Install 5amp

karlitob

Hi all.

Appreciate if you could advise on the following:
- can it be done
- if so, what cost for a registered electrician to do

I have a single light switch in the hall which works the ceiling lights. I want to put a 5amp socket a couple of feet under that particular light switch (as it is by a console table that I want to put a lamp on). And I want to add a second light switch so that I can work the lights separately.


Thanks all. Appreciate your advice.

meercat

karlitob wrote: »

Hi all.

Appreciate if you could advise on the following:
- can it be done
- if so, what cost for a registered electrician to do

I have a single light switch in the hall which works the ceiling lights. I want to put a 5amp socket a couple of feet under that particular light switch (as it is by a console table that I want to put a lamp on). And I want to add a second light switch so that I can work the lights separately.


Thanks all. Appreciate your advice.

Hard to judge the costs
All 5amp sockets must be rcd protected (meaning,it will probably have to be wired to the distribution board)so it’s a bigger job than you anticipate.

karlitob

meercat wrote: »

Hard to judge the costs
All 5amp sockets must be rcd protected (meaning,it will probably have to be wired to the distribution board)so it’s a bigger job than you anticipate.

Good to know that. Thank you.

Am I right in saying that it is possible to put in a socket from a lift switch?

2011

It would be impossible to predict the cost of this due to the lack of information provided.

karlitob

2011 wrote: »

It would be impossible to predict the cost of this due to the lack of information provided.

What info is required to help? Thanks

meercat

karlitob wrote: »

What info is required to help? Thanks

Distance from fuseboard and route for cables and access. Surface or flush.
Site visit would be preferable.

2011

.....and what the walls in question are made of, ie is chasing required. If floorboards have to be lifted.

karlitob

meercat wrote: »

Distance from fuseboard and route for cables and access. Surface or flush.
Site visit would be preferable.

Flush. Chasing will be required.

I want the socket 2 feet directly under the light switch. Both are in the same place.

Distance from fuse board is 3 metres. What effect does that have? I wondered if it’s possible to install a socket from the light switch. I know this means that that particular socket would be linked to the trip switch of those lights.

EdgeCase

It's sometimes not very simple as lighting circuits aren't normally RCD protects but sockets must be.

An RCD must be across the live and neutral of the circuit it's protecting, but in a lot of cases in older wiring there could be quite a difficulty in figuring out the neutrals for individual lights. So you might have to protect the entire group of lights with an RCBO. Even then you'd have issues sometimes.

You can get RCD spurs they are fitted like a switched spur but I don't see them used much here and they're not too pretty looking either.

Cerco

Have you considered a switched spur off an existing socket circuit? You could fit a socket and a 13A plug fitted with a 5A fuse.

karlitob

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's sometimes not very simple as lighting circuits aren't normally RCD protects but sockets must be.

An RCD must be across the live and neutral of the circuit it's protecting, but in a lot of cases in older wiring there could be quite a difficulty in figuring out the neutrals for individual lights. So you might have to protect the entire group of lights with an RCBO. Even then you'd have issues sometimes.

You can get RCD spurs they are fitted like a switched spur but I don't see them used much here and they're not too pretty looking either.

We have only rewired the whole house 5 years ago. Would that make a difference?

karlitob

Cerco wrote: »

Have you considered a switched spur off an existing socket circuit? You could fit a socket and a 13A plug fitted with a 5A fuse.

I don’t have a socket near. Well I kinda do - it’s at the other side of the door so would to chase all around the door.

How would I get another light switch to work the 5amp only?

meercat

karlitob wrote: »

We have only rewired the whole house 5 years ago. Would that make a difference?

Depending on the circuit,it’s possible to add an rcd. It also depends if there’s a neutral at the switch.

Again a site visit would confirm

karlitob

meercat wrote: »

Depending on the circuit,it’s possible to add an rcd. It also depends if there’s a neutral at the switch.

Again a site visit would confirm

Thanks everyone. Appreciate your advice.

