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.

 

[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.