I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched socket,
but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than
landscape. In other words, like this:

http://tinyurl.com/9uml43g

but with a socket. Does anyone know of a source? I've tried CPC, MK,
Toolstation, Screwfix and the like but without success.

Many thanks,

Bert

Well, to (partly) answer my own question, I've just found this:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CM1456.html

but it's hideously ugly and dismayingly expensive. Anyone know of any
others?

Bert

Bert Coules wrote:
Well, to (partly) answer my own question, I've just found this:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CM1456.html

but it's hideously ugly and dismayingly expensive.

But you only need to turn it on and shove your plug into it. You are not
going to marry it:-)

Sorry never seen one. I have a google and look through my suppliers cats for
you later.

Cheers

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

But you only need to turn it on and shove your plug into it. You are not
going to marry it:-)

No, but I have to look at it. That thing is offensive to the eye.

If you do come up with anything I'll be grateful. Vertical cooker switches
on their own seem to be easily had, but not with the (horizontally) usual
added socket.

Bert

Bert Coules wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

But you only need to turn it on and shove your plug into it. You
are not going to marry it:-)

No, but I have to look at it. That thing is offensive to the eye.

If you do come up with anything I'll be grateful. Vertical cooker
switches on their own seem to be easily had, but not with the
(horizontally) usual added socket.

May I assume that you gust want to change an existing vertical cooker
switch to add a much needed socket and there is no chiseling into the wall
allowed?

BTW nothing Neweys or MK. I'll look at the rest for you.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

May I assume that you just want to change an existing vertical cooker
switch to add a much needed socket...

Annoyingly, I want to replace an existing vertical cooker switch which
already has a socket, but which is also damaged. It's also pretty ancient,
but that wouldn't be so much of a problem if it were intact.

...and there is no chiseling into the wall allowed?

I presume you're thinking of refitting the existing vertical box
horizontally. I'd rather not do that except as a last-ditch solution, but
if all else fails I shall.

Bert

Owain wrote:

On Aug 20, 6:54 pm, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
May I assume that you gust want to change an existing vertical cooker
switch to add a much needed socket and there is no chiseling into the
wall allowed?

Dual box and separate cooker switch and socket?

Not sure if a 'separate' socket is allowed on a cooker circuit, or
only as a combined Cooker Control Unit

Owain

It would be on a 32A circuit without question - it would be a variation on a
32A radial socket circuit - but that may not leave enough for the actual
cooker circuit. But as the entire thing is protected by a 32A breaker you
are not going to set anything alight - possibly just get nuisance trips.

A single socket ona 40-45A circuit would be a very special case. Obviously
not unreasonable as cooker switches with integral sockets prove.

The question of protection for the spur cable to the socket comes to mind,
but as the socket is protected from overload downstream by the plug's 13A
(or less) fuse you coul dmakea reasonable argument for it. Or you could run
6mm2 as the spur cable provided the socket terminals are OK with this.

OTOH, it could attract all sorts of comments and/or markdowns should you
need to get a PIR done by a sparky who disagrees with you as you will not be
able to claim it is a standard circuit...


--
Tim Watts

Bert Coules wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

May I assume that you just want to change an existing vertical
cooker switch to add a much needed socket...

Annoyingly, I want to replace an existing vertical cooker switch which
already has a socket, but which is also damaged. It's also pretty
ancient, but that wouldn't be so much of a problem if it were intact.

...and there is no chiseling into the wall allowed?

I presume you're thinking of refitting the existing vertical box
horizontally. I'd rather not do that except as a last-ditch
solution, but if all else fails I shall.


Sorry. I cannot find anything other than the one you have already found:-(

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

Sorry. I cannot find anything other than the one you have already found:-(

I'm grateful to you for taking the time to search. Much appreciated.

Bert

On Monday, August 20, 2012 6:20:34 PM UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched socket,

but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than

landscape. In other words, like this:



http://tinyurl.com/9uml43g



but with a socket. Does anyone know of a source? I've tried CPC, MK,

Toolstation, Screwfix and the like but without success.



