Have the rules for ring mains changed over the years?

[Bob Bob]

I am sure when I qualified for the 16 edition we spoke about how to treat a ring main.
I know the majority of the time we just learned how to read the book and how to find needed headings but I am sure we also spoke about ring mains.
If a socket has two cables coming into the back box then it is part of a ring main. If it has three then it is part of a ring main with a spur and if it only has one then it is a spur.
I spur cannot be added to an existing spur because it would then incorrectly be taken as a socket on the ring main with two cables coming in to it.
A few of the threads ...........It says this is too long and won't let me write any more?

 

[Dustydazzler]

No need for Rings anymore Imo , its one thing I would do away with now

Just install 20amp radials

 

[mainline]

I am sure when I qualified for the 16 edition we spoke about how to treat a ring main.
I know the majority of the time we just learned how to read the book and how to find needed headings but I am sure we also spoke about ring mains.

If a socket has two cables coming into the back box then it is part of a ring main.

It could be a radial

If it has three then it is part of a ring main with a spur

It could still be a radial

and if it only has one then it is a spur.

Or a radial

I spur cannot be added to an existing spur because it would then incorrectly be taken as a socket on the ring main with two cables coming in to it.

The reason is that a spur off a spur, depending on what's off it, cable size etc could overload the cable.

Ring finals are old hat.

 

[nicebutdim]

It could be a radial


It could still be a radial


Or a radial

I almost posted similar, but OP states that his comments specifically relate to how he viewed ring final circuits.

 

[littlespark]

There’s the difference.

Back in the 16th, it was still referred to as a ring main.

Now it’s a ring final.

 

[mainline]

I almost posted similar, but OP states that his comments specifically relate to how he viewed ring final circuits.

How he viewed or does view ?

 

[Dustydazzler]

There’s the difference.

Back in the 16th, it was still referred to as a ring main.

Now it’s a ring final.

I did the 16th and it was a Ring Final back then but nearly everyone called it a Ring Main , heck most people still call it a Ring Main

It really is about time the RFC / Ring Main was ditched as they simply aren't needed in this day and age

 

[nicebutdim]

How he viewed or does view ?

Difficult to be certain as the forum seems to have limited the length of his post. Hopefully the OP will be able to return and clarify.


I get where you're coming from as all that can be ascertained from a socket with two cables coming in is that it's not the end point of a radial. With one cable, it could be a spur or it could be the end point of a radial. With three cables it could be lot of things, but I took the OP to mean a known ring final circuit and one that hasn't been butchered to within an inch of its existence.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Difficult to be certain as the forum seems to have limited the length of his post. Hopefully the OP will be able to return and clarify.


I get where you're coming from as all that can be ascertained from a socket with two cables coming in is that it's not the end point of a radial. With one cable, it could be a spur or it could be the end point of a radial. With three cables it could be lot of things, but I took the OP to mean a known ring final circuit and one that hasn't been butchered to within an inch of its existence.

I found a single socket with 5 cables at it the other day , wonder what the OP would make of that

 

[nicebutdim]

I found a single socket with 5 cables at it the other day , wonder what the OP would make of that

I imagine it looked like a busted mattress when pulled forward from the wall.