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

[Pete999]

Well yes... in your opinion it's not, in my opinion it is.

I could be swayed very easily with a regulation that prohibits it, but as far as I can tell, there is no such regulation. Thus as I've said, it may not be good practice (and we agree you and I are unlikely to use this method), but good practice is not the same as the regulations.

I'm not going to wave the white flag SC, but shall we agree to disagree?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Interesting, thanks for contacting them Mate.

I had to put my own queries to bed on this matter so I had to contact them. It would be interesting to see what the iet do say, if anything, they tend not to call me back

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm not going to wave the white flag SC, but shall we agree to disagree?

Hell no, this is a fight to the death

I think it's quite an interesting debate because it highlights yet another ambiguity in the regulations that appears to be based on what people consider to make up the regulations.

As I've said all along, personally I wouldn't do it unless I had absolutely no other choice because I don't consider it to be good practice, I much prefer to extend the ring onto new outlets because it provides better options for future changes and greatly reduces the risk of someone down the line adding a spur from a spur.

So yes, we can agree to disagree

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Thing is I can to a degree agree with SC and Co. As it is essentially the same as running a ring and then spur off for every socket but I'm assuming that due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb.

 

[Pete999]

Hell no, this is a fight to the death

I think it's quite an interesting debate because it highlights yet another ambiguity in the regulations that appears to be based on what people consider to make up the regulations.

As I've said all along, personally I wouldn't do it unless I had absolutely no other choice because I don't consider it to be good practice, I much prefer to extend the ring onto new outlets because it provides better options for future changes and greatly reduces the risk of someone down the line adding a spur from a spur.

So yes, we can agree to disagree

That's good it was going to be hard to find a suitable venue for the final battle.

 

[SparkyChick]

Thing is I can to a degree agree with SC and Co. As it is essentially the same as running a ring and then spur off for every socket but I'm assuming that due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb.

And I think that's the crux of it... what constitutes a spur?

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

And I think that's the crux of it... what constitutes a spur?

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

Well this is the things isn't it.. Which further reinforces the inability of the iet and any other body relating being able to lay out the regulations in a understandable way. I'm not saying I would be able to do better or that they should do better because looking at just bs7671... That's a lot of information, how do you lay it out in a way that is understandable to everyone. This is where I agree with most saying "get a spark in" as a good spark should be able to discern safe from unsafe compliant to non compliant but also they know who to contact in cases like this. In any case, case closed I think no, its not compliant but yes it is safe as long as the op removes it or adapts it before leaving home permenately.

 

[Devonchris]

Interesting debate. I've found myself pondering different scenarios which I thought I would share. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to hear members views.

1. Two wago boxes side by side on the ring (as mentioned earlier in the thread) with a spur from each. Would this be compliant?

2. Whilst installing example 1. You realise that you have a bigger box that will take all the wagos and save on one of the boxes. Would this be compliant?

3. Whilst installing example 2. You realise that you are using 4 way 222s and that you can remove the very short link between the wagos and put both spurs into the same one. So the wago is now maintaining the ring in place of the very short length of cable. Would this be compliant?

At what point, if any, does this become non compliant and why?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Op is it possible to run the original legs that you cut into on the rfc to a fcu then run both the 2.5mm to that and fix to a wall or something?

 

[happysteve]

Ooh, deja-vu all over again...:
To spur or not to spur?..... - https://www.electriciansforums.co.uk/threads/to-spur-or-not-to-spur.150956/page-2#post-1407954

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Interesting debate. I've found myself pondering different scenarios which I thought I would share. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to hear members views.

1. Two wago boxes side by side on the ring (as mentioned earlier in the thread) with a spur from each. Would this be compliant?

2. Whilst installing example 1. You realise that you have a bigger box that will take all the wagos and save on one of the boxes. Would this be compliant?

3. Whilst installing example 2. You realise that you are using 4 way 222s and that you can remove the very short link between the wagos and put both spurs into the same one. So the wago is now maintaining the ring in place of the very short length of cable. Would this be compliant?

At what point, if any, does this become non compliant and why?

1. Yes
2. I guess
3. No

 

[Pete999]

Op is it possible to run the original legs that you cut into on the rfc to a fcu then run both the 2.5mm to that and fix to a wall or something?

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

Well this is true and would be even worse obviously if they had spurred from a spur. op what's the situation can you confirm it's a leg off the rfc and not a spur that you've tapped into??

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

True, that WOULD be non compliant and possibly dangerous. I have taken on board the disagrees from respected members but remain unconvinced that the two spurs from a single point on a ring is non compliant.

 

[telectrix]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

 

[Pete999]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

No need to be sorry Tel, we all have differing opinions. Out of interest which thread are you agreeing with, and tread carefully Mate, with the innuendos.

