I put the new consumer unit on a piece of chipboard, mainly because
I've never seen it done any other way. Also it gives a backing for
cable clips to hold the cable. However as other posters in a parallel
thread have pointed out, Cus can be screwed directly to a sound
plastered wall.

OK so far, but if it is mount directly I'd like the whole job to look
neat. So how do you arrange/clamp the outgoing cables which go (in my
case) about 6 ins up to the ceiling. Then there's the meter tails
which come in at the side.

Any suggestions as to how to make a tidy job much appreciated.

Anyone with a pic of an 'ideal' installation?

BTW IIM the CU is contactum 7+7way & there are numerous cables heading
for it.

Another problem is keeping the cables far enough apart near the unit
to avoid the need to apply grouping derating factors.

If there's a way of making it neater, I'm prepared to remount it.

In article ,
jim_in_sussex wrote:
Another problem is keeping the cables far enough apart near the unit
to avoid the need to apply grouping derating factors.

I'd always assumed this doesn't apply for short distances - especially as
they will be reasonably well ventilated in this situation.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

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

"jim_in_sussex" wrote in message
om...
I put the new consumer unit on a piece of chipboard, mainly because
I've never seen it done any other way. Also it gives a backing for
cable clips to hold the cable. However as other posters in a parallel
thread have pointed out, Cus can be screwed directly to a sound
plastered wall.

OK so far, but if it is mount directly I'd like the whole job to look
neat. So how do you arrange/clamp the outgoing cables which go (in my
case) about 6 ins up to the ceiling. Then there's the meter tails
which come in at the side.

Any suggestions as to how to make a tidy job much appreciated.

Anyone with a pic of an 'ideal' installation?

BTW IIM the CU is contactum 7+7way & there are numerous cables heading
for it.

Another problem is keeping the cables far enough apart near the unit
to avoid the need to apply grouping derating factors.

If there's a way of making it neater, I'm prepared to remount it.

Hi,

You should be aware that you are required to put switchgear (i.e.your
Consumer Unit) on a fire proof back-board. Chipboard is fine, provided you
have put a couple or thee coats of oil-based varnish on it first. A
plastered wall is inherently non-flammable.

As far as making the cables neat up to the ceiling, I would use white
plastic trunking. This comes in small stuff (12mm x 12mm, up to 25x38mm)
and you could use several of these or alternaitvely, you could use
heavy-duty plastic trunking 50 x 50mm and put just one or two in. I know
sparks who can make a bunch of twin and earth cables look as neat as
anything, but it's a knack (patience?) that I certainly don't have.

I wouldn't worry about group derating over this distance.

The other thing you could do to neaten things up a bit is to box the whole
lot in, or buy a wall cupboard from a DIY shop and cut a hole in the back so
it fits round your electrics. If you do this, though, make sure that you
have good access all round to do any further work on the installation.

HTH

Smudger

So how do you arrange/clamp the outgoing cables which go (in my
case) about 6 ins up to the ceiling. Then there's the meter tails
which come in at the side.

I had a flush mounted (not surface) consumer unit in my last house. Cables
were all chased into the plaster, including the tails.

Christian.

On 3 Aug 2004 14:51:55 -0700,
(jim_in_sussex) strung together this:

Any suggestions as to how to make a tidy job much appreciated.

Trunking, I've used some MK 25x110mm white PVC trunking for shortish
runs from CU's to ceilings as it is fairly unobtrusive but roomy.

Anyone with a pic of an 'ideal' installation?

smug mode I don't take many pics of my work, sorry! /smug mode

Another problem is keeping the cables far enough apart near the unit
to avoid the need to apply grouping derating factors.

For short distances under about 12" or so you don't need to be so
rigorous with grouping factors.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:



You should be aware that you are required to put switchgear (i.e.your
Consumer Unit) on a fire proof back-board. Chipboard is fine, provided you
have put a couple or thee coats of oil-based varnish on it first. A
plastered wall is inherently non-flammable.