Many thanks,



Bert

http://www.contactum.co.uk/products/...-moulded-white

Contactum list 2 models - the X1456 and X1457, the second being with neons. The picture in the brochure is modern in style, but googling the code brings up the old style TLC one you had found. I would guess that they may have recently updated them under the same product codes, so you'd have to check which version was in stock. The only place I've found showing the newer version is http://www.cwberry.com/ProductCat.as...8-5a2f5f204028 who show the old X1456, but the new X1457.

A

Tim Watts wrote:
The question of protection for the spur cable to the socket comes to mind,
but as the socket is protected from overload downstream by the plug's 13A
(or less) fuse you coul dmakea reasonable argument for it.

I think.... checking my Regs... that this is one of the allowable
situations for cable protection downstream as it's within the
outlet enclosure and "the load ... is unlikely to carry overload
current". 473-01-04.

JGH

wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
The question of protection for the spur cable to the socket comes
to mind, but as the socket is protected from overload downstream by
the plug's 13A (or less) fuse you coul dmakea reasonable argument
for it.

I think.... checking my Regs... that this is one of the allowable
situations for cable protection downstream as it's within the
outlet enclosure and "the load ... is unlikely to carry overload
current". 473-01-04.

Is your book a blue one?

--
Adam

Andrew,

Contactum list 2 models - the X1456 and X1457, the second being with
neons....

Many thanks for that. The newer design is certainly preferable to the old
TLC model, though (once again) the price is a tad wince-inducing. But I'm
very grateful for the link.

Bert

On 20/08/2012 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:
Owain wrote:

On Aug 20, 6:54 pm, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
May I assume that you gust want to change an existing vertical cooker
switch to add a much needed socket and there is no chiseling into the
wall allowed?

Dual box and separate cooker switch and socket?

Not sure if a 'separate' socket is allowed on a cooker circuit, or
only as a combined Cooker Control Unit

Owain

It would be on a 32A circuit without question - it would be a variation on a
32A radial socket circuit - but that may not leave enough for the actual
cooker circuit.

In the circumstances it would seem entirely reasonable to treat as a
cooker point and apply the same diversity allowance (5A for the socket,
plus 10A of the actual load plus 30% of the remaining load)

But as the entire thing is protected by a 32A breaker you
are not going to set anything alight - possibly just get nuisance trips.

Even that is fairly unlikely (and no more so than with a COTS "cooker
point")

A single socket ona 40-45A circuit would be a very special case. Obviously
not unreasonable as cooker switches with integral sockets prove.

The question of protection for the spur cable to the socket comes to mind,
but as the socket is protected from overload downstream by the plug's 13A
(or less) fuse you coul dmakea reasonable argument for it. Or you could run
6mm2 as the spur cable provided the socket terminals are OK with this.

Most of them should be - and in the same double backbox it would seem
simplest to loop the 6mm^2 through. However, even 2.5mm^2 would have
adequate fault protection from a 32A MCB as it does with a spur from a
32A radial or ring.

OTOH, it could attract all sorts of comments and/or markdowns should you
need to get a PIR done by a sparky who disagrees with you as you will not be
able to claim it is a standard circuit...

Well **** happens, only some of it matters ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

adam wrote:
current". 473-01-04.
Is your book a blue one?

No, the green one: IEE 16th Ed Amendment 1.

JGH

En el artículo , Bert
Coules escribió:

Well, to (partly) answer my own question, I've just found this:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/CM1456.html

but it's hideously ugly

Whoever designed that should be shot.

Could you replace the vertical double backbox with two singles, a 45A
switch in the upper for the cooker and a single 13A socket in the lower?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Could you replace the vertical double backbox with two singles, a 45A
switch in the upper for the cooker and a single 13A socket in the lower?

That's an interesting idea, thanks.

Bert

On 21/08/2012 05:44, wrote:
adam wrote:
current". 473-01-04.
Is your book a blue one?

No, the green one: IEE 16th Ed Amendment 1.

That sounds more like the current version of the 17th?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th.

Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as
a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it
says on the cover.

It's likely it's one of the many regs that hasn't materially
changed. I gather most of the 17th changes are "bash RCDs in
everywhere" and new specifications for "wet" locations.

