Can I Use Connectors Inside Trunking to Extend Cables?

[@efixx]

Check out the Wago 221 Inline 👉kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGiuiGWHhMujhJo

[@dadofnog]

I have worked in the electrical industry for 45 years (coming up to retirement). I'm sure when I did my apprenticeship, the regs were not as ambiguous - cables buried at 18 inches, etc. Now it's as appropriate... So this puts the onus on the electrician/installer. A patio this week can turn into a veg plot next week. I know that BS7671 is meant for guidance, but isn't it silly that you now need an on-site guide and umpteen guidance notes? Think IET should sort this out. Always arguments between electricians and inspectors. This video is an example of how silly and vague the Regs have got. I'll say this, having been a witness in an HSE case, if you find yourself in front of a judge, and you try and state that the Regs allow this and that, and that it complies and is adequate, etc., you might get the response that it's obviously not! As a Technical and Design Manager, my advice would be not to put joints in a cable that isn't in a recognised enclosure. I'd class trunking as containment, not an enclosure.

[@TheWebstaff]

Wise words of Wisdom right here.. ^^^^^^^^ It's funny isn't it, I hear constantly that we have to tell everyone exactly what to do in this day and age yet everywhere the opposite seems true.. It's the same everywhere health and safety might become involved. I think its to protect those making the rules from being hoisted by their own creations.

[@smartchip]

The law is there to subjugate, Statute law is made up by the banksters, ruling and political class, Common law / in line with the magna Carta, the best thing to happen to the serfs, plebs and everyman,

[@boblewis5558]

@@smartchip as the old saying goes "Rules and regulations are for the obedience of fools and guidance of wise men". With regards to the IET and BS7671 "rules" this adage is very much the case! 🤔🥺🙄

[@johnchristmas7522]

I'm old school and agree with your comments. You shouldn't need to be told what is right, with electricity you should ALWAYS er on the safety side. We always treated out customers as idiots and wired accordingly. Todays regs are written in such a way as to move liability to the electrician. An old saying 'belt and braces" exactly that.

[@phillipneale5256]

Just retired, started at 16 years old doing my city and guild's apprenticeship. We were always taught that a joint should always be at least as strong as the mechanical strength of the cable itself, with that in mind soldering is always best with pvc tape andheat,and if that's not possible an adaptable box should be fitted with any enclosed crimped joints in it.

[@colinhubbard4826]

I fully agree with your synopsis, however I personally go one step further and heat shrink the Crimps as an extra layer of protection.

[@justbreakingballs]

Waste of time it's full of singles anyway half the time

[@ursusmaritimus7159]

Given the amount of money the IET charge for the book, and the fact they seem to change it every few years, I think the least they could do is write the regs so that they are not ambiguous. Perhaps someone at that august institution would have the answer?

[@iantaylor6538]

But if they didn't change the rules they couldn't sell you the newest set of regs for a large amount of money..........

[@boblewis5558]

Buying the book is one thing, but these days "public" information should be freely available on the web! That way EVERYONE would have immediate access to the latest information; any errata can be included at source rather than an addendum; a simplified "good, indifferent, bad" or traffic light system against pictures or diagrams of practices could be used ... Especially the bad or totally unacceptable practices PLUS short videos of best practice. This latter would help non native English speakers also. It's rather obvious that the IET regs are vetted if not actually written by lawyers and not designed for quick assimilation. Having been an IEE and IET member for half a century I have NEVER seen an improvement in the way they are laid out. The fact that to answer ONE simple question requires access to THREE separate sections and yet STILL requires a level of interpretation is frankly somewhat ridiculous. It also means that experienced professionals may make an assumption from experience OR, perhaps worse, a newbie or less experienced spark will miss a vital caveat! The amount of discussion on eFixx videos alone and the number of contradictory comments made, or readers asking for more clarification, SHOULD be sufficient evidence alone to convince the IET to sanitise the rules, vastly improve the readability and make some MAJOR improvements to removing ambiguity WITHOUT having to cross reference to other sections of the rules! 🤔🙄😢

[@ianmontgomery7534]

@@boblewis5558 yes it is like ISO's you have to comply with them but are expected to pay for them. You don't have to pay for the rules of the road. From the regs just shown you need to have a legal degree to be a sparky.

[@genome616]

How the hell would they generate millions in revenue from guidance notes if the reg's were not designed with ambiguity?

[@ericrawson2909]

@@boblewis5558 Agree entirely. Having been a level three lecturer for six years, I can say that my experienced colleagues and I would have many lengthy debates about the meaning of the regulations. some colleagues who had spent their whole working life teaching would sometimes demonstrate a lack of understanding of the regs. At the same time the easy exams make it possible for people with limited mathematical and reasoning skills to qualify as electricians. Then they have to regularly buy a large library of regs and guidance notes that they never consult. It should all be online, free, and totally restructured. The annual inspection to preserve registration sometimes revealed that I had deeper understanding than the inspector, and they would frame trick questions to try to get one up on you. Then you have to compete with the cowboys who disobey the regs to cut costs, and people fabricating multiple EICRs for ridiculously low prices without doing the testing and inspection. Glad I am retired!

[@olly7673]

I had this dilema on a board change where the cables required lengthening. I originally thought to use a DIN rail adaptable box then plastic trunking to the CCU. Then I decided if I used in-line splices/ connectors in the trunking it did not require to be MF (maintenance-free) It would just be like putting cables together using Wago connectors in a conduit box or patress box. The only issue I felt needed addressing was the "use of a key or tool" stipulation to access the live part connection. I felt that the lid of the particular plastic trunking I used actually couldn't be lifted off unless with a screwdriver to prise it off. If it wasn't the case I was going to secure the lid with small screws, thereby requiring the use of a tool to gain access. My trusty Brother PT-E550 printer provided stickers in the area of the trunking where the connections had been made and I am happy it complies. I am keen to see how NICEIC inspector interprets what I have done at the end of the year!