Interesting that I've never seen the electricity board do this :-)

My understanding was that with modern enclosures (metal or
flame-retardant plastic) the fireproof backing was no longer necessary:
it was really there for all the older-type fuse boards which were open
at the back.

Woteva :-)

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... This is a Tagline mirrorrorrim enilgaT a si sihT

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:



You should be aware that you are required to put switchgear (i.e.your
Consumer Unit) on a fire proof back-board. Chipboard is fine, provided
you
have put a couple or thee coats of oil-based varnish on it first. A
plastered wall is inherently non-flammable.


Interesting that I've never seen the electricity board do this :-)

My understanding was that with modern enclosures (metal or
flame-retardant plastic) the fireproof backing was no longer necessary:
it was really there for all the older-type fuse boards which were open
at the back.

Woteva :-)



Regulations 421, 422, 527-01 apply. I guess you can interpret them as you
see fit. I always take it to mean that you should not put your CU onto bare
wood. I'm sure I have read or been taught about this issue in the past, but
it could be as long as 20 years ago, and I can't find any direct reference
to it at the mo.

Smudger

In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:


"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:



You should be aware that you are required to put switchgear (i.e.your
Consumer Unit) on a fire proof back-board. Chipboard is fine, provided
you
have put a couple or thee coats of oil-based varnish on it first. A
plastered wall is inherently non-flammable.


Interesting that I've never seen the electricity board do this :-)

My understanding was that with modern enclosures (metal or
flame-retardant plastic) the fireproof backing was no longer necessary:
it was really there for all the older-type fuse boards which were open
at the back.

Woteva :-)



Regulations 421, 422, 527-01 apply. I guess you can interpret them as you
see fit. I always take it to mean that you should not put your CU onto bare
wood. I'm sure I have read or been taught about this issue in the past, but
it could be as long as 20 years ago, and I can't find any direct reference
to it at the mo.


421 deals with "heat developed by electrical equipment". Under normal
circumstances I would not expect a consumer unit to generate a
significant amount of heat. Certainly if it did, I would be very
surprised if a lump of chipboard an inch away from the MCBs caught fire
before the plastic case of the CU had melted away. It takes a *lot* of
heat to cause "bare wood" to burn. To prove this to a H&S inspector at
a previous place of work who was complaining about our (electronic)
soldering activities on a solid wood worktop with hardboard face we
drilled a hole in the worktop, left the sawdust inside, turned our 40W
iron up to full temperature, removed the bit and stuck it in the hole.
It smelled a bit, but didn't catch fire in the 2 hours we could be
bothered to wait.

422-01-01 yields to the same argument

422-01-01 does not apply because a CU does not have "in normal operation
a surface temperature sufficient to cause a risk of fire or harmful
effects to adjacent materials".

422-01-03 does not apply because a CU does not "[emit] an arc or high
temperature particles"

422-01-04 applies but refers to 526-03-02 which states that the
enclosure for the termination or jointing of live or PEN conductors
should be made in (for example) "(ii) an equipment enclosure complying
with the appropriate British Standard". I have always assumed that the
appropriate standard is the one stamped on the likes of junction boxes,
sockets, surface patresses and CUs. Do you make sure a socket is mounted
on a fireproof backing material?

422-01-05 does not apply because a CU does not contain "flammable liquid
in excess of 25 litres"

422-01-06 might apply, but not if the CU and the configuration of its
circuits has been appropriately selected. (It deals with "equipment
causing a focusing or concentration of heat").

422-01-07 applies, but as with -04 I assume that this is the BS to which
CUs are made.

The key phrase here is, I think "enclosure". A modern CU is an enclosure
where an old-fashioned wooden-framed CU was not.

527 is generally concerned with the spread of fire through a building;
between compartments, not necessarily within a compartment.

527-01-01 and -02 apply but see above.

527-01-03 and -04 apply to cables, not enclosures.

527-01-05 applies to conduit and trunking.

527-01-06 might apply, but if this were the case we would have to build
a fireproof enclosure around every CU.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... You're twisted, perverted, & sick. I like that!

