I'm looking for a cooker switch (in white) with integral switched socket, but arranged vertically rather than horizontally: portrait rather than landscape. In other words, like this:
Many thanks,
Bert
Well, to (partly) answer my own question, I've just found this:
Bert
But you only need to turn it on and shove your plug into it. You are not going to marry it:-)
Sorry never seen one. I have a google and look through my suppliers cats for you later.
Cheers
No, but I have to look at it. That thing is offensive to the eye.
If you do come up with anything I'll be grateful. Vertical cooker switches on their own seem to be easily had, but not with the (horizontally) usual added socket.
Bert
May I assume that you gust want to change an existing vertical cooker switch to add a much needed socket and there is no chiseling into the wall allowed?
BTW nothing Neweys or MK. I'll look at the rest for you.
Dual box and separate cooker switch and socket?
Not sure if a 'separate' socket is allowed on a cooker circuit, or only as a combined Cooker Control Unit
Owain
Annoyingly, I want to replace an existing vertical cooker switch which already has a socket, but which is also damaged. It's also pretty ancient, but that wouldn't be so much of a problem if it were intact.
I presume you're thinking of refitting the existing vertical box horizontally. I'd rather not do that except as a last-ditch solution, but if all else fails I shall.
Bert
It would be on a 32A circuit without question - it would be a variation on a
32A radial socket circuit - but that may not leave enough for the actual cooker circuit. But as the entire thing is protected by a 32A breaker you are not going to set anything alight - possibly just get nuisance trips.A single socket ona 40-45A circuit would be a very special case. Obviously not unreasonable as cooker switches with integral sockets prove.
The question of protection for the spur cable to the socket comes to mind, but as the socket is protected from overload downstream by the plug's 13A (or less) fuse you coul dmakea reasonable argument for it. Or you could run
6mm2 as the spur cable provided the socket terminals are OK with this.OTOH, it could attract all sorts of comments and/or markdowns should you need to get a PIR done by a sparky who disagrees with you as you will not be able to claim it is a standard circuit...
Sorry. I cannot find anything other than the one you have already found:-(
I'm grateful to you for taking the time to search. Much appreciated.
Bert
I think.... checking my Regs... that this is one of the allowable situations for cable protection downstream as it's within the outlet enclosure and "the load ... is unlikely to carry overload current". 473-01-04.
JGH
Is your book a blue one?
Andrew,
Many thanks for that. The newer design is certainly preferable to the old TLC model, though (once again) the price is a tad wince-inducing. But I'm very grateful for the link.
Bert
In the circumstances it would seem entirely reasonable to treat as a cooker point and apply the same diversity allowance (5A for the socket, plus 10A of the actual load plus 30% of the remaining load)
Even that is fairly unlikely (and no more so than with a COTS "cooker point")
Most of them should be - and in the same double backbox it would seem simplest to loop the 6mm^2 through. However, even 2.5mm^2 would have adequate fault protection from a 32A MCB as it does with a spur from a
32A radial or ring.Well shit happens, only some of it matters ;-)
No, the green one: IEE 16th Ed Amendment 1.
JGH
En el artículo , Bert Coules escribió:
Whoever designed that should be shot.
Could you replace the vertical double backbox with two singles, a 45A switch in the upper for the cooker and a single 13A socket in the lower?
That's an interesting idea, thanks.
Bert
That sounds more like the current version of the 17th?
Definitely the 16th 1st Amendment, my mother bought it for me as a graduation present, I specifically got her to wait until the
1st Amendment version came out, so that dates it to 1994, as it says on the cover.It's likely it's one of the many regs that hasn't materially changed. I gather most of the 17th changes are "bash RCDs in everywhere" and new specifications for "wet" locations.
JGH
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.