UK 3 x 2.5mm T&Es into one 13A socket. How do you do it?

[mainline]

Why would he go back and correct them, yes its a technical breach of the regs but there's nothing dangerous in what he's done, its still the same number of sockets in the circuit its just that the joint is in the wago and not the socket, those wagos can withstand about 100 amps before they melt according to several video's I've watched on them. I would only ever go back to a job if I realised I'd done something dangerous.

Saying that, its well over the top, those wagos are about 20p each, a pack of ferules, cable ties, 3 coils of conduit cable, might as well not bother doing the job at all. I don't get why people end up with spurs on new wiring anyway, I work with someone who always manages to do this, there is always a socket somewhere that has 3 cables at it on one of his re-wires, it cant be that hard to go in a circle can it

It was a question to the OP asking if he was going back to correct the non-compliant installation.

If you're happy to install from new, something that is non-compliant that's on you, personally I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want anyone in the future to drop the socket and think WTF.

Doing what he did has made it less safe than joining them in the socket, he has introduced more joints and turned the original socket into a spur.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

It was a question to the OP asking if he was going back to correct the non-compliant installation.

If you're happy to install from new, something that is non-compliant that's on you, personally i wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want anyone in the future to drop the socket and think WTF.

Is it actually non-compliant though?

 

[mainline]

Is it actually non-compliant though?

I would say so as it's 2 spurs from one point of a ring final.

 

[Petej999]

Ferrules on 7 stranded cable? I’m assuming that’s 6491X?

Or is it fine stranded?

SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY

 

[oscar21]

It was a question to the OP asking if he was going back to correct the non-compliant installation.

If you're happy to install from new, something that is non-compliant that's on you, personally I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want anyone in the future to drop the socket and think WTF.

Doing what he did has made it less safe than joining them in the socket, he has introduced more joints and turned the original socket into a spur.

I wouldn't do that either but if I did do something that later turned out to be a technical breach but was perfectly safe I wouldn't be going back to alter it. Especially after seeing the cowboy stuff from otheres that is churned out on a daily basis without a care in the world.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I would say so as it's 2 spurs from one point of a ring final.

I don't think this is prohibited by appendix 15 though is it? It's not a spur off a spur, so shouldn't be issues with the cable overloading. The wagos wouldn't be subject to any more current in this arrangement than the terminals of the socket would be if the spur was terminated into the back of the socket, if you see what I mean.

 

[mainline]

I don't think this is prohibited by appendix 15 though is it? It's not a spur off a spur, so shouldn't be issues with the cable overloading. The wagos wouldn't be subject to any more current in this arrangement than the terminals of the socket would be if the spur was terminated into the socket, if you see what I mean.

One spur per socket outlet is compliant, basically this is now 2.

The load of the ring and the load from two spurs is now on the Wago the socket connection IMO is far more substantial than the Wago.

 

[timhoward]

One spur per socket outlet is compliant

I wouldn't choose to strongly say this as nothing normative in the regs states this. The normative reg tells us that the load in any part of the circuit shouldn't exceed the cable rating for long periods. So unless there are consistent loads I don't see how we can state the level of compliance for this sort of arrangement.

As a point of interest, if it had been one of these, would you still feel the same?

Surprisingly, as chunky as it looks it has a lower rating than those Wago connectors.

 

[mainline]

I wouldn't choose to strongly say this as nothing normative in the regs states this. The normative reg tells us that the load in any part of the circuit shouldn't exceed the cable rating for long periods. So unless there are consistent loads I don't see how we can state the level of compliance for this sort of arrangement.

As a point of interest, if it had been one of these, would you still feel the same?

View attachment 109280

Surprisingly, as chunky as it looks it has a lower rating than those Wago connectors.

Yes, I would feel the same, as I wouldn't run 2 spur sockets from one junction box.

Btw Wago 221 seem to vary in current rating, I've seen some rated at 20 amps some at 32 and some at 41.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Yes, I would feel the same, as I wouldn't run 2 spur sockets from one junction box.

Btw Wago 221 seem to vary in current rating, I've seen some rated at 20 amps some at 32 and some at 41.

IIRC, the 4mm wago 221s are 32A, except when MF, when they are 20A.

 

[mainline]

IIRC, the 4mm wago 221s are 32A, except when MF, when they are 20A.

