Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the work, but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side, and 3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2 (combine the 2 downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion). And the immersion is also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits RCD protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new
Box (which would allow 2 RCDs).

Could this be done by replacing the MCBs on the non-RCD side with RCBOs, and could these be as slim as the existing MCBs? Or would it need the double width type?

Any suggestions as to which circuits to put where (without doing too much messing, or we might as well go for a new box). Current setup is 3 power radials, one ring main, cooker and a spare 32 A (which might eventually feed a second mini ring for the kitchen) on the RCD side, and as noted above, 3 lighting and 1 immersion heater on the Non-RCD.

In article ,
wrote:
Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side, and 3
lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2 (combine the 2
downstairs circuits into 1 (it‘s not a mansion).

Generally, the more circuits the better. Can give you some at least
working light when another fails.

I like to have the hall/stairs lighting on its own circuit. If that trips
you can use lights from a room to see your exit, etc.

--
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the work,
but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side, and
3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2 (combine the 2
downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion). And the immersion is
also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits RCD
protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box (which
would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change? Lighting circuits generally
pose a very low shock risk, so the benefit from a RCD is limited for
that application.

Could this be done by replacing the MCBs on the non-RCD side with
RCBOs,

Yes

and could these be as slim as the existing MCBs? Or would it
need the double width type?

Wylex do single module RCBOs, so as long as there is enough height in
that CU (RCBOs are taller than MCBs) you should be fine.

Any suggestions as to which circuits to put where (without doing too
much messing, or we might as well go for a new box). Current setup is
3 power radials, one ring main, cooker and a spare 32 A (which might
eventually feed a second mini ring for the kitchen) on the RCD side,
and as noted above, 3 lighting and 1 immersion heater on the
Non-RCD.

If I were adding anything, I would do a RCBO on the non RCD side for the
kitchen, and leave the rest as it is.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the work,
but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side, and
3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2 (combine the 2
downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion). And the immersion is
also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits RCD
protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box (which
would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the existing lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in order for it to be regs compliant.

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD protected (well, they would wouldn't they), and if possible I'd rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs on the non RCD side seems attractive.

Lighting circuits generally
pose a very low shock risk, so the benefit from a RCD is limited for
that application.

Could this be done by replacing the MCBs on the non-RCD side with
RCBOs,

Yes

and could these be as slim as the existing MCBs? Or would it
need the double width type?

Wylex do single module RCBOs, so as long as there is enough height in
that CU (RCBOs are taller than MCBs) you should be fine.

Any suggestions as to which circuits to put where (without doing too
much messing, or we might as well go for a new box). Current setup is
3 power radials, one ring main, cooker and a spare 32 A (which might
eventually feed a second mini ring for the kitchen) on the RCD side,
and as noted above, 3 lighting and 1 immersion heater on the
Non-RCD.

If I were adding anything, I would do a RCBO on the non RCD side for the
kitchen, and leave the rest as it is.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

Cheers John

On Monday, 5 February 2018 14:18:48 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the work,
but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side, and
3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2 (combine the 2
downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion). And the immersion is
also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits RCD
protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box (which
would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the existing lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in order for it to be regs compliant.

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD protected (well, they would wouldn't they), and if possible I'd rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs on the non RCD side seems attractive.

I'm not sure there's any real upside to putting other lighting on RCDs.

Lighting circuits generally
pose a very low shock risk, so the benefit from a RCD is limited for
that application.


NT

On 05/02/2018 14:18, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the
work, but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side,
and 3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2
(combine the 2 downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion).
And the immersion is also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits
RCD protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box
(which would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the existing
lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in order for it
to be regs compliant.

Interesting, this is an existing circuit and I thought an 'extension' or
'spur' was exempt from having to conform to the new regs.

Not that its a bad thing to move the circuit such it becomes RCD protected.

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about
it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD
protected (well, they would wouldn't they), and if possible I'd
rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs
on the non RCD side seems attractive.

