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

[mikep83]

Hi folks.

I cut one of the cables on my ring circuit, attached the 2 now separate ends to a new 30a junction box, and then run 2 additional spurs from the same junction box, using 32a twin and earth, on the end of each of these new spurs is a twin plug socket with usb.

I did the work with my father in law, who’s an avid DIYer and has been doing diy for 60 years.

We did a really good job, cables cut nice, neat, secure, tested them, and all working.

Due to a rush to get the job done before decorators, I pre installed the new sockets and cabling, ready for the junction, and only then did I realise I should have extended the ring.....it was too late, I had sealed the walls up and could not get another cable in. We used a square 30a MK box, which had ample room for the cables.

These are bedside outlets, not for heavy consuming items.

Some forums and people have now put the fear of god in me that this is dangerous, however I have read mixed opinions (e.g. apparatly 1 spur from any point is the Reg, ok.....so I have 2 on mine, but is this really much different than if I added another junction 10 inches away for my second spur)

Is this really a concern to warrant me ripping it all back out?

It’s a good tidy job.
I know there’s regulations and partP......hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Views?
Many thanks.

 

[mikep83]

The junction is 3way, not 4nway as I have in my picture.

 

[SparkyChick]

Personally I wouldn't do it, but I don't believe it's a breach of the regulations as you only have one double socket outlet at each spur.

I might however be tempted to change the junction box you have used.

It it's got screws in it, it should be accessible for inspection. Hager do a range of maintenance free boxes or you can use a Wagobox and suitable Wago connectors.

 

[SparkyChick]

What do you mean by 3 way? In that junction there should be two ring cables and the two spurs.

 

[mikep83]

Hi. The junction box inside, had 3 big connectors. In each of the connectors, is 4 individual cables. From the 2 ends of the original ring cable, and 2 spurs.

It’s under a floorboard, but this is easily accessible, as I just pull back rug and take out 2 screws.

I attached the box to a piece of 2x4 horizontally, between joists, so not touching joists, ceiling below, or floorboard above.

 

[Toneyz]

It would have been better if you had put on the ring final circuit, however, cannot see anything to be worried about if installed correctly. Does the circuit have RCD/RCBO protection?

 

[Octopus]

It’s under a floorboard, but this is easily accessible, as I just pull back rug and take out 2 screws.

Under BS 7671 this is not accessible ..

 

[Spoon]

The regs do state that "An unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket-outlet only"

I'm presuming the 2.5cm cable in your drawing should be 2.5mm.
Just for reference 2.5mm cable is not 32A cable.

 

[Pete999]

What do you mean by 3 way? In that junction there should be two ring cables and the two spurs.

Think he means 3 terminals, whatever it does no comply with the regulations. OP what do you mean by 32 Amp cable?

 

[Toneyz]

I think that is more to do with not having a spur from an existing spur.

 

[Octopus]

Think he means 3 terminals, whatever it does no comply with the regulations.

Generally DIYers don’t care about the regs ....

 

[Pete999]

Generally DIYers don’t care about the regs ....

So what are you saying Murdoch? it's OK for a DIYer to ignore the Regulations?

 

[Spoon]

So what are you saying Murdoch? it's OK for a DIYer to ignore the Regulations?

I think just the opposite mate.

 

[Pete999]

Think he means 3 terminals, whatever, it does no comply with the regulations. OP what do you mean by 32 Amp cable?

Would have been a better option to employ an Electrician before you started imo.

 

[SparkyChick]

He's basically got two spurs originating from a point on the ring. On the end of each he has a double socket outlet.

I'm not being funny, but I don't see how that doesn't comply.

The junction box he's used doesn't comply because it's not accessible.

 

['mr2'gd4u]

That setup is potentially putting 52a on a single length (albeit what 3m?) of 2.5mm.. I know you said it's for a bedside socket but who knows really.. What about the next person who lives in that house..

Edit misread..

 

[Pete999]

He's basically got two spurs originating from a point on the ring. On the end of each he has a double socket outlet.

I'm not being funny, but I don't see how that doesn't comply.

The junction box he's used doesn't comply because it's not accessible.

No because he has taken what is surely, 2 separate spurs from the same point on a RFC , see Appendix 15

 

[Spoon]

The junction box he's used doesn't comply because it's not accessible.

Also doesn't comply with appendix 15 of the regs.
See my post #8

 

[Octopus]

So what are you saying Murdoch? it's OK for a DIYer to ignore the Regulations?

We advise, they ignore ......

 

[Pete999]

He's basically got two spurs originating from a point on the ring. On the end of each he has a double socket outlet.

I'm not being funny, but I don't see how that doesn't comply.

The junction box he's used doesn't comply because it's not accessible.

No because he has take what is surely 2 separate spurs from the same point on a RFC , see Appendix 15

We advise, they ignore ......

