EICR - please advise

[securespark]

That's interesting - I wonder why.

I can only guess that maybe the train of thought was that the load on a first floor ring final does not require the "full" 32A, like a ground floor circuit might. Bearing in mind that in the 80's most houses had just one ring final for the GF, including the kitchen, so the loading was potentially quite big.

It was not uncommon to find just a Wylex 404 or even smaller in a two-up two-down (and even some bigger houses!) wired in the 60's/ 70's/ 80's. 1 lighting, 1 socket, with additionally maybe 1 immersion and 1 cooker circuits.

 

[JohnW2]

I can only guess that maybe the train of thought was that the load on a first floor ring final does not require the "full" 32A, like a ground floor circuit might.

Whilst that's obviously true, it wouldn't be a particularly good reason for having an OPD rated lower 'than it could be' (in terms of cable etc.). I suppose one might regard it as an extension of my personal enthusiasm for "using the smallest (BS1362) fuse that is big enough for the load", but I don't think that even I have ever applied that principle to a final circuit!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes! I started working on electrics in 1983 and there were many around.

Fair enough, but "being around" is not quite what I was asking about (I'm sure that there will be some still in service in 2018, even though I haven't seen them). What I asked was whether they were being installed during re-wires (presumably with new CUs) in the 80's, when the OP's house was rewired. Was that happening?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

AFAIR, BS EN 60898 is dated 1991, but BS 3871 and its type 1/ 2/ 3/ 4 breakers survived until the mid-nineties and may have been installed for a few years after.

My dim and distant memory remembers a cross-over breaker between the two standards which was a BS 3871 type B/ C/ D.

 

[securespark]

Having looked at some of my old electrical books, it would appear that of these cross-over breakers, only Type B were manufactured.

Edited for clarity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Either way, it's not non-compliant

In what way?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I stated earlier, it is possible that they are 15A but more likely that they are 16A. (Which could still be read as "ISA" if the curve is missing from the bottom left of the "6" - whether a printer ink issue or pen ink issue.)

Wrong.

It is far, far, more likely that a carelessly written 5 will look like an S than a carelessly written 6.

 

[jg321]

It was not uncommon to find just a Wylex 404 or even smaller in a two-up two-down (and even some bigger houses!) wired in the 60's/ 70's/ 80's. 1 lighting, 1 socket, with additionally maybe 1 immersion and 1 cooker circuits.

My Mum's house (built early 80s) is a 3 bed semi and came with a 3 way Wylex wooden backed standard board with rewirable fuses. 5A lights, 30A single ring for up and downstairs, and 30A cooker. The immersion was a fused spur off the ring. It was upgraded to a 6 way one, which is what remains in there now actually, when an electric shower was fitted in the mid 80s. It now has circuit breakers, mainly as there was an opportunity to get them cheaply at the time, and also because we were sick of rewiring the 5A one every time a bulb/lamp blew. The fuse usually ruptured the day after the lamp blew, usually when switching on another light.

 

[JohnW2]

.... and also because we were sick of rewiring the 5A one every time a bulb/lamp blew. The fuse usually ruptured the day after the lamp blew, usually when switching on another light.

That's interesting - experiuences clearly vary.

In the days when I had incandescent bulbs (no argument about what they were called at that time!) and re-wireable fuses, I rarely, if ever, experienced 5A fuses blowing when a bulb dies. However, as soon as I had 6A MCBs it was a common phenomenon, and remained so until I phased out incandescents. It has only happened very occasionally with CFLs or LEDs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Either way, it's not non-compliant

In what way?

In any way.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please explain which regulation(s) you know it contravenes.

 

[Risteard]

Please explain which regulation(s) you know it contravenes.

He never suggested it contravened any - in fact he emphatically stated that it does not.

 

[JohnW2]

He never suggested it contravened any - in fact he emphatically stated that it does not.

Quite so.

(since it's Friday!) ... those who are obsessed with "what the regs actually say" might note that what was "actually written" in 433.1.204. It says that accessories to BS1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit protected by a 30A or 32A OPD. It says nothing about lower-rated OPDs being acceptable

Of course, there are other bits of 433.1 which would enable one to design a perfectly compliant circuit of any configuration (including a ring, figure-of-8, lollipop, radial or whatever) using an OPD <30A, but that might not convince some of the Jobsworths!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's true but it is not a ring in the special dispensation sense of 433.1.204, is it?

It is just a compliant radial with the far end also connected to the MCB.
This could be done for reasons of VD, Z s, etc.

 

[JohnW2]

That's true but it is not a ring in the special dispensation sense of 433.1.204, is it?

Nope - but those obsessed with "what it actually says" might point out that it says nothing about being "a special dispensation" (although we 'all' know that it is) - since it merely says that BS1363 accessories may be supplied through a ring circuit protected by a 30/32A OPD

It is just a compliant radial with the far end also connected to the MCB.

It obviously would not be compliant as a radial if it were wired in 2.5mm² cable with a 30/32A OPD - but, as you say, when the far end is connected back to the OPD, it becomes compliant by virtue of the "special dispensation".

If one wanted to get technical, I suppose one could observe that if all the socket outlets were sufficiently near the middle of the ring, it would be possible to show that, say, a 2.5mm²/32A ring would be compliant with 433.1 even without that "special dispensation".

Kind Regards, John