Plastic versas Metal CU's - your chance to vote

[Selfmade]

I voted yes - however well it's installed you can never completely rule out the possibility that something might go wrong in the future. If we took that standpoint we wouldn't bother to earth metal enclosures, as 'installed properly' the enclosure would not be connected to live...

I also don't like the flimsiness of plastic CUs, for something which in all probability will be in use for decades. I'd love to know what we are supposed to do about TT installations though - bit of a contradiction here I think.

I haven't read all pages so sorry if these points have been made already.

 

[Engineer54]

What many here don't seem to understand is that BEAMA represents the manufactures it doesn't give a jot about electricians or anyone else come to that. It's there purely to promote the interests of it's members and if that means coming out with publishing questionable and/or unsubstantiated statistics, so be it!! Being fair and unbiased is not in their or it's, or it's members best interests!!!

Ask them questions that they can't answer, like .....Are the European countries going to follow suit, and if not WHY?

Are the manufactures going to improve the means of electrical connections within CU/DBs to improve the internal safety against arcing and high resistance faults?

I suspect you'll just get a load of off subject waffle, but no actual hard and fast answers to the questions asked....

 

[baldsparkies]

And from the feedback I have been getting from different suppliers branch managers, that's exactly what seems to be happening.
The internals, ie main switches are still the same BSEN60947-3.
Same for mcb's and RCCB's all the same gear.
So terminations busbar strips ect all remain the same.
In essence the route cause is being left in place, and then covered up with a "fire proof" enclosure costing twice the price.
Absolutely ridiculous !!

 

[frontier219]

I'm confused by the comments on whether not having a metal CU would be a Code 2 or 3 on an EICR.

It will not be a code unless there is evidence that it will become a fire risk. Please don't tell me you all go around coding old colour cable and the use of bs4293 RCDs as code 2s or 3s just because they're not in use anymore.

 

[R G]

And from the feedback I have been getting from different suppliers branch managers, that's exactly what seems to be happening.
The internals, ie main switches are still the same BSEN60947-3.
Same for mcb's and RCCB's all the same gear.
So terminations busbar strips ect all remain the same.
In essence the route cause is being left in place, and then covered up with a "fire proof" enclosure costing twice the price.
Absolutely ridiculous !!

What gets me is the screws in the neutral and earth bars , has anyone noticed how tight the threads are on them , just about every board BG board I'm fitting the screws feel as though they're cross threaded , and you could easily assume they're tight and then still pull the wire out , shocking really..

 

[baldsparkies]

I'm confused by the comments on whether not having a metal CU would be a Code 2 or 3 on an EICR.

It will not be a code unless there is evidence that it will become a fire risk.

That's the whole point, London Fire Brigade are saying exactly that !!
And that's why the non combustible domestic c/u's are being introduced and manufactured for Jan 16 implementation date, and manufactured as steel enclosures.
As regards to coding's for ABS after this date ??
Your confusion is not alone. Your in good company.
We can all have opinions, we can all speculate, but at the moment speculation is all we have.

 

[R G]

I should imagine a recommendation for a CO2 fire extinguisher to be kept near the CU on EICRs....LOL....

 

[baldsparkies]

What gets me is the screws in the neutral and earth bars , has anyone noticed how tight the threads are on them , just about every board BG board I'm fitting the screws feel as though they're cross threaded , and you could easily assume they're tight and then still pull the wire out , shocking really..

Absolutely, but don't worry.
Soon it will all be housed in a nice steel enclosure, so it can all melt and burn to its hearts content.
What a nice sensible, level headed, practical, and of course profit producing solution.

 

[HandySparks]

I should imagine a recommendation for a CO2 fire extinguisher to be kept near the CU on EICRs....LOL....

Along with a CO2 injection point on the CU.

Can't find a picture, but here's a thread on a different type of forum:
Switchboard CO2 Injection Points

 

[Octopus]

I sent this back to BEAMA:

"I appreciate your candid response and openness.

The quality of fuseboards has progressively dropped over the last 20 years and now they are so flimsy, and I'm not just referring to the, completely flimsy cases, it's the quality of the main switches, the mounting bars, the MCB's the RCBO's - this is what needs fixing.

Introduce a requirement for main switches to have 2 screws per terminal would be a step in the right direction and that coupled with improving the "strength" of the busbar for the MCB's and RCBO's would be good too.

My point remains that you can improve the case BUT ignoring the internal components and in some cases dangerous workmanship is not dealing with the problem."

As yet no response!

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[frontier219]

That's the whole point, London Fire Brigade are saying exactly that !!
And that's why the non combustible domestic c/u's are being introduced and manufactured for Jan 16 implementation date, and manufactured as steel enclosures.
As regards to coding's for ABS after this date ??
Your confusion is not alone. Your in good company.
We can all have opinions, we can all speculate, but at the moment speculation is all we have.