" Regulations 421, 422, 527-01 apply. I guess you can interpret them as
you
see fit. I always take it to mean that you should not put your CU onto
bare
wood. I'm sure I have read or been taught about this issue in the past,
but
it could be as long as 20 years ago, and I can't find any direct
reference
to it at the mo.


421 deals with "heat developed by electrical equipment". Under normal
circumstances I would not expect a consumer unit to generate a
significant amount of heat. Certainly if it did, I would be very
surprised if a lump of chipboard an inch away from the MCBs caught fire
before the plastic case of the CU had melted away. It takes a *lot* of
heat to cause "bare wood" to burn. To prove this to a H&S inspector at
a previous place of work who was complaining about our (electronic)
soldering activities on a solid wood worktop with hardboard face we
drilled a hole in the worktop, left the sawdust inside, turned our 40W
iron up to full temperature, removed the bit and stuck it in the hole.
It smelled a bit, but didn't catch fire in the 2 hours we could be
bothered to wait.

422-01-01 yields to the same argument

422-01-01 does not apply because a CU does not have "in normal operation
a surface temperature sufficient to cause a risk of fire or harmful
effects to adjacent materials".

422-01-03 does not apply because a CU does not "[emit] an arc or high
temperature particles"

422-01-04 applies but refers to 526-03-02 which states that the
enclosure for the termination or jointing of live or PEN conductors
should be made in (for example) "(ii) an equipment enclosure complying
with the appropriate British Standard". I have always assumed that the
appropriate standard is the one stamped on the likes of junction boxes,
sockets, surface patresses and CUs. Do you make sure a socket is mounted
on a fireproof backing material?

422-01-05 does not apply because a CU does not contain "flammable liquid
in excess of 25 litres"

422-01-06 might apply, but not if the CU and the configuration of its
circuits has been appropriately selected. (It deals with "equipment
causing a focusing or concentration of heat").

422-01-07 applies, but as with -04 I assume that this is the BS to which
CUs are made.

The key phrase here is, I think "enclosure". A modern CU is an enclosure
where an old-fashioned wooden-framed CU was not.

527 is generally concerned with the spread of fire through a building;
between compartments, not necessarily within a compartment.

527-01-01 and -02 apply but see above.

527-01-03 and -04 apply to cables, not enclosures.

527-01-05 applies to conduit and trunking.

527-01-06 might apply, but if this were the case we would have to build
a fireproof enclosure around every CU.

Hwyl!


Nice one. Maybe it was my gaffer. He did wear a belt _and_ braces. ;-)

Smudger

In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:

[snip some rather-too-detailed stuff from me]


Nice one. Maybe it was my gaffer. He did wear a belt _and_ braces. ;-)

Smudger


Sorry, I was in "one of those moods" last night. The last thing I want
to have to do is to ensure a completely fireproof backing for every CU
(and other switchgear) I fit in a domestic premises, especially when I
don't see other people doing it.

OT: I was interested to (re)read 526-03-02 last night. The regulation
states that terminations or joints of "live or PEN" conductors should be
within the appropriate enclosures. What about standard earths - CPCs?
Does this regulation imply that what I found under a client's floor the
other day is actually ok(ish)?

To explain, this is a client whose system really needs quite extensive
work (some of it cosmetic mind you) but who is on a very small budget.
He didn't really want me to do all the things I suggested were vital
(bonding mainly) because of the received wisdom that BS7671 isn't (yet)
statutory in domestic situations, and that updates aren't retrospective.
He did want me to do some other work though which I said I wouldn't do
unless he also let me sort out his bonding. Lucky for me he went to
another electrician who gave him a similar answer but couldn't start
this week :-)

Anyway, this guy is on a tight budget and every minute counts. I was
under a floorboard pulling wires when I spotted a 2G box similar to
those used for central heating wiring with about a dozen lighting cables
entering it. Bearing in mind that this house was supposedly rewired
under a council grant some 15 years ago I didn't expect anything
dreadful, it was quite tidy inside and as surface boxes with lids are,
as far as I'm aware, suitable enclosures for electrical connections I
was prepared to leave it as an interesting thing to see...

