Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok?

[johnduffell]

Why then could a lollipop layout be against regs if it is not designed to be a ring final and as long as the OCPD is the correct rating for the cable.

Well true, but i was meaning a 4mm "stick" with a 2.5mm loop all on a 32A mcb. If it were all 4mm or all on a 20A mcb the would be no point making it a lollipop

 

[SparkyChick]

Fascinating thread!

I quite like them as it gives you the chance to exercise your interpretation of the regs and get other opinions, regardless of whether they change your views or not.

It's one of the things I miss from my old job, the ability to quickly bounce ideas around and discuss them. Working solo isn't conducive to it... well, it's not if you don't want to end up in a straight jacket

So if they were indeed two circuits by design but we can change that by connecting them together at the CU, can we then lump three or four or even more to one breaker, loads considered?

I would say theoretically yes on the proviso that they are being moved to a breaker of the same rating as their original design or less. But loading aside there are other factors to consider like the ability to safely terminate the cables at the DB. There will be a point where it's just not physically possible to do it safely without say using a much larger cable and terminating the individual cables in a junction box.

Also if you had a long run of say 6.0mm SWA on a 20a OCPD and it was drawing 11a, and you had another circuit on a 20a which was 2.5mm T&E and drawing 7a could these be lumped together as one circuit even though they are of different sizes and even types? What would go on the certificate in respect of cable size?

In their own right, both cables would be adequately protected by a 20A OCPD, and the total combined load (assuming that is the maximum you've stated) would not result in nuisance tripping due to unintentional overload.

So yes, theoretically they could be combined. I'd record the difference in cable size by stating MIXED in the size columns and then expressing that on a continuation page. Same as I would for any circuit with mixed conductor sizes. The lollipop being a fine example - not that I've ever done this.

And of course providing due regard was given to the other parts of the regulations regarding division of the installation (i.e. minimise risks, inconvenience etc.).

However, would I do either of these things? I'm not sure. I might at a pinch (as an example, the situation where you need another breaker and cost is a major factor) but ordinarily I doubt I would.

Where does this end?

Well quite, I think it's another case of what the regs allow vs. what's widely accepted as good practice. Do I like seeing four conductors in an MCB... not really, is it strictly against the regs... probably not providing the other provisions of the regulations are catered for (such as overload protection, division of circuits etc.).

In this case, I can see the logic behind the OPs reason for doing it, would I have done the same? Probably not. Do I think it's acceptable? Well clearly yes I do, I just don't think it's good practice and I would probably have just left it as it was.

I thought you'd pick that one! So at the origin of the installation, is the 'point of supply' the incoming cables connect to the head, the main OCPD, if so which side of it, or the point at which the tail connects to the OCPD? It doesn't say so again you cannot go definitive on that.

I'm just not trying to overthink it too much. A cable doesn't supply electricity, it carries it, so in this case I consider the source of power to be the protective device as the origin.

Why? I fundamentally disagree with this. I believe that it is absolutely the cabling that defines the circuit. Are you saying that a breaker with no cable connected is still a circuit? We are getting down the semantics of what the definition is and I think this is where you and I differ.

No, I would consider a breaker with no cable connected as a spare way.

The regs state specifically that this is allowed from a ring final circuit and so this is also a red herring.

Do they though? The only section that gives any definitive guidance about the topology of a ring circuit is 433.1.204, and it only specifies the topology in terms of acceptable cable loading.

The only place I've been able to find a statement to the effect it's allowed is in the OSG and it doesn't reference a regulation to back it up.

So why wouldn't you do it then?

Because I don't consider it to be good practice, plain and simple. Regardless of whether I consider it to be allowed by the regulations, it doesn't feel like it's something we should be indulging in at every opportunity

Finally, if you are correct and I am not, then what is the meaning of 314.4?

It basically requires that each final circuit is capable of being isolated completely from a single point. I can't say much more than that without saying pretty much what it says.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Information regarding the origin of final circuits can be found in Appendix 15.

 

[markythesparky]

I’m sorry Spin, I cannot see the word ‘origin’ in App15 at all.

 

[Michael J]

Sorry guys I am new to this having spent 40 years in Southern Africa.What does OP & lollipop mean?

