Options for adding attic sockets

Chet T16

Hi all,

I'm looking at adding some sockets into the attic space of our dormer bungalow to power stuff like the router, switch and one or two ip cameras - nothing high power.

Currently there is a radial circuit supplying all the upstairs sockets. Two double sockets in each of the two bedrooms and a double on the landing. These are connected back to a B20 mcb. These are likely to see use with a hoover or hairdryer but mostly lamps and a TV.

Being a dormer I have great access to the wiring and sockets so I feel I have plenty of options. Adding a spur, extending the radial circuit (in the middle) or converting to a ring and replacing the mcb with a B32. I will need to double check but I believe the existing radial circuit leaves the last socket as close to the cu as the first.

Given the 20A mcb I'm assuming 2.5mm wiring which possibly limits my extending the radial circuit?

My background is in electronic engineering so I have enough cop on and respect not to kill myself but I have no knowledge of the relevant regulations. I'm also not sure which of this is considered 'minor works'

I guess ideally I would want 4 extra double sockets, 2 in each attic space. So 9 double sockets. Am I aiming to high to use this existing circuit?

Any opinions?

punisher5112

Chet T16 wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm looking at adding some sockets into the attic space of our dormer bungalow to power stuff like the router, switch and one or two ip cameras - nothing high power.

Currently there is a radial circuit supplying all the upstairs sockets. Two double sockets in each of the two bedrooms and a double on the landing. These are connected back to a B20 mcb. These are likely to see use with a hoover or hairdryer but mostly lamps and a TV.

Being a dormer I have great access to the wiring and sockets so I feel I have plenty of options. Adding a spur, extending the radial circuit (in the middle) or converting to a ring and replacing the mcb with a B32. I will need to double check but I believe the existing radial circuit leaves the last socket as close to the cu as the first.

Given the 20A mcb I'm assuming 2.5mm wiring which possibly limits my extending the radial circuit?

My background is in electronic engineering so I have enough cop on and respect not to kill myself but I have no knowledge of the relevant regulations. I'm also not sure which of this is considered 'minor works'

I guess ideally I would want 4 extra double sockets, 2 in each attic space. So 9 double sockets. Am I aiming to high to use this existing circuit?

Any opinions?

a new circuit would be the way to go.

tomdempsey200

'clean line' if the DB is accessible(new circuit)


you need a REC for that



would that equipment not be better in the house itself?

Chet T16

punisher5112 wrote: »

a new circuit would be the way to go.

Yeah it was only when I came up with needing 9 sockets that this occurred to me!

Chet T16

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

'clean line' if the DB is accessible(new circuit)


you need a REC for that



would that equipment not be better in the house itself?

Access to the db from the attic space is very good.

Happy enough to get a REC in but equally happy to do it myself (if I was allowed)

There's nowhere for it in the house and I had no issues in the last place.

punisher5112

Nothing stopping you but it won't be certified.

It has gone very strict with all the regs

tomdempsey200

don't think a router should go in the attic myself

Chet T16

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

don't think a router should go in the attic myself

For what reason? It's well ventilated here compared to the last place and provides a centralised point for the wifi. That said the foil backed plasterboard my be an issue

2011

Chet T16 wrote: »

Currently there is a radial circuit supplying all the upstairs sockets. Two double sockets in each of the two bedrooms and a double on the landing.

A radial socket circuit should not supply any more than 2 rooms (landing would not count as a room), so I agree with the others, a separate circuit would be best.

Once installed properly I can't see any issue with installing a router into the attic.

As you say the additional loads are very small, so small in fact that feeding them from the lighting circuit may be an option. Obviously you would need to calculate the total additional load and look at the existing lighting load. This would mean that you would save the costs associated with an REC. If I were doing this I would feed one power supply unit that in turn can feed several cameras (assuming that they are not POE).

As you can see here wifi routers use very little power.

.G.

But adding a new circuit or changing an existing one is restricted works so you better get an REC before Pat Rabbitte arrives at your door with a summons:D

2011

superg wrote: »

But adding a new circuit or changing an existing one is restricted works

Have a look at page 4 of this document. I think that the modification to an existing circuit would fall outside the scope of Restricted electrical works: "Minor electrical work will remain outside the scope of Restricted Electrical Works". Essentially the OP may be adding two additional points to an existing circuit.

tomdempsey200

Chet T16 wrote: »

For what reason? It's well ventilated here compared to the last place and provides a centralised point for the wifi. That said the foil backed plasterboard my be an issue

it's not readily accessible or visible in the attic

Chet T16

2011 wrote: »

A radial socket circuit should not supply any more than 2 rooms (landing would not count as a room), so I agree with the others, a separate circuit would be best.