....until I noticed that the earths from all these lighting cables did
not enter the box, but were simply twisted together underneath it. No
sleeving, no connector, just a mechanical twist.

Needless to say it'd have been far too difficult to try to get them into
the box, so I ended up re-doing the lot on a piece of ply with several
junction boxes mounted on it. Justifying this extra half-day or so of
work to this client was difficult, but 526-03-02 made me think: had I
simply put a (very large) choccie block on the ends of the CPCs and
wrapped the lot in GY tape, this might not have satisfied other
regulations, but would it have satisfied 526-03-02?

OT again: on the subject of dodgy council rewires, this is one of those
houses where the landing light is wired with its live taken from the
downstairs lighting circuit (jumpered into hall switch, on to landing
switch, up to landing light) but takes its neutral from the upstairs
lights. I thought this wasn't allowed?

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... Profanity, the language computerists know.

In message ,
Martin Angove wrote:



422-01-03 does not apply because a CU does not "[emit] an arc or high
temperature particles"


Just thought that this might not be true of semi-enclosed fuses and is
certainly not true of ancient "open" fuses. I have seen several 3036
boards with scorch marks where a (usually lighting) fuse has blown, but
if you think of the standard Wylex board with a wooden frame...

Hmmm...

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... A wise man once said.... I don't know...

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:

[snip some rather-too-detailed stuff from me]


Nice one. Maybe it was my gaffer. He did wear a belt _and_ braces. ;-)

Smudger


Sorry, I was in "one of those moods" last night. The last thing I want
to have to do is to ensure a completely fireproof backing for every CU
(and other switchgear) I fit in a domestic premises, especially when I
don't see other people doing it.

OT: I was interested to (re)read 526-03-02 last night. The regulation
states that terminations or joints of "live or PEN" conductors should be
within the appropriate enclosures. What about standard earths - CPCs?
Does this regulation imply that what I found under a client's floor the
other day is actually ok(ish)?

To explain, this is a client whose system really needs quite extensive
work (some of it cosmetic mind you) but who is on a very small budget.
He didn't really want me to do all the things I suggested were vital
(bonding mainly) because of the received wisdom that BS7671 isn't (yet)
statutory in domestic situations, and that updates aren't retrospective.
He did want me to do some other work though which I said I wouldn't do
unless he also let me sort out his bonding. Lucky for me he went to
another electrician who gave him a similar answer but couldn't start
this week :-)

Anyway, this guy is on a tight budget and every minute counts. I was
under a floorboard pulling wires when I spotted a 2G box similar to
those used for central heating wiring with about a dozen lighting cables
entering it. Bearing in mind that this house was supposedly rewired
under a council grant some 15 years ago I didn't expect anything
dreadful, it was quite tidy inside and as surface boxes with lids are,
as far as I'm aware, suitable enclosures for electrical connections I
was prepared to leave it as an interesting thing to see...

...until I noticed that the earths from all these lighting cables did
not enter the box, but were simply twisted together underneath it. No
sleeving, no connector, just a mechanical twist.

Needless to say it'd have been far too difficult to try to get them into
the box, so I ended up re-doing the lot on a piece of ply with several
junction boxes mounted on it. Justifying this extra half-day or so of
work to this client was difficult, but 526-03-02 made me think: had I
simply put a (very large) choccie block on the ends of the CPCs and
wrapped the lot in GY tape, this might not have satisfied other
regulations, but would it have satisfied 526-03-02?

OT again: on the subject of dodgy council rewires, this is one of those
houses where the landing light is wired with its live taken from the
downstairs lighting circuit (jumpered into hall switch, on to landing
switch, up to landing light) but takes its neutral from the upstairs
lights. I thought this wasn't allowed?

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
... Profanity, the language computerists know.