 

[SparkyChick]

OP normally means original post or original poster.

Lollipop in this context is a circuit that starts as a single cable that supplies a ring final circuit. Useful if the ring final circuit is quite a distance from the distribution board (consumer unit).

They aren't that common (at least not in my experience) but they are allowed under the regulations.

 

[johnduffell]

Lollipop... aren't that common (at least not in my experience) but they are allowed under the regulations.

I wasn'sure if we had resolved that point, assuming we want to use 32a mcb and 2.5mm in the ring part.
"A final circuit arranged in the form of a ring and connected to a single point of supply"
So i would class the stem of the lollipop to be part of the final circuit, but i wouldn't consider it to be arranged as a ring. Also the point of supply of a circuit is the ocpd, not a point elsewhere on the circuit.

I do agree it's perfectly safe though!

 

[SparkyChick]

Let's clarify something... I was putting forward definitions in response to a query regarding the meaning of OP and lollipop.

So as definitions go, I'd say they are pretty accurate, so which parts don't you agree with and if you disagree, provide alternative definitions for the person who asked the question.

 

[johnduffell]

@SparkyChick maybe i didn't phrase it well, but i didn't have any objection to your definitions which were fine.
You also mentioned in your post that it is within the regs, which was the part i tried to quote and respond to.
It looks like the disagree rating came from @markythesparky who hasn't yet explained his view point.
As you can see i did provide an alternative which is that they may not comply with the regs, together with a possible justification for people to comment on.

 

[DPG]

I'm also interested in why markysparky disagreed with sparkychick's post re lollipop circuits.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I’m sorry Spin, I cannot see the word ‘origin’ in App15 at all.

No the word ‘origin’ is not found in Appendix 15, though the word ‘start’ which is a synonym of ‘origin’ can be found.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

An OCPD cannot be the origin of a circuit, because BS7671 allows OCPDs to be omitted and also allows them to be positioned along the run of a conductor.

 

[static zap]

Sorry guys I am new to this having spent 40 years in Southern Africa.What does OP & lollipop mean?

Think of shape of a Lolipop
- Thick stick (single thick cable at cu)
--Circular -Ring on end of it .
(to be able to do any maintenance of ring -need access to this -JB)
..real point of origin of ring ..where any testing needs to be done ..

 

[DPG]

Disagree - of course an OCPD can be the origin of a circuit.

 

[MFS Electrical]

I like an assessor who knows his stuff.

There is, however, a difference between an assessor who knows his stuff and one who is just picking up on something for the sake of it. No regs breached technically compliant with the regs could be better but as the point has been raised earlier JB right up before the CU would make it the same circuit so why not from the same MCB?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Disagree - of course an OCPD can be the origin of a circuit.

Ok where’s the OCPD at the origin of an installation?

 

[Ian1981]

A simple lighting circuit that we can all comprehend for clarity starts from the origin and is protected via its own OCPD and distributes out till the furthest point.
If a circuit didn’t start from the OCPD then you wouldn’t have separate circuits that are isolated by their own OCPD

 

[MFS Electrical]

Yes I know all about circuitry and tracing circuits what about three phase boards if for some reason someone connected one of the two cables into a breaker
on a different phase? We are not talking simple domestics now.

I fail to see the problem then as they would be two separate circuits again... but it’s a little beside the point as this was in a domestic setting.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

A simple lighting circuit that we can all comprehend for clarity starts from the origin and is protected via its own OCPD and distributes out till the furthest point.
If a circuit didn’t start from the OCPD then you wouldn’t have separate circuits

Well an FCU contains an OCPD (Fuse).
If I use an FCU to spur off from a circuit, does the fact that there is an OCPD at the origin of the spur, make the spur a separate circuit?

 

[MFS Electrical]

I’m afraid I agree with Stroma. The regs may not be written in the clearest way to avoid confusion or prevarication, but the intention of the regulation in my opinion is clear.

Just a thought, if the OP did that with two lighting circuits to free up some space, why not do it with some other circuits including Rings (loads accepted)?