 

[Devonchris]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

 

[Pete999]

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

 

[johnduffell]

due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb

It's all defined by the iet in the regs
"Spur. A branch from a ring or radial final circuit."
So that is clear it refers to the cable rather than the point of connection.

While everyone is on the topic, i can't find anything in the regs that allows a lollipop circuit. I was trying to find out whether the wording would allow a figure of eight, but i can't find any reg allowing a lollipop, as a ring final circuit defines the whole circuit to be arranged as a ring. Any pointers?

 

[Devonchris]

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

You could be right Pete. A diagram is only an interpretation. Just like appendix 15.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

The idea of two spurs from adjacent points merging into one was first described by Pete999 in #26, reiterated as a specific argument by SJD in #44 and hammered home by Devonchris in #108.

Now try this one:

Suppose the junction box is actually a socket outlet in the RFC. You can run one unfused spur from this to feed one point., no doubt about that.

Now, instead of the socket outlet in the ring being in the physical position it is, you 'relocate' the faceplate to a different position using a piece of 2.5mm² cable, leaving the connections where they are. We already know that this type of cable is acceptable to feed one point. We already know that the loading on the RFC from the point of connection is acceptable. Electrically, nothing has changed. So, provided the junction box is adequate for the purpose, the OP's situation is electrically just as safe as a single spur to a socket outlet run from another socket outlet.

Making all new socket outlets part of a fused spur is obviously compliant, but may be materially less safe. The total load that can now be connected is limited to 13A, and if Pete's proposed 2 x 2kW heaters were connected, one to each of the new socket outlets, a prolonged low overload would occur before the fuse failed. During that time, the FCU would be operated beyond its continuous rating, whereas with the double unfused spur nothing would be overloaded in this way.

So IMHO the simple answer of making the addition a fused spur apparently improves compliance while making it less safe. Personally, I think the OP's solution is fine. I agree with SC that it is not in breach of any regs. Connecting a large number of spurs to one point would be unacceptable because too great a fraction of the circuit's total load would be likely to become concentrated at that point. But as I showed above, there is no such redistribution of load at all, when two unfused spurs each serving one point are taken from one junction that is not itself an outlet.

 

[Baddegg]

I remember a house once wired in roughly the same configuration,RFC up and down but as the leg enters the room it terminated to a JB and fed 3-4 sockets (all from the jb) then carried on to the next room and did the same thing room to room and back to the board...
Confused the me no end for a while, glad I didnt have to touch it cos it would’ve kept me awake

 

['mr2'gd4u]

So.. The iet are saying the same, rfc cut on one leg, junction box with both ends of leg connected to 2 length of 2.5mm on to 1 socket on each length. Non compliant.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

I remember a house once wired in roughly the same configuration,RFC up and down but as the leg enters the room it terminated to a JB and fed 3-4 sockets (all from the jb) then carried on to the next room and did the same thing room to room and back to the board...
Confused the me no end for a while, glad I didnt have to touch it cos it would’ve kept me awake

Ewwww

 

[DPG]

What reg do they say it contravenes?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

What reg do they say it contravenes?

Didn't actually think to ask. Just asked them the question (twice to confirm) they gave me there answer. Give them a ring, I'm sick of phone calls today.

 

[Pete999]

Didn't actually think to ask. Just asked them the question (twice to confirm) they gave me there answer. Give them a ring, I'm sick of phone calls today.

You know, without conceding to anyone, and the lack of any definitive proof, Regulation numbers etc, the only arguments on this subject we have, are divided between those who agree with what we have as decisive regulatory notifications, i,e, regulation 433.1.204 Appendix 15 Figure 15A, and those who don't agree.

Now I know what I believe to be a true representation of what is right, and I won't waver from that, so please don't bother to argue the point with me.

What has come about from this somewhat heated debate, is one or two members have either contacted their respective C.P.Schemes, the NICEIC in this instance, or the IET directly, both organisations have declared that the issue presented to them by members of the Forum, in their opinion is non compliant with BS7671.

It begins to make you wonder how many other inconclusive issues have been left for us Electrical operatives to debate, argue and form our own conclusions, without any definitive statements published by the IET.

Now I know there will be many people out there who will say it's always been this way.

The Regulations, the OSG, the various guidance Notes are not cheap, and those who try to abide by the rules conscientiously buy these publications religiously every time there are updates.

Now back to earlier both the NICEIC and IET have said the issue posed by the OP is non compliant, but seem to be reluctant to provide any proof of non compliance.

 

[Spoon]

So the iet say it's 'Non compliant'

I'm right...... IN YOUR FACE......

 

[DPG]

I see no substance in someone at the help desk saying it doesn't comply, but without any reasoning or regulation to back it up. You could phone on a different day and some might well say they think it does comply. They are paid to provide good and complete technical advice, not just random one liners.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

I don't really know where we should all go with this tbh. I think; op rectify or remove when/if you ever leave.. Or else!

 

[Midwest]

What was the question again?