This wasn't in Sheffield by anychance was it...? I used to live in a
Sheffield council house and under the floorboards at the top of the main
flight of stairs were 2 junction boxes. One had all red wires in, the other
all black wires. The earth wires as you described were all not sleeved and
were just twisted together in the middle of the 2 boxes. This was done
before I moved into the property. I can tell you though that it wasn't like
that when I left.
--
troubleinstore
http://www.tuppencechange.co.uk
Personal mail can be sent via website.
Email address in posting is ficticious and is intended as spam trap



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"Smudger" smudger@here wrote:

[snip some rather-too-detailed stuff from me]


Nice one. Maybe it was my gaffer. He did wear a belt _and_ braces. ;-)

Smudger


Sorry, I was in "one of those moods" last night. The last thing I want
to have to do is to ensure a completely fireproof backing for every CU
(and other switchgear) I fit in a domestic premises, especially when I
don't see other people doing it.


No problem, it was an education! I bet it took you half an hour to write
that post...

OT: I was interested to (re)read 526-03-02 last night. The regulation
states that terminations or joints of "live or PEN" conductors should be
within the appropriate enclosures. What about standard earths - CPCs?
Does this regulation imply that what I found under a client's floor the
other day is actually ok(ish)?


To explain, this is a client whose system really needs quite extensive
work (some of it cosmetic mind you) but who is on a very small budget.
He didn't really want me to do all the things I suggested were vital
(bonding mainly) because of the received wisdom that BS7671 isn't (yet)
statutory in domestic situations, and that updates aren't retrospective.
He did want me to do some other work though which I said I wouldn't do
unless he also let me sort out his bonding. Lucky for me he went to
another electrician who gave him a similar answer but couldn't start
this week :-)

Anyway, this guy is on a tight budget and every minute counts. I was
under a floorboard pulling wires when I spotted a 2G box similar to
those used for central heating wiring with about a dozen lighting cables
entering it. Bearing in mind that this house was supposedly rewired
under a council grant some 15 years ago I didn't expect anything
dreadful, it was quite tidy inside and as surface boxes with lids are,
as far as I'm aware, suitable enclosures for electrical connections I
was prepared to leave it as an interesting thing to see...

I've seen this before as well, usually in a KO box. Strictly bush league,
if you ask me.


...until I noticed that the earths from all these lighting cables did
not enter the box, but were simply twisted together underneath it. No
sleeving, no connector, just a mechanical twist.

Needless to say it'd have been far too difficult to try to get them into
the box, so I ended up re-doing the lot on a piece of ply with several
junction boxes mounted on it. Justifying this extra half-day or so of
work to this client was difficult, but 526-03-02 made me think: had I
simply put a (very large) choccie block on the ends of the CPCs and
wrapped the lot in GY tape, this might not have satisfied other
regulations, but would it have satisfied 526-03-02?


I guess if the customer had not been willing to pay, it would have been
better than turning a blind eye.

OT again: on the subject of dodgy council rewires, this is one of those
houses where the landing light is wired with its live taken from the
downstairs lighting circuit (jumpered into hall switch, on to landing
switch, up to landing light) but takes its neutral from the upstairs
lights. I thought this wasn't allowed?


Agreed. I can't be fagged to go through the regs, but I think that there
are a number of references couched in different words which effectively say
"and thou shalt wire the system up so that any ****wit (or good spark on a
bad day) coming behind you will not get caught out by your seemingly random
wiring topography" ;-)

I live (and will probably die) by Regulation 120-04-01.

Cheers,

Smudger

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:12:27 +0100, Martin Angove
strung together this:

Needless to say it'd have been far too difficult to try to get them into
the box, so I ended up re-doing the lot on a piece of ply with several
junction boxes mounted on it. Justifying this extra half-day or so of
work to this client was difficult, but 526-03-02 made me think: had I
simply put a (very large) choccie block on the ends of the CPCs and
wrapped the lot in GY tape, this might not have satisfied other
regulations, but would it have satisfied 526-03-02?