My understanding of it is a lighting Circuit and then another single lighting point has been added in the loft sounds awfully like a spur taken from an OCPD of a lighting circuit to me

 

[Ian1981]

Well an FCU contains an OCPD (Fuse).
If I use an FCU to spur off from a circuit, does the fact that there is an OCPD at the origin of the spur, make the spur a separate circuit?

Where does the supply originate from?
The circuits primary OCPD.
Why twist things and be argumentative as per?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Why twist things and be argumentative as per?

It’s what I do.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Sometimes, it actually makes people think.

 

[Ian1981]

It’s what I do.

Haha.
Yes you always provoke a response I’ll give you that.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Ok where’s the OCPD at the origin of an installation?

That depends on how far back to “origin” you want to go? The MCB is an OCPD if it’s an origin of a final CCT. The bs1361 or 88-3 fuse is An OCPD if it’s the origin of a particular installation. The substation fuse, the grids fusing all the way back to the OCPD at the generator...

 

[MFS Electrical]

deleted

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That depends on how far back to “origin” you want to go? The MCB is an OCPD if it’s an origin of a final CCT. The bs1361 or 88-3 fuse is An OCPD if it’s the origin of a particular installation. The substation fuse, the grids fusing all the way back to the OCPD at the generator...

The distribution network is outside of the scope of BS7671.
As the discussion is in relation to an Assessor stating something does not comply with BS7671, I was thinking of the origin as per BS7671.

 

[MFS Electrical]

The distribution network is outside of the scope of BS7671.
As the discussion is in relation to an Assessor stating something does not comply with BS7671, I was thinking of the origin as per BS7671.

That’s why I stuck origin in quotation marks in just playing devils advocate sarcastically I may add

 

[Silly Sausage]

Well an FCU contains an OCPD (Fuse).
If I use an FCU to spur off from a circuit, does the fact that there is an OCPD at the origin of the spur, make the spur a separate circuit?

That'll be a sub-circuit

 

[markythesparky]

I'm also interested in why markysparky disagreed with sparkychick's post re lollipop circuits.

Because, as Spin helpfully points out, details on how a circuit is formed is in appendix 15. And as we seem to be so intent on dissecting the regs to the nth degree, there is nothing at all that looks remotely like a ‘lollipop’ circuits in app15. Therefore, if it is not in the regulations of how a circuit should be wired, it is not compliant.

 

[markythesparky]

An OCPD cannot be the origin of a circuit, because BS7671 allows OCPDs to be omitted and also allows them to be positioned along the run of a conductor.

Which is exactly why my view is that the origin is the cable and where it connects to the OCPD.

 

[DPG]

The regs cannot possibly show every possible circuit. I presume you would class any lollipop ring you come across as unsatisfactory then?

 

[SparkyChick]

The Appendix 15 argument.

Appending 15 is informative only, it doesn't matter how many times people claim it is a regulation, it isn't, it's there in black and white (INFORMATIVE).

The opening text reads "This appendix sets out options for the design of ring and radial final circuits for household and similar premises in accordance with Regulation 433.1"

Options... it is not the exhaustive list of possibilities that comply with 433.1, if it were some of what we do everyday would be non-compliant (like a 20A DP switch feeding a single socket for an appliance wired in 2.5/1.5mm cable - complies with 433.1.204 but isn't on the diagram in appendix 15).

For a ring circuit to comply with the regulations, it must comply with 433.1.204 which defines the acceptable topology of a ring final circuit purely in terms of cable loading. Thus providing the cables are not overloaded in accordance with 433.1.204, a lollipop or ring final circuit will comply.

 

[markythesparky]

The regs cannot possibly show every possible circuit. I presume you would class any lollipop ring you come across as unsatisfactory then?

If course! A C3 if I were doing an EICR.

And how can it be a lollipop and also a ring? What would you put under the continuity tests in an EIC and also if the ‘stick’ end is of a larger size what size cable do you put in the EIC?

 

[markythesparky]

The regs cannot possibly show every possible circuit. I presume you would class any lollipop ring you come across as unsatisfactory then?

So you make your own up!

 

[SparkyChick]

If course! A C3 if I were doing an EICR.

And how can it be a lollipop and also a ring? What would you put under the continuity tests in an EIC?

