Best method for oversized gauge?

[Mr_WD40]

Morning all.

I wasn't too sure how to phrase the title for the issue I have.

So to explain and hopefully there will be a simple solution.

I have a single recessed patress socket with three wires into each screw down terminal. I wish to swap this for a single to four gang conversion socket but the gauge of the three twisted wires is too thick for the replacement socket screw down terminals.

My assumption is the wires are ring main and spur, it's in the lounge with very little load.

The patress cannot be replaced and I would prefer not to use a raised patress. There isnt enough space to use a lock connector behind and the wires are very short.

Is there a standard solution for this?

I was contemplating soldering the respective wires together and adding a copper or steel pin to the soldered end and trapping that in the screw down terminal. Is that a valid option?

I appreciate this is not the sort of fix a professional would undertake.

Thank you for any advice.

 

[Darkwood]

HI,

We lack information tbh, we cannot advise on assumptions made and circuit testing should be undertaken to acknowledge that there is indeed a ring circuit with a spurred radial to a single point which would be compliant with regulations.
As for making the socket I assume the 4way converter is actually fused down at some point on it, I doubt it would be legal without a 13amp replaceable fuse incorporated into the unit?

The Solution here would be to chop out a deeper hole to seat the back box further in or replaced with a deeper box but it may be simpler to chop out for 2 double sockets while you are doing so anyway, the former will give you the room you need but then you need to establish what wire is what as you still need the ring to run in and out of the socket then into a joint to add the spur behind the socket, this allows you to keep in line with the regs of one spur per point, if you put all the wires in a joint behind the socket then tail some wires off it to the socket you effectively have 2 spurs off the same joint and this breaches regulations.

Unfortunately any solution must assume full load and no matter how you suggest you will load these sockets up we still have to give a solution that can support the full design load of the circuit itself.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

There isnt enough space to use a lock connector behind and the wires are very short.

Is that a typo for 'block connector' ?
If so, you might still have room for Wago 221 lever connectors, they are very slim. Careful routing of the cables might enable all the connections to be made in areas where the socket does not project deeply into the box.

I would not recommend the method you describe, of soldering the conductors together with a projecting pin for termination, as the stresses on the joints installing the faceplate are likely to weaken them. If soldering is needed, I would rather solder and insulate the cables in the back box with pigtails to the socket, but the Wagos are preferable by far.

 

[pc1966]

A photo might help here to start with.

Those 3/4 way conversion sockets normally are "surface mounting" anyway, so I guess you have the back-box area already in place to allow some Wago terminals to link the existing cables. But it is not a good or compliant solution as you are then in effect spurring two outlets off the same ring point. We really don't need another multi-page thread arguing that point...

As @Darkwood suggested already, extending and cutting out another back box to allow two standard double sockets to be used (with the ring final going from one to its neighbour and continuing from there) is a far better solution to it anyway.

These might also be of interest to you:

https://www.NoLinkingToThis/p/mk-lo...-socket-white-with-white-inserts-1-pack/814ph