Motorway Lighting installation - PIR Code 2 recommendation query

[Johny Foreigner]

Hi,

I'm a first time poster so please bare with me.

I would appreciate your thoughts on my interpretation of a code 2 recommendation for a PIR for a Motorway road lighting installation. Currently, I can only find guidance on the recommendation codes for domestic installations so my assumption may be a bit over zealous. I am erring on the side of caution as I am unsure if domestic recommendations are applicable to public lighting/commercial installations.

Am I correct in my assumption that a domestic code 2 recommendation for a high earth fault loop impedance that will not permit correct operation of the protective device would be classed as a code 1 recommendation for a public/commercial installation?

All your comments are appreciated

 

[ian.settle1]

There is no such thing as a DOMESTIC CODE 2 it is CODE 2 whether it is domestic, commercial or industrial

 

[telectrix]

i'd stick with a code 2. code 1 is for an immediate threat of fire or injury.

 

[mogga]

CODE 2 how "High" is it over max permitted ? watch when downrating MCBs on street lighting as the draw on startup combined with a small fault on 1 fitting can cause mcbs to trip

 

[Knobhead]

If you are doing work for the highways agency you should have a document covering the “scope of work to be undertaken”. This should tell you the tests to be done and the reporting procedure.

 

[IQ Electrical]

As a general rule of thumb, a code 1 defect has the danger THERE right now, whereas a code 2 needs another circumstance to happen.

In this case, danger will only be present if a fault develops on the circuit/column so a code 2 will probably be appropriate.

 

[mogga]

If your doing the PIR you should be checking glands ect the damp conditions and condensation inside colums is bad as they dont dry out leadding to realy bad corrosion of armour also checkthe cols at ground level with a tap of hammer make sure there are no rings of rust inside due to this Another fenomenun is the outer ring of rust specialy on footpaths ( Check EVERYONE if you are having to climb using ladder ) due to dogs piddling on cols older types are particularly vulnerable to this as most dont have the black coating whicck is meant to help prevent this occuring

 

[IQ Electrical]

Excellent advice from mogga above, have you not had any specific training on additional requirements for highway/motorway lighting PIRs?

 

[ian.settle1]

If your doing the PIR you should be checking glands ect the damp conditions and condensation inside colums is bad as they dont dry out leadding to realy bad corrosion of armour also checkthe cols at ground level with a tap of hammer make sure there are no rings of rust inside due to this Another fenomenun is the outer ring of rust specialy on footpaths ( Check EVERYONE if you are having to climb using ladder ) due to dogs piddling on cols older types are particularly vulnerable to this as most dont have the black coating whicck is meant to help prevent this occuring

Must be brave dogs and owners if their piddling on the motorway.

Normally street lighting columns and other street furniture are feed directly of a DNO cable in the location with the local authority paying a set fee as it is an unmetered supply.

 

[Johny Foreigner]

Gents, thanks for the input so far.

I'd just like to clarify a few things to help you in your comments on my situation.

As maintaining agents (on behalf of the Highways Agency) for the motorway network we have identified several lighting circuits during our periodic inspection and testing that fail to comply with the disconnection time for the device protecting a lighting circuit.


We now have a dilema, depending on how important we deem the problem to be. If the defect is categorized as a Code 1 recommendation, we would have to turn off the lighting installation until such time as it can be repaired. This makes us very unpopular with the client and 'Joe Public' as we are talking about a lot of lights being turned off. The arguement also being that turning lots of lights off can be detrimental to road safety, in particular it could even cause an accident.

On the other hand, if we categorize the defect as a Code 2 recommendation, arguably we can leave the circuit energised. We then have a period of time to address the fault. However, in the mean time should there be an accident and the outcome is someone is hurt/killed by a faulty installation that we knowingly energised are we at risk? This is the problem we face. In particular I am being asked to make the decision and I am not making myself popular by telling people to turn the lights off immediately.


Your further comments are appreciated. Thanks

 

[IQ Electrical]

Gents, thanks for the input so far.

I'd just like to clarify a few things to help you in your comments on my situation.

As maintaining agents (on behalf of the Highways Agency) for the motorway network we have identified several lighting circuits during our periodic inspection and testing that fail to comply with the disconnection time for the device protecting a lighting circuit.


We now have a dilema, depending on how important we deem the problem to be. If the defect is categorized as a Code 1 recommendation, we would have to turn off the lighting installation until such time as it can be repaired. This makes us very unpopular with the client and 'Joe Public' as we are talking about a lot of lights being turned off. The arguement also being that turning lots of lights off can be detrimental to road safety, in particular it could even cause an accident.

On the other hand, if we categorize the defect as a Code 2 recommendation, arguably we can leave the circuit energised. We then have a period of time to address the fault. However, in the mean time should there be an accident and the outcome is someone is hurt/killed by a faulty installation that we knowingly energised are we at risk? This is the problem we face. In particular I am being asked to make the decision and I am not making myself popular by telling people to turn the lights off immediately.


Your further comments are appreciated. Thanks

Every code that you as the inspector allocate to a defect on a PIR is in effect a mini risk assessment.

How can the assessed risk of an exceeded Zs on an installation barely subjected to human contact (other than maintenance by skilled competent persons) outweigh the risk of turning off a motorway lighting circuit?

 

[mogga]

Must be brave dogs and owners if their piddling on the motorway.

Normally street lighting columns and other street furniture are feed directly of a DNO cable in the location with the local authority paying a set fee as it is an unmetered supply.

I Missed the "Motorway" bit oops

your talking about "5th core" Ian this isnt common now as things get upgraded and switching becomes foremost I use to love how papers ect had an uproarabout lights being on 24/7 costing more when as you say its unmetered set rate There are penalties built in for 24/7 burning spotted by electricity company but these are few and far between
Most newer style installations go through a contactor panel enclosed in "Lucy" type box

Someone will correct me here but I think so long as there is a maintenance regime in place that there is no requirement for a specific PIR on straat lighting installations due to the constant maintenance being carried out We use to have to take a Zs at every col and when doing "planned maintenence on a specific feed pillar had to I.R cables and make good any glanding issues ect

 

[Johny Foreigner]

All thanks for your further thoughts

In response to the comment about mini risk assessments, I would argue that the potential to cause injury (particularly to the public/emergency services in the event of a road traffic collision) through a faulty electrical installation are more significant than lights not being operational on a motorway. As a Motorway lighting engineer/designer I personally feel that we should not light a road using a non-compliant installation. Particularly in todays 'blame culture' society.

Do you have any further thoughts on this matter?

 

[telectrix]

you have to balance the 2 risks. there are miles and miles of rural motorways without any lighting at all, and this does not appear to contribute to a lack of road safety. maybe the way to go is to kill the lighting with matrix warnings and a possible temporary speed limit.

 

[IQ Electrical]

All thanks for your further thoughts

In response to the comment about mini risk assessments, I would argue that the potential to cause injury (particularly to the public/emergency services in the event of a road traffic collision) through a faulty electrical installation are more significant than lights not being operational on a motorway. As a Motorway lighting engineer/designer I personally feel that we should not light a road using a non-compliant installation. Particularly in todays 'blame culture' society.

Do you have any further thoughts on this matter?

Well as a competent designer, you might have access to the figures from deaths/injury caused by the (probably numerous) non-compliant lighting installations on the roads?

I don't have access to those figures but by virtue of the fact that I've seen 1 reported incident (the Scottish one that resulted in the investigation into testing procedures) in my 25+ years in this business, I can only imagine the risk to be rather low.

In any event, it would be a code 2 by virtue of the fact that until a fault occurs, no danger is present.