New work in old bathroom

[Lurch]

Well I read page one and had a suitable answer, but now I've lost the will to live.

 

[androiduk2002]

As you all know I am a trainee so i cannot offer advice on the OPs "issue" but I believe some of the ideas seem reasonable, might I make a suggestion Spinlondon, how would you do the requested worked and comply to your interprutation of the regs, which after all is what the OP is requesting.

Not that he has to read 3 pages of a discussion that is very little to do with the actual question asked rather than each persons view on what the regs actually mean in plain English.

:coat

 

[spinlondon]

I think that the OP has put forward a very good answer himself in his original post. Install an enclosure containing an RCD and MCB etc.

I don't know why people are suggesting that he does it differently and in a manner that doesn't comply with the Regulations.

He has also asked if he should re-route the socket circuit that supplies the shaver point and extractor fan.

Well unless you are of the opinion that all circuits require upgrading when only one circuit has been worked on, I wouldn't bother.

I think I would use an RCBO rather than an RCD and MCB and ensure that the enclosure meets the requirements for BS EN 60439.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I think that the OP has put forward a very good answer himself in his original post. Install an enclosure containing an RCD and MCB etc.I don't know why people are suggesting that he does it differently and in a manner that doesn't comply with the Regulations.

He has also asked if he should re-route the socket circuit that supplies the shaver point and extractor fan.

Well unless you are of the opinion that all circuits require upgrading when only one circuit has been worked on, I wouldn't bother.

I think I would use an RCBO rather than an RCD and MCB and ensure that the enclosure meets the requirements for BS EN 60439.

:|

Well some people such as SpinLondon say the above wouldn't comply

because ALL CIRCUITS must be protected back to the CU!!!!!!??????

post #4?

Wouldn't comply with the regulations.The whole circuit requires RCD protection, which would be back to the CU.

Post #10?

"701.411.3.3 Aditional protection by RCDsAdditional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1."

As you can see, the reference is to protecting the circuit, not some or part of the circuit.

I personally couldn't comment cuz maybe posts #4 & #10 are in a dream I read....

oh yes...

I think it was Lurches point that sums these 3 pages up!

Post#41

Well I read page one and had a suitable answer, but now I've lost the will to live.

Someone told me the other day about a bloke trying to use Appendix 15 as a definition of a "Circuit"!!!!!!!!!!!! :^O :^O

whereas we all know, just like it says in BOLD at the top of page 362.

tis just an informative page showing the difference between Ring & Radial final circuits..

; )

couldn't believe it! :^O:^O:^O

 

[spinlondon]

The requirement is to protect the circuit. That means all of the circuit, not just a part of the circuit.

Circuits start at Distribution Boards, this information is supplied by Appendix 15. Consumer Units are a type of Distribution Board.

There is no restriction on how many Distribution Boards an installation can have.

So if an enclosure that meets the requirements of BS EN 60439 (the standard for Distribution Boards) is used, to contain the RCD protection then all of the circuit will be protected.

As for the requirements of Regulation 701.411.3.3 that all the circuits of the location be protected. If you want to argue that this means that circuits that have not been worked on require updating then please do so.

I will not argue against you, I just think it is a bit excessive.

Why should we ignore the information contained in BS7671? The fact that Appendix 15 is informative does not make it's information untrustworthy or irrelevant.

It sets out the options for the design of ring and radial final circuits. It does not just show the differences between them. Neither does it show as an option that the origin of a circuit can be an FCU.

The fact is, an FCU is an accessory that meets the requirements of BS1363 the standard for socket-outlets, plugs, plug adaptors and FCUs.

FCUs are primarily used to connect appliances, however they can be used to offer overload and fault protection where there is a reduction in the current-carrying capacity of a conductor.

Regulation 433.1.5 informs us that Accesories to BS 1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit, I'm not aware of any Regulation informing us that an Accesory to BS1363 can be used as the origin of a circuit.

I don't quite understand why someone would suggest that the information contained in Appendix 15 should be ignored, and that an FCU which is of the same standard as a 13A plug should be considered as the origin of a circuit.