Once installed properly I can't see any issue with installing a router into the attic.

As you say the additional loads are very small, so small in fact that feeding them from the lighting circuit may be an option. Obviously you would need to calculate the total additional load and look at the existing lighting load. This would mean that you would save the costs associated with an REC. If I were doing this I would feed one power supply unit that in turn can feed several cameras (assuming that they are not POE).

As you can see here wifi routers use very little power.

There is an existing mcb marked as attic lighting and in the attic there's a length of wire wrapped up and terminated with a junction box which I assume is the same circuit so this may be the way forward.

tomdempsey200

Chet T16 wrote: »

There is an existing mcb marked as attic lighting and in the attic there's a length of wire wrapped up and terminated with a junction box which I assume is the same circuit so this may be the way forward.

you don't feed 13amp loads from a lighting

it may technically comply with rules but is not standard practice at all

Bruthal

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

you don't feed 13amp loads from a lighting

it may technically comply with rules but is not standard practice at all

It definitely wont comply with electrical morality anyway

Bruthal

superg wrote: »

But adding a new circuit or changing an existing one is restricted works so you better get an REC before Pat Rabbitte arrives at your door with a summons:D

Yes, it would almost be as bad as doing 121 kph on the motorway. That fella should stick to his own field.

2011

Let's stay on topic.

Very small load (perhaps less than 20 watts), there is a reasonable chance that there is ample capacity on an existing easy to get at lighting circuit, no work necessary on DB, falls under minor electrical works as per recent legislation.

Best job is a new dedicated circuit, but unlikely to be necessary or worth the hassle.

Seems straight forward to me.

tomdempsey200

I'm not so sure about that

the op is talking about multiple outlets

so unless it can be assured that the load will remain under 300w later...which is the maximum allowable

and also that the outlets are not available for general use...ad they are not rcd protected

then I don't believe it would comply with et101

Bruthal

Dont do the best job, because its more hassle. Interesting. In some cases its viable alright.

Still though, when the competent person (in general rather than the op here) switches off a light, and the router possibly goes off with it, the best way might end up less hassle.

This competent person stuff might encourage more makeshift connections in attics etc.

tomdempsey200

yes
there's a few reason why its a bad idea

im not a fan of appliances on lighting circuits

and lights on socket circuit spurs generally

Bruthal

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

yes
there's a few reason why its a bad idea

im not a fan of appliances on lighting circuits

and lights on socket circuit spurs generally

It would be interesting trying to connect router adaptors to spur outlets. So running in a socket circuit would seem less hassle.

.G.

2011 wrote: »

Have a look at page 4 of this document. I think that the modification to an existing circuit would fall outside the scope of Restricted electrical works: "Minor electrical work will remain outside the scope of Restricted Electrical Works". Essentially the OP may be adding two additional points to an existing circuit.

This is part of the problem. People, including me, still appear to be in the dark as to what exactly they are and aren't allowed do. Taken at face value that document says I can add 1 socket,singular.If I want to add 2 I'm presumably incompetent again!

Bruthal

superg wrote: »

This is part of the problem. People, including me, still appear to be in the dark as to what exactly they are and aren't allowed do. Taken at face value that document says I can add 1 socket,singular.If I want to add 2 I'm presumably incompetent again!

I hope the op is competent, or he will be with you shortly.

2011

Bruthal wrote: »

Dont do the best job, because its more hassle. Interesting.

I think that this needs to taken in context.
The with a load of 20W the current would be less than 0.1A
A 2.5 T & E can take in excess of 20A indefinitely, so perhaps a little OTT in this case.
Let's not forget that many people have feed 500W halogens from existing lighting circuits fully in compliance with the regulations and it is not seen as an issue.

So yes a dedicated 2.5 T & E would be "better" but only really because it would provide the OP with plenty of spare capacity if it were required at a future date.

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

so unless it can be assured that the load will remain under 300w later...which is the maximum allowable

As per my earlier post I would estimate in the region of 20W in total.

also that the outlets are not available for general use...ad they are not rcd protected

An RCD would not be required for fixed equipment, so install the units without using a socket outlets.

