I have an old house, complete with plaster+wood lathe walls. The master
bedroom upstairs is fed from an overloaded old circuit that I want to
replace with a new branch circuit.

I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would
obviously require alot of patch work and painting. The BX option is to
use all armored cable by removing the baseboard trim, securing the
cable behind it and go up to each recept. from there.

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have an old house, complete with plaster+wood lathe walls. The master
bedroom upstairs is fed from an overloaded old circuit that I want to
replace with a new branch circuit.

I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would
obviously require alot of patch work and painting. The BX option is to
use all armored cable by removing the baseboard trim, securing the
cable behind it and go up to each recept. from there.

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?


Just because BX has a metal jacket does not mean it is impervious to
penetration by nails or staples. I've been on jobs where contractors have
shot nails with their nail guns through the safety plates I installed.

Is there an attic or crawl space above the bedroom? If so then the best way
to go is by fishing the wires down the walls from above.

Try to cut your outlet holes adjacent to a vertical wall stud. That way you
can screw your metal outlet box directly to the wood stud making it more
secure. Depending on the condition of your plaster, you may be doing a lot
of patch work anyway as the plaster cracks and breaks as you cut into it. I
usually line the cutout with 2" duct tape or masking tape to keep it stable
before I cut any holes, but there are no guarantees. Removing the baseboard
can also cause the plaster to crack and break.

I think that the easiest method is to get a 5" or 6" tungsten carbide tipped
hole saw (McMaster.com) and at a slow speed drill on the center of each
stud. Then chisel out (Or drill with smaller hole saw or bit) a small notch
in the stud for NM or BX and put a safety plate over it. If you were
careful drilling, you will have a round piece of solid plaster that can be
plastered back into the hole it came out of. Removing moldings around doors
and floors can be quite messy in old plaster rooms and you must put back all
of the moldings that were removed.

On 20 Oct 2006 10:19:52 -0700, wrote:
I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would

Nasty.

No attic or basement crawlspace?

Why not just open a small hole (outlet box sized) and use a flexible
drill bit to drill thru about 5ft or 6ft of studs to the next place you
need an outlet?

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?

Cost (probably less differnce now than there used to be). Ugly cable
will be in the way at some future point in time. I've used it before.
Sometimes it is the best immediate solution.

sdb

--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

I'm gonna echo John G, wood lathe plaster can be a nightmare. I've had
entire ceilings fall while trying to cut some small holes. Once the keys
break off the lathe, there is no integrity in the stuff at all. Try to work
through attics and basements and definitely whenever possible attach boxes
to studs and disturb the least amount of plaster possible


wrote in message
oups.com...
I have an old house, complete with plaster+wood lathe walls. The master
bedroom upstairs is fed from an overloaded old circuit that I want to
replace with a new branch circuit.

I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would
obviously require alot of patch work and painting. The BX option is to
use all armored cable by removing the baseboard trim, securing the
cable behind it and go up to each recept. from there.

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have an old house, complete with plaster+wood lathe walls. The master
bedroom upstairs is fed from an overloaded old circuit that I want to
replace with a new branch circuit.

I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would
obviously require alot of patch work and painting. The BX option is to
use all armored cable by removing the baseboard trim, securing the
cable behind it and go up to each recept. from there.

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?

Plan your outlet placements to minimize cable runs horizontally in the
walls. It is worth using a lot more cable going up and down. In the past I
did a lot of old house wiring and rarely notched studs or ran wire behind
baseboards, although it is sometimes necessary. It is fairly easy to drill
through one stud by drilling through a close outlet hole. If you place
another outlet on the other side of the wall just beyond the second stud you
can drill through it from that hole. With a flexible drill you can drill
through the studs on both sides of an outlet opening. You can also drill
through several studs next to a doorway using drill extensions and then
plugging the hole in the door jamb.

Plan your work carefully and use your imagination to figure out how to get
your wires into the required spaces or whether to move your outlet to a more
accessible space. If you know an experienced old-work electrician he could
give you some ideas.

