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

[Toneyz]

To sum it up we all think it is bad practice but not directly against the regs.

 

[Pete999]

To sum it up we all think it is bad practice but not directly against the regs.

No I don't I think it's against the Regs

 

[gazdkw82]

I've searched and I can't find any reg that proves this againt regulation, thats not to say it doesn't exist.

Personally in this situation and working with what you have, overloading would be my main concern. You could always fuse each of the sockets to a more suitably reduced fuse and/or label the sockets for specific use only.

 

[Midwest]

Arrgh ain't it nice we are all friends again. The worlds a better place. Get rid of Trump and seal the Brexit deal, and we can all breath again.

 

[Bellendian]

This is almost as good as getting a phone call from a spark who was spitting feathers about the fact that I'd put a 2.5mm radial on a 32a mcb and made it '2 circuits' when all I'd done is take a spur from the MCB!
Think about the Physics for a second...would a 2nd jb and a few inches of cable materially alter the way the circuit operates? No...so why do it?

 

[SparkyChick]

I've had that same argument with someone about taking a spur from the MCB of a 32A RFC

 

[MFS Electrical]

edit- posted too early wasn’t finished typing

 

[SparkyChick]

The joint box can effectively be considered as a socket on the ring. Only one unfused spur should be taken from a single point on a ring circuit as prescribed in appendix 15 the fact that’s it’s informative bears no weight on the argument as says that the design shown fulfils the requirements of 433.1

View attachment 45067

Ok, but where in 433.1 does it preclude taking two spurs from a single point on a ring final circuit?

That's all I'm asking.

I can't find a regulation that precludes it, but I'm happy to be proved wrong because then I'll have learned something new

 

[MFS Electrical]

The joint box can effectively be considered as a socket on the ring. Would you take two separate unfused spurs from one socket outlet? Only one unfused spur should be taken from a single point on a ring circuit as prescribed in appendix 15 the fact that’s it’s informative bears no weight on the argument as says that the design shown fulfils the requirements of 433.1 and therefore that’s why the appendix is informative the diagram clearly shows one junction box on the ring with one unfused spur connected to it.
You cannot specify indefinitely which loads will be connected to a socket by current or future users of the installation for example it would not be unreasonable for electric heaters to be plugged into both sockets in a situation where the main source of heating was broken and still have two sockets to plug in straighteners hairdryers etc etc which could lead to the overload of the junction box.
Not to mention bad practice of ramming 4 connections into each terminal of the junction box.

 

[Bellendian]

There is none, and what has been done is fine, if slightly unorthodox. Lots on here quoting appendix 15 as having some god like status, but it's only a guide, hence uses terms such as 'this can generally be achieved by' I.e. follow this and you don't have to think, all will be well. Think outside the box and all will still be well, provided you've thought, not guessed! In this case the op might have guessed but got away with it!

 

[markc123]

Oh no let’s not start this again!

None of us with a brain cell would ever do it this way anyway, so even if it isn’t against the regs let’s just pretend it is?

Someone said they’d only ever do it like this if they absolutley had too - but I can’t even imagine a scenario which would make this even a viable option.

So...

I’m rewriting the regs. It’s now forbidden.

Can we end this discussion now? My eyeballs are bleeding.

 

[SJD]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

 

[Octopus]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

Wago's are 24 A if my memery serves me correctly

 

[MFS Electrical]

There is none, and what has been done is fine, if slightly unorthodox. Lots on here quoting appendix 15 as having some god like status, but it's only a guide, hence uses terms such as 'this can generally be achieved by' I.e. follow this and you don't have to think, all will be well. Think outside the box and all will still be well, provided you've thought, not guessed! In this case the op might have guessed but got away with it!

It says “this appendix sets out options for the design for ring final circuits in household and similar premises in accordance with regulation 433.1.”
For once there isn’t any ambiguity in the regulations

 

[SJD]

There are several different types of Wagos, I'm often now using 221-612, -613, -615 which are rated to 41A and will take up to 6mm2 cable.

Also. the Ideal In-Sure connectors are rated to 32A.

 

[westward10]

Only need to be rated at 20A for a ring final circuit.