There are different versions of 221 4 mm and 6 mm.
USA rate them as 20amp

And:

 

[7029 dave]

Looking at the photo maybe could be dressed in a bit better on the forming of the conductors, more of a sharper bend. Not the greatest example for this situation dry lined box on stud wall but hey gotta work with it.
Metal boxes on a solid wall would be much easier I would dress all the conductors all in the same direction then sweep them back round on themselves dress them in back into the box before even trying to screw them up.

 

[mainline]

I don't think this is prohibited by appendix 15 though is it? It's not a spur off a spur, so shouldn't be issues with the cable overloading. The wagos wouldn't be subject to any more current in this arrangement than the terminals of the socket would be if the spur was terminated into the back of the socket, if you see what I mean.

It looks like this has already been discussed in another thread, It seemed to have caused a divide.


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.

 

[mainline]

I've always disliked needing to wrangle three 2.5mm T&Es into one 13A socket.

The three solid cores rarely sit cleanly, and there's always the suspicion that at least one core is not being held properly:

View attachment 109255

Lately I've been doing this, using 5-way Wagos and bits of stranded 2.5mm single, fitted with ferrules, into the socket itself:

View attachment 109256

Of course that's more joints. Perhaps unnecessary joints. But it appears to me a more secure and more maintenance-free method.

I don't believe there's any regulatory reason why it can't be done like this.

What do others do/think?

Is it just me or the photo quality but looking closely especially the L I can’t see the cable pushed fully into the wagos.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

It looks like this has already been discussed in another thread, It seemed to have caused a divide.


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.

I can only really repeat what I said before. In post #1, picture2, the wago would receive the same load as the terminals of a socket would, if spurred from in the usual way (as in post #1, picture 1). The ring would receive the same load at that point wired either way. The 32A wago is protected by the 32A breaker.

The wago arrangement isn't shown in the design guide, but I see no less protection against overload, or anything else, in this arrangement. I don't think it is prohibited by regulation, and I don't think the OP should go back to alter the work.

 

[Dustydazzler]

If this was an old socket with cores too short to reach the new socket then I would have used Wagos connectors just like the OP and made up some 2.5mm flying leads to make off in my new socket front.
I think some people are getting their goat with he OP as the cables 'could have' just been put into the back on the socket and no need for the flying lead wago c

 

[Mark42]

OP here: Quick update as busy this week.

I never said this was an RFC. (Although I believe it would not matter if it were, for reasons I’ll explain in detail later.)

It’s a 2.5mm radial protected by a 20A RCBO, in a commercial setting.

The third cable goes off to a distant display screen up on the wall. I considered it better engineering practice to ‘spur’ this accessory rather than go all the way up there and back again with a continuous radial, which would have made the total circuit length much longer.

 

[pc1966]

It looks like this has already been discussed in another thread, It seemed to have caused a divide.

Yes I think I recall that one of the moderators had to step and and stop that discussion as it had gone from technical to personal insults, which is not what the forum strives for.

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.

Again, maybe I am thinking of another thread, but in the one that was stopped the argument was that the Wago itself was part of the RFC so you could take multiple loads off it. I think most folks (including myself) disagreed with that view and took the more reasonable approach that the Wago is no different to a terminal on an accessory so what matters is the total load on a point of the RFC not causing too much imbalance between the 'legs' which the usual diversity of fuse-limited loads spread over the overall length of the RFC would offer.

The issue with the "spur off a spur" sort of DIY is that 2.5mm cable can have its nominal 20A rating exceeded hence the prohibition on that, unless off a FCU or similar that limits the total load.

What the OP is showing is not quite the same, as basically you have a double socket and a spur connected to the same location of the RFC. I don't see this as any different to taking a spur off the double socket in the conventional case as the total load on the RFC at that point is the same, and it is not flowing through a single section of 2.5mm

EDIT: Seems it was a radial, but above still of interest to discuss!

 

[DPG]

I think it was JohnSJW wasn't it?

 

[pc1966]

It’s a 2.5mm radial protected by a 20A RCBO, in a commercial setting.

OK, then no issues whatsoever as none can be overloaded.

The third cable goes off to a distant display screen up on the wall. I considered it better engineering practice to ‘spur’ this accessory rather than go all the way up there and back again with a continuous radial, which would have made the total circuit length much longer.

Its a trade-off, you lose the end-socket test for continuity on all socket's CPC, etc, but gain less volt drop & cost.