Cable routing inside a consumer unit

[Andy Hames]

Hi

First post and I'm a DIY-er so apologies if this is the wrong forum to start with.

I have a project at the moment that involves replacing a consumer unit. I've arranged for a proper inspection and certification down the line but in the mean time I have made a start on getting the circuits wired in where I can.

This is where I'm up to so far:

and this shows better how the wiring is routed:

I know some of the sheathing on the incoming cables is probably a bit long, but they may move so I've kept a bit of excess. Likewise the neutral and earths are looped as shown to maintain some excess.

The question I have is, is there anything particularly wrong with that routing?

I wasn't sure if it was best for the cables coming from the top to drop straight down and the ones from the bottom to go straight up, or if they should be routed along the bottom and up the sides, e.g. the single one there at the moment, would the earth be better going all the way to the left along the bottom and then up the left hand side, and the live and neutral the same but to the right?

Oh, last thing - this is the bigger picture:

I've added an isolator, looking at it now I think the meter tails should probably be shortened a bit, or at least clipped out the way.

Any advice guys, or anything else that stands out that needs resolving?

Thanks...

 

[Andy Hames]

Get the money back first to repay the client

I haven't charged anyone for anything, it's a project I'm doing with a friend.

So are you rewiring this property.

I'm doing some of the work, not all of it.

 

[westward10]

Who is doing the rest of the rewiring then. This is a prime example of the epic failure of Part P, set up to stop incompetent persons from working in dwellings.

 

[Andy Hames]

Who is doing the rest of the rewiring then. This is a prime example of the epic failure of Part P, set up to stop incompetent persons from working in dwellings.

The rest will be done by a someone who recently completed their electricians training, they will also be doing some of the testing.

This isn't the same person as I previously mentioned who has more experience and is better qualified.

 

[timhoward]

you don't agree Dave ? why not

Depending on what mood I'm in and how much beer etc. I could argue this one both ways!
Technically if it's not a ring then 433.1.204 doesn't apply so the special permission to use a 32A breaker for cable that can't carry 32A that doesn't exist.
I believe that's true even though it's electrically equivalent to a spur off a ring to a double socket with the connection point being at the CU.
So I know what you mean and I think I know what he means....

 

[westward10]

The rest will be done by a someone who recently completed their electricians training, they will also be doing some of the testing.

This isn't the same person as I previously mentioned who has more experience and is better qualified.

Not sure if that is worse or better if they are allowing you to do what you have done.

 

[davesparks]

@davesparks you don't agree Dave ? why not

Just look at the pictures and read the thread, there is no way anything that has been done here is fine.

Plus we know nothing of how that cable has been installed, how on earth can you say that this arrangement is fine when you don't know what de-rating factors are applicable?

 

[mainline]

It's feeding one socket on a first floor, it cannot draw more than 13 amps that would be some de-rating of a cable that's capable of carrying 26 amps wouldn't you think ?

 

[mainline]

Just look at the pictures and read the thread, there is no way anything that has been done here is fine.

Nothing ?

 

[mainline]

Depending on what mood I'm in and how much beer etc. I could argue this one both ways!
Technically if it's not a ring then 433.1.204 doesn't apply so the special permission to use a 32A breaker for cable that can't carry 32A that doesn't exist.
I believe that's true even though it's electrically equivalent to a spur off a ring to a double socket with the connection point being at the CU.
So I know what you mean and I think I know what he means....

433.3.1

 

[timhoward]

433.3.1

Maybe. Depends on other factors really.
Anyway, I wouldn't die on my sword over it as long as it's not method 103 powering a washing machine and a tumble drier.

 

[brianmoooore]

Used to be a reg that the number of spurs off of a RFC had to be equal to or less than the number of sockets on the RFC. Does this still exist?

 

[ipf]

The rest will be done by a someone who recently completed their electricians training, they will also be doing some of the testing.

This isn't the same person as I previously mentioned who has more experience and is better qualified.

Doesn't seem to have much experience to me if they've only just completed their training. What training?

 

[timhoward]

Used to be a reg that the number of spurs off of a RFC had to be equal to or less than the number of sockets on the RFC. Does this still exist?

(14th edition)
John Ward said in a video somewhere that this is no longer the case and I'm not aware of it from 16th edition onwards.
I think it's now condensed to "a ring final circuit, with or without unfused spurs" and the appendix doesn't stipulate either.

 

[DPG]

I think we can conclude that the OP is going to carry on regardless.

 

[littlespark]

Go away for two days wondering how this was going to pan out.
Hadn't contributed up til now, but read with interest.

I did think on day 1, this thread isnt going to last long.