Cerco

karlitob wrote: »

I don’t have a socket near. Well I kinda do - it’s at the other side of the door so would to chase all around the door.
P
How would I get another light switch to work the 5amp only?

You would have a switch on the spur unit and if desired you could install a switched socket. This would give you two switch options.
As others have said, a site visit by an electrician would give you a definitive solution.

heffo500

To add RCD protection would an electrician have replace the MCB with an RCBO, Would this be correct?


Like this:

https://www.eurosales.ie/products/id-23755.html?name=hager+rcbo&type=simple&page=2

EdgeCase

heffo500 wrote: »

To add RCD protection would an electrician have replace the MCB with an RCBO, Would this be correct?


Like this:

https://www.eurosales.ie/products/id-23755.html?name=hager+rcbo&type=simple&page=2

That's one way of doing it, but it assumes that the neutrals are easy to identify. An MCB is only detecting current overloads on a single wire. Much like a fuse, it just sits on the live.

An RCD or RCBO needs to compare the flow on live and neutral.

In lighting wiring where no RCD connections were planned, the neutral wiring can be common and confusing.

You'd have to start by identify the live and neutral and ensuring that there wasn't any weird connections to any other neutrals.

In a lot of older houses, it would be easier to just run a clean circuit from an RCD.

I'm of the option that exemption on RCD coverage for lighting doesn't make sense anymore. I never really bought the arguments made for it. You just need multiple RCBOs and neutrals to be distinct for each circuit.

In my house we put the oven and induction hob on RCBOs too as that's what the manufacturer specified. Works absolutely perfectly. There's no nuisance tripping.

I find it particularly weird that light fittings are exempt as they are the one thing that has exposed live parts in bulb holders and it's not unheard of for someone to end up touching them.

Although if you manage to touch both terminals across your finger in a light socket the RCD won't trip as you've just completed the circuit across your finger and could end up with a nasty burn.

The open terminals in bulb holders seem to be the blind spot that we never addressed in safety rules despite being extremely strict with every other wiring accessory.

I mean if you take a lamp. You've this very safe design of plug and socket on one end connected to what amounts to a socket with two bare springy pins or a live pin in the end of a screw cap.

I can't think of any other context where that would be acceptable in an appliance or fitting.

heffo500

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's one way of doing it, but it assumes that the neutrals are easy to identify. An MCB is only detecting current overloads on a single wire. Much like a fuse, it just sits on the live.

An RCD or RCBO needs to compare the flow on live and neutral.

In lighting wiring where no RCD connections were planned, the neutral wiring can be common and confusing.

You'd have to start by identify the live and neutral and ensuring that there wasn't any weird connections to any other neutrals.

In a lot of older houses, it would be easier to just run a clean circuit from an RCD.

I'm of the option that exemption on RCD coverage for lighting doesn't make sense anymore. I never really bought the arguments made for it. You just need multiple RCBOs and neutrals to be distinct for each circuit.

In my house we put the oven and induction hob on RCBOs too as that's what the manufacturer specified. Works absolutely perfectly. There's no nuisance tripping.

I find it particularly weird that light fittings are exempt as they are the one thing that has exposed live parts in bulb holders and it's not unheard of for someone to end up touching them.

Although if you manage to touch both terminals across your finger in a light socket the RCD won't trip as you've just completed the circuit across your finger and could end up with a nasty burn.

The open terminals in bulb holders seem to be the blind spot that we never addressed in safety rules despite being extremely strict with every other wiring accessory.

I mean if you take a lamp. You've this very safe design of plug and socket on one end connected to what amounts to a socket with two bare springy pins or a live pin in the end of a screw cap.

I can't think of any other context where that would be acceptable in an appliance or fitting.

Thanks for that informative response.

Risteard81

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm of the option that exemption on RCD coverage for lighting doesn't make sense anymore. I never really bought the arguments made for it.

The Draft for Public Enquiry of the Fifth Edition is proposing a rule requiring 30mA RCD protection for circuits supplying luminaires. (I had suggested recently that this was a likely rule change, and indeed has been implemented in the new 18th Edition in the north.) Presumably this comes from IEC harmonised documents (or possibly CENELEC, but I believe IEC).