I might come back to this tomorrow, it's making my eyes go funny at
the moment, it's been a long week!

the landing light is wired with its live taken from the
downstairs lighting circuit (jumpered into hall switch, on to landing
switch, up to landing light) but takes its neutral from the upstairs
lights. I thought this wasn't allowed?

It's not.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

Martin Angove wrote:

...until I noticed that the earths from all these lighting cables did
not enter the box, but were simply twisted together underneath it. No
sleeving, no connector, just a mechanical twist.

I keep finding exactly that in our 1960s built flat. It has PVC
wiring (not T&E, singles in conduit) but every light fitting I've
replaced so far I've found everything satisfactory except that the
earth wires were twisted together and stuffed up into the ceiling
space.

--
Chris Green

"Smudger" wrote in message
.. .

I live (and will probably die) by Regulation 120-04-01.

Which was deleted when the 2001 edition of BS 7671 came out. See section
132-01-01 & -02 now.

--
Andy

"Martin Angove" wrote in message
...

[...] but 526-03-02 made me think: had I
simply put a (very large) choccie block on the ends of the CPCs and
wrapped the lot in GY tape, this might not have satisfied other
regulations, but would it have satisfied 526-03-02?

526-03-02 is irrelevant since a CPC is neither a live conductor nor a PEN
conductor. AFAIK nothing forbids joints in CPCs that are out in the open,
provided that 526-02-xx, 526-04-xx and 544-01-01 are satisfied - which in
your proposal I'd say they are.

543-03-02 also applies of course and calls for sleeving to BS 2848, not a
yukky mass of PVC tape ;-).

[...]but takes its neutral from the upstairs
lights. I thought this wasn't allowed?

Certainly isn't: 314-01-04.

--
Andy

In article ,
writes:
Martin Angove wrote:

...until I noticed that the earths from all these lighting cables did
not enter the box, but were simply twisted together underneath it. No
sleeving, no connector, just a mechanical twist.

I keep finding exactly that in our 1960s built flat. It has PVC
wiring (not T&E, singles in conduit) but every light fitting I've
replaced so far I've found everything satisfactory except that the
earth wires were twisted together and stuffed up into the ceiling
space.

Yes, and common back into the 1950's too when PVC wiring started
appearing in buildings. Only seen this done on lighting circuits
though (where the earth wasn't actually required at the time).

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I keep finding exactly that in our 1960s built flat. It has PVC
wiring (not T&E, singles in conduit) but every light fitting I've
replaced so far I've found everything satisfactory except that the
earth wires were twisted together and stuffed up into the ceiling
space.

Yes, and common back into the 1950's too when PVC wiring started
appearing in buildings. Only seen this done on lighting circuits
though (where the earth wasn't actually required at the time).

But the early 'lighting' PVC cable was just twin - no earth. Although TW&E
did become common before earths on lighting circuits were mandatory. This
didn't stop many simply clipping off the earth wire - after all 'it' still
works without it...

I've come across this on 13 amp circuits too. Old habits die hard for some
- perhaps used to 2 pin power circuits.

--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"

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

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I keep finding exactly that in our 1960s built flat. It has PVC
wiring (not T&E, singles in conduit) but every light fitting I've
replaced so far I've found everything satisfactory except that the
earth wires were twisted together and stuffed up into the ceiling
space.

Yes, and common back into the 1950's too when PVC wiring started
appearing in buildings. Only seen this done on lighting circuits
though (where the earth wasn't actually required at the time).

But the early 'lighting' PVC cable was just twin - no earth. Although TW&E

My parent's which is 1956 IIRC, does have earthed lighting circuit,
so it certainly was available then, although not mandatory.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
"Smudger" wrote in message
.. .

I live (and will probably die) by Regulation 120-04-01.

Which was deleted when the 2001 edition of BS 7671 came out. See section
132-01-01 & -02 now.


Ah, I'm glad you noticed ;-)

Smudger

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
But the early 'lighting' PVC cable was just twin - no earth. Although
TW&E

My parent's which is 1956 IIRC, does have earthed lighting circuit, so
it certainly was available then, although not mandatory.