 

[Bellendian]

I was actually suggesting that if you have a brain and use it wisely you could save yourself the cost of a jb and 4" of t&e and still comply. Or stop thinking and just slavishly follow the picture.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Appendix 15 is informative, and it says if you follow this appendix, you will meet the requirements of 433.1. However, it is NOT prescriptive, there may be other means of meeting 433.1 that are not covered by this diagram.

You don't have to "ram" 4 connections into each terminal, nowadays many (most?) of us are using maintenance-free connectors (Wago, etc.) that have 4 or 5 terminals, and are rated to 32A or more.

I’m not just trying to be argumentative I genuinely believe that it isn’t allowed.
where does it say there may be other means of meeting 433.1? I can’t see that anywhere?
I think the OP was saying that he used the screw type junction boxes and that’s why earlier in the thread someone had raised about the junction box needing to be accessible.

 

[SparkyChick]

Let me ask the question in another way...

You've just been asked to inspect the OPs property for an EICR and you find this junction box, it's been changed to a maintenance free one so that's no longer an issue.

How would you code the fact there are two spurs taken from the one junction box and what regulation would you quote to substantiate that coding?

 

[Deleted account]

Ok, but where in 433.1 does it preclude taking two spurs from a single point on a ring final circuit?

Very rare I disagree with your stance on electrics but I think your enterpretation based on if it doesn't say you can't do something in the regs then you can do it.

It doesn't say you shouldn't wire a banana form a junction box to a tomatoe in a ring final, does that mean you can.

433.1 says what you can do.

 

[johnduffell]

where does it say there may be other means of meeting 433.1?

It doesn't have to say that specifically, you just have to meet it. Just because they gave a few options for free doesn't mean that's exhaustive. If you follow the guidance, you will definitely meet the regs, if not, you have to decide for yourself.
This is a very common pattern also used in all parts of the building regulations nowadays. The building regs just say something very hard to use, and the Approved Documents give specific examples that should cover most situations.

 

[johnduffell]

It doesn't say you shouldn't wire a banana form a junction box to a tomatoe in a ring final, dies that mean you can.

actually it specifically states they have to be copper conductors

but more generally, the regs are generally pretty clear about what standards cable, accessories and junction boxes must conform you.

 

[MFS Electrical]

It doesn't have to say that specifically, you just have to meet it. Just because they gave a few options for free doesn't mean that's exhaustive. If you follow the guidance, you will definitely meet the regs, if not, you have to decide for yourself.
This is a very common pattern also used in all parts of the building regulations nowadays. The building regs just say something very hard to use, and the Approved Documents give specific examples that should cover most situations.

Fair enough I’d be inclined to follow the regs though that way if you ever did end up on the chopping block you just point out the note at the front of the regs about complying with EAWR

 

[MFS Electrical]

Let me ask the question in another way...

You've just been asked to inspect the OPs property for an EICR and you find this junction box, it's been changed to a maintenance free one so that's no longer an issue.

How would you code the fact there are two spurs taken from the one junction box and what regulation would you quote to substantiate that coding?

C3 not to current standards citing reg 433.1 and mention Appx 15.
I think the wording is quite clear in saying that Appx15 is showing the design options. As in the options on how to spur from a ring rather than the diagram being one of many different options.

Out of interest how would you justify not coding it?

 

[johnduffell]

C3 not to current standards

c3 is actually "improvement recommended" (as it would improve the safety of the installation) According to Electrical Safety Council’s Best Practice Guide 4,

So in fact, even if it were non compliant, it shouldn't be the subject of a classification code unless it affects the safety of the installation.

 

[MFS Electrical]

c3 is actually "improvement recommended" (as it would improve the safety of the installation) According to Electrical Safety Council’s Best Practice Guide 4,
View attachment 45070
So in fact, even if it were non compliant, it shouldn't be the subject of a classification code unless it affects the safety of the installation.

Nice catch id still C3 it because it could affect the safety of an installation there may even be an argument for a C2 because it could be potentially dangerous,in the event of an overload

 

[SparkyChick]

Very rare I disagree with your stance on electrics but I think your enterpretation based on if it doesn't say you can't do something in the regs then you can do it.