Is there some Regulation, or other information that could be used to support this suggestion?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I have a worrying suspision.... some members are arguing with themseleves...

can't quite pin-point it though? :|

could be wrong.... :|

Anyway.. as a side issue,

I would Remind all younger members, less competent, those training etc...

to read the 'Scope' at the beginning of each section of the regs, to put into context all of the regulation in that sub-section...

it can be so easy to take things out of context...

I am just glad Lurch sorted it back at post #41!

save me reading loads of waffle.

Guinness

 

[spinlondon]

I'm suprised that you would suggest that people should read the Regulations.

From other posts you have made, I gained the impression that you did not consider compliance with the Regulations as particuarly importatnt.

Perhaps if you had something relevant to say, you could say it instead of just adding to the waffle?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Thought not!

Its quite clear when people haven't read the scope.

clue: Its at the beginning of the section

 

[spinlondon]

I don't know why people bother making posts that are cryptic and unclear.

Specs, if you have something to say, why don't you just say it instead of all this cryptic rubbish?

Or are you just adding to the waffle?

 

[ianmacd]

Walk away specs he isn't worth the argument.

 

[flyingspark]

Many thanks for all of your contributions, they have taken some deciphering, but still, ultimately it has helped me come to a decision, which is all I wanted, so that

 

[ianmacd]

Do not forget that if you do that you may then need to ensure you have a CPC in the lighting circuit at the very least for the part you are modifying.

 

[green-hornet]

Just my little input.

The regs would require any alteration or addition to a circuit going into the bathroom would need RCD protection, but as far as I am aware it does not state where this RCD protection originates from, so could with all purpose be a RCD spur outlet, next to the nearest socket outlet, or lighting circuit, and not the whole circuit back to the CU.

 

[spinlondon]

Just my little input.The regs would require any alteration or addition to a circuit going into the bathroom would need RCD protection, but as far as I am aware it does not state where this RCD protection originates from, so could with all purpose be a RCD spur outlet, next to the nearest socket outlet, or lighting circuit, and not the whole circuit back to the CU.

Do you accept that the Regulations require the circuit to be RCD protected?

Do you consider that placing an RCD part way along a circuit would be protecting the circuit, or only protecting part of the circuit?

 

[green-hornet]

Do you accept that the Regulations require the circuit to be RCD protected?Do you consider that placing an RCD part way along a circuit would be protecting the circuit, or only protecting part of the circuit?

Any circuit going into the bathroom under the current (version) of the regulations will require RCD protection.

I say version because I think you will find errors have been made in the regulations and these errors will be addressed with the first ammendment.

Placing a RCD part way along a circuit will not protect the whole of that circuit, in the same way that placing a 3amp fuse in the holder of a fused spur would not fuse that whole circuit to 3 amp.

What the RCD spur will do is comply with the regulations that the circuit going into the bathroom is additionaly protected by a 30mA RCd.

The circuit itself would still be protected from overcurrent etc by the mother circuits protective devise at the Cu.

 

[spinlondon]

Any circuit going into the bathroom under the current (version) of the regulations will require RCD protection.I say version because I think you will find errors have been made in the regulations and these errors will be addressed with the first ammendment.

Placing a RCD part way along a circuit will not protect the whole of that circuit, in the same way that placing a 3amp fuse in the holder of a fused spur would not fuse that whole circuit to 3 amp.

What the RCD spur will do is comply with the regulations that the circuit going into the bathroom is additionaly protected by a 30mA RCd.

The circuit itself would still be protected from overcurrent etc by the mother circuits protective devise at the Cu.

The 3A Fuse is not there to protect the circuit, it is there to protect the conductor, where there is a reduction in the current-carrying capacity.

With RCDs in special locations, the requirement is to provide additional protection to the circuit.

What you propose only provides additional protection to part of the circuit.

If the intention was just to protect the part of the circuit in the special location, why does the Regulation not say this?

In other Regulations relating to RCDs, the reference is to cable.

If it was only the cables in the special location that required RCD protection, why did they not use the word cable instead of circuit?

