Cu - amendment 3

I don't think i'll be bothering with c/u changes after the end of the year, just not worth the bother by the looks of things.

 

If this **** carries on it will be time sign on and have no worries whatsoever ...... No regs, no tax, weekly income, pension..... Why why why do we bother.

 

It'll turn a £400 CU change into more like good value for the customer...

 

Go on rated people some idiot will do it for £200

 

this metal CU thing... is it the metal ones as we know it (and been on sale for ages), or is their some new fandangled spec?

 

That's an interesting question, Fats. There has been much debate on this AMD3 CU change on other forums, including the IET. A recent Wiring Matters article has tried to clarify the uncertain nature of the requirements and summed it up quite well. In essence there are two options. One is to use an AMD3 CU marketed as such by the manufacturer; the other is to enclose the CU within a cabinet constructed from non-combustible material. Non-combustible material is not specifically defined, apparently, so examples have been given such as non-ferrous metal. Non-ferrous metal has been adopted by the manufacturers as being compliant. However, there are also plastic CUs on the market that claim to meet non-combustible requirements so the debate goes on. Some of the existing metal-clad CUs may already meet the AMD3 requirements but it appears that the AMD3 is a new marketing point for the CU makers and they will promote it for all they can get out of it.

One aspect of the changes that I originally thought wasn't necessary is to make the cable entry points similarly fire-resistant. Wiring Matters claims the need to ensure that cable entry points will assist with the retention of fire within the cabinet is 'inferred' by the new Regulation whilst it is not actually stated as being required. How we are supposed to deal with cable entry points is not yet clear.

All the focus of attention is on the CU itself at the moment whereas the alternative solution of putting a non-AMD3 CU inside a non-combustible cabinet is largely being ignored. Quite why this is the case I don't know. On the face of it, using the alternative measure to put the CU inside a non-combustible box may well be the easiest option because all the intricacies of dealing with cable entry points disappears. But the nature of society being what it is the responsibility of making a non-combustible cabinet is less of a clear-cut case and the responsibility for providing one is not quite as appealing.

 

See here http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring...-units/index.cfm&utm_contact=1100111085<br />

 

Interesting cheers.

 

I don't know why (amongst other things) they're mentioning "non-ferrous", are they thinking the cases are going to be made of aluminium, brass, copper etc.?

 

In a nutshell does this all mean that after a certain date you can only fit metallic db's? in a dom situation?

I mean all TP db's are metal, as are dis cabs and stuff (there maybe some plastic but I have not seen any) so this new reg will bring things in line with commercial db installations?

 

I suppose so JP unless the manufacturer declares that it's made of a "non combustible material", or the other option seems to be that we can enclose it in a box made of non combustible material. I think my way will just be not to bother with c/u changes!

 

Thanks Sen. Must admit I find the whole thing incredulous - I always thought CU's were manufactured out of a self extinguishing plastic. Myself I have never seen a stressed cu due to terminal screws not being tightened correctly, but I have seen pictures of the cu's with melting around the vicinity of loose screws etc. It just undergoes a deformation process - you know it buckles and turns black etc but the whole lot doesn't just go up in a puff of smoke with molten bols of flaming plastic dropping of off it.

Don't know what to think tbqh - I've never heard of cu's catching light proper..is this just another reg being dreamt up by the pork eaters sitting round the round table drinking vino with greasy lips?

 

More work more cost and people won't want to pay it, so the obvious happens more graft for less pay.

 

Bet the dno's won't go back to metal clad cut outs, they're still trying to rip them out so loads of domestic properties will still be death traps according to the IET!

 

There is an error in the above from my oroginal post and the edit function is not available for some odd reason. It is ferrous metal, ie steel, not non-ferrous.

 

They say the majority of house fires start within the consumer unit due to loose connections
Should they not be trying to stop the DIY brigade who are most likely to leave loose connections in consumer units rather than making our job impossible ?

 

Thanks for the links UP, will take a read. As already said, if investigations have found consumer unit fires are due to bad connections, why not concentrate on sorting that out?

Personally, i can see the only option is going to be a manufacturer spec'd board as a lot of them in houses are in confined spaces or above the front door and making something suitable around them wouldn't really be an option/cost effective. I wonder when we will start seeing the latest spec boards on sale?

 

just wait till Joe public hear about the proposed new changes, they will be insisting on the new consumer units NOW not next year