Don Young

wrote:
I have an old house, complete with plaster+wood lathe walls. The master
bedroom upstairs is fed from an overloaded old circuit that I want to
replace with a new branch circuit.

I see two options; NM and amored cable. The NM option is use all NM
cable for feeds to outlets, and at every stud, remove the plaster,
snake the cable past the stud, and put a nail plate in. This would
obviously require alot of patch work and painting. The BX option is to
use all armored cable by removing the baseboard trim, securing the
cable behind it and go up to each recept. from there.

Because I need to get past a few door frames, using all armored cable
seems to make sense. I have seen this trick in several DIY books.

Is there any issue with this approach?


As others have stated metal jacketed cables are not immune from damage
by nails and screws.

1) Remove the baseboards from all of the walls to be cabled.
2) With a masonry cutting blade in a circular saw cut the plaster clean
through just below the top of the baseboard.
3) Remove the plaster and lath below the cut line completely.
4) Bore your holes through the center of the stud using a nail eater bit
and a right angle drill motor. As long as these holes are an inch and a
quarter back from the face of the studs you are not required to apply
kick plates.
5) Pull the cables.
6) Apply appropriate spacers to each stud and reinstall the baseboards.

Alternatively
Perform steps 1 through 3 above and
4) Replace the baseboards with divided surface metal raceway.
5) Install cap molding to make the surface metal raceway appear to be
baseboard.
6) Glue the toe moldings to the surface metal raceways removable covers.
You now have a two compartment raceway that can be reopened any time
you need to add or change wiring without disturbing the interior finish
of the room. Receptacle and communications outlets can be fished from
the cut in openings in the existing walls to the back of the surface
metal raceway or installed in the raceway itself. In my opinion surface
metal raceway is only worth doing in rooms that are likely to see a lot
of rearranging of the wiring such as an extensive home entertainment
setup or a truly heavily used home office.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

Thank you everyone for taking time out to help. I have access to one
wall from a crawl space, but from there I'm on my own. I think running
the NM cable sideways will be cleaner and keep the plaster damage down
to a minimum.

Notching the stud and getting the nail plate in would be impossible
without severing the lathe straps, which are mounted directly onto the
stud. The studs are also sideways back-to-back, not like newer
construction, so I'd have to drill through 4" of elderly timber.
Couldn't I just sneak the cable in between the straps of lathe and
cover that with plates? That does sound remarkably easy, though. Too
easy.

Thanks - dan

wrote in message
ups.com...
Thank you everyone for taking time out to help. I have access to one
wall from a crawl space, but from there I'm on my own. I think running
the NM cable sideways will be cleaner and keep the plaster damage down
to a minimum.

Notching the stud and getting the nail plate in would be impossible
without severing the lathe straps, which are mounted directly onto the
stud. The studs are also sideways back-to-back, not like newer
construction, so I'd have to drill through 4" of elderly timber.
Couldn't I just sneak the cable in between the straps of lathe and
cover that with plates? That does sound remarkably easy, though. Too
easy.

Thanks - dan


With the studs flat like that you will not have enough depth in the wall to
install a decent size outlet box so that you could go from outlet to outlet.
You could use a 4"square x 1.5" deep box with a plaster ring, but that
involves making bigger holes.

Have you considered using Wiremold? You could run it along the baseboard so
that it blends in with the molding.

If you will be using 14/2 NM you could just notch some of the wood lathe to
fit the cable through and put a nail plate over the wood lathe.

In article , "John Grabowski" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thank you everyone for taking time out to help. I have access to one
wall from a crawl space, but from there I'm on my own. I think running
the NM cable sideways will be cleaner and keep the plaster damage down
to a minimum.

Notching the stud and getting the nail plate in would be impossible
without severing the lathe straps, which are mounted directly onto the
stud. The studs are also sideways back-to-back, not like newer
construction, so I'd have to drill through 4" of elderly timber.
Couldn't I just sneak the cable in between the straps of lathe and
cover that with plates? That does sound remarkably easy, though. Too
easy.