Maybe the continuity of the conductors of the ring portion???

 

[markythesparky]

The Appendix 15 argument.

Appending 15 is informative only, it doesn't matter how many times people claim it is a regulation, it isn't, it's there in black and white (INFORMATIVE).

All the appendixes are informative with the exception of the appendix 1.

The opening text reads "This appendix sets out options for the design of ring and radial final circuits for household and similar premises in accordance with Regulation 433.1"

It sets out the ‘options’ by indicating what can be done and what is acceptable.

Options... it is not the exhaustive list of possibilities that comply with 433.1, if it were some of what we do everyday would be non-compliant (like a 20A DP switch feeding a single socket for an appliance wired in 2.5/1.5mm cable - complies with 433.1.204 but isn't on the diagram in appendix 15).

Where does it say that it’s not exhaustive?

For a ring circuit to comply with the regulations, it must comply with 433.1.204 which defines the acceptable topology of a ring final circuit purely in terms of cable loading. Thus providing the cables are not overloaded in accordance with 433.1.204, a lollipop or ring final circuit will comply.

I’ve said all through this thread ‘loads accepted’ or ‘loads considered’. Lets drop this part as I have accepted this. My argument is not about this, only the make up of a circuit and where it starts.

I have said on numerous occasions that two or more circuits that are lumped together in a protective device is not necessarily electrically unsafe, but just that it doesn’t comply.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes Appendix 15 is informative.
It provides us with information.
It’s not the be all and end all, but there is no logical reason why the information provided should be ignored.
(Except of course when it states a Radial starts and finishes at the DB.)

 

[markythesparky]

Appending 15 is informative only, it doesn't matter how many times people claim it is a regulation, it isn't, it's there in black and white (INFORMATIVE).

All the appendixes are INFORMATIVE with the exception of app1.

The opening text reads "This appendix sets out options for the design of ring and radial final circuits for household and similar premises in accordance with Regulation 433.1"

It sets out the 'options' (something that may be chosen) of how to wire a type of circuit. It does not give 'examples' (one of a number of things or a part of something, an instance serving for illustration). If it could be wired like a lollipop it would have a diagrammatical representation of this too!

Options... it is not the exhaustive list of possibilities that comply with 433.1,

Where does it say that?

 

[DPG]

The regs can't possibly show every possible wiring configuration. And they don't need to - a competent electrician does not need to follow a guide covering every option. wiring installations can still comply with the regs even if they aren't specifically drawn in the book!

 

[SparkyChick]

Where does it say that... it doesn't, but if you take a step back and look at what you're saying I think you might see your talking nonsense because you're saying that the only possibilities for complying with the regulations when constructing a ring final circuit are shown in appendix 15.

If so, explain to me how the example I gave (a 20A DP switch on a ring final supplying a socket outlet in 2.5/1.5mm cable) doesn't comply with the regulations, and I want actual regulation numbers.

If the only answer you can give me is that it's not shown in appendix 15, then you should only ever use double socket outlets on the main ring because that's how appendix 15 shows it... you should never have more than two double socket outlets after a fused spur because that's how appendix 15 shows it.... complete and utter nonsense.

As for the whole two circuits into one OCPD doesn't comply... I think you're wrong, you're not going to change my mind so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[markythesparky]

If so, explain to me how the example I gave (a 20A DP switch on a ring final supplying a socket outlet in 2.5/1.5mm cable) doesn't comply with the regulations, and I want actual regulation numbers.

I have never said that it doesn't and as such I cannot give reg numbers.

you should never have more than two double socket outlets after a fused spur because that's how appendix 15 shows it.... complete and utter nonsense.

App15 states 'the number of socket-outlets supplied from a fused connection unit is dependant upon the load characteristics, having taken diversity into account'. The regs therefore account for more than one socket after a spur.

you are trying to pin the argument down to individual parts of the circuit and my point has always been the proper way the whole circuit is wired and what is acceptable.

This has been a very interesting thread, more so because there has been no outcome. This will run and run i'm sure.

I would stake my pliers on it that the vast majority of inspectors from all schemes, will have the same view as the Stroma man. (And me).