Every circuit in my house is RCD protected. I have RCBOs on the lighting circuits and a couple of RCCBs for the rest. Indeed since 2008 it has been the norm to install RCD protection on all domestic circuits in the north.

The reality is that generally this doesn't lead to nuisance tripping. Certainly I have had no instances of nuisance tripping.

EdgeCase

There were a possible issues with old mineral insulated cooker elements but I'd say a lot of it could just be just very slow change.

For example, you used to hear a lot of stuff about how fridges shouldn't be RCD protected due to nuisance tripping. It's an argument that used to be made in the UK quite a lot.

I've lived with frridges that have been on RCD protection for my entire life and it's a total non issue.

It's good to see sense prevailing on this stuff.

Arc fault detection is the next big safety move. It's definitely something that should be considered in the context of wooden frame buildings. I think it's been higher priority in North America due to their preferences for timber construction vs brick and concrete in European. However, a lot of Irish build is using much more wooden frame, especially some of the very high energy rating stuff where you might also have much more use of foams and so on too.

heffo500

EdgeCase wrote: »

There were a possible issues with old mineral insulated cooker elements but I'd say a lot of it could just be just very slow change.

For example, you used to hear a lot of stuff about how fridges shouldn't be RCD protected due to nuisance tripping. It's an argument that used to be made in the UK quite a lot.

I've lived with frridges that have been on RCD protection for my entire life and it's a total non issue.

It's good to see sense prevailing on this stuff.

Arc fault detection is the next big safety move. It's definitely something that should be considered in the context of wooden frame buildings. I think it's been higher priority in North America due to their preferences for timber construction vs brick and concrete in European. However, a lot of Irish build is using much more wooden frame, especially some of the very high energy rating stuff where you might also have much more use of foams and so on too.

In relation to the Arc Fault Detection, its seems to be a new recommendation in the UK but not a requirement. The devices on offer currently seem very expensive so hopefully they come down in time. Do you think Irish Regs will follow the same as below?


On a side note is there many differences between UK Regs and Irish Regs? , Am I correct in saying they have to use metal clad consumer units with the two RCDs and the load so split across both so if one RCD goes you only lose half your lights as opposed to them all and so on?

The IET Wiring Regulations, BS 7671:
2018 regulation 421.1.7 and 532.6 state
the following:
421.1.7 Arc fault detection devices
conforming to BS EN 62606 are
recommended as a means of providing
additional protection against fire
caused by arc faults in AC final circuits.
If used, an AFDD shall be placed at the
origin of the circuit to be protected.
NoTE: Examples of where such devices
can be used include:
• premises with sleeping
accommodation
• locations with a risk of fire
due to the nature of
processed or stored materials,
i.e. BE2 locations (e.g. barns,
woodworking shops, stores of
combustible materials)
• locations with combustible
constructional materials, i.e.
CA2 locations (e.g. wooden
buildings)
• fire propagating structures,
i.e. CB2 locations
• locations with endangering of
irreplaceable goods.

Risteard81

EdgeCase wrote: »

Arc fault detection is the next big safety move.

Absolutely. I also suggested that AFDDs (Arc Fault Detection Devices) may well appear in the 5th Edition - again their use is indeed recommended in the Draft for Public Enquiry. SPDs (Surge Protective Devices) will probably also become more commonplace. Of course as the 5th Edition Wiring Rules (I.S. 10101) is only currently in draft form we cannot take for granted what the final text will include.

Risteard81

heffo500 wrote: »

On a side note is there many differences between UK Regs and Irish Regs?

Absolutely - they are quite different in very many ways although there are of course similarities due to derivation from harmonised documents (HDs) etc. There are however special national conditions (SNCs).

Also the materials used differ significantly in certain ways, and custom and practise also varies even where the IEE Wiring Regs and the ETCI Wiring Rules do not differ.

You will see plenty of evidence of incorrectly selected and erected materials in the border area where a contractor from one side of the border did work on the other side without being familiar with the Rules/Regs and practices in both. In some instances this leads to dangerous butchering of the electrical installation in order to make incorrect parts fit.