 

[Fitzy]

This thread has been quite an interesting read with some very healthy debates.

So I’m just curious, the IET write the regulations we all adhere to right? So are all the regulations they provide us with backed up with actual facts/testing.

So the regulation being discussed in the post, has it been tested by the IET to confirm that 2 spurs from the same socket ARE in fact dangerous or are they based on speculation as to ‘what’ might happen?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

This thread has been quite an interesting read with some very healthy debates.

So I’m just curious, the IET write the regulations we all adhere to right? So are all the regulations they provide us with backed up with actual facts/testing.

So the regulation being discussed in the post, has it been tested by the IET to confirm that 2 spurs from the same socket ARE in fact dangerous or are they based on speculation as to ‘what’ might happen?

Proberably the latter tbh who knows.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

The whole bs 7671 could be speculation. For all we know we might not even really exist...

 

[MDJ]

Dear oh Dear, the OP has spurred two sockets off one point on the ring, whether it is a socket or a Junction box it is one point, spurring two points from one point on the ring is against the regs, No scheme will accept it because it is not permitted, you can all argue all day long and I won't reply to any replies to this because I know I am right

 

[MDJ]

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

A Spur is something attached to cowboy boots, plenty of folk on here wear them, not saying you do

 

[westward10]

My App15 shows it as being fine

 

[MDJ]

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.

Rubbish, I question everything

 

[MDJ]

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.

Rubbish, I question everything

My App15 shows it as being fineView attachment 45061

Thats it then, now where is my marker pen lol

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Oi! You deleted my comment..

 

[Octopus]

So my closing post on this issue...

I've given you a disagree because I was taught never to have more than 3 cables at any connection on a ring or radial

 

[SparkyChick]

What has come about from this somewhat heated debate, is one or two members have either contacted their respective C.P.Schemes, the NICEIC in this instance, or the IET directly, both organisations have declared that the issue presented to them by members of the Forum, in their opinion is non compliant with BS7671.

It begins to make you wonder how many other inconclusive issues have been left for us Electrical operatives to debate, argue and form our own conclusions, without any definitive statements published by the IET.

Now I know there will be many people out there who will say it's always been this way.

The Regulations, the OSG, the various guidance Notes are not cheap, and those who try to abide by the rules conscientiously buy these publications religiously every time there are updates.

Now back to earlier both the NICEIC and IET have said the issue posed by the OP is non compliant, but seem to be reluctant to provide any proof of non compliance.

On the back of this, I contacted NAPIT (my scheme) and put it to them that I had come across this situation during an EICR and had been advised by a more learned friend that it was a non-compliance, but that I was struggling to find a regulation it contravened.

The answer I received went like this "not good practice, but you won't find a regulation it contravenes".

So yes I fundamentally agree with you Pete, a classic case of ambiguity in the regulations leaving us open to the possibility of ending up in hot water (if something goes wrong for example).

It would be very simple to clarify with an additional clause in 433.1.204 that states each junction box/accessory shall be the origin of a single spur.

I think we all agree it's not good practice, but the ambiguity leaves it open.

 

[westward10]

Oi! You deleted my comment..

I deleted your comment and the associated ones because even though there was no malice to it it was inappropriate for a public forum.

 

[markc123]

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.

I apologise for my language this morning and my post was correctly edited by a mod. My outburst was probably a little OTT and if I came across as rude it wasn’t my intention, just this sort of stuff does boil the p155 of electricians.

Maybe I should of read more, but I still think what you tried to undertake was a little more than DIY. On the positive side, I do applaud you for coming and seeking help - many don’t.

 

[westward10]

I asked my scheme, the fella in B&Q he said it was fine and even showed me the parts I required.

 

[SparkyChick]

I've given you a disagree because I was taught never to have more than 3 cables at any connection on a ring or radial

If using a screw junction box, I'd tend to agree due to limited terminal capacity, but with modern jointing methods like Wagos, it's not such a problem.

But regardless, fundamentally (as I've stated so many times I've lost count) I agree... it's not good practice

 

[johnduffell]

The op could always mark it down as a departure when he signs to say he has designed the circuit.
Then even if appendix 15 is not just guidance, it would not be coded unsatisfactory on an eicr. Not that it would anyway if it didn't affect the safety of the installation, but it's down to the designer to decide.

 

[mikep83]

hi, I added the white, to the existing ring. Sorry, bad markup on picture.

 

[Pete999]

hi, I added the white, to the existing ring. Sorry, bad markup on picture.

View attachment 45062

Thanks that clears that issue up nicely

 

[Octopus]

The op could always mark it down as a departure when he signs to say he has designed the circuit.
Then even if appendix 15 is not just guidance, it would not be coded unsatisfactory on an eicr. Not that it would anyway if it didn't affect the safety of the installation, but it's down to the designer to decide.

The OP isn’t a spark .......