It doesn't say you shouldn't wire a banana form a junction box to a tomatoe in a ring final, dies that mean you can.

433.1 says what you can do.

Thank you for those kind words.

I think my hard line stance makes it come across that way, but that's not really what I'm getting at.

In the course of this thread, I've read 433.1 several times and it makes no mention of junction boxes. It's focus is on cable loadings and ensuring that they are adequately protected against overload through the correct selection of cable size and appropriate OCPD.

Specifically 433.1.204 states the rules for cable sizing for ring finals.

Since these two spurs are designed correctly, i.e. the correct size cable and only one double socket outlet on the end of each, the spurs themselves comply. The ring final itself complies because it is wired in an appropriate cable and protected by an appropriate OCPD.

So the three elements here comply in their own right. Providing the junction box used can handle the expected load (whether or not this is accessible is another discussion), there is no reason that I can see how this arrangement can be deemed to be a non-compliance.

The appendix 15 argument if taken to it's logical conclusion means you can never have a single socket outlet on a ring final, or take a spur from the origin, or have more than two double socket outlets after a fused spur, or have a grid switch system... why? Because they aren't shown on the diagram. The diagram provide guidance on how to comply, it's not a definitive list of what you can do (as it states, the diagram shows options).

And part of why I'm taking a somewhat hard line stance is because I'd like to see more substantiated 'it's against regs'. If I make statements to that effect I try and provide appropriate regulation numbers as it may help someone understand more. And in this case, no body has been able to explain to me how this arrangement doesn't comply without resorting to the appendix 15 argument.

 

[SparkyChick]

C3 not to current standards citing reg 433.1 and mention Appx 15.
I think the wording is quite clear in saying that Appx15 is showing the design options. As in the options on how to spur from a ring rather than the diagram being one of many different options.

Out of interest how would you justify not coding it?

At the moment, I couldn't justify a code because I genuinely do not believe it contravenes any of the regulations in 433.1. Hence why I'm asking which regulation it contravenes and why.

I would possibly inspect it and look for signs of thermal damage to the junction box and the cabling that may suggest an overload situation, but the arrangement itself whilst a little unorthodox doesn't appear to breach 433.1 for the reasons I've outlined above.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

id still C3 it because it could affect the safety of an installation there may even be an argument for a C2 because it could be potentially dangerous,in the event of an overload

Nooooo! Not the overload argument again!

There is no more risk of overload with what the OP has done, than with two spurs taken from different points on the ring. Subject to the junction box making a sound connection, which is a caveat we've been accepting all along.

I will state categorically that this method is just as safe as any other. The only debate is about whether it technically complies as a configuration, which I think it does.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Thank you for those kind words.

I think my hard line stance makes it come across that way, but that's not really what I'm getting at.

In the course of this thread, I've read 433.1 several times and it makes no mention of junction boxes. It's focus is on cable loadings and ensuring that they are adequately protected against overload through the correct selection of cable size and appropriate OCPD.

Specifically 433.1.204 states the rules for cable sizing for ring finals.

Since these two spurs are designed correctly, i.e. the correct size cable and only one double socket outlet on the end of each, the spurs themselves comply. The ring final itself complies because it is wired in an appropriate cable and protected by an appropriate OCPD.

So the three elements here comply in their own right. Providing the junction box used can handle the expected load (whether or not this is accessible is another discussion), there is no reason that I can see how this arrangement can be deemed to be a non-compliance.

The appendix 15 argument if taken to it's logical conclusion means you can never have a single socket outlet on a ring final, or take a spur from the origin, or have more than two double socket outlets after a fused spur, or have a grid switch system... why? Because they aren't shown on the diagram. The diagram provide guidance on how to comply, it's not a definitive list of what you can do (as it states, the diagram shows options).

And part of why I'm taking a somewhat hard line stance is because I'd like to see more substantiated 'it's against regs'. If I make statements to that effect I try and provide appropriate regulation numbers as it may help someone understand more. And in this case, no body has been able to explain to me how this arrangement doesn't comply without resorting to the appendix 15 argument.