You are correct that non-combustible DBs, or DBs located within a non-combustible cabinet must be used within a domestic setting for compliance with BS7671. This is another proposed Rule change for the Fifth Edition interestingly.

As for the two or more RCDs - the actual Regulation in BS7671 is to minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault and consider the effects of the operation of a single protective device - it doesn't explicitly state that multiple RCDs are always necessary although it is a common interpretation of this requirement.

heffo500

Risteard81 wrote: »

Absolutely - they are quite different in very many ways although there are of course similarities due to derivation from harmonised documents (HDs) etc. There are however special national conditions (SNCs).

Also the materials used differ significantly in certain ways, and custom and practise also varies even where the IEE Wiring Regs and the ETCI Wiring Rules do not differ.

You will see plenty of evidence of incorrectly selected and erected materials in the border area where a contractor from one side of the border did work on the other side without being familiar with the Rules/Regs and practices in both. In some instances this leads to dangerous butchering of the electrical installation in order to make incorrect parts fit.

Why would you say are up to date or safest? Or are they on a par.

Risteard81

heffo500 wrote: »

Why would you say are up to date or safest? Or are they on a par.

They will both result in extremely safe installations if followed in their entirety. Mixing and matching between different Standards (a pick-and-mix if you will) will not necessarily maintain the safety of any standard, however.

The 18th Edition IET/IEE Wiring Regulations (BS 7671:2018) was published in July 2018 and implemented on 1st January 2019 (yes - a week ago).

The 4th Edition ETCI National Rules for Electrical Installations (ET 101:2008) has been around since 2008 so in that sense could be said to be less up-to-date. The 5th Edition is due to be published later this year (by the NSAI as I.S. 10101), so it could be argued that it will be more up-to-date.

That would be an overly simplistic way of looking at it though.

EdgeCase

Pretty much all European wiring regulations are very safe if you're using the current versions of them and following one system fully.

I've seen a lot of crazy where people have followed bits of UK regulations in combination with French regulations for example and there are very significant differences between the two but both are very safe.

The same applies in Ireland. If you're in the Republic, follow the Irish Standards.

You can go above and beyond the basic requirements of the Irish standards though. For example, you can use supplementary RCDs / RCBOs. The standard only specifies the minimum. You can also select high quality materials, fittings, ensure that wiring is routed extremely well and so on.

Any standard is simply a system and a minimum requirement. You can get installations that barely technically comply with a standard and ones that far exceed the minimum and are well designed and will be genuinely safer.

In my view, most dangerous situations that you will encounter in Ireland, the UK, the US or continental Europe are down to very old installations from bygone eras of weaker regulation and badly carried out DIY work.

Also, modern codes are coming from common regulations from the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) at international level and at European level from CENELEC (Comité Européen de Normalisation Électrotechnique) and CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) for non-electrical aspects e.g. construction products and so on. So, increasingly they're a lot more harmonised and you're starting to find the best of best practices from different codes in many countries being adopted internationally.

European codes in general are becoming a lot more similar, with the differences largely being visible superficial stuff (different shaped boxes, mounts, plugs/sockets and so on). Then broader principles are harmonising quite rapidly.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

You will see plenty of evidence of incorrectly selected and erected materials in the border area where a contractor from one side of the border did work on the other side without being familiar with the Rules/Regs and practices in both. In some instances this leads to dangerous butchering of the electrical installation in order to make incorrect parts fit.

Sounds very odd.
Can you give any examples of this leading to a dangerous situation?

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

Sounds very odd.
Can you give any examples of this leading to a dangerous situation?