Oh right, thanks

 

[SparkyChick]

No because he has take what is surely 2 separate spurs from the same point on a RFC , see Appendix 15

Yes, he has. I can't see anything in appendix 15 that precludes this.

Appendix 15 is mainly concerned with what you put on the end of spurs as that's the point most people make a right pigs ear of. In that respect, he's complied fully, it just so happens that both spurs originate from a single point.

 

[Spoon]

Yes, he has. I can't see anything in appendix 15 that precludes this.

Appendix 15 is mainly concerned with what you put on the end of spurs as that's the point most people make a right pigs ear of. In that respect, he's complied fully, it just so happens that both spurs originate from a single point.

What about the part that states ""An unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket-outlet only"... See my screen shot from the regs in post #8

 

[Pete999]

Yes, he has. I can't see anything in appendix 15 that precludes this.

Appendix 15 is mainly concerned with what you put on the end of spurs as that's the point most people make a right pigs ear of. In that respect, he's complied fully, it just so happens that both spurs originate from a single point.

What the OP has done equates to taking 2 spurs from a single point on a RC.
1 spur from a single point on a RFC or a socket on the RFC that is not a spur in it's own right, equates to 1 single or 1 double socket or a Switched fused spur, or an unfused switched spur.
Adding a spur to a ring final circuit - https://www.flameport.com/electric/socket_outlet_circuits/ring_spurs_socket.cs4

 

[SparkyChick]

What about the part that states ""An unfused spur should feed one single or one twin socket-outlet only"... See my screen shot from the regs in post #8

He's got two cables... one for each socket outlet, so each spur feeds only a twin socket outlet.

 

[Pete999]

What the OP has done equates to taking 2 spurs from a single point on a RC.
1 spur from a single point on a RFC or a socket on the RFC that is not a spur in it's own right, equates to 1 single or 1 double socket or a Switched fused spur, or an unfused switched spur.
Adding a spur to a ring final circuit - https://www.flameport.com/electric/socket_outlet_circuits/ring_spurs_socket.cs4

Hence what he has done does NOT comply with BS 7671

 

[Pete999]

He's got two cables... one for each socket outlet, so each spur feeds only a twin socket outlet.

BUT it's taken from the same point on a RFC, two separate joint boxes would be OK providing they were MF joint boxes, a simple but salient point SC. He could have if he was clued up, taken a cable from the JB and fitted a Fused connection unit, and added as many extra sockets as he wanted within reason, the only restriction I can see us that he doesn't overload the 13 Amp fuse in the fused connection unit.

 

[SparkyChick]

Is there a regulation that precludes taking two spurs (both of which comply with the guidance provide by appendix 15 - noting that appendix 15 is informative only)?

 

[Spoon]

He's got two cables... one for each socket outlet, so each spur feeds only a twin socket outlet.

Just out of curiosity, with your thought above, where do you draw the line? Can the OP have 15 cables coming from a single point in the RFC going to a single/double socket?

 

[Wilko]

Hi - as you've no test gear, the primary concern for me is whether you've properly re-established the RFC. This circuit relies on a good quality looped connection of conductors to ensure the 32A MCB will protect the cable. It is a poor design to have put the 2 spurs in close proximity, but whether that causes issues really depends upon the loads that are connected to the outlets.

 

[Pete999]

Just out of curiosity, with your thought above, where do you draw the line? Can the OP have 15 cables coming from a single point in the RFC going to a single/double socket?

Spoon albeit that Appendix 15 is an informative appendix, its quite simple to follow the logic of the diagram, and comply with reg433.1

 

[SparkyChick]

Just out of curiosity, with your thought above, where do you draw the line? Can the OP have 15 cables coming from a single point in the RFC going to a single/double socket?

I might draw the line at the capacity of a junction box (by that I mean limited by the number of cables that can safely be terminated in it taking into account proper cable restraint and available terminal capacity).

Exceeding the capacity of the junction box makes it a fire risk.

In this instance, the OP doesn't appear to have breached the capacity of the junction box as the box in use will safely accommodate 4 cables of the correct size. If he'd squeezed three spurs in there, I'd be telling him he'd been stupid and should fix it.

There is also a consideration about the expected loading. If you did it in a kitchen and each spur was going to an appliance (dishwasher, washing machine, tumble drier for example), it would be a crazy thing to do as you'd be concentrating a lot of load in one place. In this case it's for a bedside table, so a lamp, alarm clock and maybe the occasional vacuum cleaner.

But if connecting multiple spurs to a single point on a ring final is against the regs, there will surely be regulation that precludes it.

So 15 no, two yes, 3 or more and I think I'd be looking to put the new socket outlets on the ring.

 

[westward10]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

 

[westward10]

Why do you disagree Pete?

 

[Pete999]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

He will have broken an informative edit of BS7671 sorry to disagree mate.

 

[Pete999]

He's got two cables... one for each socket outlet, so each spur feeds only a twin socket outlet.