In that case it may well be technically compliant because there isn’t a reg forbidding it so it’s wrong because it just is good point about the grid switches etc hadn’t thought of that.

Nooooo! Not the overload argument again!

There is no more risk of overload with what the OP has done, than with two spurs taken from different points on the ring. Subject to the junction box making a sound connection, which is a caveat we've been accepting all along.

I will state categorically that this method is just as safe as any other. The only debate is about whether it technically complies as a configuration, which I think it does.

I was thinking more overloading the actual junction box itself rather than the wiring... but I do see your point potentially anything could be plugged into any socket and cause an overload anywhere

 

[Lucien Nunes]

The current through the junction box will be no higher than it might be in other applications on a ring. E.g. taking one spur from a point near the CU. The question is whether it makes a sound connection to four cables. If it does not, then it is non-compliant like any accessory that does not make a sound connection.

 

[Deuce]

Ok, but where in 433.1 does it preclude taking two spurs from a single point on a ring final circuit?

That's all I'm asking.

I can't find a regulation that precludes it, but I'm happy to be proved wrong because then I'll have learned something new

I'm thinking the same thing. As the OP passed the ring through the JB, then this is 2 separate spurs in a single junction box, not a single spur with 2 twin sockets attached to it.

Both sockets are in effect independently spurred from the RFC by nature of the fact that both are independently connected to it. You could remove either socket and the other would remain connected. So... does that not qualify as 2 spurs, one for each socket?

What is the difference between breaking into the RFC twice in one JB, or once in each of two JBs next to one another? Do the regs say two spurs can't connect back to the RFC within a single enclosure?

At very least, it's not dangerous in anyway that I can see - other than a none MF box technically in an inaccessible location, but that's very easy to remedy.

 

[markc123]

Let me ask the question in another way...

You've just been asked to inspect the OPs property for an EICR and you find this junction box, it's been changed to a maintenance free one so that's no longer an issue.

How would you code the fact there are two spurs taken from the one junction box and what regulation would you quote to substantiate that coding?

I feel like an apprentice again, or worse a Electrical Trainee.

I’d grade it with a squiggle that cant be deciphered - I’ll make it look like a 1,2,3 and a tick, maybe even a N/A to cover all basis.

I’m off to bed. If I dream about spurs, I hate you all.

 

[MFS Electrical]

I feel like an apprentice again, or worse a Electrical Trainee.

I’d grade it with a squiggle that cant be deciphered - I’ll make it look like a 1,2,3 and a tick, maybe even a N/A to cover all basis.

I’m off to bed. If I dream about spurs, I hate you all.

Bet you will as well sockets and JBs and wagos as you to ss and turn

 

[pirate]

I have watched and read...some very erudite prose on this thread, and that's why I am here...learning every day.
The juxtaposition bewtween regs and practicality, recommendations and actuality, all fascinating for me!
At the end of the day, common sense seems to say that it's 2 spurs, each one ok provided the termination is good, just a question over whether the hardware selected is appropriate...
Sparkychick, like your clarity on this.

 

[SparkyChick]

Sparkychick, like your clarity on this.

Thanks hon, but don't get too enthusiastic, I could be wrong

 

[pirate]

Mark, agree...don't want to dream about spurs...or any other team...and I'm off to the pub!
Oh, wait a minute...where's ma troozers?
Sorted!
Night all!

 

[MFS Electrical]

Thanks hon, but don't get too enthusiastic, I could be wrong

I think that’s the absolutely wonderful thing about the regs. They are open to interpretation so we are probably all wrong it’s really only down to yourself and how you justify it that makes it right or wrong everything is right if you can justify it.

 

[pirate]

Don't think so, sparkychick...nice clean JB connections, 2 spurs, leccy good at each one...overload?
where couldn't you, on any circuit not fused down?
Right, really going now!

 

[SparkyChick]

I think that’s the wonderful thing about the regs. They are open to interpretation so we are probably all wrong it’s really only down to yourself and how you justify it that makes it right or wrong everything is right if you can justify it.

Yeah, but that's also what makes it somewhat scary