[@keirstitt8277]

Documenting or labeling has to be key and I like your approach here. Not so much for an overzealous auditor but so that the electrician who is fault finding down the line knows what you did. Assumption is the mother of all [things going wrong]. And whilst your crimps in trunking are probably more reliable than screw terminals in a socket or maybe the bit of cable that nobody knew was damaged and then dragged through insulation. Thing is that in my experience the loads of things more likely to fail are going to be trumped by the thing I did which should have been bulletproof. Label something and tell the world what you did and then if it fails they know you were competent and if it doesn't fail then it's probably for the same reason it was sunny when you carted a huge golf umbrella around with you all day.

[@nathanaddison9778]

You could always through crimp in plastic trunking and secure the lid down with a piece of white all round band over the top , thus requiring a tool to remove the lid

[@olly7673]

@@nathanaddison9778 you could use all round banding though not elegant enough for me. I now prefer wago or ideal spliceline over crimping of class 1 cable conductors. Even with expensive hand crimp and crimps and heatshrink in not 100% happy with them. It is option though. 👍

[@JamesCurnowElectricalEngineer]

Interesting video. Personally, I would add an enclosure to the trunking if necessary to extend a circuit. Alternatively, if a circuit is wired in trunking and the cables are accessible, then I would prefer to replace the leg of the circuit if possible.

[@chrismaplethorpe6781]

I am the same opinion with this issue have seen too many connectors tucked away with a bit of tape wrapped round them.

[@raychambers3646]

Some of PVC trunking I've used in the past ( not a fan of ) practically broke my fingers trying to get the lid off .

[@ef7480]

You have to 'use a tool' to remove it.

[@raychambers3646]

@@ef7480 Have used a tool in the past ,once its started and you can get your fingers in to pull the lid off .Never goes back the same .

[@iandonnelly542]

Yep, I 100% follow this EXACT process of thought, and have done for a while. If crimping where access cannot be prevented, crimp, individually heat shrink, and over sleeve with heatshrink the lot if it's T&E for example. Even use heat shrinkable crimps where poss. Can't be too careful 👍🏻

[@Mark-xr4zt]

I think I would disagree with some of the reasoning in the video as I think it is important to consider the other points from 526.5 (i) on suitable accessories. If we look at the definitions section of BS7671 for Accessory it states: - Accessory. A device, other than current-using equipment, associated with such equipment or with the wiring of an installation. Which I believe would include the connection method itself as an accessory e.g. a Wago connector, a crimp or other means of connection. Therefore is it not the Wago or the crimp (if insulated or the applied heat shrink) that are providing the basic protection rather than the trunking, much in the same way as the insulation on singles prevents contact with the conductor and provides basic protection. A screwed terminal block would obviously not offer basic protection as it does not prevent contact with live parts due to the limited nature of IP rating that their design affords. A bit like a ceiling rose is recognised as an enclosure but is exempt from complying with many of the enclosure requirements due to the limitations of its design! however it is recognised that its use and design is not unsafe hence the exemption for them in the regs. So I think it is acceptable to use a suitable accessory to make the connection that affords reasonable basic protection in and of itself e.g. a Wago and install that connection in plastic trunking which is providing a degree of additional mechanical protection to th like the outer layer of insulation in a cable. After all, it is also unlikely that in most cases where larger trunking sizes are used that an unauthorised person is going to remove the lid and if they do and you have sued a suitable connection and installed it correctly the chance of them coming into contact with live parts without dismantling the connection are as likely in risk terms as from touching any other part of the wiring contained within. I do agree that consideration should be given to the risks of that connection coming under undue strain or stress and subsequent damage should it be lost in a long trunking run and therefore hidden. But that risk is perhaps no greater than in any large wiring system where cables can be damaged on the fixing screws and bolts used in trunking, or the sharp corner of an internal 90 if they are pulled or disturbed when other circuits are run or altered. At the end of the day, it comes down to an engineering judgment and considering the risks created by that connection and the method of connection which is why I guess there is no real yes or no answer here because it is all about risk management. Thanks for the thought-provoking video, would be good to see a follow-up that covers some of the points raised in the comments.

[@terry.hudson]

I would, and have always just popped a wago box or choc box over the connection if in trunking. It's always big enough 👍🏻 preference is always for a dedicated box though, well labelled to say multiple points of isolation etc. Great subject though 🙌🏻

[@johnwarwick4105]

Back in 1980 when I did my training new regs were just coming out think it was 13th edition. Still written in English and very useful. Glad I have retired from electrics now. One thing I will say is standard butt crimps on solid cable are an accident waiting to happen. They are always loose after a few years. Stranded cable is no problem but not solid. The regs are always written for new installations and no allowance made for working on old. Bring back red yellow blue! At least everybody will know which colour to sleeve as earth in a 3 core 😮

[@efixx]

Wise words 👍

[@davefish8107]

Think it was the 14th as I done my apprenticeship starting 1972 and that was on the 13 edition

[@JC-jv5xw]

The colours were changed to prevent apprentices joining the red cores with red crimps, the yellow cores with yellow crimps, and the blue cores with blue crimps....

[@notbadforasparky4791]

You could always add a tie wrap to the plastic trunking. That seems to help with Wago boxes 🤣🤣🤣

[@thattoolguy9432]

The regs can be a pain trying to interpret them at times ... any time ive had to do a joint in metal trunking i usually attach a metal adaptable box via coupler and bush and do the joint in there ... label the box and put a tag on the circuit.. meets the ip ratings and is accessible.. good subject Joe

[@efixx]

Good approach I think Torchy. 👍

[@thattoolguy9432]

I think as long as you show you have tried to adhere to the regs.. should be a gooden

[@samheasmanwhite]

You should aim for any concealed splice to have the same strength and protection as a solid cable. I always use solid copper ferrules or solder joints rather than those little plastic things that have so little pull-out strength, since you never know when someone will pull on a cable expecting it to be as strong as an un-joined cable. Much less care is taken to protect conduit from water and corrosive conditions, so I always use adhesive heat shrink for concealed splices too.