I don't remember PVC in '56 - it was still rubber that the wholesalers in
Aberdeen supplied then and for some time afterwards. Perhaps old stock. ;-)

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

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

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
But the early 'lighting' PVC cable was just twin - no earth. Although
TW&E

My parent's which is 1956 IIRC, does have earthed lighting circuit, so
it certainly was available then, although not mandatory.

I don't remember PVC in '56 - it was still rubber that the wholesalers in
Aberdeen supplied then and for some time afterwards. Perhaps old stock. ;-)

I'll check the date with them -- I might be a little out, but it
was before 1960.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I don't remember PVC in '56 - it was still rubber that the wholesalers
in Aberdeen supplied then and for some time afterwards. Perhaps old
stock. ;-)

I found an Architects' Journal for August 1958 when going through stuff at
the weekend. An advert from Rist's Wires and Cables of
Newcastle-under-Lyme assures readers that "you can be assured of complete
satisfaction from Rist's T.R.S. and V.I.R. house wiring cables". No
mention of PVC and I was surprised that VIR was mentioned: I had assumed
that TRS had replaced it.

My parents extension built in 1960-61 did use PVC.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My parent's which is 1956 IIRC, does have earthed lighting circuit,
so it certainly was available then, although not mandatory.

I don't remember PVC in '56 - it was still rubber that the wholesalers
in Aberdeen supplied then and for some time afterwards. Perhaps old
stock. ;-)

I'll check the date with them -- I might be a little out, but it was
before 1960.

I don't remember PVC house wiring at all while I was at school. I came to
London to work in late '62, and it was some time before I had anything to
do with house wiring again - say late '60s, by which time it was all PVC.
And about the time they changed to metric.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My parent's which is 1956 IIRC, does have earthed lighting circuit,
so it certainly was available then, although not mandatory.

I don't remember PVC in '56 - it was still rubber that the wholesalers
in Aberdeen supplied then and for some time afterwards. Perhaps old
stock. ;-)

I'll check the date with them -- I might be a little out, but it was
before 1960.

I don't remember PVC house wiring at all while I was at school. I came to
London to work in late '62, and it was some time before I had anything to
do with house wiring again - say late '60s, by which time it was all PVC.
And about the time they changed to metric.


I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My parents'
house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded not solid
including the earth wire) and the lights were wired in VIR singles with the
live hopping between the switches and the neutral hopping between the
ceiling roses. The lighting definitely wasn't earthed, although the steel
conduit used in the garage had a piece of bare stranded earth wire wrapped
around it in the ceiling void (this wire went back to the 2-way earth
block).

Are we saying then that the switch over from rubber to pvc happened around
that time and the sparks just installed whatever was available?

Smudger

In article ,
Smudger smudger@here wrote:
I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My
parents' house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded not
solid including the earth wire)

7/029". But TW&E in this size was in rubber before PVC, and then for a few
years before metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but about
'70.

and the lights were wired in VIR singles
with the live hopping between the switches and the neutral hopping
between the ceiling roses. The lighting definitely wasn't earthed,
although the steel conduit used in the garage had a piece of bare
stranded earth wire wrapped around it in the ceiling void (this wire
went back to the 2-way earth block).

Are we saying then that the switch over from rubber to pvc happened
around that time and the sparks just installed whatever was available?

Certainly using singles for lighting existed at the same time as TW&E for
power. I don't think the modern loop in loop out ceiling rose was around
then - I think that also came about 10 years later.

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Smudger smudger@here wrote:
I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My
parents' house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded not
solid including the earth wire)

7/029". But TW&E in this size was in rubber before PVC, and then for a few
years before metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but about
'70.

I remember 7/029 only too well, not easy to work with and only too
easy to get the odd strand sticking out. I only ever really used
7/029 PVC T&E so I think it places it around the late 1960s and early
1970s.