Personally, I'm not confused with the code I'll be giving. I won't be giving one.
If I open any CU and find any evidence that it has or is likely to overheat, then it'll become a C2.

 

[frontier219]

I sent this back to BEAMA:

"I appreciate your candid response and openness.

The quality of fuseboards has progressively dropped over the last 20 years and now they are so flimsy, and I'm not just referring to the, completely flimsy cases, it's the quality of the main switches, the mounting bars, the MCB's the RCBO's - this is what needs fixing.

Introduce a requirement for main switches to have 2 screws per terminal would be a step in the right direction and that coupled with improving the "strength" of the busbar for the MCB's and RCBO's would be good too.

My point remains that you can improve the case BUT ignoring the internal components and in some cases dangerous workmanship is not dealing with the problem."

As yet no response!

I'm not holding my breath.

Fully agree with this. I would personally add that I believe the real solution to this is a fixed busbar in all CU/DBs - the amount of times I've found a DB where the spark has managed to put the busbar in behind the terminal is far too high.

 

[baldsparkies]

To further confuse the situation Wylex have produced this statement,

REGULATION 421.1.201From January 2015 Amendment No. 3 to BS 7671 IETWiring Regulations prescribe that within domestic(household) premises, consumer units and similarswitchgear assemblies shall have their enclosuresmanufactured from non combustible material, or beenclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of noncombustible material and comply with productstandard BS EN 61439-3.

Now next time you purchase an ABS board (and I appreciate its been said before) take a look at its BS EN rating
You guessed it !! BSEN 61439-3 along with self extinguishing ABS ??
So according to that, the existing boards already comply with the above standard.
Talk about a red herring.

But then again Skelts thread goes into far more detail on the subject and well worth reading through.

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...99771-amd-3-hopefully-busting-myth-metal.html

 

[frontier219]

To further confuse the situation Wylex have produced this statement,

REGULATION 421.1.201From January 2015 Amendment No. 3 to BS 7671 IETWiring Regulations prescribe that within domestic(household) premises, consumer units and similarswitchgear assemblies shall have their enclosuresmanufactured from non combustible material, or beenclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of noncombustible material and comply with productstandard BS EN 61439-3.

Now next time you purchase an ABS board (and I appreciate its been said before) take a look at its BS EN rating
You guessed it !! BSEN 61439-3 along with self extinguishing ABS ??
So according to that, the existing boards already comply with the above standard.
Talk about a red herring.

But then again Skelts thread goes into far more detail on the subject and well worth reading through.

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...99771-amd-3-hopefully-busting-myth-metal.html

The critical word there is 'and'. The CUs have to comply with BS61439-3 and be constructed of a non-combustible material - which self-extinguishing ABS has been ruled out as by BEAMA.

 

[baldsparkies]

The critical word there is 'and'. The CUs have to comply with BS61439-3 and be constructed of a non-combustible material - which self-extinguishing ABS has been ruled out as by BEAMA.

Your quite correct AND is the critical word here however looking at this extract


"Within domestic (household) premises, consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439—3 and shall:
I. Have their enclosures manufactured from non—combustible material,
or
II. Be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non—combustible
material and complying with regulation 132.12.
Note 1: Ferrous metal e.g. steel is deemed to be an example of a non—
combustible material.
Note 2:*The implementation date for this regulation is the lst January 2016.
This does not preclude compliance with this regulation prior to this date."
The intent of regulation 421.1.201 is considered to be, as far as is reasonably
practicable, to contain any fire within the enclosure and to minimise flames
from escaping, caused mainly as a result of poorly installed connections. The
following Q8A's cover the key points:
1. What is a definition of "non—combustible"?
There is no published definition for “non—combustible" that aligns with the
intent of regulation 421.1.201. Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be one
example of a non—combustible material that meets the intent of the regulation

You will note that AND has no definition within the context of the regulation other than ferrous steel
In other words they are only prepared to give steel as an example of non combustible.
And for that reason I agree with you AND and what AND implies is indeed critical.

 

[Plonker 3]

I think If I am to fit a DB that needs to be compliant with this reg I will allow the manufacturer to say weather it is complaint or not, and not worry about it myself.

 

[davesparks]

I think I'll not worry about it for the next 10 months, hopefully ammendment 3.5 will be out by then making the situation crystal clear.
Standby flying pigs............flying pigs GO

 

[Charlie_]

The majority of domestic consumer units are usually housed within an enclosure anyway.
This enclosure needs to be non combustible, if it isn't then the homeowner can get it sorted
For new builds this is easily sorted by the builder, allowing us to continue to using plastic CUs

 

[trev]

The majority of domestic consumer units are usually housed within an enclosure anyway.

Really?

 

[Charlie_]

Really?

Go on then, what is your observation?
Is it more common to find a consumer unit positioned in full view, as a lovely feature in the middle of a wall?