[@phillipneale5256]

You sound like an, old school sparks, I agree with you completely, the times I've come across wires pulled out or incorrectly crimped in trunking. You can't better a soldered joint with heat shrink,it's the mechanical strength you need in any trunking incase cable's are pulled for whatever reason's. Don't know about you but most young sparks don't know how to solder.

[@deang5622]

If memory serves me correctly, a previous edition of the regs says that any connections must be accessible for maintenance and inspection purposes. I doubt they removed that requirement in the most recent amendment to the regs. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement particularly as it's at the connection points where problems can occur during the service life of the installation and it is surely good practice to be able to inspect those connection points. I would argue that using any kind of connector, Wago inline or any other type, whether crimp, screw, clamp should be able to be inspected. My argument is therefore, if any connector is to be placed inside any type of conduit (plastic or metal), if it cannot be easily visually inspected and accessible then it is prohibited. And if you are able to successfully argue the point that the connector is permitted inside the conduit where it can't be accessed and because of a loophole or omission in the regulations, then I would suggest you are not adopting the right approach: your job as an electrician is not to act as lawyers in a court of law and try to exploit weaknesses in the legislation (or regulations), your job is to install to the best possible safety standards,and naturally means being able to inspect those connection points where cables have been joined by some kind of connector or termination.

[@Dranok1]

Unfortunately your memory doesn't serve you correctly: the Reg's have only required certain types of connections to be available for inspection, since the requirement came in. He even shows you the reg on screen! In current editions it's numbered 526.3 (in the 16th it was 526-03-02).

[@mrseanpride6449]

Your talking about conduit when he is talking about trunking.

[@genome616]

A few notes to add, you can get variants of plastic and metal trunking some that would comply in the aspect of this video's interpretation of the reg's and some that wouldn't. I would say the IP rating of the trunking may be a flawed argument, if you are probing a trunking with a piece of metal 1mm in diameter then it has all the potential to be sharp enough to pierce the actual insulation of any single insulated cable and not just a connection point, I fully agree with the idea of IP rating to match for an enclosure where we may find exposed conductive parts like a busbar chamber for example but all modern forms of connections of live parts now should meet a minimum standard of been finger safe, even modern mcb's etc are designed to meet this criteria so apply this to a thru crimp it simply needs to be terminated competently with a calibrated crimp tool and if additional protection is needed the appropriate measures like a heatshrink sleeve with moisture barrier can be used. Reg 416.2.1. refers to live parts, I do not believe a correctly terminated singles cable in trunking using terminations meeting current standards would qualify as live parts, live parts would be say the copper bars in a busbar trunking, the electronics on a PCB board etc that require an enclosure to be safe, I agree that a termination must be maintenance free though given it is hard to inspect a joint if there is no indication it is there. Reg' 416.2.2. specifies the top horizontal surface, this would suggest it is designed to restrict the ingress of liquids, dust, small foreign objects that are placed or land on top of the trunking otherwise a trunking that complies on the top horizontal surface yet has a 3mm hole on its bottom surface would be compliant yet you could easily push a small screwdriver shaft into it from below, that IP XXD and IP4X rating is not aimed at people deliberately trying to push conductive objects into the holes, the practice of trying to push a 1mm cable/probe into the hole is only to check if it meets the requirements on its top horizontal surface. If a joint is maintenance free it does not need to be brought out into a inspection box otherwise practices like extending a 10mm bonding conductor with a inline crimp and heat-shrink sleeve would not be permitted without creating some form of inspection box. I normally hate when people use the phrase, BS7671 regulations are only guidance because it often is used when poor workmanship or practices are brought up but with all respect sometimes the reg's need to be applied in some part with common sense, the over application of them is often costly, time consuming and ends up been passed on the customer financially.

[@solidus784]

I would avoid joining cables but if was stuck in a situation like this. I just use an end box or junction box mounted straight to the trunking, at least its a more obvious place to look for the next guy

[@efixx]

Yeah, that's probably the best approach. 👍👍👍

[@dannyboisparky]

Depends on the quality of the plastic trunking regarding using a tool for removal. I personally wouldn’t make joints inside though

[@lezbriddon]

agreed, cost of joining vs cost of fixing under a warranty callback, yeah pull a new run.

[@pistolpete5189]

Your adaptable box suggestion is perfect.. all boxes ✅ job done on to the next thing

[@thecellshop8779]

Once you've had mice in a grain store/dryer, there's more crimps than cable :)

[@TheWebstaff]

Yes but did they have to use a special tool to access the cables?

[@TeamSimpsonRacing]

Great video as always. I have seen this discussion on an electricians forum and it was getting heated! I said no but I get your point when crimped in metal trunking 👍

[@acespark1]

Just about every factory, workshop, garage and engineering shop throughout the land has crimped extended cables in their trunking along with loads of redundant cable just to confuse the situation even more and it is because these places love to move the equipment around, add and subtract machines and change processes. This is the way places are kept up to date. New machine it maybe but it will use the supply that is already there. 🤡🐔

[@paulroberts7561]

Ah, but that is the real world, I have seen this countless times. The people that write the regs live in a different world to sparkles like us.

[@rozzer8290]

Absolutely

[@qshed]

This is just a thought of how it could be argued. To put into context I qualifed 20 odd years ago 16th 1st ammendment but went straight in to maintenance in a food factory so haven't experience of installation. I also personally dont like crimp connections in trunking. Enough waffle. The joint or connection is the metal part of the connectors and this is enclosed by the insulation. If properly sized and made off then I believe it meets all the requirements of the listed regulations. Maintenance engineering makes you think outside the box and manufacturing makes you think around the rules

[@jamiebourne8047]

I don't see an issue with 100mm trunking which definitely need a tool to prize open. As for labelling that there's a join inside-I thought the idea of a maintenance free connector is the fact that its- maintenance free! If you had to use one of these in a ceiling void you wouldn't label the ceiling stating so...

