"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
Fine, except the bottom one has a washing machine and a dishwasher
plugged in. If both machines are on and the heaters go on, it seems
to me that the load on the spur wire is near maximum.

There's no problem with the spur per-se. It will handle the current. You
do
have a problem with a designed in point loading on the ring, which would
not
be considered a good idea these days. This point load would be the same
even
if the socket is on the ring proper and would not be solved by a circuit
reconfiguration.

Well it would actually. With a ring you have two current paths instead of
one so the current effectively is halved in the conductors.

The correct solution these days is to have a dedicated circuit to the
laundry appliances, leaving the ring for portable appliances.

Nothing wrong with your solution, though it depends on having sufficient
ways in the CU and is only really achievable in a rewire. When you say this
is the correct solution, how is it more correct than the OP wiring his
appliances into the ring (which is what I would do using FCU's as they are
fixed appliances)

This is how I
wired mine up. I've got a 32A ring and a separate 32A radial for the
dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer, run in 6mm cable. I can run
all the appliances simultaneously in complete confidence.

IMHO I would say a little overkill. If you really wanted to keep these items
off the main ring they would have all have sat quite happily on a 32A
dedicated ring wired in 2.5mm. A much easier task than wrestling with 6mm
and even with all three on I doubt you would get tripping.

The main kitchen
ring ends up quite underloaded, with only intermittent loads, like kettles
and microwaves, which is the best way to run them.

Christian.