Neither a ring nor radial!

[telectrix]

Hmm, I suppose technically they do, just bad practice...

They're still "accessible" if the house is pulled apart!

it's only JBs that are installed to 17th Ed, that need to be accessible or MF. anything before 2008 complied with previous regs.

 

[DNS1]

it's only JBs that are installed to 17th Ed, that need to be accessible or MF. anything before 2008 complied with previous regs.

Ah, fair enough.

 

[Guest55]

it's only JBs that are installed to 17th Ed, that need to be accessible or MF. anything before 2008 complied with previous regs.

good job , theres freakin millions of em lol.

 

[MarkieSparkie]

Not heard the ring of junction boxes RFC method called a Jamaican Ring, round here it's always been called a JB Ring or latterly a Cowboy Ring.
Another possibility is that it's a JB Tree Radial where the trunk of the tree is a radial series of JBs with the branches of the tree from each JB to one or more socket outlet(s).
Both methods were in common use during the 50s and 60s, and in a short period later in the 70s when copper cable prices increased dramatically.

 

[Knobhead]

it's only JBs that are installed to 17th Ed, that need to be accessible or MF. anything before 2008 complied with previous regs.

If it’s before the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] then it just can’t possibly exist! Every thing was gas powered back then.

 

[Smart Sparks]

In answer to Sintra's Q, my undersanding of the present17th edition regs is that all joints / connections made with a mechanical type connection(JB, connector block etc.........) should always be fully accessible formaintenance purposes. As I have no idea where the JB's are likely to be it isalmost impossible to maintain them effectively. Reg 526.3 covers this but canonly be applicable to installs.
However I agree if test readings are all ok and I am notworking on that particular circuit then really, as long as I don’t make thesystem any worse it should be fine.
Thanks Guys

 

[Smart Sparks]

DNSI - your post makes perferct sense, thanks.............and thank you to everyone else that took the time to provide some advice.

 

[High Tower]

For the umpteenth time..........the regs are not retrospective!!!!!!!, of it's a EICR, code it a 3 if not then leave it alone, you are correct in that JB's must be accessible under the 17th but that's only on new installs.

 

[kingeri]

If it is a ring, it's non-compliant with the 17th in more than one way....e.g. the non-accessible JBs, no. of spurs exceeding no. of outlets on the ring....but so what....it was probably compliant when installed, test it and move on!

 

[Smart Sparks]

Hightower - I already made my understanding clear on this above ! thanks for your reply.

 

[richy3333]

If it’s before the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] then it just can’t possibly exist! Every thing was gas powered back then.

What! you had gas before the 17th Ed, We didn't even have running water, nor a cardboard box

 

[High Tower]

Hightower - I already made my understanding clear on this above ! thanks for your reply.

It was a generalisation, not aimed at you, there is a industry wide misconception of this.

 

[Smart Sparks]

It can be hard in some situations to know what to do for the best. I often have to remind myself to concentrate on the work I am doing as you can get carried away trying to bring things upto present standard unnecessarily.

I often ask myself the question, is what I am doing reducing the effectiveness of the systems protection, and if and tests are all good there is not a lot more you can do. As long as what you install complies of course. But I do see how some can get confused, think sometimes it's a matter of confidence.


Thanks for your replies, no offence taken.