JGH

On 21/08/2012 12:15, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th.

Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as
a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it
says on the cover.

Interesting, I had not realised they had reused "green" so quickly...
(most of the 16th edition books I had seen (or own) were the brown ones)

It's likely it's one of the many regs that hasn't materially
changed. I gather most of the 17th changes are "bash RCDs in
everywhere" and new specifications for "wet" locations.

Yup, sorry for the avoidance of doubt, I was just commenting on the book
colour rather than the reg itself.

The regulation itself obviously still applies, although has moved to
433.3.1 in the 17th Ed




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/08/2012 08:30, Bert Coules wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Could you replace the vertical double backbox with two singles, a 45A
switch in the upper for the cooker and a single 13A socket in the lower?

That's an interesting idea, thanks.

You can actually get a double(ish) backbox designed to take two single
accessories.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John
Rumm writes

You can actually get a double(ish) backbox designed to take two single
accessories.

with the lugs in the correct places for vertical usage?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 21/08/2012 13:59, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes

You can actually get a double(ish) backbox designed to take two single
accessories.

with the lugs in the correct places for vertical usage?

Indeed:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/P...ze_3/AP636.JPG



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:13:02 PM UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
Andrew,



Contactum list 2 models - the X1456 and X1457, the second being with

neons....



Many thanks for that. The newer design is certainly preferable to the old

TLC model, though (once again) the price is a tad wince-inducing. But I'm

very grateful for the link.



Bert

£11.06 he
http://quickbit.co.uk/white-cooker-control-unit
You'd want to check it is the right version though.
A

In article , John
Rumm writes

Indeed:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/P...ze_3/AP636.JPG

Cooker switch. 4mm^2, maybe 6mm^2 cable. Wouldn't like to try and
wrestle those into a standard 35mm depth single-gang box, especially if
there is no 'give' in the cables (e.g. embedded in plaster)

When I suggested two single-gang boxes one above the other, I did mean
47mm deep boxes, assuming the original is the same depth.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 21/08/2012 14:32, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes

Indeed:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/P...ze_3/AP636.JPG

Cooker switch. 4mm^2, maybe 6mm^2 cable. Wouldn't like to try and
wrestle those into a standard 35mm depth single-gang box, especially if
there is no 'give' in the cables (e.g. embedded in plaster)

6mm^2 is doable but takes some care - 10 would be hard. You can always
set the box a little deeper into the wall to get an extra few mm.

When I suggested two single-gang boxes one above the other, I did mean
47mm deep boxes, assuming the original is the same depth.

one of each would be ok as well - since you could wire the socket in 2.5mm^2


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/08/2012 14:32, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes

Indeed:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/P...ze_3/AP636.JPG

Cooker switch. 4mm^2, maybe 6mm^2 cable. Wouldn't like to try and
wrestle those into a standard 35mm depth single-gang box, especially if
there is no 'give' in the cables (e.g. embedded in plaster)

When I suggested two single-gang boxes one above the other, I did mean
47mm deep boxes, assuming the original is the same depth.

.... should have also said, you can get links such as:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/AP604.html

for pairing single boxes of any depth.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John
Rumm writes

6mm^2 is doable but takes some care - 10 would be hard. You can always
set the box a little deeper into the wall to get an extra few mm.

I got the impression from the OP that he was hoping for a swap with as
little extra work as poss - maybe the existing cooker point is tiled
around and he doesn't want to damage the tiles.

Digging out an existing, probably rusty, vertical 47mm dual-gang back
box and replacing it with two singles might be do-able without too much
damage to surrounding tiles, but probably not if he also has to make the
recess deeper for one for cable clearance.

Anyway, those (yours and mine) are ideas for him to think about.

cheers
M.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 21/08/2012 16:51, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes

6mm^2 is doable but takes some care - 10 would be hard. You can always
set the box a little deeper into the wall to get an extra few mm.

I got the impression from the OP that he was hoping for a swap with as
little extra work as poss - maybe the existing cooker point is tiled
around and he doesn't want to damage the tiles.

He will be a out of luck anyway then, since two singles are wider than
one double.