Rules now dictate that lighting must be split into at least two separate
RCD protected circuits, so if one fails the other can still provide some
lighting.

Wylex are correct for 'new' installations, where a cable is buried less
than 50mm from a surface. Surface wiring does not need a RCD, nor wiring
that is sufficiently mechanically protected, nor armoured cable.

On 05/02/2018 14:18, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the
work, but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side,
and 3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2
(combine the 2 downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion).
And the immersion is also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits
RCD protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box
(which would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the existing
lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in order for it
to be regs compliant.

Ah, ok did not realise you were altering the existing circuits. If
making changes then yup they generally ought to be to the new rules.

(although I have at the back of my mind some guidance about this not
being an absolute requirement for some instances of lighting
circumstances - i.e. the requirement only takes force for significant
alterations to the circuit)

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about
it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD
protected (well, they would wouldn't they),

They would, because they should. i.e. its not the fact that its a
lighting circuit that matters, its the fact it has unprotected cables
buried less than 50mm into walls.

and if possible I'd
rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs
on the non RCD side seems attractive.

Yup, you certainly want lighting spread over more than one circuit.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:11:25 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/02/2018 14:18, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the
work, but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side,
and 3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2
(combine the 2 downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion).
And the immersion is also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits
RCD protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box
(which would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the
existing lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in
order for it to be regs compliant.

Ah, ok did not realise you were altering the existing circuits. If
making changes then yup they generally ought to be to the new rules.

(although I have at the back of my mind some guidance about this not
being an absolute requirement for some instances of lighting
circumstances - i.e. the requirement only takes force for significant
alterations to the circuit)

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about
it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD
protected (well, they would wouldn't they),

They would, because they should. i.e. its not the fact that its a
lighting circuit that matters, its the fact it has unprotected cables
buried less than 50mm into walls.

and if possible I'd
rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs
on the non RCD side seems attractive.

Yup, you certainly want lighting spread over more than one circuit.



It can get interesting when the up and down circuits share a neutral,
generally on the landing light.

On 05/02/2018 16:19, Steve wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:11:25 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/02/2018 14:18, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:28:04 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:33, wrote:
Hi All,

I have a Wyler 12 way split load CU (NHrS12SL).

For various reasons, I will be having a qualified sparky do the
work, but wanted to check my options...

Currently our CU has most of the power circuits on the RCD side,
and 3 lighting circuits (which could maybe be reduced to 2
(combine the 2 downstairs circuits into 1 (its not a mansion).
And the immersion is also on the non RCD side.

I am thinking it is time to give at least the lighting circuits
RCD protection, but would like to avoid the cost of a new Box
(which would allow 2 RCDs).

Any particular reason for wanting to change?


The electrican who has been making ammendments to one of the
existing lighting circuits saus that he HAS to put it on RCD in
order for it to be regs compliant.

Ah, ok did not realise you were altering the existing circuits. If
making changes then yup they generally ought to be to the new rules.

(although I have at the back of my mind some guidance about this not
being an absolute requirement for some instances of lighting
circumstances - i.e. the requirement only takes force for significant
alterations to the circuit)

I wondereed about doing all the lighting circuits while I was about
it. Wylex "say" that all circuts run under plaster should be RCD
protected (well, they would wouldn't they),

They would, because they should. i.e. its not the fact that its a
lighting circuit that matters, its the fact it has unprotected cables
buried less than 50mm into walls.

and if possible I'd
rather not have all the lights go out together, so a bunch of RCBOs
on the non RCD side seems attractive.

Yup, you certainly want lighting spread over more than one circuit.



It can get interesting when the up and down circuits share a neutral,
generally on the landing light.

Yup, although that in itself is a fault that should be fixed since it
brings a shock risk all of its own.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:11:32 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/02/2018 16:19, Steve wrote:

It can get interesting when the up and down circuits share a
neutral, generally on the landing light.

Yup, although that in itself is a fault that should be fixed since it
brings a shock risk all of its own.



