Main switches

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

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

tamdee

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Glagsow
Can anyone help please.ive the chance to do a nightclub converted into flats.supplier has put new incomer with 5 meters and isolator switches.split concentric has been run to each flat by another contractor who has unfortunately taken ill.is there a need to fit switch fused isolators at source for each flat.any help would be appreciated.

tamdee

 
Yes. you can only use the providers fuse to protect a run up to 3 metres long, so each feed to each flat needs a switch fuse.

The suitability of split con is another whole question.

What's the rating of the feed that now feeds these 5 meters?

 
I don't know yet but it's a full new incoming system ,new bemco unit with 5 new meters each with isolation switch.

to be honest it looks a pretty neat job

 
If it was to be run by a BNO, then there is the grey area as ESQCR applies to them...

You need to get hold of the original designers design, surely a large job like this has been formally designed, else, how are the O&M manuals going to be created for compliance with CDM?

 
As said above ,  and as far as I know ,     split con isn't  used in an installation to  7671 ...because I presume ,  theres no steel wire armour .   

And yes they need to be fused  down by the metering . 

Unless the designer knows better in sounds wrong to me .  

Upon saying all that  I just remembered  that we sub- contracted to the , then Midlands  Electricity Board , to run  the sub mains up 18 storey  flats .  They were Split Con cables protected by 80A  service fuses in the basement ....so if it's installed by the DNO , to ESQCR    perhaps its OK  .   

 
Just to clarify, split con is 3 core. Concentric cable is 2 care and that is what the supply people use.

What exactly is the grey area with split con? Is it the same as the grey area of SY?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, neither are recognised in BS7671, thus require a deviation to be recorded in the EIC.

Split-con does not have an earthed outer metallic sheath, thus cannot be utilised as standard SWA, the same applies to concentric, which is a 2 core cable carrying 3 conductors thus it has the outer as a PEN conductor, which in the consumers installation is illegal under ESQCR.

 
The cable we installed for the Midlands Electricity Board   ( MEB)   was  , what I call split-con ,   it was single core  and the concentric layer consisted of  half  the cores insulated in Black PVC , the other half bare copper.  

Years ago , doing street lighting on a University job ,  the specified light columns were a straight 3 inch tube with no thicker bit at the base for cable termination .  We were supposed to terminate an SWA  & fit a switched spur in there.      Right pain so I asked if we could wire the street lighting in Split-Con  which doesn't need a gland and use a PVC Bill unit .

We were informed that we were NOT allowed to install Split Con ....this was in the 15th edition days. 

 
As I understand it, concentric, or split concentric is neither armoured, or double insulated, and therefore has no more protection than T&E and consequently should not be used underground unless in a duct. Compared with an SWA of the same csa it's physically smaller due to the lack of armouring, and also much easier to manipulate, in the right situation it can be a pleasure to work with.

I think a lot of problems come with the fact that while we have to work to BS7671, it isn't the be all and end all, in fact it actually used to state somewhere in the regs that certain things, such as certain cable types, methods of installation etc were outside the scope of the regs, and this is where problems can arise, due to either a lack of understanding, or a fear of not complying.

Some years ago I worked on certain things that were non electrical, although never the less, we had to work to certain regulations, which I have to admit were much more sensible than 7671. Right at the beginning of these reg it stated, 

"equipment that isn't approved by these regulations, may be used providing it is of a similar type to approved equipment and meets the requirements of same. This is to allow for  future development and new idea's"

We are in an industry that is continually evolving, and without trying new types of equipment, and installation methods then the industry would stagnate!

Lets be honest, look at the humble 13A fused plug, at some point that would not have been mentioned in the regs, but someone must have started using it, and now it's the standard for nearly all plug and socket connections, at some point while it wasn't specifically mentioned in the regs, it met the spirit of the regs, and therefore it was used.

It's the same with SY, in the right situation there's nothing wrong with it, it's a judgement call on behalf of the installer, I had a job on a farm that required some trailing sockets to be hung down from the roof, to plug fan units into. The feeds from the control panel are in SWA, however because they need to be flexible at the sockets, this prevented it being used throughout. I couldn't use TRS as there is a possibility of rodent damage. So I used my experience and made a judgement to terminate the SWA in an enclosure at the side of the roof and wire the last 20 feet in SY, it is flexible and also resistant to rodent damage, and while it may not be "in the regs" I have no problem using it in such situations, "equipment must be suitable for the environment in which it is installed" or words to that effect.

Now SY is flexible, a requirement in this situation, it is also resistant to rodent damage, again a requirement in this situation, now providing it is of a suitable CSA to carry the required current, and terminated correctly, then what's the issue? There isn't one, every piece of kit we use will at some point have not been mentioned in the regs, because it was new, it met the regs "in spirit" and eventually through common use was approved, it's the way of the world, the trouble comes when someone who has no idea what they are doing installs cable or equipment that is unsuitable for the use it's being put to!