Anyway (as I am sure you know) according to 5554.4.1 "Circuits supplying socket-outlets for Information Technology equipment need not be protected by RCDs provided effective measures have been taken to prevent their use for general purposes".
I would think that this equipment would qualify and the "effective measures" described above would be simple enough to achieve.

superg wrote: »

This is part of the problem. People, including me, still appear to be in the dark as to what exactly they are and aren't allowed do. Taken at face value that document says I can add 1 socket,singular.If I want to add 2 I'm presumably incompetent again!

I don't want this thread to turn into yet another restricted works thread, please stay on topic. In my view this work would qualify as "minor works", if you disagree start another thread and/or email CER, but please don't derail this thread with it. Thanks

I know that others would run a separate 2.5 T & E from the DB and feed it from a dedicated RCBO, there is nothing wrong with this and I agree that it is a viable option.
Due to the fact that the load is very small and to avoid working on the DB (which may or may not have space) it is not the option that I would choose.
This is why I said "If I were doing this....".
There are at least 50 correct ways to "skin a cat"

tomdempsey200

if you're providing outlets, you don't know what additional equipment may be added later exceeding 300w

also routers will need regular 13amp outlet so difficult to comply with rules on IT equipment

anyway...

Bruthal

2011 wrote: »

I think that this needs to taken in context.
The with a load of 20W the current would be less than 0.1A
A 2.5 T & E can take in excess of 20A indefinitely, so perhaps a little OTT in this case.
Let's not forget that many people have feed 500W halogens from existing lighting circuits fully in compliance with the regulations and it is not seen as an issue.

So yes a dedicated 2.5 T & E would be "better" but only really because it would provide the OP with plenty of spare capacity if it were required at a future date.



As per my earlier post I would estimate in the region of 20W in total.



An RCD would not be required for fixed equipment, so install the units without using a socket outlets.

Anyway (as I am sure you know) according to 5554.4.1 "Circuits supplying socket-outlets for Information Technology equipment need not be protected by RCDs provided effective measures have been taken to prevent their use for general purposes".
I would think that this equipment would qualify and the "effective measures" described above would be simple enough to achieve.



I don't want this thread to turn into yet another restricted works thread, please stay on topic. In my view this work would qualify as "minor works", if you disagree start another thread and/or email CER, but please don't derail this thread with it. Thanks

I know that others would run a separate 2.5 T & E from the DB and feed it from a dedicated RCBO, there is nothing wrong with this and I agree that it is a viable option.
Due to the fact that the load is very small and to avoid working on the DB (which may or may not have space) it is not the option that I would choose.
This is why I said "If I were doing this....".
There are at least 50 correct ways to "skin a cat"

Nothing to do with loadings. It will be tricky to plug router adaptors into anything other than a 13 amp socket

tomdempsey200

Bruthal wrote: »

Nothing to do with loadings. It will be tricky to plug router adaptors into anything other than a 13 amp socket

you could fit the outlets in an enclosure

preventing their general purpose use

but as its not a fixed connection additional equipment could be added

clean line 2.5 radial/rcbo is best job

2011

Bruthal wrote: »

Nothing to do with loadings. It will be tricky to plug router adaptors into anything other than a 13 amp socket

A valid point.
If I found that this was the case I would install a 13A socket outlet in a JB that is sized late enough to accommodate the socket & plug adaptor.
I would also label the JB with something along the lines of "Contains IT socket - Not for general use". As this socket is installed in the attic and in a JB I feel that it would meet the requirements of 5554.4.1
i.e I would have ensured that "effective measures have been taken to prevent their use for general purposes"

tomdempsey200

fit the socket in a box

label the box

fit an isolating switch for the inaccessible socket


and on it goes...

Bruthal

2011 wrote: »

A valid point.
If I found that this was the case I would install a 13A socket outlet in a JB that is sized late enough to accommodate the socket & plug adaptor.
I would also label the JB with something along the lines of "Contains IT socket - Not for general use". As this socket is installed in the attic and in a JB I feel that it would meet the requirements of 5554.4.1
i.e I would have ensured that "effective measures have been taken to prevent their use for general purposes"

I hope everyone in the house can read English

2011

Bruthal wrote: »

I hope everyone in the house can read English

If anyone opens an electrical box in an attic that has cables going into it it is their responsibility to interpret the label.
It is not as if it is something such as a storage unit.

When I was an apprentice, I opened an electrical panel and was horrified to find exposed live busbars inside that I could have touched quite easily.
I assumed that this was against regulations, but it was explained to me that because a tool was required to open the enclosure (as opposed to a handle) it would require a "deliberate act" to open the enclosure.
As such it was permitted.