 

[SparkyChick]

I would stake my pliers on it that the vast majority of inspectors from all schemes, will have the same view as the Stroma man. (And me).

I'll add it to the list of questions I have for my inspector, see what he says

And we'll have to agree to disagree.... pint? My round

 

[markythesparky]

I'll add it to the list of questions I have for my inspector, see what he says

And we'll have to agree to disagree.... pint? My round

Yep. Next time i'm in Wales I'll take you up on that.

 

[Zdb]

Brilliant thread!

I agree that it is NOT unsafe (if everything has been taken into consideration). If so it should comply with the regulations. IMO and many others, it's no different than having one cable in the OCPD going to a junction box supplying the two (technically one) circuits.

Having said that I also agree that it is bad practice and should only be done as a last resort.

I have actually had to do this myself on ONE occasion. I needed a way for my new circuit and there was no way the client was going to pay for a new DB. Luckily one of the circuits only had 6x LED GU10 spots on it in the sales room so I just added it to the other sales room lighting circuit which had 600x600 LED panels on it. All loading, switching etc were taken into consideration and I measured the maximum Zs which was fine.

It definitely wasn't my best job but neither was it unsafe. If the circuit had been designed today (with LEDs) they would have been on the same circuit anyway. It was just an old building which was obviously designed when lighting loads were much higher powered.


*awaits loads of abuse*

 

[oracle]

Would you not consider this as an extension or addition?

 

[oracle]

You can pick up four spaces by replacing the BS 61008 RCDs and using a mix of breakers and RCBO's as required.

Now leave my granny alone, I love her and Catherine Tate studied her for the portrayal of Nan in the series. She had a mouth that made truck drivers blush.

 

[markythesparky]

I thought I’d put my input into this thread to rest but I had ten minutes to spare today and this was still bugging me. So I took the opportunity to call the NICEIC technical helpline about it. I have been resurrected!

Their view is that the regulation, although short on specific detail, as a re a lot of the regulations (as it is simetimes very hard to express the intended rule in writing), does in fact intend that each circuit should be connected to only one OCPD. In view of ‘what is classed as a circuit, I specifically asked about lumping circuits together with the view that they both become one circuit, and the view was that they don’t. The circuit is defined as per the wiring was intended and it should comply with BS7671. They would class this as a non compliance.

I asked, if in the event that I found this whilst doing an EICR, would I flag it and if so what would I flag it as. The view was that it should be recorded as a C3 for definite or a C2 if there was a danger of overload or other problems.

This is the NICEIC technical helpline’s view at the time of calling and there are of course other schemes, none of which are necessarily more competent than the NIC or less. (Thought I’d throw that in for balance).

But in the meantime........


I’m am of course, as always, ready to be humbled!

 

[SparkyChick]

So, if I have an MCB in the CU (above the front door) that is currently supplying the downstairs lighting circuit and the client would like an exterior light by the front door. There are no spare ways in the board.

In this scenario you're saying you can't take a supply from the downstairs lighting MCB without contravening the regs?

Likewise, customer wants a double socket in his garage. CU is in there.

In this scenario you're saying you can't take a spur from the origin of the ring final supplying the downstairs socket circuit without contravening the regs?

If the answer is yes to either of those, it's laughably stupid I'm afraid and is a means by which the NICEIC are encouraging their members to rip off their clients. Sorry, but there is no other way to put it, it's a money making sham sanctioned by an organisation that is supposed to be protecting the clients of it's members. Absolutely laughable and a down right disgrace.

Did they perchance specify which regulations you would be contravening by indulging in such a travesty of wiring?

 

[markythesparky]

The Reg is 314.4.

You can run a spur from the OCPD from a ring and comply as it is specifically allowed in BS7671.

You cannot comply with BS7671 by bunching circuits such as lighting or radials in the same OCPD. It is non compliant.

And just to throw a rather large spanner in the works, the regulations also state that you are allowed deviations from the regs if you can prove that they are electrically as safe as the regs require them to be. This is what the deviations box is for in the EIC. The regs are of course non statutory so there is scope to adapt. It would still be a non compliance but under the regs it is allowed as long as you list it as a non compliance and justify your reasoning for doing it.