Yeah, a Code 2 (page 14):

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.or...ce-Guide-4.pdf

Often not discovered until you attempt to put the circuits on separate
RCDs.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:28:03 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Wylex do single module RCBOs, so as long as there is enough height in
that CU (RCBOs are taller than MCBs) you should be fine.

Wylex and Crabtree (Same Group?) have announced new 2 pole standard
height RCBO's. There are rumours that this (2 pole switching) is going to
be a requirement in the 18th edition, though there was no mention of it
in the Draft for Public Comment when it came out.
The Wylex press release also says something like 'adheres to new 18th
edition standards.'

https://electrium.co.uk/news/crabtre...with-switched-
neutral-as-standard

https://www.voltimum.co.uk/civicrm/mailing/view?
reset=1&id=1403&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=e mail&utm_campaign=Wylex%
20Solus%20Voltispecial

On 05/02/2018 18:01, Steve wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:11:32 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 05/02/2018 16:19, Steve wrote:

It can get interesting when the up and down circuits share a
neutral, generally on the landing light.

Yup, although that in itself is a fault that should be fixed since it
brings a shock risk all of its own.



Yeah, a Code 2 (page 14):

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.or...ce-Guide-4.pdf

Often not discovered until you attempt to put the circuits on separate
RCDs.



From that link

"Minimal descriptions such as €˜poor, and
superficial statements such as €˜recommend a
rewire, are considered unacceptable as they do
not indicate the true condition of an
installation. It will often be necessary or
appropriate to explain the implications of an
electrical installation condition report in a
covering letter, for the benefit of recipients who
require additional advice and guidance about
their installation.
For example, where an installation has deteriorated
or been damaged to such an extent that its safe
serviceable life can reasonably be considered to be
at an end, a recommendation for renewal should be
made in a covering letter, giving adequate
supporting reasons. Reference to the covering letter
should be made in the report."

My MD went mad when I put on my EICR just one word and that word was
"****ed". I considered that to be a true and informative comment of the
electrical installation that the recipient could understand.

I was forced to rewrite the EICR.

My second EICR said "still ****ed and so dangerous that I am not
prepared to test it"

The final copy - rewritten by the secretary removed the word ****ed.

When the landlord saw the final report he asked me "so basically this
letter is saying the electrics are ****ed then?"

Always know your customer.

--

Adam


--
Adam

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:19:03 PM UTC, Alan wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:28:03 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Wylex do single module RCBOs, so as long as there is enough height in
that CU (RCBOs are taller than MCBs) you should be fine.

Wylex and Crabtree (Same Group?) have announced new 2 pole standard
height RCBO's. There are rumours that this (2 pole switching) is going to
be a requirement in the 18th edition, though there was no mention of it
in the Draft for Public Comment when it came out.
The Wylex press release also says something like 'adheres to new 18th
edition standards.'

https://electrium.co.uk/news/crabtre...with-switched-
neutral-as-standard

https://www.voltimum.co.uk/civicrm/mailing/view?
reset=1&id=1403&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=e mail&utm_campaign=Wylex%
20Solus%20Voltispecial

Thanks for that!, they look like they should do the job. And to (almost) answer your question, yes, I am pretty sure Crabtree and Wylex are both part of / owned by Electrium.

On 06/02/2018 12:36, wrote:


Thanks for that!, they look like they should do the job. And to (almost) answer your question, yes, I am pretty sure Crabtree and Wylex are both part of / owned by Electrium.


And a few others

https://www.electrium.co.uk/products

Obviously made in the same factory

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.or...eakers-(mcbs)/

That also effected the Steeples MCBs (a Denmans rebadged brand) and the
NewLec (a Newey and Eyres rebadged brands).

Nothing new there then

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...ation-10245966

And one of my friends works at Carlton Bakery in Barnsley. Mr Kiplings
cakes are the same thing as some other brands. They stop the production
line and change the packaging.


--


Adam