[@johnrogowtzow9532]

Thanks nice explanation, keep up the good work cheers 🥂

[@rossmurdoch7870]

As usual ,I concur. Steel crimps properly done in an adaptable box is the best option if running new cable isn’t possible or practical

[@kevinpickett7249]

Lol just spent 2 days using Wago connectors in a plastic trunking above a fuseboard extending it all down to new boards 😁 it will be staying as I am satisfied it is safe ( 40 yrs tells me that ) I sleep well at night

[@M0PAX]

Put a metal tie or meter type seal through the lid then you will need a tool to remove?

[@kevinpickett7249]

@@M0PAX I think you have to use common sense also but they need to put that in the regs 😉

[@M0PAX]

Yes totally agree, but I can’t see them ever printing the word common sense.

[@johnlloyd3377]

Sorry, but what you have described is not safe.

[@M0PAX]

@@johnlloyd3377 not safe in what respect, Kevin’s original post?

[@bernardcharlesworth9860]

As an electrian I think bs7671 is overdue for a complete rewrite into a logical simplified form.I agree with the presenters conclusion.

[@M0PAX]

Soon you will have to take a solicitor to site with you, making sure you’re not liable for any problems.

[@mirfmat]

I replaced and db and to extend cables i installed a metre length of metal trunking above the db to extend all the cables though and then label the trunking as to say electrical connection inside as I think having lots of wagos inside the db can get confusing for others and looks a bugger great video thanks

[@davidfalconer8913]

The regular insulated crimp barrels are fine for extending mains wiring , but PLEASE use a DECENT expensive ratchet crimp tool , I have seen folk use the £2 squeezit pliers that just do NOT crimp hard enough and will cause a lot of heat due to contact resistance ( maybe fire ? ) and give the finished joint a good HARD tug ( using the squeezit pliers , often the wire pulls out ! ) also use the correct size for the wire to be joined , or the wire will pull out , or be overcrimped leading to future breakage .....

[@ianemery2925]

When I trained as an industrial electrician in the early 80-'s the answer was no, no, NO! We were told it was not allowed; and certainly, when I reported their use in a GUS warehouse, the HSE ordered the cables be removed and replaced. GUS's answer was to shut the site down and move operations to Lancashire. Mind you, that was just one problem in the 8 page report of HSE violations in the building that I sent to them, following 2 deaths and several serious injuries, incidents and a fire that destroyed miles of phone cabling illegally fitted in a lift shaft.

[@ianemery2925]

I was about to say the same; and if I came across one, I would experience a sharp intake of breath. It wasnt JUST the crimping; sometimes the incompetent would have used whatever spare length of cable they had lying around, so a cable could go into a trunking Red Phase, and come out Blue, but still on the Red phase; this was, obviously, quite dangerous to anyone trying to isolate equipment. The very worse I ever saw was in the 1990s, at Kay & Co, at their now demolished (my fault) centre in Worcester; it went in Red, came out Yellow, but had MULTIPLE inline crimps, with one section of the cable buried in the trunking, being green and yellow earth cable. The entire site was a death trap (as were several other GUS sites in the city), and there were several serious injuries and one death, due to the poor standard of wiring; when I got sacked, for refusing to fudge electrical safety certificates, I wrote an 8 page report on the safety violations and sent copies to HSE and the Fire Brigade; next inspection, the Brigade went armed with my list - and found everything as I had detailed. Threats went back and forth between the Brigade, HSE and Kays management, until they shut the place down, rather than fix all the issues; it is now a housing estate.

[@ianmontgomery7534]

Amazing isn't it. Jet fighters have crimp connectors in lots of places (at least F/A18s did when we made them). They work well if done correctly but if they are done incorrectly you soon know.

[@bitTorrenter]

Haha, that's interesting. I was told as an apprentice that through crimps were considered a permanent connection so why wouldn't you be able to use them?

[@TheEulerID]

How does a soldered joint with heat-shrink not meet 526.3 (iv)? In any event, the regulation refers to available for inspection (and that was an exception). It doesn't say has to be inspected, and I do wonder how many of connections are routinely inspected in the absence of a fault.

[@zeljomirtanackovic1529]

Hi all, I would definitely use crimps if connections made would not be accessible, meaning extending existing cable and where there would be very difficult and expensive to replace the length of the cable. However if I was extending the cable inside the enclosure which would made those connection accessible than more than likely I would use wago connectors. However I must point out that trunkings, conduits, etc. are not enclosures to limit person of getting to the live parts and any connection inside trunking must be safe providing protection of access to live parts, trunkings, conduits, etc. are enclosures only to provide additional mechanical protection for the conductors. Therefore extending the cable inside the plastic trunking should be considered as having to add Wago box over the connection or something to limit access to the live parts. Those are my thoughts.

[@johnwaby4321]

One client I did some work for was ok with using through crimps to join cables inside the metal trunking But we had to put a label on the lid close to the connections inside . Saying connections inside

[@fiercefix]

The world we live in ! Also another lablel saying 'cables inside. The UK rules and regulations are getting to be a complete joke. Bags of peanuts with advice sticker saying may contain nuts!

[@davidfaraday7963]

Or how about wiring inside metal trunking joined in a bit of choc-block then wrapped in self-adhesive tape? That was done by a professional electrician.

[@JC-jv5xw]

@@davidfaraday7963 There is an additional layer of insulation preventing finger contact. And it will require a tool to get the tape off (knife) after a couple of years.

[@crustyzimmerman3324]

The validity of these inline crimps requires the diligence of the installer to ensure the gap in the inner ferrule faces the correct jaw at the time of crimping. A lot of guys just crush them down and I’ve known them come out when sparks pull cables to identify them when doing a physical trace.