Yes. A Hager single phase distribution board in the north with double pole, double module RCBOs fitted when these are designed for single pole, single module devices on the phase busbar. The hole busbar was butchered with large areas of exposed live parts and a mix and match of different manufacturers equipment. (For those unaware, there is a UK-only derogation from BS EN 61439-3 and BS EN 60439-3 before that allowing a conditional rating of 16kA to the assembly where certain conditions are met - mixing manufacturers equipment ends this and also negates all type-testing of the assembly.) The more significant problem is the butchering of the busbar etc, and the poor connections throughout as a result creating a genuine fire hazard. The main switch also no longer isolated the DB but only a section of it. This was discovered in South Armagh and had clearly been done by a contractor from Monaghan with parts in their stock. The majority of the installation had to be rewired due to all sorts of connections throughout the wiring with flex stripped back, cpcs cut out, sheaths removed, junction boxes everywhere, ring final circuits butchered...

I'm not sure if I still have a photo to show of it.

I have also seen numerous instances of these types of things in Derry City with contractors from Donegal. I have also seen plenty of cases of things like this done in Donegal with contractors clearly from Derry and Tyrone. Commonly this results in no overcurrent protection to the installation between the ESB fuse and the protective devices for final circuits. (This isn't so much dangerous as prohibited by the DSO and the Wiring Rules.)

If you look along the border (on both sides of it) you shouldn't have to look too long or hard to find these sorts of problems.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

Yes. A Hager single phase distribution board in the north with double pole, double module RCBOs fitted when these are designed for single pole, single module devices on the phase busbar.

So you mean that a twin busbar should have been used that would accommodate the 2 mod RCBOs supplying each with a solid phase and neutral connection? Hopefully I have interpreted your post correctly.

The hole busbar was butchered with large areas of exposed live parts and a mix and match of different manufacturers equipment.

What you have described is unacceptable, I agree. However I would not see this as a result of slightly different regulations.

The majority of the installation had to be rewired due to all sorts of connections throughout the wiring with flex stripped back, cpcs cut out, sheaths removed, junction boxes everywhere, ring final circuits butchered...

I also agree that what you are describing here is not acceptable, but again it would not be permitted in either the UK or ROI. I have seen all of the above in the ROI a long way from the border.

Perhaps your point is that conflicting regulations just add to the confusion, exacerbating the problem?

The differences highlighted in this thread between the UK and here are only really seen in small domestic installations. Larger industrial installations are pretty much identical across both jurisdictions (and across the EU) as the local electrical regulations applied are surpassed by the documentation issued by a consultancy employed by the client.

2011

EdgeCase wrote: »

Pretty much all European wiring regulations are very safe if you're using the current versions of them and following one system fully.

I think it comes down to whether the local regulations are applied or not. In Italy they don't bother too much with earthing (in domestic installations) and just like France, the Netherlands and Spain they like to have socket outlets in bathrooms.

I worked in the Czech Republic on a project a few years ago and despite the fact that it was a very large plant with lots of 3 phase motors and multiple Atex areas they had no equipotential bonding. I don't think that this was due to different regulations, I think it was due to an uncontentious electrical contractor and the client not knowing any better. I had to deal with a situation like this in Ireland a few years ago too, but I insisted it was resolved in the end.

In the Czech Republic the only significant departure from what would be seen here is that they no neutral to the sub-distribution boards and MCCs, just 3 phases and an earth in a 4 core armoured cable. To get a neutral for final circuits they would neutralise at every sub-distribution board or MCC. It could be argued that it saved on cabling, but it also meant that under normal conditions there was a current flowing in the earth conductor between the sub-boards and the main board (the neutral current). Something I would not be a fan of when there are so many Atex areas and poor equipotential bonding.

You can go above and beyond the basic requirements of the Irish standards though. For example, you can use supplementary RCDs / RCBOs. The standard only specifies the minimum. You can also select high quality materials, fittings, ensure that wiring is routed extremely well and so on.

Agreed.
In industrial installations we would not permit an RCD to supply multiple circuits.

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

So you mean that a twin busbar should have been used that would accommodate the 2 mod RCBOs supplying each with a solid phase and neutral connection? Hopefully I have interpreted your post correctly.

That would have been one solution, although the norm with northern equipment would have been single pole, single module equipment with a busbar on the phase connection only. I was not suggesting that this was acceptable in the south - I was pointing out that it was a result of forcing southern equipment into a northern assembly without any regard for compatibility or suitability.