Fed from the same point on a RFC.

 

[Spoon]

Spoon albeit that Appendix 15 is an informative appendix, its quite simple to follow the logic of the diagram, and comply with reg433.1

This is what I was getting at mate. I agree with the diagram in App 15. showing 1 wire coming from 1 point in the RFC.
Otherwise it could be pretty much unlimited with sticking a junction box with wago terminal blocks in there.

 

[Pete999]

Why do you disagree Pete?

Because as long as the Regulations promote Appendix 15 as an informative Appendix we as electricians should abide by that information and NOT ignore it.

 

[Pete999]

Unless I am misreading his opening post the junction box is incorporated into the ring final then two spurred sockets are connected from the junction box on their own separate radials, so aside from the joint he has employed I do not see an issue.

If you disagree with Appendix 15 consult your Scheme's Technical Department, and see what they advise, I for one would be very interested in the interpretation they give out.

 

[Spoon]

I for one would be very interested in the interpretation they give out.

I'll second that....

 

[Fitzy]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

 

[SparkyChick]

@Pete999 , @Spoon

Is it a good plan? Not necessarily. Would I do it myself? Probably not but I wouldn't rule it out if I was pushed. Does it breach a regulation? Not as far as I can see.

Show me a regulation it breaches and why, and I'll agree with you, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Common sense should prevail here. App 15 is informative, it does not definitely preclude connecting two spurs from the same point of the ring. Given that the sockets the OP installed are not likely to be heavily loaded it is not unreasonable to connect them in this manner, properly connected there will not be any potential dangers over connecting them to two separate points on the ring.

 

[Baddegg]

Op, how did you install the cables in the walls?

 

[SJD]

So if you have a junction box on the RFC with one spur, and then a short distance along another junction box with another spur, that complies? Assuming maintenance-free junction boxes, if appropriate.

The distance between them can be as small as you like but it still complies?

But once you combine the two junctions into one, it no longer complies?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Indeed, all that is happening here is some members are determined to shoot a DIYer down in flames, come what may.

 

[Wilko]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

Hi - I'd say it's the "accepted practice" is to spread outlets and spurs around a ring to reduce the chance of long term heat damage from multiple 20A point loads. In my view, this is put at risk by having multiple spurs on top of each other, and does go against the informative guidance of Appendix 15.
In this case the use of the new spurs to run phone chargers and bed lamps is hardly going to be an issue .

 

[Wilko]

Surely the way the op has done it is the same as if they’d spurred each double socket from 2 separate sockets already on the rfc? If he’d only used 1 cable from the jb to feed both double sockets, then it would be against the regs.

Hi - I'd say it's the "accepted practice" to spread outlets and spurs around a ring to reduce the chance of long term heat damage from multiple point loads. I think this is the point of App 15 dot point (i). In my view, this is put at risk by having multiple spurs on top of each other. But in this case it's unlikely to be an issue as the loads are small (phone chargers and table lamps) .

 

[Rodders099]

Why doesn’t this forum just ban non-electricians from asking anything ?? Cause all I’m seeing on a daily basis, regardless to how basic the question is....is overly negative and sometimes hostile advice.
Absolutely ridiculous way to try and grow a forum.
This place will end up as an old boys club where you can only contribute if your a career electrician.

 

[Pete999]

@Pete999 , @Spoon

Is it a good plan? Not necessarily. Would I do it myself? Probably not but I wouldn't rule it out if I was pushed. Does it breach a regulation? Not as far as I can see.

Show me a regulation it breaches and why, and I'll agree with you, that's all I'm asking.

Can I point you in the direction of fig 15A Ring and final circuit arrangements Regulation 433.1.204,
This appendix sets out options for the design of ring and radial final ciccuits for household an similar premises in accordance with Regulation 433.1, using socket outlets and fused connection units. It does not cover other aspects of the circuit design such as:
Chapter 41, 42, 43 and Part 5 of these Regulations.
Quite why anyone would dispute this informative Appendix is beyond my thinking, it is self explanatory in it's design, so ignore it if you wish, I wont/didn't when I was working, and all through my working lifre 1 Spur equates to a single or double socket or a fused connection unit whereby you can feed as many 13 Amp sockets as you wish, taken from one point of a RFC. Taking 2 cables from a single point on a RFC to feed two sockets does not comply with this appendix. I see no point in continuing this argument, you have your appreciation and I however, go by the book.

 

[Pete999]

Common sense should prevail here. App 15 is informative, it does not definitely preclude connecting two spurs from the same point of the ring. Given that the sockets the OP installed are not likely to be heavily loaded it is not unreasonable to connect them in this manner, properly connected there will not be any potential dangers over connecting them to two separate points on the ring.

"are not likely to be heavily loaded" is the key to this argument, who is to say at some stage someone doesn't plug in a couple of 2KW heaters?