--
Chris Green

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Smudger smudger@here wrote:
I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My
parents' house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded not
solid including the earth wire)

7/029". But TW&E in this size was in rubber before PVC, and then for a few
years before metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but about
'70.

Good point. I should have said PVC Twin&Earth. ISTR that the copper
strands were tinned as well (like the VIR).



Smudger

"Dave Plowman (News)"wrote in message ...

[...] metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but about
'70.

1969 or 70, certainly. It seemed very strange at the time to be thinking
about cables in square millimetres.

Are we saying then that the switch over from rubber to pvc happened
around that time and the sparks just installed whatever was
available?

There wasn't a sudden switchover. PVC was around for a long time, certainly
from the 50s, possibly even the 40s, but only came into widespread use
during the 60s.

I don't think the modern loop in loop out ceiling rose was around
then - I think that also came about 10 years later.

No, 3-plate roses, as they were called then, had been around for a long
time - certainly since the 40s (in true post-deco bakelite style). What did
seem to take a long time was for the manufacturers to add the earth
terminal, which brings us back to the twisted-together earths...

--
Andy

In article , Smudger
wrote:

I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My
parents' house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded
not solid including the earth wire) and the lights were wired in VIR
singles with the live hopping between the switches and the neutral
hopping between the ceiling roses. The lighting definitely wasn't
earthed, although the steel conduit used in the garage had a piece of
bare stranded earth wire wrapped around it in the ceiling void (this
wire went back to the 2-way earth block).

Are we saying then that the switch over from rubber to pvc happened
around that time and the sparks just installed whatever was available?

Seems quite likely. My parents moved into a new house about 1958/9 and
all the wiring was TRS, 7/029 for the ring, 3/029 for the lights and
7/036 (I think) for the cooker. The "ring" main was very minimal - 2
singles on a ground floor ring and 3 singles on 2 spurs. We didn't take
very long to extend the ring and that was all done with PVC.

That particular small housing estate was the last one the electrical
contractor did before retiring and giving up his business and the
general impression was that he just used up all his old stock on the
job, even using old round surface mount light switches on wooden
patresses.

That original installation taught me an awful lot about how not to wire
a house.
--
Mike Clarke

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

7/029". But TW&E in this size was in rubber before PVC, and then for a
few years before metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but
about '70.

Sounds about right. Our current house was built about 1968 using
imperial PVC cable. We bought it in 1970 and my earliest extensions to
the ring main were with 7/029 but 2.5mm^2 came in shortly afterwards.

Remembering to re-use the old BA size screws when fitting a new switch
or socket to an existing old imperial box has always been a pain.

--
Mike Clarke

In message ,
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Smudger smudger@here wrote:
I'm glad we got on to this 'cos I've always wandered about it. My
parents' house was built in 1960. The power is in T&E (but stranded not
solid including the earth wire)

7/029". But TW&E in this size was in rubber before PVC, and then for a few
years before metrication. Which I can't remember when exactly, but about
'70.

I remember 7/029 only too well, not easy to work with and only too
easy to get the odd strand sticking out. I only ever really used
7/029 PVC T&E so I think it places it around the late 1960s and early
1970s.


That times well with my parents' house, wired in that stuff and built
late 60s; '67 IIRC.

On the other subject, the house has earthed, loop-in lighting.

:-)

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... After we pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is NOT our friend!

In message ,
Mike Clarke wrote:

[...]

My parents moved into a new house about 1958/9

[...]

The "ring" main was very minimal - 2
singles on a ground floor ring and 3 singles on 2 spurs. We didn't take
very long to extend the ring and that was all done with PVC.

My parents' house was built in about '67 and was mainly open-plan on the
ground floor with four bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs.

What has always astounded me is that the original compliment of sockets
for the ground floor was two in the kitchen and two in the living area.
The ground floor (including kitchen) is about 45sqm, so you can see just
how useful this is. The bedrooms had one socket each which isn't so bad,
but none on the landing or in the hall.

There were also two FCUs on the ground floor originally, as radials (I
think). These are now both sockets.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... In case of fire, yell FIRE!