Metal Consumer Units Query .

[Andy™]

If you have a genuine concern about the movement of tails loosening their terminations, then I cannot see it being any more difficult to secure a 25mm tail to a wall than it is to secure a 16mm earth bond, or T&E or SWA. At the most basic level a cable tie base https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/FXCTB100B.html and a plastic strap or two would provide sufficient securing to prevent pulling and snagging the tails. (I doubt the tails will be hanging over a fire escape route so none flammable fixings should not be an issue).

Doc H.

i do all the time, unless there is no chance of the tails moving because its so close etc

 

[ProDave]

If you have a genuine concern about the movement of tails loosening their terminations, then I cannot see it being any more difficult to secure a 25mm tail to a wall than it is to secure a 16mm earth bond, or T&E or SWA. At the most basic level a cable tie base https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/FXCTB100B.html and a plastic strap or two would provide sufficient securing to prevent pulling and snagging the tails. (I doubt the tails will be hanging over a fire escape route so none flammable fixings should not be an issue).

Doc H.

But am I alone in despair at the fact we have to secure meter tails now, because we cannot rely on the cable clamps in main switches being adequate to clamp the cable properly if there's even a tiny bit of movement?

It never used to be the case. A wooden Wylex had 2 screws in every clamp and I can't recall one of those ever coming loose.

So now we have to make do with the carp that is all we can buy, and put things in a tin box so the inevitable CU fires are safely contained.

Wouldn't it be good for a change if the regs simply demanded better standards of product on the market?

Wouldn't  it be good if one of the manufacturers was to recognise a need for better equipment and start making switchgear with two screws on each cable clamp. Would enough people notice the higher quality to adopt it even if it cost more?

But I guess we will just muddle on as always. At least we now know CU fires will be less serious than before.

 

[Essex1]

I must say I am only 33 but I can never remember a CU/DB which would not allow tails to work loose.

 

[Sidewinder]

Well with those highly dangerous plastic boards that are constantly self combusting all you did was bash out an oblong knockout & shove the tails through it .............don't think anyone anchored the tails TBH. 

Deke,

It is a requirement that tails are supported to ensure that there is no mechanical loading on the points of electrical connection.

PD,

It has ALWAYS been a requirement to ensure that no mechanical stresses can be applied to electrical terminations.

Thus, tails should ALWAYS have been supported.

However, it was always thought that because they were so big, that they would be self-supporting, however, that is not acceptable under BS7671 and never has been.

It has just been "common practice" and has ALWAYS been in breach of "the regs".

 

[ProDave]

I must say I am only 33 but I can never remember a CU/DB which would not allow tails to work loose.

What sort of work do you do? Only new builds?

Have you really honestly never seen an old Wylex rewireable board that had 2 screws per connector (input and output) or even the early Wylex MCB boards had 2 screws on the incommer.  I have yet to see one of those with a loose connection.

 

[NozSpark]

Maybe people had a bit more wrist strength back then

 

[ProDave]

PD,

It has ALWAYS been a requirement to ensure that no mechanical stresses can be applied to electrical terminations.

Thus, tails should ALWAYS have been supported.

However, it was always thought that because they were so big, that they would be self-supporting, however, that is not acceptable under BS7671 and never has been.

It has just been "common practice" and has ALWAYS been in breach of "the regs".

Very true.  It's just that in the past, you got away with it because terminations used to be so secure.  Now things are not as good, it's more of an issue.

It's still VERY rare to see the tails between the supply head and the meter input terminals supported though.

 

[Sidewinder]

...

It's still VERY rare to see the tails between the supply head and the meter input terminals supported though.

However, these are not BS7671 "parts".

This is down to the DNO & the metering company & their regulations & requirements.

We can only comment and advise our clients in terms of BS7671, if the DNO or metering operator says it's fine, then it's their problem, let them sort it, just record it and report it.

 

[Evans Electric]

Thanks Sidey  ,  I take your point , in fact  even I have clipped meter tails with insulated band etc. sometimes  but admitedly not often  .  I must also say that I've never known any tails  being ripped out  TBH .   

So summing up ...we are NOT expected to use some sort of gland that grips flat twin then .?

 

[Evans Electric]

Maybe people had a bit more wrist strength back then

Thats a good point ....... last year I purchased  the smaller sized  (+) (-)  mad screwdriver to fit the earth & Neutral bars in domestic boards . Three different makes , they all sheared off ,  CK , Bahn something  and one other .   I emailed all companies & they  put it down to a small driver & many Sparks with a too strong wrist action .

This doesn't answer why , say, flat drivers don't shear off ..but I stopped buying that size , the bigger size does actually fit the earth bars , just didn't feel quite right .   

 

[Essex1]

Deke,

It is a requirement that tails are supported to ensure that there is no mechanical loading on the points of electrical connection.PD,

It has ALWAYS been a requirement to ensure that no mechanical stresses can be applied to electrical terminations.

Thus, tails should ALWAYS have been supported.

However, it was always thought that because they were so big, that they would be self-supporting, however, that is not acceptable under BS7671 and never has been.

It has just been "common practice" and has ALWAYS been in breach of "the regs".

Couldn't agree more.

So summing up ...we are NOT expected to use some sort of gland that grips flat twin then .?

Nothing in A3 has been brought in over and above what was already there.

 

[Evans Electric]

Thanks Sidey  ,  I take your point , in fact  even I have clipped meter tails with insulated band etc. sometimes  but admitedly not often  .  I must also say that I've never known any tails  being ripped out  TBH .   

So summing up ...we are NOT expected to use some sort of gland that grips flat twin then .?

And this thing in the wholesalers was just used as a big stuffing gland ,  didn't need the brass bits really or the cone shaped armour clamp .  

 

[misssweden]

It's still VERY rare to see the tails between the supply head and the meter input terminals supported though.

New supplies (at least the ones I see) tend to have that little security block rather than loose tails. I suppose that kinda counts as being supported?

 

[kerching]

New supplies (at least the ones I see) tend to have that little security block rather than loose tails. I suppose that kinda counts as being supported?

I think he means the Tails from the meter to,the CU

Just saying

 

[misssweden]

I think he means the Tails from the meter to,the CU

Just saying

Note to self, reduce alcohol intake before attemting to make sense on the internet :slap

 

[steptoe]

However, these are not BS7671 "parts".

This is down to the DNO & the metering company & their regulations & requirements.

We can only comment and advise our clients in terms of BS7671, if the DNO or metering operator says it's fine, then it's their problem, let them sort it, just record it and report it.

so

why are we now required to comment on the DNO side of things when completing an EICR now then?

 

[Sidewinder]

so

why are we now required to comment on the DNO side of things when completing an EICR now then?

Because BS7671 requires that we comment.

Whether the DNO considers it an issue is down to them.

 

[Blue Duck]

so

why are we now required to comment on the DNO side of things when completing an EICR now then?

Not just EICR it's on an EIC too. I do feel we are signing our lives away and taking the blame for everyone eles's **** ups!What's next?gas presure testing? or perhaps we should dig up the DNO cable and check for moisture in the joints?

 

[Adrian]

Do we fail an installation because of the dno equipment? I just failed one for undersize tails from cutout to Meter and CU they came out and changed the tails from Meter to CU and charged the customer £60 but left the 6mm tails from cutout to Meter

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Do we fail an installation because of the dno equipment? I just failed one for undersize tails from cutout to Meter and CU they came out and changed the tails from Meter to CU and charged the customer £60 but left the 6mm tails from cutout to Meter

Thats because those tails are the consumers property , even though you cant connect to the meter.  I am surprised they even did that for a fee.