Solutions for Surface mount to conduit.

[HandySparks]

I am being picky here cos it looks a good job, do you think the conductors into the new box are correctly contained.

Not quite sure what you mean. The new box had an RCD socket fitted. Wires either went into the socket or were joined with Wagos to complete the ring.

 

[westward10]

Like a said being picky but there is no containment for the conductors between the existing back box and the new box aside from butting them together.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Like a said being picky but there is no containment for the conductors between the existing back box and the new box aside from butting them together.

I don't get it, there is a KO box in the wall and a surface pattress over the top as long as the KO box is earthed I don't see a problem. Why would it need containment between the two?

 

[westward10]

It is nothing to do with earthing but the containment of conductors between the two.

 

[Leesparkykent]

It is nothing to do with earthing but the containment of conductors between the two.

Why does it need containment out of interest? You wouldn't put containment between a flush box and thermostat/programmer back plate for example IMO its a similar scenario.

 

[Midwest]

If a door from a room leads away from a hazard to a place or route of safety it is deemed an escape route and from the picture I suspect it does.

Using that definition, that would mean every room in any property in every premise is part of an escape route? I'm not sure about that.

 

[westward10]

Why does it need containment out of interest? You wouldn't put containment between a flush box and thermostat/programmer back plate for example IMO its a similar scenario.

The conductors stop at the accessory and are contained within the back box. In this instance although as I said being picky they pass between enclosures . Would you butt up two conduit terminal boxes through a thin partition without some forms of bush. I agree in this instance it is an air space but it is that space where containment is absent.

 

[westward10]

Using that definition, that would mean every room in any property in every premise is part of an escape route? I'm not sure about that.

Give me an instance where a door may not be an escape route. If you have passed through it there may be a requirement for you to pass back through it an emergency situation, even the door to a toilet cubicle. You are sitting on the loo and the fire alarm goes off that cubicle door is your escape route, far fetched but true.

 

[HandySparks]

...I agree in this instance it is an air space but it is that space where containment is absent.

No absence of containment. The building structure is permitted to form part of the enclosure.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - my 20p worth - aim is to create one containment, consisting of the original back box, the new pattress and the face plate. If successful no additional segregation or containment would be required. The new containment would need to be rigidly joined and pass IP-wise, which it looks like. Or have I misunderstood? (Prolly not enough unpickled brain cells left.)

Edit : what HS said

 

[westward10]

How are they rigidly joined, they aren't it contact with each other.

 

[7029 dave]

Why can't you put a surfaced mounted box , with knock outs then away you go.

 

[Andy78]

Like a said being picky but there is no containment for the conductors between the existing back box and the new box aside from butting them together.

What potential issues can you see arising from this ?

 

[Octopus]

How are they rigidly joined, they aren't it contact with each other.

So the metal box is in the ball and the surface box is attached firmly to the wall - whats the problem?

You HAVE to apply common sense. Its not as it we were talking about metal containment and lack of continuity.

 

[Midwest]

Give me an instance where a door may not be an escape route. If you have passed through it there may be a requirement for you to pass back through it an emergency situation, even the door to a toilet cubicle. You are sitting on the loo and the fire alarm goes off that cubicle door is your escape route, far fetched but true.

Going a bit off tangent.....but.

I don't do commercial/industrial, so my exposure to escape routes is limited. However, premises covered by The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) & Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 etc, perhaps as the picture posted, require the designation of escape routes as part of the risk assessment for those premises. So it would easy for an installer to identify 'such doors', by referring to the documented risk assessment for the premises.
I would suggest a door to an airing cupboard, would not be, but at the other end of the scale, a door to the outside would form part of an escape route. To simply state a door, as per definition, most be part of an escape route, would make a premise unviable in terms of all the other paraphernalia & equipment required.

So yes, there will be doors that do not form part of an escape route, designated for escape to a place of safety in the event of an emergency.