Not just me who does that, then....
Cut out fuse
- Thread starter newboy2011
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The issue is that they are trained on safety on "your" side of the cut-out. Does that meet our safety requirements, are they trained to carry out risk assessments, what proof have they they meet the standard, how long ago were they trained, have they had regular safety refreshers. Don't forget they WILL be working live to fit shrouds, they will not be trained to do that elsewhere.
One of the reasons we can work live is due to our training schemes, which carries the big but, you have to be trained by us to do it.
What I meant was that maybe your suggestion was based on you not knowing what's involved in the training and having absolutely no idea that you don't know.
i.e. maybe you're sitting there thinking that what you need to know you could learn in a couple of hours when in reality you have no idea of what you need to know and don't know that it even exists.
Oh - I see. I obviously can't convincingly counter that one, since I don't know what I don't know! However (and I imagine the same would be true of you), and again at risk of accusations of arrogance, I frankly doubt that there is much more I need to know than what I think I need to know! Tempting those accusations of arrogance even further, I would even suggest that I (and you, and certainly most competent electricians) already know most of it!
Kind Regards, John.
Sponsored Links
I take your points, but what I'm really suggesting is that this great divide between the two sides of the cutout perhaps could benefit from being re-visited.
Of course, the other (much discussed, here and elsewhere) consideration is that electricity is probably unique among distributed services in not having a mandatory means of isolation available to the consumer (or tradesmen working on their behalf). For the only means of isolation being something considered, by some, to be so potentially dangerous to implement that it requires substantial training, assessment, certification and regular reassment is, I would suggest, rather extrordinary! Imagine if the only way of isolating a gas supply was to undo coupling from a 'live' meter and screwing on a cap - that would surely be considered totally unacceptable!
Kind Regards, John.
We need to very, very carefully decide which discussion is to be held!
If we are talking about isolating a supply for planned work being carried out by a contracting electrician where there is a process already in place and they wish to circumvent it.
That is one thing!
If we are talking about the ability to disconnect a supply in an emergency where there is already an automatic disconnection device THE FUSE and in which case the advice would be get out of the house and call the emergency services and where the responsible organisations proved a 24/7/365 service
That is another thing
But don't start talking about gas (& water) as neither of those services provide a means of automatic disconnection, gas will leak until it is switched off.
Can I also suggest that care needs to be taken in the use of the word "isolation" regarding electricity as it has a particular meaning.
(one of the things that would come out on a training course)
The switching off of a circuit breaker of removal of a fuse or their automatic operation is NOT classed as isolation, merely disconnection.
As I have stated the removal of the main fuse exposes live metal work, it is dealing with this hazard that is the main issue!
If we are talking about isolating a supply for planned work being carried out by a contracting electrician where there is a process already in place and they wish to circumvent it.
That is one thing!
If we are talking about the ability to disconnect a supply in an emergency where there is already an automatic disconnection device THE FUSE and in which case the advice would be get out of the house and call the emergency services and where the responsible organisations proved a 24/7/365 service
That is another thing
But don't start talking about gas (& water) as neither of those services provide a means of automatic disconnection, gas will leak until it is switched off.
Can I also suggest that care needs to be taken in the use of the word "isolation" regarding electricity as it has a particular meaning.
(one of the things that would come out on a training course)
The switching off of a circuit breaker of removal of a fuse or their automatic operation is NOT classed as isolation, merely disconnection.
As I have stated the removal of the main fuse exposes live metal work, it is dealing with this hazard that is the main issue!
That's what I've been mainly talking about, although I'm suggesting that there probably ought to be a means of isolation available for that purpose which does not require circumventing anything (in common parlance, an accessible and unsealed 'switch'
)As you say, that's another thing - but the fact remains that a means of isolation available to anyone (i.e.that 'switch') would serve both purposes. As for your 'automatic disconnection device', that could obviously allow very damaging currents to flow without operating - and I am quite sure that I could manually operate an accessible 'switch' (assuming that there was no fire or other catastrophe in the vicinity of the switch) much faster than your 24/7/365 service people, or even the emergency services, could possibly turn up!
I did start talking about it - at least gas
I feel sure that no safety regulations would allow a situation in which a consumer had no means of switching off a gas supply even though there are 24/7/365 gas emergency services) - and 'automatic disconnection' is obviously not appropriate or possible in relation to most gas 'faults' (or gas-fuelled fires) which are likley to arise!Kind Regards, John.
Ah that switch, should it be before or after the meter?
Who should it belong to?
If it is faulty on the feed side what is to stop any electrician/customer doing what happens now - remove the main fuse to repair it?
Should they be retrofitted to all premises, who should pay?
(and don't tell me that they could be fitted on request for CU changes, the DNO will already visit to isolate for that, and as we see a lot of electricians do it their-selves so will they request this service?)
The introduction of another device will increase the number of connections!
Connections being the main source of problems at supply positions, why increase that risk? (I see fault logs from the NW of England on a daily basis, any problems like "smell of burning" or overheating are caused by faulty connections)
Believe me it is very very rare for a fault to develop at the supply position that operates the main fuse.
