Tim+ formulated the question :
Pete Zahut wrote:
Tim+ was thinking very hard :
Pete Zahut wrote:
Tim+ submitted this idea :
Pete Zahut wrote:
jim expressed precisely :
Pete Zahut Wrote in message:
We live in a 1960s semi-detached dormer bungalow, the internal walls
of which seem to be made of something like an egg-box construction.
There's a 45A double pole switch for the shower mounted outside the
bathroom but whoever fitted it should have used a dry-lining box
rather than a metal back box. Presumably the reason they didn't, is
that there are no dry-lining boxes that have the lugs in the correct
orientation for this situation.
The metal back box that's there at the moment is a very deep one
(don't know if they're 45 or 50mm deep) but we can't get away with
anything shallower because of the two 10mm twin+earth cables and the
depth of the switch.
The problem is, the box is actually touching the plasterboard (or
whatever it is) at the other side of the wall, so there's no depth to
be able to plug and screw and fixings - which is why it needs a
dry-lining box that no one makes!
One of these?
http://www.websparky.co.uk/acatalog/...mm-Deep-Dry-Li
ning-Box-WA107P.html
That's a standard dry-lining box. I need the lugs to be on the other
two surfaces (top and bottom as you look at that photo) but nobody
makes them.
Can you inject some gripfill /Stixall type adhesive through the
holes in the back if the one you've got already & try
again?
Maybe, but not hopeful to be honest.
Um, your switch has screws top and bottom so you want a box that has
screw fixings in the same place. Fit that dry lining box vertically and
you have what you need, unless I'm missing something obvious...
Tim
Only two 10mm twin and earth cables coming in and going out at the
bottom :')
How much slack is there in the cables? Enough to re-route?
Tim
Sadly not. However, Dave Plowman's suggestion gives me hope of getting
it sorted without too much hassle.
Couldn't you just cut a biggish hole in one of the bottom corners of a dry
lining enclosure? Dunno about the "legality" of such a modification.
I suppose that may work, might just try it as an experiment as I've got
Dave's suggestion to fall back on if it doesn't work, cheers.