With the studs flat like that you will not have enough depth in the wall to
install a decent size outlet box so that you could go from outlet to outlet.

Yes, he will. A lath-and-plaster wall is typically about 3/4" thick, which
allows a 2 1/4" deep box even with the studs laid flat.


If you will be using 14/2 NM you could just notch some of the wood lathe to
fit the cable through and put a nail plate over the wood lathe.

Not necessary to notch the lath. There should be plenty of room to lay 14-2
between the lath strips -- but it does need to be covered by a plate.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "John Grabowski"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thank you everyone for taking time out to help. I have access to one
wall from a crawl space, but from there I'm on my own. I think running
the NM cable sideways will be cleaner and keep the plaster damage down
to a minimum.

Notching the stud and getting the nail plate in would be impossible
without severing the lathe straps, which are mounted directly onto the
stud. The studs are also sideways back-to-back, not like newer
construction, so I'd have to drill through 4" of elderly timber.
Couldn't I just sneak the cable in between the straps of lathe and
cover that with plates? That does sound remarkably easy, though. Too
easy.


With the studs flat like that you will not have enough depth in the wall
to
install a decent size outlet box so that you could go from outlet to
outlet.

Yes, he will. A lath-and-plaster wall is typically about 3/4" thick, which
allows a 2 1/4" deep box even with the studs laid flat.



Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one conductor
deduction is required for that as well.




If you will be using 14/2 NM you could just notch some of the wood lathe
to
fit the cable through and put a nail plate over the wood lathe.

Not necessary to notch the lath. There should be plenty of room to lay
14-2
between the lath strips -- but it does need to be covered by a plate.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "John Grabowski" wrote:

Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one conductor
deduction is required for that as well.

Nothing stopping him from ganging two such boxes together...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "John Grabowski"
wrote:

Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to
feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one
conductor
deduction is required for that as well.

Nothing stopping him from ganging two such boxes together...


That will work. Good point.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Could I gang two of those boxes together and make a quad receptacle
outlet? That would meet the fill requirement:

2 x 2 devices + 1 clamp + 4 conductors = 9

I am concerned having single duplex receptacles with two-gang sized
faceplates would look sloppy. Then again, I can't say I have seen a
bedroom with all quad outlets before.

dan

On Oct 25, 7:31 am, "John Grabowski" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in messagenews
In article , "John Grabowski"
wrote:

Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to
feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one
conductor
deduction is required for that as well.

Nothing stopping him from ganging two such boxes together...That will work. Good point.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Could I gang two of those boxes together and make a quad receptacle
outlet? That would meet the fill requirement:

2 x 2 devices + 1 clamp + 4 conductors = 9

I am concerned having single duplex receptacles with two-gang sized
faceplates would look sloppy. Then again, I can't say I have seen a
bedroom with all quad outlets before.

dan

John Grabowski wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "John Grabowski"
wrote:

Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to
feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one
conductor
deduction is required for that as well.

Nothing stopping him from ganging two such boxes together...


That will work. Good point.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Oops, that should be 10 even, I needed to add a single volume for the
equipment grounds:

2 x 2 device + 1 clamp + 1 EGC + 4 conductors = 10

Great idea about the second non-receptacle like device. I'll consider
that an option.

dan

wrote:
Could I gang two of those boxes together and make a quad receptacle
outlet? That would meet the fill requirement:

2 x 2 devices + 1 clamp + 4 conductors = 9

I am concerned having single duplex receptacles with two-gang sized
faceplates would look sloppy. Then again, I can't say I have seen a
bedroom with all quad outlets before.

dan

John Grabowski wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "John Grabowski"
wrote:

Unfortunately a 2" x 3" x 2 1/4" metal box is only approved for 5 #14's.
After deducting two conductors for the device he would not be able to
feed
from outlet to outlet using that size box. He would also need to use an
outside connector instead of a box with internal clamps as a one
conductor
deduction is required for that as well.

Nothing stopping him from ganging two such boxes together...


That will work. Good point.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.