Overheating yes, overloading yes, short circuit faults very rarely!
In the case of overheating/overloading these are easily cured by reducing the load. Standard advice is to switch off the CU(s) until we attend by doing this the risk is removed and there are no further issues.
To be honest I am struggling to think of an emergency situation where an additional isolator would be of any use.
For overheating existing procedures already work.
For the very rare short circuit faults the main fuse can automatically disconnect
So what else is there?
(bear in mind that in the case of severe arcing (as opposed to overheating/overload issues)would YOU ask someone to go near it to switch something off (that might be after the fault so won't stop it)(or for these rare cases should we allow customers to go into substations to disconnect the street?)
Who should it belong to?
If it is faulty on the feed side what is to stop any electrician/customer doing what happens now - remove the main fuse to repair it?
Should they be retrofitted to all premises, who should pay?
(and don't tell me that they could be fitted on request for CU changes, the DNO will already visit to isolate for that, and as we see a lot of electricians do it their-selves so will they request this service?)
The introduction of another device will increase the number of connections!
Connections being the main source of problems at supply positions, why increase that risk? (I see fault logs from the NW of England on a daily basis, any problems like "smell of burning" or overheating are caused by faulty connections)
Believe me it is very very rare for a fault to develop at the supply position that operates the main fuse.
Overheating yes, overloading yes, short circuit faults very rarely!
In the case of overheating/overloading these are easily cured by reducing the load. Standard advice is to switch off the CU(s) until we attend by doing this the risk is removed and there are no further issues.
To be honest I am struggling to think of an emergency situation where an additional isolator would be of any use.
For overheating existing procedures already work.
For the very rare short circuit faults the main fuse can automatically disconnect
So what else is there?
(bear in mind that in the case of severe arcing (as opposed to overheating/overload issues)would YOU ask someone to go near it to switch something off (that might be after the fault so won't stop it)(or for these rare cases should we allow customers to go into substations to disconnect the street?)
Either, really. If one was seriously concerned about the possibility of faults within the meter, I guess that before the meter would be preferable. Also, given an appropriate design of the 'switch', this would presumably enable to training of meter fitters to be appreciably reduced, because they would not have to pull fuses or work live - they would only have to be trained to test for dead.
That would be for the industry to decide.
Nothing - but so what? As you say, that would be no differnt/worse from the current situation.
'As convenient', I would imagine - the most obvious being at the time of meter changes. As for 'who pays', ultimately the consumer pays for everything - it would be for the industry to decide how to administer that.
A common argument. There are so many connections in an installation already, that I am not convinced that an extra couple would significantly alter anything - particularly given that they are connections which can/should be made 'properly' (e.g. with torque screwdrivers).
Smoke or flames coming out of CU, perhaps? I wouldn't want to touch its main switch (or equivalent), particularly without PPE, would you?
Kind Regards, John.
Without PPE I would not wish, nor would I suggest anyone should be near the area at all even with PPE it would not be a good thing to do. So operating another switch that might not be rated to disconnect fault current would be a bad idea, as would withdrawing the main fuse in the same area.
That comes under the heading of get out & call the fire service!
But back a bit, so only one situation where such a switch could be useful but would possibly be dangerous to operate.
In reality do you not think that such suggestions and ideas are constantly being looked at by the industry and regulators? The amount of industry co-operation is huge, we are not competitors so don't live in isolation from each other.
That's why I have been talking of 'switch', not isolator. Provided it was adequately rated, I'd be happy to operate it, without PPE, unless it was physically very close to the actual problem (CU or whatever).
I'm sure that's right - although there are obviously all sort of considerations (e.g.commercial) in addition to those we're discussing. Nor do I expect what we're discussing here to happen - at least, not in my lifetime. There are therefore going to continue to be a lot of installations with no means of interuption prior to CUs/DBs, which takes us back to the point we were actually discussing before this little tangent arose - namely who should be trained and allowed to pull the service fuses.
Kind Regards, John.
K
kai
The UK system is very badly designed, in other countries, they have street cabinets containing the main fuses and individual, correctly fused service feeds to every house, this way the main fuse is out of reach of the householder, and a main switch is made available where the service line enters the house, adjacent the meter, before the consumer unit itself.
I can see no reason whatsoever why the DNO should supply an isolator other than at the consumer's cost.
In principle, the consumer chose to have a cheap installation, by integrating an isolator in his distribution board, forming a consumer unit. Having opted for the cheap gear, it's an affront to expect the DNO to add extras. It's an affront to consumers who paid the extra for a better installation that includes an isolator if DNOs are to increase their charges to cover free isolators.
In principle, the consumer chose to have a cheap installation, by integrating an isolator in his distribution board, forming a consumer unit. Having opted for the cheap gear, it's an affront to expect the DNO to add extras. It's an affront to consumers who paid the extra for a better installation that includes an isolator if DNOs are to increase their charges to cover free isolators.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
