inaccessible Junction Boxes

[Simon35]

Hi All,

My understanding is that the regs require that joints in inaccessible locations (which presumably includes ceiling voids?) should be crimped, and specifically, not made using screw-down terminals.

This seems (to me) to imply that a traditional "junction box" system for wiring lighting circuits (as opposed to "loop-in") is forbidden. Is this right? It seems surprising, especially as places like this forum still talk about junction-box systems. Presumably it also means spurs from ring mains in ceiling voids can't be formed using junction boxes?

This theoretical issue leads on to a practical one for me - as part of joining two rooms I've removed the ceiling and had a steel installed. This has revealed an extensive lighting junction-box system and a ring main with various spurs (and which I've had to cut to get the steel in). Do I need to replace that whole lot?

Thanks a lot,
Adam

Nope. The regs aren't retrospective, and certainly not in this instance.

Your new work, where you have cut cables, does need to be compliant.

 

[JohnW2]

No, they still don't. And after so many years I do not think it would be unreasonable to decide that they never will.

I have to take your word for that. It is years since I bought a couple (to examine, not use). However, I'm not surprised. As you said all those years ago, I can't see how the 'MF' marking could be put on either Wagoboxes (which are sold 'empty') or any Wago connectors (which are sold without an enclosure), and the same probably goes for 'BS5733' markings.

And the maker (which is not Wago, BTW) still make vague (and IMO false) claims about achieving BS 5733 'compliance' by using specific connectors (i.e. not all of the Wago range, and none of the new 221s), which have to be de-rated, and then securing the lid with a cable tie.

Indeed. As you say, they continue to make those claims, so they presumably must believe them to be true, not false. The fact of the 'de-rating' seems to indicate that they have given thought to the matter (and probably undertaken appropriate tests), rather than just pulled a wild claim out of the air. The cable tie is slightly odd - since the box would otherwise be openable without use of a tool, I would have thought that the cable tie would be more important when the box was 'accessible' than when it was non-accessible

Wago connectors are, I'm sure, excellent little things, but allowable as MF connections in inaccessible locations they are not.

Maybe, maybe not. As above, Wago appear to continue to believe that, when used as they describe, certain Wagos in a Wagobox can be 'MF'. I'm not sure who could be the referee in relation to this.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

And the maker (which is not Wago, BTW) still make vague (and IMO false) claims about achieving BS 5733 'compliance' by using specific connectors (i.e. not all of the Wago range, and none of the new 221s), which have to be de-rated, and then securing the lid with a cable tie.

There's another seemingly rather odd thing about this (which may be due to BS 5733). How Wagos in an enclosure (any enclosure) behave and perform whenn carrying current is presumably not going to be affected, per se, by whether or not the enclosure is 'accessible' - afterall, it could, for example, be in at least as 'constricted' (or thermally insulated) a space, yet 'accessible' , as it could be when inaccessible.

Hence, logic seems to say that if Wago feel (rightly or wrongly) that de-rating of their connectors, and imposition of a maximum 'aggregate' current carried by all connectors within a Wagobox, is necessary for the assembly to be 'MF' (i.e. 'safe' when inaccessible), should they not be imposing the same restrictions/requirements for all use of Wagos in enclosures?

As above, I suppose that they might have had to do this because of BS5733, rather than because they feel that it is necessary for safety - stillp??

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No referee is needed. No matter how strongly they believe that it complies with the requirements of BS 5733, it simply is not so certified. It does not bear the marks. Therefore it cannot be used as a MF system in the context of BS 7671.

As for their claims - they should be read very closely. http://secure.wago.ltd.uk/shop/images/files/WAGOBOX Instruction Leaflet.pdf

In situations where you need to install a WAGOBOX in an inaccessible location the following instructions must be followed.
This ensures the completed accessory complies with the requirements of BS 5733 for a maintenance free accessory. Only the 773 and 222 Series connectors are permitted for use with a WAGOBOX in maintenance free locations.​

That is not actually a claim of certified conformance with BS 5733, nor a claim of compliance with BS 7671 wrt MF accessories.

As an aside - I hope people who use Wago connectors do not do so in inaccessible locations (or, if they do, they do not then claim compliance with BS 7671), because they are not Maintenance Free in the context of 526.3 (vi).

I think the situation continues to be unclear.

How unclear is it that Wagoboxes do not have a BS 5733 certification, and do not carry the MF symbol?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suppose that they might have had to do this because of BS5733, rather than because they feel that it is necessary for safety - stillp??