I have found older jobs in Donegal too where sockets have been added (say upstairs) and these have been fitted into a northern-style DB without RCD protection presumably from 16th Edition thinking of sockets which were not liable to supply portable equipment outdoors. The fact it was a flagrant breach of the Wiring Rules in the south appeared to have gone over the heads of the installers (presumably from the north).

As for industrial installations being practically identical I think you will find where it comes to distribution boards and switchgear they remain quite different. (Much of this is down to custom and practice rather than mandate, although not all of it. For example the fuse standards have been quite different between the two jurisdictions - that is not to suggest that either is better or that either is worse - simply that they are different.) As I have pointed out very many aspects are also harmonised between the two.

Emergency lighting installations also tend to be quite different. The use of CTUs in the north is not usual - key switches are typically used to test self-contained luminaires.

But ET101 and BS7671 are by no means identical.

Tuco88

In the Czech Republic the only significant departure from what would be seen here is that they no neutral to the sub-distribution boards and MCCs, just 3 phases and an earth in a 4 core armoured cable. To get a neutral for final circuits they would neutralise at every sub-distribution board or MCC.

I have seen something like it in Ireland before. But at each Sub-DB they had a transformer to get a star point for your neutral, it ment an awful lot of traffos of various sizes in each mcc. It must have been expensive to install. I could only think was it an effort to reduce harmonics?

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

I was not suggesting that this was acceptable in the south

I know. I was just making the point that when this occurs in the ROI it is not due to different regualtions, it is due to not caring or knowing any better.

- I was pointing out that it was a result of forcing southern equipment into a northern assembly without any regard for compatibility or suitability.

....or just not installing it properly? I mean that using the busbar I described would make it compliant in the UK. Double pole RCBOs are permitted in the UK when properly installed.

I have found older jobs in Donegal too where sockets have been added (say upstairs) and these have been fitted into a northern-style DB without RCD protection presumably from 16th Edition thinking of sockets which were not liable to supply portable equipment outdoors.

Again, not caring and / or not knowing any better. I have seen this in Dublin too.

As for industrial installations being practically identical I think you will find where it comes to distribution boards and switchgear they remain quite different.

Nope, and I have been part of a design team for a project in the UK (more on the I & C end). Last time many of the loads were motors on soft starters, VSDs ad a few small DOL's. Protective devices aligned with manufacturers recommendations (ABB in this case). There are not UK specific recommendations for fuses, MCCBs etc. We took the same approach as we did Ireland on a similar project. Short circuit protection for VSDs was provided by BS88 fuses with larger units using MCCBs. The main DB used the same range of ACBs on both projects. When I worked on a project in Spain it was the same again except that they used Schneider.

But ET101 and BS7671 are by no means identical.

Agreed.
As already stated ET101 and BS7671 outline minimum standards for each jurisdiction. A consultancy in Ireland (for example) will design industrial installations across the EU (inc. the UK) to the same standard and using a similar philosophy which surpasses the local regulations. This results in near identical standards and designs being implemented on plants regardless of the country.

EdgeCase

Actually, what it says to me is that in both jurisdictions, despite recent tightening of rules and laws, that there's still a much weaker inspection and regulatory regime for residential / small installations than would be the case in much of continental Europe and the United States.

We've a very laissez-faire, self-regulation history in both Ireland and the UK when it comes to trades and residential work. It's improving but it's nothing like the scenario in countries where things like periodic inspection is normal for decades.

heffo500

EdgeCase wrote: »

Actually, what it says to me is that in both jurisdictions, despite recent tightening of rules and laws, that there's still a much weaker inspection and regulatory regime for residential / small installations than would be the case in much of continental Europe and the United States.

We've a very laissez-faire, self-regulation history in both Ireland and the UK when it comes to trades and residential work. It's improving but it's nothing like the scenario in countries where things like periodic inspection is normal for decades.

Do you think we should implement a permit system like in Canada and the US and have heavy fines if not adhered to?