Digging out an existing, probably rusty, vertical 47mm dual-gang back
box and replacing it with two singles might be do-able without too much
damage to surrounding tiles, but probably not if he also has to make the
recess deeper for one for cable clearance.

A pain agreed, although doable. I would cut the tiles with a carbide
segment saw on a multimaster and then take the rest out with a SDS.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 21/08/2012 12:15, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th.

Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as
a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it
says on the cover.

Interesting, I had not realised they had reused "green" so quickly...
(most of the 16th edition books I had seen (or own) were the brown
ones)

My only remaining 16th edition book is blue. No pun intended.


--
Adam

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/08/2012 12:15, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th.

Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as
a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it
says on the cover.

Interesting, I had not realised they had reused "green" so quickly...
(most of the 16th edition books I had seen (or own) were the brown
ones)

My only remaining 16th edition book is blue. No pun intended.

and mine is yellow

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 21/08/2012 21:34, charles wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/08/2012 12:15, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th.

Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as
a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it
says on the cover.

Interesting, I had not realised they had reused "green" so quickly...
(most of the 16th edition books I had seen (or own) were the brown
ones)

My only remaining 16th edition book is blue. No pun intended.

and mine is yellow

Makes you wonder how much they make from the book given they seem to
manage to find ways of selling every version many times!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

I got the impression from the OP that he was hoping for a swap with as
little extra work as poss...

Exactly so, though replacing the existing (fairly ancient)
vertically-aligned back box with a horizontal new one wouldn't be totally
out of the question (the surround is wallpaper, not tiles), probably
wouldn't involve that much more work than fitting two singles vertically,
and would of course allow a much wider choice of switch-and-socket plate.

Anyway, those (yours and mine) are ideas for him to think about.

Absolutely. Many thanks to you and to everyone else for thoughts and
suggestions.

Bert

On Monday, August 20, 2012 at 6:20:34 PM UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched socket,
but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than
landscape. In other words, like this:

http://tinyurl.com/9uml43g

but with a socket. Does anyone know of a source? I've tried CPC, MK,
Toolstation, Screwfix and the like but without success.

Many thanks,

Bert

Hello Bert,
We are at present changing the electrical plates in our kitchen.
I do have a white vertical cooker/socket plate that may be what you want.
When I am sure I can get my replacements all in a matching finish you will be welcome to have my existing plate. Our kitchen is at present work in progress but should be sorted in the near future. Keep in touch at or 01904 768516.
Ian Mason

wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2012 at 6:20:34 PM UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched socket,
but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than
landscape. In other words, like this:

http://tinyurl.com/9uml43g

but with a socket. Does anyone know of a source? I've tried CPC, MK,
Toolstation, Screwfix and the like but without success.

Many thanks,

Bert

Hello Bert,
We are at present changing the electrical plates in our kitchen.
I do have a white vertical cooker/socket plate that may be what you want.
When I am sure I can get my replacements all in a matching finish you
will be welcome to have my existing plate. Our kitchen is at present work
in progress but should be sorted in the near future. Keep in touch
Ian Mason


Maybe Bert will have found another solution in the three years since he
posted? Spamming like this only makes you look like a ****.

Tim

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2012 at 6:20:34 PM UTC+1, Bert Coules wrote:
I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched
socket,
but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than
landscape. In other words, like this:

http://tinyurl.com/9uml43g

but with a socket. Does anyone know of a source? I've tried CPC, MK,
Toolstation, Screwfix and the like but without success.

Many thanks,

Bert

Hello Bert,
We are at present changing the electrical plates in our kitchen.
I do have a white vertical cooker/socket plate that may be what you want.
When I am sure I can get my replacements all in a matching finish you
will be welcome to have my existing plate. Our kitchen is at present work
in progress but should be sorted in the near future. Keep in touch
Ian Mason


Maybe Bert will have found another solution in the three years since he
posted? Spamming like this only makes you look like a ****.

Now do you believe that was was total spam, or just a pillock using a web
based forum. The daft sod even gave out his phone number (along with the
offer for the wrong part).

Google the guys telephone number.

Cheers

--
Adam