 

[Lillpete]

"701.411.3.3 Aditional protection by RCDsAdditional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1."

As you can see, the reference is to protecting the circuit, not some or part of the circuit.

could that not also be read as not just the lighting circuit for example but also the feed for underfloor heating and the towel rail heater.

So when it says circuits it's not saying protect the whole circuit but you must protect every circuit in the location, at the location??

just another option I thought I'd put out there

 

[spinlondon]

could that not also be read as not just the lighting circuit for example but also the feed for underfloor heating and the towel rail heater.So when it says circuits it's not saying protect the whole circuit but you must protect every circuit in the location, at the location??

just another option I thought I'd put out there

All of the circuits, lighting, UFH, towel rail, SELV shaver socket the works.

No it doesn't say the whole circuit, as it is not necessary to do so. If you only protect part of the circuit, then you have not protected the circuit have you?

Further it doesn't say in or at the location, it says of the location.

That way, people don't start protecting circuits that pass through the location and are not part of the location. They just protect the circuits of the location.

 

[ianmacd]

I see you are back to arguing semantics again spinlondon.

Why can you not just accept the fact that 7671 is not black and white and is open to interpretation and as such people will always read it differently. This would be not such an issue if it was black and white but we are where we are.

You have given your opinion on how the regs should be interoperated and then repeated it for a large number of posts (and over a few threads now). I think the time has come for you to stop your uber crusade to make us all see the regs as you do as it will never happen.

 

[green-hornet]

Spin I will try to explain in laymans terms and remain as objective as I can.

Here is an example of a wiring plan to a normal 3 bed semi.

two socket circuits

two lighting circuits

one cooker circuit

one kitchen circuit

No cables at this time run to a special location ie bathroom.

Then if I take a feed from the upstairs RCD protected sockets, and ran the lighting from this spur into the bathroom it would have complied with the regulations.

Now same thing but there is no RCD protected circuits in the CU.

So I take a feed from the upstairs sockets as in the first example, but use a RCD spur for the feed into the bathroom, again I have complied with the regulations.

As for the example with the 3amp fuse I really dont see how anyone could confuse the protection a fuse gives, because it is fitted on the line as is all fuses and circuit breakers.

The regulations are not there to confuse anyone, only to give a guideline as to the tried and tested methods of installations, that will meet all the requirements.

You can totally deviate from ALL regulations, providing that what you do is no less safe, and is a viable solution to the installation in hand.

The greatest danger I see from anyone attempting any installation is misinterpretation of the regulations. This would imply that a full working knowledge of electrical science has not been properly grasped.

At this moment I can see your arguments, and why you make them, but you have yet to consider that you may have misinterpreted the regulations.

I have just done a rewire where even though the cables are less than 50mm deep hidden in the walls, there are no RCD's in the CU.

Now your argument would be that under the regulations they should be.

However I have wired the circuits in a cable that under the regulations does not require additional RCD protection, and is stated in the regulations for such use.Often handy if you need to wire sensitive equipment, without the nuisance that a tripping RCD would impose.

I would agree that when some posts are made, the poster is or can be very vague and not able to express properly what they actually mean, or the post appears to be taken in the wrong context it was meant to.

This does not however mean they are stupid, or otherwise. There are a vast number of members on this forum who help with practical advise, and it is given with no reward other than to see that some person would gain from the vast experiances they have had.

If you feel strongly that someone is wrong, and it does happen from time to time, but is often picked up by more forum members, then if you argue the point you must quote the relevant regulations to back up your rebuff.

This would be the only standard from which anyone can see where your argument lies, and would form a starting point for any counter claim.

It is no use sticking to what you "think" or "believe", because no amount of debate will ever convince you otherwise.

I have been in this game for ages, some of you younger members where not even born when I started out, my youngest son is 22 this year, and yet I learned something new on this forum, where I was convinced before hand that I was right and they where wrong. (Thanks again Special Location).

So there it is, thats all I wanted to say, and even I would admit defeat, and have done, and I am not ashamed to say so, because I get better, or find faster more productive ways to navigate the regulations.