[@andylinton2798]

Seems reasonable. I have a small question: What connector do you recommend for jointing two lengths of 16-sq cable? This is feeding my garage and it protected by an RCBO at the distribution board, but I've found that the builder who installed it have made a joint of L and N inside an outside ground box by just twisting the cables together and taping! I want to redo it properly.

[@HealthService]

Hire ana electrician

[@heli-man-]

I have extended cables in the past with through crimps I always give them the pull test and they were in plastic trunking but you would not be able to open the trunking lid with your bare hands. When I run trunking it’s not accessible from the ends ie floor to ceiling or wall to wall if that cannot be achieved I have glued the end caps and I don’t use cheap trunking that can be pulled apart, it is also helpful to leave a label inside the board cover saying cables extended in trunking you can even write 1m or 2m if there is room a small enclosure is very helpful, ultimately Extending cables is not my favourite but sometimes there is no choice I have seen so many disgraceful board installations that I believe some people have no pride in their work I have done a massive variety of electrical work and even when it has been hard work I have enjoyed my work for over 30 years.

[@guygfm4243]

Yes agree with you as a long time electrician I have always had access to connections in a box or plate point, unless it is a crimped one

[@johnburns4017]

Having a Wago connection inside a substantial plastic trunking will not be dangerous. The covers are not easy to remove.

[@havoctrousers]

no, anyone who says you can do it without the use of a tool has never tried to get the lid off decent sized plastic trunking!

[@johnburns4017]

@@havoctrousers Even mini trunking needs a screwdriver to get it off.

[@terrytamblyn9551]

As an 80 year old ex electrician, let me get this straight, do not put connectors in plastic trunking because someone may remove the cover and come in contact with live cables, but put the same connections into metal trunking where said live cables may come in contact with the trunking and thats alright, ok got it, makes sense when you think about it.

[@justbreakingballs]

Trunking should be earthed obviously but I agree it's a load of bollox, plastic trunking is as safe as any choc box and long as it's properly installed and the lid is on and you do need a tool to remove the lid. It has to be prized off

[@christastic100]

Interesting as ever and great understanding of BS7671 . can I ask something that has always baffled me though. For example an LED batten or other lamp holder ( different regulation I know) which has fully accessible live parts joints ,requires no tools for clip on lids ect , has push to connect/ disconnect terminals and somehow exempt from all these rules regardless of hight of fitting? Incidentally I would have absolutely no issue repairing small conductors with relevant butt crimp and a little heat shrink within a metal trunking.

[@steve11211]

Thats a good point the JCC QR battens which I have fitted loads, need no tools to get into, and have push fit connections... If its acceptable for them to do that then surely its acceptable to have wago connectors in plastic trunking...

[@deang5622]

I disagree. You're mixing two different concepts. The first is about how easy it is to access live parts, and the second is about maintenance and being able to inspect the connections and terminations.

[@steve11211]

@@deang5622 but the JCC batten (I am sure there are others that do the same) led can be easily removed from the base without a tool that provides basic protection, just like with the plastic trunking, the conductors can then be easily removed without a tool, similar to the wago connections.. I don't see the difference, accessibility is exactly the same and maintenance, it will be easier to find that connection that a connection box stuffed up with a down light which is acceptable..

[@deang5622]

@@steve11211 I think the danger is that you are applying the rules to one scenario to other scenarios and I don't think we have the right to do that. What we have to do is follow the rules, or where there is a lack of clarity, we seek advice and we take the safest path which minimises the electric shock risk. The requirement around the use of a tool I believe applies to the situation where there are live exposed parts, which presents an electric shock risk. If I understand you correctly, your argument is, that in the case of the JCC batten, the use of the tool requirement and live parts in the fitting cannot be met, and therefore you are saying that in another scenario you should not have to comply with the tool requirement. I think this is a very dangerous position from a legal point of view, to take. I think you need to go back and understand the requirement as laid down in the wiring regs. Whilst I accept there may be a shortcoming in respect of certain luminares, if memory serves me right, the requirement is around preventing an electric shock risk by requiring a tool be used to gain access to exposed live parts. The idea being, the average person won't be carrying a tool or set of tools and then have the inclination to start unscrewing covers to take a peek inside some electrical apparatus. But where there is an access cover that can be removed by hand, without the use of a tool, and if there are exposed live parts inside at greater than 50 volts AC, then there is a risk of electric shock or even electrocution. This is the problem, this is the danger that the regulations are trying to prevent. So I think you (and all of us) have to come back to that basic principle, is there a risk of electrocution by somebody opening up electrical apparatus and using their own body - hands and fingers- to do it, and not using a tool such as a screw driver. That to my mind is the overriding principle. If there are connections, terminals, conductor where the metal at live voltage is visible then the electric shock risk is present, and the enclosure in which these joints, terminals are present must be of a type where tool is required to open it. Does that help?

[@steve11211]

@@deang5622 not really as I dont see where the access to exposed live parts is in trunking when connected with a wago.. You cant touch a live part unless you remove the conductor from the wago.. I would understand if live parts were accessable if just removing trunking lid... I have been installing emergency lights that can be opened without a tool and the live conductors can be removed without a tool.. Are lights under different regs?

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

Interesting, but if you think about it florresant light fitting emergency lights bathroom bulkhead lights are enclosures And they all have connectors inside either push fit or chock blocks , so what is the difference? Great video as always Joe 👍👍❤️

[@solidus784]

You expect a termination inside a fitting and not in a trunking run. Could be a right pain in the hole in the future to track down.

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

@@solidus784 that’s were common sense comes into play. My point was that if all connections are inside something they are enclosed there for they are in an enclosure we could argue the same applies to switches and sockets? As you can’t access the connections without the use of a tool . But yes joining cables with connectors inside trunking is a silly idea and would be a pain in the backside to find especially if it berried under a pile of other wire’s .but who am I to argue i’am just a humble spark who’s opinion means nothing.