The conclusion I draw from what they say in that PDF is that it is BS 5733 which imposes those limits, nothing to do with any testing which they have done.

 

[JohnW2]

No referee is needed. No matter how strongly they believe that it complies with the requirements of BS 5733, it simply is not so certified. It does not bear the marks. .... How unclear is it that Wagoboxes do not have a BS 5733 certification, and do not carry the MF symbol?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "BS 5733 certified". A product can be designed, manufactured and tested in accordance with the requirements of a Standard, whether it bears any marking to that effect or not.

The main problem would seem to be the requirement for an 'MF' mark (and maybe also 'BS 5733 markings') - since, as has been said, given that Wagoboxes and Wago connectors are sold separately, there is no way that either could bear an 'MF' marking.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Did I miss a flight of the navigator moment there? Ban all sheds did a double post with a 5 year delay...

 

[JohnW2]

The conclusion I draw from what they say in that PDF is that it is BS 5733 which imposes those limits, nothing to do with any testing which they have done.

One can speculate about that (which is, indeed, what I suggested), but I'm not so sure about 'conclude' - that's why I asked whether stillp might perhaps be able to tell us what BS 5733 says/requires.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "BS 5733 certified". A product can be designed, manufactured and tested in accordance with the requirements of a Standard, whether it bears any marking to that effect or not.

I guess another Q for stillp, if he reads this topic, is

"May a maker claim that his product complies with a BS if it has not been tested by an authorised test house? May he make the claim purely on the basis that his own testing leads him to believe it complies?"

Anyway - I have emailed the manufacturer of the box:

I have a few simple questions regarding this product.

1. Is it actually certified as conformant with BS 5733?
2. Does it bear an MF mark?
3. Does it comply with the requirements in BS 7671 526.3 (vi)?

If the answer to any of these is 'no', can you tell me if you have any idea when that will be resolved?​

I will report back when they reply.

 

[JohnW2]

Did I miss a flight of the navigator moment there? Ban all sheds did a double post with a 5 year delay...

I don't think it's unreasonable that he should resurrect the old thread, since we went through all this 5 years ago and we really don't want/need to go through it all again.

What I didn't want is to have two parallel threads dealing with the same aspect of the discussion - which is why I 'directed' people from the recent one to this old one (in relation to this one aspect of Wagos).

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

Ah right, didn't see the new thread!

 

[JohnW2]

I guess another Q for stillp, if he reads this topic, is ... "May a maker claim that his product complies with a BS if it has not been tested by an authorised test house? May he make the claim purely on the basis that his own testing leads him to believe it complies?"

Indeed. For what it's worth, the sort of process you describe (presumably in the belief that it would not be acceptable) is, to the best of my knowledge, essentially the way that 'CE marking' works.

Anyway - I have emailed the manufacturer of the box: ... I have a few simple questions regarding this product.
(1) Is it actually certified as conformant with BS 5733?
(2) Does it bear an MF mark?
(3)Does it comply with the requirements in BS 7671 526.3 (vi)? ....

Thanks, but are not the answers 'inevitable'? ... as discussed, I don't think that an enclosure alone can conform with BS 5733 or bear a 'MF' mark, because of it's nature - so, if the answers to (1) and (2) are 'no', the (3) also has to be 'no', since BS7671 requires an 'MF' mark.

... If the answer to any of these is 'no', can you tell me if you have any idea when that will be resolved?

As above, if what I've said about (1) and (2) above is correct then it will always, by definition, be impossible for an enclosure alone to conform with BS 5733 or bear an 'MF' mark - so the issue probably can never be 'resolved' by the manufacturers of enclosures. It might have to be for BS7671 to revise its requirements.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Ah right, didn't see the new thread!

You didn't see my thread about Wago 221s? Shame on you

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Would having a 221 (for an additional conductor) in a J804 render the whole no longer MF?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Thanks, but are not the answers 'inevitable'?

I suspect they are, but they would then be "official".

It might have to be for BS7671 to revise its requirements.

Or it might not. Genuinely, fully, certified compliant MF junction boxes are available.

And (with the disclaimer that IHNI what BS 5733 requires that they cannot possibly do) I see no reason why Spelsberg could not seek certification for their Abox SL products ( http://secure.wago.ltd.uk/shop/department/enclosures/ ) as they are supplied as a complete kit. Maybe too small a market if it's only the UK that has this requirement. Particularly at those prices

Does anybody know if 526.3 (vi) has been transplanted from a CENELEC requirement? It's neither a '100' nor a '200', so no clue there...