accessories to BS 1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit, with or without unfused spurs - Unless he's purchased cheap Chinese tat, there is a very good chance that the accessories comply
  
• protected by a 30A or 32A protective device complying with BS 88 series, BS 3036, BS EN 60898, BS EN 60947-2 or BS EN 61009-1 (RCBO) - Since the OP doesn't state what type of consumer unit he has, it's a fairly safe assumption the device is going to be a 3036, 60898 or 61009 so is likely to comply
• The circuit shall be wired with copper conductors having line and neutral conductors with a minimum cross-sectional area of 2.5mm sq except for two-core mineral insulated cables complying with BS EN 60702-1, for which the minimum cross-sectional area is 1.5mm sq - As far as we can tell, the OP has used the right size cable
• Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of regulation 433.1.1 if the current carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable is not less than 20A - 2.5mm T+E passes that requirement, so providing the OP has used 2.5mm it will comply
• and if under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable - If one of his double sockets is fully loaded beyond it's maximum capacity (typically 20A for a double socket outlet), the spur cable itself should be OK and if both were fully loaded (potentially overloading the point of connection on the ring), the OCPD for the circuit should trip thus ensuring the CCC is not exceeded for long periods.

So that appears to be the actual regulation that defines a ring final circuit using BS 1363 accessories. Appendix 15 is nothing more than an informative appendix, helpfully provided for those of us unable to follow the complexities of 433.1.204.

No where in the actual regulation does it state how and where you can connect spurs, only the conditions that must be met for the ring final circuit to comply.

So as far as I can see the OPs implementation complies fully with 433.1.204.

Whether or not it is good practice is an entirely different conversation and one that is based on personal experience and views. As I said many times... would I do it, probably not unless I had no other choice. But unless someone can highlight to me how the solution fails to comply with 433.1.204, I'd say the OPs solution is a compliant solution and aside from the choice of junction box he should stop worrying.

 

[johnduffell]

and if both were fully loaded (potentially overloading the point of connection on the ring), the OCPD for the circuit should trip thus ensuring the CCC is not exceeded for long periods.

Excellent post, my only clarification would be about the point of connection. I'm not sure whether you are referring to the overload of the actual terminal block or other termination there?
If 40A was taken anywhere there would be an overload as normal which would be protected by the opd.
The actual issue of concern to that reg is overload in the cables rather than a point. This could come when the total load on the spurs would be 32A. This would not be an overload on the opd, but if (and only if) the shorter leg is less than 1/6 of the total length of the ring (assuming clipped direct), there could be an overload in that leg.
The intention of that reg is to ensure that is taken into account and considered unlikely.

 

[Pete999]

So my closing post on this issue...

Having read all the regulation put forth thus far, I can find no reason why two properly formed spurs cannot be fed from a single point on a ring final circuit.

So, lets take a look at what 433.1.204 actually says.

• Accessories to BS 1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit, with or without unfused spurs - Unless he's purchased cheap Chinese tat, there is a very good chance that the accessories comply
  
• protected by a 30A or 32A protective device complying with BS 88 series, BS 3036, BS EN 60898, BS EN 60947-2 or BS EN 61009-1 (RCBO) - Since the OP doesn't state what type of consumer unit he has, it's a fairly safe assumption the device is going to be a 3036, 60898 or 61009 so is likely to comply
• The circuit shall be wired with copper conductors having line and neutral conductors with a minimum cross-sectional area of 2.5mm sq except for two-core mineral insulated cables complying with BS EN 60702-1, for which the minimum cross-sectional area is 1.5mm sq - As far as we can tell, the OP has used the right size cable
• Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of regulation 433.1.1 if the current carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable is not less than 20A - 2.5mm T+E passes that requirement, so providing the OP has used 2.5mm it will comply
• and if under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable - If one of his double sockets is fully loaded beyond it's maximum capacity (typically 20A for a double socket outlet), the spur cable itself should be OK and if both were fully loaded (potentially overloading the point of connection on the ring), the OCPD for the circuit should trip thus ensuring the CCC is not exceeded for long periods.

So that appears to be the actual regulation that defines a ring final circuit using BS 1363 accessories. Appendix 15 is nothing more than an informative appendix, helpfully provided for those of us unable to follow the complexities of 433.1.204.

No where in the actual regulation does it state how and where you can connect spurs, only the conditions that must be met for the ring final circuit to comply.

So as far as I can see the OPs implementation complies fully with 433.1.204.

Whether or not it is good practice is an entirely different conversation and one that is based on personal experience and views. As I said many times... would I do it, probably not unless I had no other choice. But unless someone can highlight to me how the solution fails to comply with 433.1.204, I'd say the OPs solution is a compliant solution and aside from the choice of junction box he should stop worrying.

The OP has bot followed the regulation quoted, which I think should be read in conjunction with Appendix 15 (informative)
Informative definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/informative,
Sorry to disagree with you SC, as you can see I am passionate about this, some may say ---- even.

 

[SparkyChick]

The OP has bot followed the regulation quoted, which I think should be read in conjunction with Appendix 15 (informative)
Informative definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/informative,
Sorry to disagree with you SC, as you can see I am passionate about this, some may say ---- even.

You don't have to apologise for disagreeing with me. I'm not going to apologise for disagreeing with you because as far as I'm concerned we're having a discussion.

The point I'm trying to make is that Appendix 15 is not a regulation. It is an informative only (which as you're link to the definition of informative states, provides useful information) designed to clarify simple use cases that many people get wrong with respect to ring final circuits.

I fundamentally agree connecting two spurs to a single point is not good practice, but providing the conditions of 433.1.204 are met (which as @johnduffell has pointed out is more concerned about the cables - which I understand), which in this case they appear to be it cannot be deemed to be a breach of the regulations and thus at the most base level (testing aside) can be considered safe.

That's the fundamental issue here, does the OPs implementation breach regulations and is thus potentially unsafe? In my considered opinion the answer is no, because at the most base level it complies with 433.1.204 (which is the only thing it has to comply with because appendix 15 is informative only).

Our views are ultimately tainted by our experiences. Take me and insulated crimps for example... you'll notice I'm a bit ---- when people start talking about using insulated crimps on solid cable. Why? Because people far more knowledgeable than me have told me many times in the past you shouldn't use the insulated crimps on solid cable, end of story and this has been backed up by my own personal experiences. Does it mean it's wrong to use them? No, providing they work for you.

In this case, you'd never dream of doing it, and neither would I unless I had no other choice, but if you take a step back and cast your personal views aside and look at the regulations only (none of the informatives because they aren't regulations), the OPs solution complies because he has two spurs, on the end of each there is a double socket outlet. The fact they originate at the same point is irrelevant because as John points out, the regulations are more concerned about overload in the cables.

When discussing the regulations it's important to set your own experiences and what you consider to be good and bad practice aside and look purely at what's written as regulations (i.e. numbered as such) in the big books.