[@markriggall6710]

A small wiska box is also an example. The smallest box just has a push on lid

[@chrissharpe2106]

I think because no one has ever got ahold of a cable in a light fitting and given it a strong tug to find the other end.

[@deang5622]

It is an issue of maintenance and inspection. You can (nearly) always get to the connections in a luminare, you can't get to the joints metres down inside trunking.

[@davidquirk8097]

Something that you didn't mention was that the crimp must be rated for the system voltage AND made off with the correct tooling. To demonstrate compliance that tooling also needs to be calibrated. In most cases that means crimps and tooling from the same manufacturer as the tooling can only be calibrated with a specified crimp type.

[@grantcrombie1115]

Install enclosed box outside trucking and create crimped/wago joints within and identify on lid and at the board or at circuit if identified.

[@andysims4906]

Personally I wouldn’t use connectors in trunking. I don’t really see anything against it but I would say it’s just bad practice. Thing is not many people care these days . I just seen a brand new farm installation today and they couldn’t even be bothered to put blanks in unused ways on 3 phase distribution boards so that makes this subject quite trivial

[@mb-electricalservices]

If I really had to do it then I would enclose the joint in a maintenance free box and label the box with its circuit reference.

[@efixx]

Yeah, that's probably the best way.

[@olly7673]

I would say that if it was in trunking, by definition it would be accessible and no need to be maintenance free. That is something more suited to inaccessible such as under floorboards or in walls.

[@eddie_pegasus_electrical]

Great explanation Joe 👊😎👍💙

[@graemepeo]

I'd replace the wire rather than put a joint in it, as it is another point of failure. Especially with it being easily accessible inside trunking.

[@russellham2094]

My understanding is that while it's acceptable to extend a circuit, assuming it's additional length etc etc is still within guidelines.. An enclosure outside of the trunking body itself should house the joint/s. Preferably labelled. Making them obvious, and safe from possible disturbance from additional circuit installation runs, at a later date. Bit of common, personally. And as for the 'Guidance Notes'..... Don't start me!

[@jasonmart1081]

You could argue that the plastic around a crimp or wago is an enclosure (which definitely can't be removed by hand) 😏

[@TheEulerID]

As the wago can be opened with a lever, I don't think that counts...

[@evzenhedvabny6259]

This brings another question. Can I use PVC singles in a plastic trunking ?

[@christopherhume8896]

If not then there's a lot of plastic dado-trunking that needs sorted. 😂

[@evzenhedvabny6259]

@@christopherhume8896 Well, we do not use singles here . Cables everywhere. Singles are somethig for machines , distribution boards or conduits. So in my mind the conduit forms some kind of outer sleeve. If I can remove its lid without any tool then ... But it may be just me . I tend to overcomplicate things. Our cables are CYKY which is known as NYY and CYKYLo which is similar to british T&E with thinner outer insulation. Ahd CYKYLo is for use in trunkig or burried in plaster. CYKY (NYY) can be exposed when there is low risk of damage or burried in plaster or concrete or soil. I think it is similar to your T&E which can be exposed and clipped.

[@deang5622]

If I recall correctly it is up to the designer of the electrical installation to decide on what level of mechanical protection is required for the cable, and where on the cable run it is needed. In theory you could run singles not in a conduit, but probably not advisable generally. If you run it in a conduit, that will provide the mechanical protection for it. So I don't see anything wrong with that. It will also look tidier. But I think the requirement around needing a tool to access the cable is really around access to live exposed parts, where you can touch or see a live exposed part - bare copper, a screw terminal. The issue is of an electric shock/electrocution risk. If you're running a PVC single or twin and earth in a conduit and there is no junction or termination that becomes visible if you remove the cover to the conduit, then I don't there is any requirement for the conduit cover to only be removable with a tool: there is no electric shock or electrocution risk in removing that cover.

[@evzenhedvabny6259]

@@deang5622 You are right it is up to the designer. This is one of my "what if" moments. Single insulated wires shall not be accessible here. As I said I tend to overcomplicate things.

[@BakedTuber]

Answered that question perfectly. How many electricians are going to interpret BS1761 to that degree? Not many I suspect!

[@01johnjackson]

Couple of pieces of metal band over top of plastic trunking would then require a tool to remove the plastic cover?

[@carlf6507]

I would crimp, ensure continuity etc and then double heat shrink cover it. I don’t see how that is any different to a complete cable in terms of safety. It’s also a maintenance free connection. That way it would be safe even if it was in plastic trunking with a clip on cover. Assuming all other requirements are met.

[@MyProjectBoxChannel]

For me personally, the only permanent "maintenance free" connection, is where the two wires are twisted and soldered together, then covered by multiple layers of heat shrink tubing. There is nothing like a continuous metal fused-together connection. This is how I used to do it on automotive wiring looms. In electrics for me, there's just two important factors: can it handle the current and is it insulated properly. Obviously I know the regs are important aswell.

[@jonathanbuzzard1376]

Basically a lineman's splice to NASA standards. If it's good enough to go into space it's good enough for use in an electrical installation here on earth. I guess a faff to do as you are going to have to break the soldering iron and heat gun out, but it's better than any crimp or other connector.

[@paul756uk2]

@@jonathanbuzzard1376 virtually every termination in an aircraft or satellite is crimped. It's easier to perform a reliable crimp than it is to solder. Also, if you solder a multi strand cable, you are turning it into a single core which is more liable to fracturing. Also, any cable that needs joining or extending that will be inaccessible must have a permanent joint and crimping is a recognised way of doing it. Soldering is a skill that not everyone has and I would guess that most electricians can't solder. It can also be difficult to solder a reliable joint in more difficult to access areas.

[@TheCraig031272]

If joining in trunking, fit a metal adaptable box onto trunking, make joints in there, label. If you cant be arsed or are trying to hide it & are going to use through crimps, good tug test, then heat shrink. Don't use Wago box or connector strip, if/when someone rods the trunking in the future installing another circuit it can go south for those poor souls who come after you. Don't put anything in trunking apart from wire, especially not Wago box's & strip....some say "your not supposed to rod trunking" but we do.

