Ammendment 3 Consumer Units

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

revor

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
158
Reaction score
28
Location
N Wales
I am really puzzled as to the "solution" to fires in consumer units that have triggered the installation of non combustible units. As someone who worked in an industry that had great hazard potential to both product and people the emphasis was on prevention and we had extensive training in problem solving and how to develop preventative solutions. Putting a consumer unit in a metal enclosure will not prevent a fire only contain it and the success or otherwise of this will no doubt be down to the quality of the installation. So it seems perverse to me  to take this approach instead of understanding what causes the fire in the first place and correcting that.

Some theories I have come across are

1. Electricians not tightening the incoming terminals enough,

2 Using power drivers and breaking the screw using too much torque,

3 Quality of the cable tails in that the copper "relaxes" and terminal becomes loose.

No doubt you can add others

I read an article the other day by an electrical engineer that the incidence of fires in CU had increased 5 fold over the last 5 years. I presume it is true and if so there must have been some changes during this period to have resulted in special causes which should be put right.

Are the main switch terminals man enough? compare the terminals in a 100 A Henley block with the terminals in the main switch and you will get my drift.

 
There are other debates on this forum with those very concerns. If your on linked in have a look at the NICEIC/BEAMA updates and have your say.

 
Fire doors in schools don't prevent fires also. They do however give people more time to evacuate.

 
Misunderstanding of the intent of amendment 3 isn't helping matters, the consumer is meant to contain the fire, not prevent it from happening.

The cause is unskilled electricians with little or no experience doing a skilled persons job. The reason is part p, the people in charge of part p know this but will not admit it as they are stubborn idiots who would rather put people lives at risk than admit they ballsed it up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fire doors in schools don't prevent fires also. They do however give people more time to evacuate.
Not when they are wedged open because the electrical company who wired them up did not do a proper job

 
Wonder how many firemen are part time sparks?
What you need to ask is How many firemen are good part time sparks......

What you have currently happening is those that are retiring are finding they need to do something so are paying crazy fees to do the become a sparks quick courses.....................wouldn't believe how many questions I get during a working week along the lines of:

  1. "how would you do"
  2. "what is the proper name for this fire cable" 
  3. "whats the best way to get a cable from A to B"
  4. "Can i work with you for experience"
  5. "Could you come & check my work out.............................................& issue a cert"
  6. "If you were putting a kiln in the garden shed" (the kiln circuit & calculation for submain question has obviously come back in to use, I had it back in the 2360 days)
Number 6 is this weeks question.........

 
I read an article the other day by an electrical engineer that the incidence of fires in CU had increased 5 fold over the last 5 years. I presume it is true and if so there must have been some changes during this period to have resulted in special causes which should be put right.
Smart meter roll out. where the tails are manipulated to get them in the meter, but no check made in the CU?  Electrical Safety First, or whatever they call themselves these days, commissioned some testing which demonstrated that even correctly torqued tails loosen when moved about a bit.

Or it could just be that there are loads of "sparks" who don't have sufficient experience.  Or carp products.

 
Smart meter roll out. where the tails are manipulated to get them in the meter, but no check made in the CU?  Electrical Safety First, or whatever they call themselves these days, commissioned some testing which demonstrated that even correctly torqued tails loosen when moved about a bit.
Remove cover and MCB's all move because it is one of those cheap crap boards with a half DIN thingy and crappy breaker clips. Main switch is also on the slant so you have zero chance of just tightening up the main terminals now and getting the cover back on without disturbing basically everything in the entire CU. This is exactly why the meter fitters do not touch the CU, most of them wouldn't have a clue what to do.

The answer is demarcation, REC2 should be standard, fitting them should be a no cost option, for safety.

These new meters with the inbuilt isolator sound like a good idea but they are no good as the tails are disturbed if/when the meter is changed.

 
All they will do,is bring out a new standard ACL/S to give the customer.

Responsibility passed....jog on as it is now not their problem
But that is what everyone is trying to do, no-one is bothered about anything actually catching fire. Everyone is running around trying to limit the spread of the unnecessary fire or trying to absolve themselves by waving a bit of paper that has not been seen by anyone technical.

This should not be happening.

 
Proper training

Ban cheap,carp imports

Use meter tails with more strands......why not tri rated style with appropriate ferrules?

Fit REC2s on every job

Cannot realistically see why, if all the above were adhered to, we could hot have DBs made of WOOD! Or even cardboard!!!

Next they will be banning PVC!..."mark my turds, it WILL come"

Just adding fuel,to the fire!

 
What is the mechanism for a study like that of the LFB get into the regs. Where do the checks and balances that ensures that changes/additions  come from so they are sensible and appropriate.

 
What is the mechanism for a study like that of the LFB get into the regs. Where do the checks and balances that ensures that changes/additions  come from so they are sensible and appropriate.
Hum.... I think the manufacturers only thought about the larger cheques they would receive which would help them balance their books. I suspect the IET think the same!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This reg has nothing to do with the LFB and everything to do with the IET.  All the LFB done was show what they had found.  The IET **** themselves and reacted.

To be honest I think the IET should be more transparent so we can actually see what muppets voted this in.  They may well then think twice knowing that they will be held to account.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would hardly call the guys over at the IET  "Muppets" They are all very highly respected and know their stuff. I for one do not agree with it and have said so.
It was suggested in the report that non combustible/self extinguishing consumer units would limit the damage caused, on the face of it, this small but important step, appeared easily achievable and why the steps were taken to implement it.
As with any regulation passed there are flaws, for instance they advocate the use of plastic trunking as suitable to maintain integrity for cable entries, surely this would only be as good as the 'old' consumer units?

The success of this amendment will inevitably be the focus of even more discussions in the years to come.
 

 
Top