New cooker dp switch, existing wires won't reach terminals..

[Deuce]

Evening all,

Not a qualified spark so I thought it better to ask than make assumptions.

Swapping all switches/sockets in our house to screwless ones, all going fine until I went to swap the cooker isolator switch. The old one has feed top, load bottom. The new one has load top, feed bottom. As such, the wires won't reach their intended terminals, and there is no way of reconfiguring the switch assembly to reverse it internally and leave the "on/off" the right way round on the front.

I'm pretty sure the obvious answer is to extend the cabling in the back box, but wanted to check the best way to do this. Can I just crimp and shrink using any suitably rated crimps?

Thanks in advance

 

[Octopus]

Is the box deep enough for flat plate products and the existing cables?

 

[Deuce]

Is the box deep enough for flat plate products and the existing cables?

Yes, deep enough for the flat plate switch, existing cable and the cable extension. Just... But that's so often the way...

 

[suffolkspark]

Is there a neon on it?

 

[Dave OCD]

Is there a neon on it?

I think I can guess what you're thinking but if you reverse the feed and load I'm sure the socket will only work with the cooker switch on. I'd carefully lengthen the cables with some 41a rated Wagos, as long as they can be positioned carefully to leave enough room.

 

[Deuce]

Is there a neon on it?

No... And no I'm not doing what you're about to suggest

Personally I see no operational problem with reversing the feed/load on such a basic switch but in theory someone might later turn it to off to visually inspect and then assume it's safe to make contact with the load terminals as the switch says they're "off". I'm pretty sure that once the manufacturer has labeled things, it's best to follow suit.

 

[Deuce]

I think I can guess what you're thinking but if you reverse the feed and load I'm sure the socket will only work with the cooker switch on. I'd carefully lengthen the cables with some 41a rated Wagos, as long as they can be positioned carefully to leave enough room.

Actually there is no socket or neon so no one would ever know... But I think best to extend the cables.

I like the idea of using wago's, we have thousands at work so very convenient! Any issue with earth being on a none permanent connection like that?

 

[Deuce]

Oh.. and as I'm not a spark, does extending the cable within the back box count as a circuit modification? Us humble diy'ers are somewhat limited by what we're allowed to do in kitchens and bathrooms these days.

 

[littlespark]

I assume the cable is plastered into a brick wall?
Hollow partition walls are always good to hide an extra few inches
Of cable

 

[Deuce]

I assume the cable is plastered into a brick wall?
Hollow partition walls are always good to hide an extra few inches
Of cable

Yup, plastered in on both feed and load.

Without causing disruption to final finish I have to extend within the box itself. This house is all solid walls so these fun games are going to continue for years!!

 

[TJ Anderson]

No... And no I'm not doing what you're about to suggest

Personally I see no operational problem with reversing the feed/load on such a basic switch but in theory someone might later turn it to off to visually inspect and then assume it's safe to make contact with the load terminals as the switch says they're "off". I'm pretty sure that once the manufacturer has labeled things, it's best to follow suit.

If someone took off the front and touched a conductor without proving dead, no matter what the labelling, then they are fair game

 

[Des 56]

It seems to me you are quite prepared to introduce a joint into a system that uses double pole isolation because the terminals are descriptive

Maybe you could get a file and rub the words load and feed out if there is to be worry and anxiety about a possible incompetent person playing with connections

 

[Deuce]

If someone took off the front and touched a conductor without proving dead, no matter what the labelling, then they are fair game

Morally, I agree

But I fear regulations and good practice exist as the regulators are aware that the stupid are everywhere!!

 

[Deuce]

It seems to me you are quite prepared to introduce a joint into a system that uses double pole isolation because the terminals are descriptive

Maybe you could get a file and rub the words load and feed out if there is to be worry and anxiety about a possible incompetent person playing with connections

They're embossed on the decorative skin, so the damage caused would make fitting a smarter switch pointless.

Additionally, I would be going against the wiring diagram.

It does irritate me that I'm making an extra joint simply to do things properly, as to my logic the best way is to avoid the joint and just ignore the markings/wiring directions. I believe that's the best way and if we didn't live in a world where liability is adopted when a person makes the simplest of rearrangements then I would do it. Sadly, we do live in that world.

Anyway, I can just extend them and make sure of a sound connection. It's annoying to add the join but no one can really criticise it.

 

[MJPD29]

With no neon id connect into the load side rather than introduce a joint onto a cable that could be heavily loaded at times