[@danf6491]

Pop on a wago inline. Pop it in a wago box. Then pop that inside the trunking? As a side note . I bet 2 small holes drilled in the trunking with a tie wrap on would pass. No cowboy electricians where harmed in the making of this comment

[@researchcapt]

You can but using a butt connector adds a degree of unreliability and/or a possible voltage drop. Ideally, you want the wire to be continuous between terminals. Never use crimps on solid core wire. Solid core pulls out of crimps too easily.

[@deang5622]

Poorly jointed connections will cause a voltage drop, but you can get sizeable voltage drop over a high current E7 heater circuit. The two key questions are: if you the measure the resistance of the circuit, is it low enough and in compliance to the regs? The second is, the long term life of the connection and will it degrade over the years and lead to a higher resistance at the connection and cause an increase in heating effect, leading to burning and fire ?

[@PaulSteMarie]

It shouldn't if you're using proper listed crimp terminals. UL in the US requires crimps to pass pull tests with solid wire unless the crimp has "stranded only" stamped into the metal. You need a proper crimp tool, however, not pliers or the pathetic excuse for a crimper sold in home improvement and auto parts stores.

[@havoctrousers]

@@PaulSteMarie you need good quality crimps too, I've had crap connections that failed the pull test on solid core with a decent ratcheting crimper. I honestly just prefer to use Wagos if there's space as I've found them to be much more reliable than crimps.

[@PaulSteMarie]

@@havoctrousers If one is installing them professionally, I would assume one is using UL-listed or equivalent terminals. UL requires terminals to hold solid wire unless they are permanently marked "stranded only".

[@michaeljohnson1006]

​@@deang5622 John ward has got some interesting experiments on his utube channel with crimp connectors and connector blocks and overloading them.

[@gatwaul]

The important point is Live Parts. When using wago or insulated crimps, where would contact with live parts be possible. Identifying the location of cable splices is an issue, however if you crimp and heatshrink its not an issue.

[@jgharston]

I think I would defend that "the use of a tool" includes a stepladder. So, I would be happy with a plastic cover that is protected by out-of-reach, as you need a tool - a stepladder - to expose the internal parts.

[@SCOPE_ON_THE_WING]

Great vid, still people rambling about how would. Welcome to the world of electricians.

[@rondo122]

another very good video!

[@bobbo9549]

Noting the requirement for connections to a ring main extension needing to be accessible for inspection purposes and that if within trunking the trunking needs to be accessible via a tool, if two lengths of 2.5 mm twin and earth are jointed within 1” plastic trunking could it be said that the 1” trunking generally needs the use of a screwdriver, (a tool) to prise the lid off unless one has steel finger nails and really strong fingers. For inspection and maintenance purposes would a notice applied to the section of trunking lid stating “ring main extension connectors within this trunking” or would a plastic surface back box with lid be required with a notice stating the same? To my mind the 1” plastic trunking with a notice identifying the connection location should be sufficient but open to opinions.

[@Tyler-ph8bh]

don’t often get the crimps out unless i’m extending a cooker switch or emergency repair where it’ll be plastered over

[@JasperJanssen]

Why doesn’t wago make a din rail mount for the 221-2401 inline style? They make them for the standard 221 as well as the standard 2273s…

[@Mark1024MAK]

So if you had an underground (buried) cable and you put in a (correctly made) maintenance free joint, why would using a maintenance free connector be different in trunk including? Any joint/join/connector should obviously be properly insulated.

[@BenWiggins101]

Seen too many through crimps in trunking with a stray fine strand sticking out the back of them !! For me, it's a big no, that's in industrial, where at times we have to work in trunking with live circuits inside. Plus when tracing cables and you give it a little tug to see where it goes, what's to say it won't fall out the crimp if not done properly, seen that too many times before as well

[@darrenplant1428]

So if you made the pvc trunking only accessible with a tool?

[@ConjuredUndead]

Basically yeah, self drilling screws through the lid into the lip - satisfactory enclosure via the use of a tool.

[@markriggall6710]

The wiska COMBI 108 box has a pull off lid and does not require a tool. How does this comply with BS7671

[@coxyjmz]

If you put self tappers in 4 inch box in theory you meet the requirements?

[@michaeljohnson1006]

In the regs with metal trunking you can't have gaps bigger than is it 1mm? Or 1/2mm ?

[@Edsbar]

I'm not qualified in electrical installations, but I understand what constitutes a permanent/maintenance-free connection but would heat shrink comply with providing protection against ingress from a finger or 1mm wire? after all, if properly installed, heat shrink would need a tool to gain access in the form of a knife and any plastic trunking would be an extra outer enclosure.

[@JackDaLadd]

I'm going to assume plastic trunking is also kinda pointless in most cases now, due to electrical cabling having to be protected from premature collapse incase of fires ect, so i can assume most trunking will be metal going forward or cables buried in walls

[@TheWebstaff]

Not really as they are just putting metal straps inside the trucking. Also need to be aware of the scope of where that applies. (seems to be down to the inspector)

[@JackDaLadd]

@@TheWebstaff yeah not an electrician myself, just a knowledgable guy always wanting to learn

[@notpoliticallycorrect1303]

I had my workshop rewired and updated a bout 5 years ago,I have that very same steel trunking running right around the workshop, there are numerous joins in the trunking, the guy who inspected it all gave each nothing more than a cursory glance and tugged at the odd connection.

[@paulbrady5772]

I always thought sparks were boring and oh my god you lot have confirmed it...

[@efixx]

Thanks Paul - perhaps we should question your viewing habits? What do you expect to see in a video about cable containment - dancing girls & bond villains?

