Discuss 2 circuits present at double gang switch hallway vs landing regs (again) in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

B

baldsparkies

Have listened to this one banded around many times.
Situation where some sparks argue that ground or 1st floor circuits should not be present at one switch as is often the case if a strapper drops down to the hallway 2 way feeding the landing with the hallway switch also within the same (double gang switch)

I can't recall any regulation saying its a problem.

The practice is common in commercial installs where a multi gang grid is feeding a number of light circuits, although if more than 1 phase is present this should be labelled accordingly at or near the switch, (however in domestic this wouldn't be the case)

I argued the point that from a safety perspective if an elderly person was walking down the stairs in a domestic at home environment and only one circuit was supplying hallway and landing lights the entire staircase would be in darkness should the supplying mcb tripp.
At least with 2 circuits either top or bottom illumination would still be present.

And on a safety note to say its dangerous because someone could remove the switch isolating one circuit and not being aware a 2nd circuit was present !!

In response I would say they have not followed safe isolation procedures, and are thus not competent to be working on the switch anyway.

Well, that was my opinion on the situation but be interesting to know what others think.
 
I argued the point that from a safety perspective if an elderly person was walking down the stairs in a domestic at home environment and only one circuit was supplying hallway and landing lights the entire staircase would be in darkness should the supplying mcb trip.
At least with 2 circuits either top or bottom illumination would still be present.

If someone was coming down the stairs, the light at the bottom most likely wouldn't be on.

However,

I'm commercial, so to me having 8 circuits at a switch point is not a problem, neither is having 20 different circuits in a control panel.
 
esp. as you can only get inaccurate 400V stickers. a bit like sticking a sign on a swimming pool saying 6ft deep when it's 8ft.
 
Apologise if I have misread your post, but you appeared to be suggesting that there is a requirement to label a grid switch where more than one phase is present.

No doubt there are interpretations of certain regs that would imply warning notices to be present where multiple phases are connected in close proximity to one another or within the same enclosure ie Danger 400v or just 400v ect. It is common place and I have certainly seen enough of them as I am sure you have. But no I didn't mean to suggest that such a practice would be a hard fast regulation, which going back to my post is why I would argue the point regarding multiple circuits as per a double gang switch within a domestic environment.
And excuse my last post, just my attempt at humour mate.
 
Is there not a requirement to affix a warning label in circumstances where the voltage is higher than would normally be expected?
 
Is there not a requirement to affix a warning label in circumstances where the voltage is higher than would normally be expected?

The requirement is for a label where the nominal voltage to earth Uo is greater than 230V and it would not normally be expected to be present.
So for a nominal 230/400 supply you do not need any voltage warning label under regulations.
 
I do seem to recall a requirement where if two accessories on different phases were something like less than a meter apart, then a warning label was required. Probably from the 14th or 15th?
 
I do seem to recall a requirement where if two accessories on different phases were something like less than a meter apart, then a warning label was required. Probably from the 14th or 15th?

The above reg was written as "exceeds 230V" in the 2008 BRB, instead of "exceeds 230V to earth". This resulted in a raft of labels warning of "400V" and "400V between points" It may have been present in the 16th also but I'm not sure on that, or indeed any older previous regs.

The IET clarified the reg in the BGB to its present wording to re-establish the intent of the regulation.
 

Reply to 2 circuits present at double gang switch hallway vs landing regs (again) in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock