Discuss What regulation would stop the use of Irish (6192Y) T+E Cable to BS 6004? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Reaction score
89
I understand that in Ireland domestic single phase wiring is done with 6193Y cables that have a CPC that is the main size as the phase and neutral conductors and is insulated.

Can anyone tell me what regulation in the 18th Edition (if any) would prevent this cable from being used in the UK?
 
Hi - I wasn’t familiar with this product, so I had a quick look. This appears to be an improved cable, with a fully insulated 2.5mm CPC. The advert I saw listed it’s CCC as 18A though, which would seem to make it unsuitable for a 32A RFC which is 20A minimum.

But I don’t understand why the CCC would be reduced like this ...

What regulation would stop the use of Irish (6192Y) T+E Cable to BS 6004? B4FF5D0A-3BA1-4CC0-8EFC-9AE1900621CB - EletriciansForums.net
 
Absolutely nothing prevents it's use, the only "issue" is that there is no cable rating table in the standards, therefore manufacturer's data must be used, which is acceptable.

I actually prefer it, the use of the same size cpc is overall a much better idea, we only got down the rabbit hole of smaller size cpc to save material, which is something we are now a bit stuck with.

The Irish stuff has heavier insulation though, so has lower current capacity.
 
The cable is not to BS 6004 as claimed.

It is, in fact, to I.S. 201-4 and therefore does not comply with any British Standard.

I am not aware of the current-carrying capacity of the new T&E being any different to the old T&E. In fact RECI have never issued any such warning that I am aware of, and therefore I suspect that it is misinformation.
 
Is there any feed back from Irish electricians as to how they are getting on with this type of cable?
I like the idea of it but is it more awkward to use?
 
I actually prefer it, the use of the same size cpc is overall a much better idea, we only got down the rabbit hole of smaller size cpc to save material, which is something we are now a bit stuck with.

Whats the advantage of the same size cpc? It's not necessary for any technical reason that I'm aware of, all it does is waste copper.
 
Whats the advantage of the same size cpc? It's not necessary for any technical reason that I'm aware of, all it does is waste copper.
Gives a higher fault current, therefore quicker disconnection times, but more importantly results in a lower touch voltage at the point of fault etc.

Say I have a lighting circuit in 1.5/1 then if there is a fault the 230v would be split over the source impedance Ze and the cable.

If Ze is 1 ohm, and R1 is 1 ohm, then R2 would be 1.5 ohm, then the touch voltage due to the higher cpc resistance would be around 100v, but if it's the same size as the line conductor, it's only around 75v.

- (easy numbers btw, but other than the high Ze not unreasonable)
 
Is there any feed back from Irish electricians as to how they are getting on with this type of cable?
I like the idea of it but is it more awkward to use?
Can be crowded in conduits but good for second fixing. That said, sometimes accessories haven't been designed with full size protective conductors in mind.

Probably about 30% more expensive to buy also.
 
Talking about conduit, when we use conduit and 6491x then we tend to use the same size cable for the cpc as the line, - plus the conduit itself so really keep the R2 low, much better idea to my mind!
 
Talking about conduit, when we use conduit and 6491x then we tend to use the same size cable for the cpc as the line, - plus the conduit itself so really keep the R2 low, much better idea to my mind!

I only use the same size in the smallest sizes as its not worth calculating, 6mm and above I'll calculate and use a smaller cpc.
 
Conservation of materials is still a relevant design consideration surely ?

It is, but on balance I would prefer the safety aspects of the lower touch voltage, and if the latest moves towards reducing voltage drop - and "reduced losses" is anything to go by, the move to larger conductors is the latest fad!

(although I think that makes the energy used more - not less!)
 
Thanks for everyone's input so far, and apologies for the typo in the Title of the thread - I referred to 6192Y in the title and 6193Y in the body of the post. 6193Y is the correct reference for the cable used in the ROI.

I'm curious as to how Risteard (whose expertise I know and respect) knows that the cable is not manufactured to BS 6004, when the vendors website says it is. We all know that wholesaler's websites can and do have inaccuracies, but there is no manufacturer's name listed and no manufacturer's part number, so how does he know that it is not compliant with BS 6004?

Caledonean Cables make 6193Y cable to BS 6004 according to their website:
(Page describes both 6192Y and 6193Y)

I would always trust the manufacturer's website over a wholesaler's, but even the manufacturers are not immune to human error.
 
We all know that wholesaler's websites can and do have inaccuracies, but there is no manufacturer's name listed and no manufacturer's part number, so how does he know that it is not compliant with BS 6004?
Fair question.

I don't personally have a copy of the BS 6004 standard, but I do have a substantial amount of I.S. 201-4 cable. All of the cable I have is marked I.S. 201-4 and not BS 6004. It is also marked N05VVH4-U.

The previous I.S. 201 cable matched BS 6004 cable in numerous sizes (but not all). 10mm^2 I.S. 201 old T&E had a 6mm^2 protective conductor and 16mm^2 old T&E had a 10mm^2 protective conductor - clearly this was at variance to BS 6004. In fact RECI assumed that 16mm^2 cable with a 6mm^2 cpc which they had come across was defective cable on the market at a time, not realising that it was actually compliant with British Standards and had been imported from the UK or taken across the border. Its use was, however, prohibited in the south of Ireland.
 
Thanks Risteard. I'm happy to accept that the I.S.201-4/N05VVH4-U cable is not compliant with BS 6004, but leads to another question: What BS or BS EN standards are designated for use for fixed wiring in the current UK wiring regulations?

I don't have access to the 18th Edition, hence me asking here. I can get hold of a copy of the Wiring Regs given time, but would be grateful if anyone feels like listing the standards that are allowed for fixed wiring.

Thanks everyone
 
This document from "IDH Cables" suggests that their 6193Y cable has been certified to BS 6004






Edit -
Maybe BS 6004 is being updated this year? 6193Y is mentioned on this BSI proposal

 
Last edited:
This document from "IDH Cables" suggests that their 6193Y cable has been certified to BS 6004



Edit -
Maybe BS 6004 is being updated this year? 6193Y is mentioned on this BSI proposal

Maybe Covid got in the way.

Proposal start date:
20/02/2020

Proposal end date:
20/03/2020
 

Reply to What regulation would stop the use of Irish (6192Y) T+E Cable to BS 6004? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock