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

[SparkyChick]

@Pete999 , @Spoon

Is it a good plan? Not necessarily. Would I do it myself? Probably not but I wouldn't rule it out if I was pushed. Does it breach a regulation? Not as far as I can see.

Show me a regulation it breaches and why, and I'll agree with you, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Common sense should prevail here. App 15 is informative, it does not definitely preclude connecting two spurs from the same point of the ring. Given that the sockets the OP installed are not likely to be heavily loaded it is not unreasonable to connect them in this manner, properly connected there will not be any potential dangers over connecting them to two separate points on the ring.

 

[Baddegg]

Op, how did you install the cables in the walls?

 

[SJD]

So if you have a junction box on the RFC with one spur, and then a short distance along another junction box with another spur, that complies? Assuming maintenance-free junction boxes, if appropriate.

The distance between them can be as small as you like but it still complies?

But once you combine the two junctions into one, it no longer complies?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

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

 

[Wilko]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

Hi - I'd say it's the "accepted practice" is to spread outlets and spurs around a ring to reduce the chance of long term heat damage from multiple 20A point loads. In my view, this is put at risk by having multiple spurs on top of each other, and does go against the informative guidance of Appendix 15.
In this case the use of the new spurs to run phone chargers and bed lamps is hardly going to be an issue .

 

[Wilko]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

Hi - I'd say it's the "accepted practice" to spread outlets and spurs around a ring to reduce the chance of long term heat damage from multiple point loads. I think this is the point of App 15 dot point (i). In my view, this is put at risk by having multiple spurs on top of each other. But in this case it's unlikely to be an issue as the loads are small (phone chargers and table lamps) .

 

[Rodders099]

Why doesn’t this forum just ban non-electricians from asking anything ?? Cause all I’m seeing on a daily basis, regardless to how basic the question is....is overly negative and sometimes hostile advice.
Absolutely ridiculous way to try and grow a forum.
This place will end up as an old boys club where you can only contribute if your a career electrician.

 

[Pete999]

@Pete999 , @Spoon

Is it a good plan? Not necessarily. Would I do it myself? Probably not but I wouldn't rule it out if I was pushed. Does it breach a regulation? Not as far as I can see.

Show me a regulation it breaches and why, and I'll agree with you, that's all I'm asking.

Can I point you in the direction of fig 15A Ring and final circuit arrangements Regulation 433.1.204,
This appendix sets out options for the design of ring and radial final ciccuits for household an similar premises in accordance with Regulation 433.1, using socket outlets and fused connection units. It does not cover other aspects of the circuit design such as:
Chapter 41, 42, 43 and Part 5 of these Regulations.
Quite why anyone would dispute this informative Appendix is beyond my thinking, it is self explanatory in it's design, so ignore it if you wish, I wont/didn't when I was working, and all through my working lifre 1 Spur equates to a single or double socket or a fused connection unit whereby you can feed as many 13 Amp sockets as you wish, taken from one point of a RFC. Taking 2 cables from a single point on a RFC to feed two sockets does not comply with this appendix. I see no point in continuing this argument, you have your appreciation and I however, go by the book.

 

[Pete999]

Common sense should prevail here. App 15 is informative, it does not definitely preclude connecting two spurs from the same point of the ring. Given that the sockets the OP installed are not likely to be heavily loaded it is not unreasonable to connect them in this manner, properly connected there will not be any potential dangers over connecting them to two separate points on the ring.

"are not likely to be heavily loaded" is the key to this argument, who is to say at some stage someone doesn't plug in a couple of 2KW heaters?

 

[SparkyChick]

About 8.7A each, 2.5/1.5mm has a CCC of around 26A when clipped direct so neither cable will be overloaded. Total loading at the junction box, 17.4A. Well within the capabilities of a 30A junction box.

 

[SparkyChick]

Like I've said, would I do it, not necessarily, but in this use case I think it's a perfectly acceptable solution that is not in breach of any regulations.

 

[Rpa07]

Anyway . . . the OP has done the job, to good standards in his own words. It’s his house and powers his bedside tables. He is in control of what gets plugged in there and he is able to access and remove or better connect these spurs if he comes to sell the place.
Some agree, some don’t but he’s still done the job.
Next time OP, question the forum first for the best non step by step guidance!

 

[Baddegg]

If the op was worried beforehand hand he’s probably ripping it all out as we speak now....

 

[Deleted member 9648]

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.

 

[Baddegg]

Op,if you ever come back, if you installed the cable in oval in the wall there’s a chance you could run a new cable tween the two sockets with minimal disruption and then make good the ring agian with MF connectors and boxes, or as many have said don’t worry about it unless you plan on plugging ya welding equipment into your bedside sockets!

 

[mikep83]

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.

 

[mikep83]

Op,if you ever come back, if you installed the cable in oval in the wall there’s a chance you could run a new cable tween the two sockets with minimal disruption and then make good the ring agian with MF connectors and boxes, or as many have said don’t worry about it unless you plan on plugging ya welding equipment into your bedside sockets!

I tried, but the conduit was not big enough to get the 2nd cable in.

 

[Octopus]

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

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

 

[Octopus]

The mathematical issue about overloading is irrelevant..... a ring with 2 other connections is very bad practice imho

 

[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.