2 spurs from a Junction Box....worried?

[Pete999]

Well yes... in your opinion it's not, in my opinion it is.

I could be swayed very easily with a regulation that prohibits it, but as far as I can tell, there is no such regulation. Thus as I've said, it may not be good practice (and we agree you and I are unlikely to use this method), but good practice is not the same as the regulations.

I'm not going to wave the white flag SC, but shall we agree to disagree?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Interesting, thanks for contacting them Mate.

I had to put my own queries to bed on this matter so I had to contact them. It would be interesting to see what the iet do say, if anything, they tend not to call me back

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm not going to wave the white flag SC, but shall we agree to disagree?

Hell no, this is a fight to the death

I think it's quite an interesting debate because it highlights yet another ambiguity in the regulations that appears to be based on what people consider to make up the regulations.

As I've said all along, personally I wouldn't do it unless I had absolutely no other choice because I don't consider it to be good practice, I much prefer to extend the ring onto new outlets because it provides better options for future changes and greatly reduces the risk of someone down the line adding a spur from a spur.

So yes, we can agree to disagree

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Thing is I can to a degree agree with SC and Co. As it is essentially the same as running a ring and then spur off for every socket but I'm assuming that due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb.

 

[Pete999]

Hell no, this is a fight to the death

I think it's quite an interesting debate because it highlights yet another ambiguity in the regulations that appears to be based on what people consider to make up the regulations.

As I've said all along, personally I wouldn't do it unless I had absolutely no other choice because I don't consider it to be good practice, I much prefer to extend the ring onto new outlets because it provides better options for future changes and greatly reduces the risk of someone down the line adding a spur from a spur.

So yes, we can agree to disagree

That's good it was going to be hard to find a suitable venue for the final battle.

 

[SparkyChick]

Thing is I can to a degree agree with SC and Co. As it is essentially the same as running a ring and then spur off for every socket but I'm assuming that due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb.

And I think that's the crux of it... what constitutes a spur?

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

And I think that's the crux of it... what constitutes a spur?

I believe a spur is the cable and what's on the end, not the point of origin.

Well this is the things isn't it.. Which further reinforces the inability of the iet and any other body relating being able to lay out the regulations in a understandable way. I'm not saying I would be able to do better or that they should do better because looking at just bs7671... That's a lot of information, how do you lay it out in a way that is understandable to everyone. This is where I agree with most saying "get a spark in" as a good spark should be able to discern safe from unsafe compliant to non compliant but also they know who to contact in cases like this. In any case, case closed I think no, its not compliant but yes it is safe as long as the op removes it or adapts it before leaving home permenately.

 

[Devonchris]

Interesting debate. I've found myself pondering different scenarios which I thought I would share. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to hear members views.

1. Two wago boxes side by side on the ring (as mentioned earlier in the thread) with a spur from each. Would this be compliant?

2. Whilst installing example 1. You realise that you have a bigger box that will take all the wagos and save on one of the boxes. Would this be compliant?

3. Whilst installing example 2. You realise that you are using 4 way 222s and that you can remove the very short link between the wagos and put both spurs into the same one. So the wago is now maintaining the ring in place of the very short length of cable. Would this be compliant?

At what point, if any, does this become non compliant and why?

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Op is it possible to run the original legs that you cut into on the rfc to a fcu then run both the 2.5mm to that and fix to a wall or something?

 

[happysteve]

Ooh, deja-vu all over again...:
To spur or not to spur?..... - https://www.electriciansforums.co.uk/threads/to-spur-or-not-to-spur.150956/page-2#post-1407954

 

['mr2'gd4u]

Interesting debate. I've found myself pondering different scenarios which I thought I would share. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to hear members views.

1. Two wago boxes side by side on the ring (as mentioned earlier in the thread) with a spur from each. Would this be compliant?

2. Whilst installing example 1. You realise that you have a bigger box that will take all the wagos and save on one of the boxes. Would this be compliant?

3. Whilst installing example 2. You realise that you are using 4 way 222s and that you can remove the very short link between the wagos and put both spurs into the same one. So the wago is now maintaining the ring in place of the very short length of cable. Would this be compliant?

At what point, if any, does this become non compliant and why?

1. Yes
2. I guess
3. No

 

[Pete999]

Op is it possible to run the original legs that you cut into on the rfc to a fcu then run both the 2.5mm to that and fix to a wall or something?

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

Well this is true and would be even worse obviously if they had spurred from a spur. op what's the situation can you confirm it's a leg off the rfc and not a spur that you've tapped into??

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

True, that WOULD be non compliant and possibly dangerous. I have taken on board the disagrees from respected members but remain unconvinced that the two spurs from a single point on a ring is non compliant.

 

[telectrix]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

 

[Pete999]

sorry pete. i have to agree with miss whiplash sparkychick..

No need to be sorry Tel, we all have differing opinions. Out of interest which thread are you agreeing with, and tread carefully Mate, with the innuendos.

 

[Devonchris]

The OP hasn't come back with any evidence that he has actually spurred from the ring and no from a spur that already exists.

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

 

[Pete999]

I think it's clear from the original post that it's off the ring. The diagram is not up to Richards standard though.

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

 

[johnduffell]

due to it being on a single point of the ring it's classed as 1 spur with 2 sockets on, even if the is no leg between the rfc and the jb

It's all defined by the iet in the regs
"Spur. A branch from a ring or radial final circuit."
So that is clear it refers to the cable rather than the point of connection.

While everyone is on the topic, i can't find anything in the regs that allows a lollipop circuit. I was trying to find out whether the wording would allow a figure of eight, but i can't find any reg allowing a lollipop, as a ring final circuit defines the whole circuit to be arranged as a ring. Any pointers?

 

[Devonchris]

It may well be as you say Chris, but as the OP is a DIYer it could be his interpretation of what he has done.

You could be right Pete. A diagram is only an interpretation. Just like appendix 15.