[@paulbrady5772]

@@efixx wow that's quite funny well done . There's hope for you lot yet

[@teepee9466]

I am not a professional electrician or electrical engineer, so please do excuse my ignorance. But I am interested to hear from experienced professionals. Why is there a requirement for a joint to be serviceable in a a cable? Perhaps this requirement was written to target joints in harsher environments (e.g. varying humidity). But I don’t understand the failure mechanism for the joint, since surely it must always be strain relieved anyway. Or is this one of those regulations trying to overcome ‘forseeable misuse’?Thank you in advance.

[@PaulSteMarie]

I don't think the NEC allows connections outside a junction box, full stop. I don't know about British standards. Putting connections in trunking leaves them vulnerable to pulls and tugs, potentially from far away. While a good crimp should be stronger than the wire, that's often not the case.

[@ladams5356]

A inline connector isn’t an exposed part ( you referenced exposed parts )

[@MrFatboy192]

Honestly if it's in trunking of any kind in connector strip, don't worry about it, if you are dumb enough to go pulling off lids and somehow get your little finger to touch the live protected by plastic in the connector you deserve a shock! Ex UK sparkie living in nz

[@CShand]

How can you extend a cable coming directly out of concrete where it has been chased in and concreted over. Less than 20mm out the wall. Ceiling is conservatory. I have had to use a external junction box

[@AllenGoldsmith]

what if there is no slack to bring cable/s through an enclosure?

[@awesomedee5421]

What is that thing on the wall behind you by your head level? I want one.

[@andyh5465]

So if i was to replace a CU and the wires were very tight, usual story - only needs another few inches to make good, it is not acceptable to use a wago inside the CU (using the CU as an enclosure requiring a tool to open) and I would have to use old fashioned crimps instead?

[@karlazzopardi9914]

What about soldering the cables to extend them and then use shrinkable tubing ?

[@greenpedal370]

Isn't an insulated crimp splice an enclosure in its own right? Albeit a very small one.

[@engdarfatgalalyelectrical1076]

I watch your videos, your information is useful,, I wish you success

[@efixx]

Thank you 🙏

[@paulmatthews5470]

If, for example, a connection is made in plastic dado trunking with a socket or screwed-on accessory either side of the section of lid, you would use a tool to remove the accessory to get a hold on the end of the lid to peel it back. Now, unless you have super-fingers and can start in the middle of that piece of lid, would one say it can only be accessed via use of a tool? Just a thought.

[@deang5622]

Interesting question. Would you normally use a tool to to remove the lid? If the lid would normally be removed without the use of a tool, and it is simply that because of the obstructions at each end you need to use a tool then I don't think that really would be acceptable. Just my opinion. If you use a trunking which normally requires the use of a tool to get into, then it certainly would meet the requirement. Using fingers, even if difficult, if that gives access to exposed live parts then I am confident this does not conform to the regulations. The point about the use of a tool is, most people don't go off and fetch a tool to interfere with the installation. We all have fingers and we can use them to interfere.

[@paulmatthews5470]

@@deang5622 i suppose a damaged lid would easily defeat it as well

[@chobbler]

We wouldn't have done that back in the day (late 70's), as an industrial electrician I would have ran new cables without joints. Wouldn't have slept at night knowing an earth cable was crimped. 13th edition I think it was back then.

[@antonyjones7741]

out of interest what about plastic dado trunking? the ones i have used the lid cover is secured buy the sockets and other outlets and joints. a tool is normally required to remove the covers also

[@sarahjrandomnumbers]

You can remove the lid off plastic trunking without a tool? Must be really crap trunking then, cause I need at least 2 flat head screwdrivers to take the lid off (only after turning the circuits off), which is no doubt what the council thought when they started rewiring flats around here with plastic trunking.

[@andyleggatt1846]

you could theoretically use a Wago 221 inline inside a wagobox Light, sealed to make a maintenance free connection and then place this inside the trunking if space permitted? Appreciate this would have its own downsides, but I can't think of there being a regulatory restriction on this use?

[@deang5622]

I don't think this is permitted, though maintenance free, it doesn't provide access to the connector for inspection, though that does depend on the precise type of conduit you use and how the conduit is installed.

[@alunroberts1439]

I read the use of wago's that for matenence free need to be in a enclosure that holds them and not free floating but then we can have them floating in the back of light switches.

[@justinnicholas8680]

It’s accessible for maintenance within a back of light switch, it wouldn’t be classed as a “maintenance free connection” - if the connection isn’t accessible e.g in a ceiling or underneath a floor, you would then need to have it in a sustainable enclosure(wago box) to make it maintenance free.

[@alunroberts1439]

@@justinnicholas8680 That is what I did say in the back of a light it can be free floating but not every were else.

[@dansheppard2965]

And a 221 in a little Wago connection box inside trunking? Would that be an mfc for (iv)?

[@grumpygit447]

What is the difference between trunking and a joint box

[@christastic100]

Meanwhile in reality street a BC or ES lamp holders can have their live parts accessible by a child removing a lamp without a tool 🤭

[@Nomenloony]

My thought has always been crimped in metal, yes, in plastic absolutely no; so it looks like we have similar thoughts on this.

[@abdulseaforth6930]

Excellent. Excellent. Excellent

[@justme5384]

We have junction boxes here that you don't need tools to open an they are up to our standards. There made by ABB and models are AP9 and AP10. Also other manufacturers has similar ones, can't remember maker but model is 2K-12 and 2K-16

[@deang5622]

This is the product description for the ABB P9 taken from ABB's website: "The box locks by snapping and can be opened by inserting a screwdriver (for example) into the opening slots - no screws are needed...", So they do say a tool is needed.

[@justme5384]

@@deang5622 yeah you don't. You can open them with your fingers. Still they're my go to box. I use probably like 10 of them a week. Also outside. And as connection box from twin and earth (or MMJ as we call it) to flex with the accessory AS9.10 that allows you to ziptie a flex in the box

[@AAW-Electrics]

"Can I Use Connectors Inside Trunking to Extend Cables" - Yes, the 'MF' QuickWire! Making you proud to be British again!