Bert Coules wrote:


A good point, though this would involve using two junction boxes rather than
one. I'd have thought there's less disruption to the circuit, and therefore
less vulnerability, in using a single box with two separate cables coming
from it.

Often that's the case; but when I've done ring extenstions, I've nearly
always made at least one end of the new bit of ring replace an existing
shorter leg, running from an existing socket - if you see wot I mean.
For example, imagine there's a ring cable running between sockets in
bed2 & bed3: to add a socket on the corridor outside the two bedrooms
I'd lift boards in the more accessible bedroom, run a new length of
cable from the socket there to the new socket, and use the existing
cable from the other bedroom - possibly shortened - to complete the ring
at the new socket.

But this is effectively irrelevant to what you're doing ;-)

I won't even have to cut the ring circuit: I can just bare and
strip the wires and lay them across the terminals (though I 'll have to cut
the earth to fit the sleeving, I suppose).


Yes, many people like to keep the integrity of the "main" ring cable
this way. "Pro" sparkies (for whom time-to-complete is a driving issue)
will rarely bother, and are less likely to be wimpy about tightening the
terminals in any fitting ;-)


.................................................. two separate sockets are
involved. Neither would be subjected to anything other than very occasional
use.

Then I'd have no qualms in running with the single JB approach; remember
to leave the JB nominally "accessible", i.e. if under floorboards, mark
the location and replace boards with screw-not-nails; if in some other
void, provide some form of maintenance access.

Stefek