 
Phil,

There is no such thing as a double insulated cable.

Cables are insulated and sheathed.

This is why it is so naughty to utilise the bare cpc in a flat twin & cpc cable as a live conductor.

Whilst the sheathing may be made from a very similar grade of pvc to the insulation, the standards do not require it to have any dielectric strength, and as such it is not required to be tested nor inspected for its insulating properties.

I agree BS7671 is not the be all and end all, in fact most of the electrical work I do does not come under the scope of BS7671 a all!

I have done something similar with SY.

It must just be realised by those installing that they are deviating from the regulations, they may remain within the spirit, but not the letter, so they must record a deviation and be prepared to justify that with a design FMEA.

Remember, that the signatory is signing a legal document and can be held accountable in a court of law for their design and workmanship.

If you have deviated, but not stated that, then you have technically potentially falsified a legal document.

Whilst BS7671 is not law, EAWR is, and there is contract law also.

It's all down to the weasel wording.

 
Phil,

There is no such thing as a double insulated cable.

Cables are insulated and sheathed.

This is why it is so naughty to utilise the bare cpc in a flat twin & cpc cable as a live conductor.

Whilst the sheathing may be made from a very similar grade of pvc to the insulation, the standards do not require it to have any dielectric strength, and as such it is not required to be tested nor inspected for its insulating properties.

I agree BS7671 is not the be all and end all, in fact most of the electrical work I do does not come under the scope of BS7671 a all!

I have done something similar with SY.

It must just be realised by those installing that they are deviating from the regulations, they may remain within the spirit, but not the letter, so they must record a deviation and be prepared to justify that with a design FMEA.

Remember, that the signatory is signing a legal document and can be held accountable in a court of law for their design and workmanship.

If you have deviated, but not stated that, then you have technically potentially falsified a legal document.

Whilst BS7671 is not law, EAWR is, and there is contract law also.

It's all down to the weasel wording.
My bad, insulated and sheathed, lol, that's what comes of trying to type and hold a phone conversation, while trying to look at a book.I think it's one of my pet hates when people are afraid to think out of the box, along with the people who state if it doesn't comply with 7671 then it's "illegal" lol, if you are confident about what you are doing, know that it is safe, and suitable for the situation, then get on with it, I'd rather do something correctly, even if it wasn't in "the book" rather than try a bodge, that people think will comply, as you say, it's about being able to justify what you did and why you did it that way. Although I think the spark that wired a cabin that I saw on a recent site visit would have struggled.he'd connected an swa to a temp supply, no rcd, this was too short to reach the cabin, so it was joined to a length of sy, using a 32A 110v, trailing plug and socket, outdoors in the mud and wet! I wonder what his justification for that would have been?

Speaking of using a cpc as a live conductor, a mate of mine had bought a council house, he'd been thinking of buying it for ages, but hung off because it was about to have a major refurb. Eventually he bought it, new windows, bathroom, rewire, central heating etc, and he got it for a good price, a few months later and he gets a problem with the heating, I go round to look at it and it got rather interesting. It was only a motorised valve that had failed, however I discovered that during the install they'd used a 4 core flex instead of a 5 core, this meant they'd sleeved a green/yellow core with red sleeving, I wasn't happy, especially as inside the box were several G/Y'S  and this had only about 10mm of red sleeving on it.

I really enjoyed ringing the council to tell them what I'd found, they were not happy! at the end of the day you either use the correct cable or don't do it, I've seen a number of 2 way switching set ups done using the earth, the other favourite one seems to be when they want a 2 gang switch instead of a 1 gang, dis the earth and use it as a live. I remember seeing one and it had to have been done by a spark, a 3 core red! I couldn't believe it, never seen one before, when I actually dismantled the wiring at the switch, it was a twin red, someone had put red sleeve on the earth, but they'd pushed it into the outer sheath! It looked at first glance like a proper cable, I wish we'd had camera phones years ago, we could have had a proper rogues gallery if we did.

 
The cable we installed for the Midlands Electricity Board   ( MEB)   was  , what I call split-con ,   it was single core  and the concentric layer consisted of  half  the cores insulated in Black PVC , the other half bare copper.  

Years ago , doing street lighting on a University job ,  the specified light columns were a straight 3 inch tube with no thicker bit at the base for cable termination .  We were supposed to terminate an SWA  & fit a switched spur in there.      Right pain so I asked if we could wire the street lighting in Split-Con  which doesn't need a gland and use a PVC Bill unit .

We were informed that we were NOT allowed to install Split Con ....this was in the 15th edition days. 


i did once find steel armoured split con

whilst doing street lighting for a council a long time ago it was common pratice for the lights on the overhead lines to be wired in split con, we would wire the light and fit to the post, DNO would later come connect. all the underground cables were SWA though

 
Top