Pro disasters

[bigcat]

A thread for pro disasters.

Heres a start:

[Mary Fisher]

I wish I'd taken a picture of a central heating boiler installation at a neighbour's house - done on a government grant..

The gas pipe was fixed *outside* the walls. It came out of the coal shed (where the meter was), along the lowest course of bricks, up the side of the back door frame, over the top, down the other side, along the lowest bricks and into her kitchen.

She thought it was odd. I challenged the installer, he said it was according to CORGI regs, the fittings were at the regulation distance apart, and went off.

The company denied that there was anything irregular about the pipe run. It was only re-routed after the customer went to a solicitor.

Mary

[Tony Bryer]

Not unusual and arguably often safer than the alternatives.

[Mary Fisher]

I've never seen it before. The alternative would be to take it under the floor (a much shorter route) which is the norm round here at least. Fixed to the outside wall is vulnerable and therefore potentially unsafe.

That was accepted by the installers when they were threatened with legal action.

Mary

>

[Bob Mannix]

The trouble is that, although more likely to be damaged, the hazard from a gas leak outside is fairly low (no explosion risk). Under floor leaks (although much less likely) are far more hazardous (very high explosion risk).

I guess the two balance out and you would go for the shortest run (which it sounds like they didn't!)

Well that *may* just mean they couldn't afford the time and money to go to court - the case for most small businesses.

My major complaint would have been that it looked crap and could they please redo it!

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , Mary Fisher writes

Lots of them like that round here - people have moved their boilers into the loft, copper gas pipe comes out of the (outside) meter cupboard, up the wall and into the loft.

[Mary Fisher]

Piping should be done so that it doesn't leak in normal conditions. when outside it's far more vulnerable than when it's under the floors. Are you worried about your gas piping being under floors?

They didn't.

Court was never mentioned, I think the threat of losing the contract might have been more telling.

That was the first line, they didn't accept it.

I really wish I'd taken a picture ...

You know how when there's a post or the like on a corner and children swing on it every time they go past it? That would have happened in this situation, it would have come off the wall next to the back door in no time.

Mary

[Mary Fisher]

...

This piping went round and close to the back door. It was also attached to the wall at just above ground level, asking to be used as a footrail. I described it in my original post.

Mary

[Bob Mannix]

No, bit of a cheat though - I don't have any under the floors (they are solid), so it has to go round the walls (but inside). Given the situation you describe, I would probably have gone for the under floor route and limited my worrying to *definitely* ensuring the under floor ventilation was adequate. The nub of the argument is whether surface mounted pipes are "illegal" in some way - I don't believe they are in themselves (but I may be wrong)- although long runs of exposed thin copper pipework would certainly not be best practice.

Well it comes to the same thing! Money counts whether what they did was "legal" or not.

I would have probably tried the legal route as well, in that case, whatever the actual state of the law! If the gas pipes are available to swing on (which I don't think you said to start with) the fitters might well be accused of negligence and failing to take proper care etc. I agree it sounds a horrendous installation. The fact remains though the domestic gas loose outside isn't particularly dangerous compared with it loose inside. Even if there's no-one in, a light gas explosion will destroy a house as most masonry walls will only withstand about 2psi (AFAIR) (across the whole wall) lateral pressure difference.

If someone popped up now with a proposal to pipe inflammable gas into people's houses in thin walled cooper tube (this not having been thought of yet) they would be laughed at, of course, but there we go!

Bob

[Mary Fisher]

The same arguments were made in the forum referred to by the OP.

...

"The gas pipe was fixed *outside* the walls. It came out of the coal shed (where the meter was), along the lowest course of bricks, *up the side of the back door frame, over the top, down the other side,* along the lowest bricks and into her kitchen."

Between * and * describes it quite well, I think. Piping which goes round a door frame is available to be swung on. If it's available it will be as anyone with experience of children and adolecents will know.

Of course it will. An HGV going off the road and hitting a house can destroy it too, we don't keep them out of residential areas (sadly). There are many examples of possible dangers.

Using such examples of bad practice are irrelevant. There must be thousands of such things. No-one suggests piping gas into in people's houses. Gas, electricity, water, fire are all dangerous when not used properly. Bad masters comes to mind. Best practice bears that in mind and aims for safe installations.

And it should when routing gas or water pipes and electricial wiring and that include potential accidential or malicious physical damage.

Mary

[Bob Mannix]

All I was saying was I don't think running gas pipes along external brickwork (as I have seen in plenty of places, although never round an external door frame) is illegal.

I have experience of both (having both at present in the house), if you were implying I didn't! How available it is to be swung on depends on how it's fixed - as you say a photo would ease the pain of any misunderstanding.

I wasn't saying there weren't. I was saying gas on the loose inside is

*more* dangerous than gas on the loose outside, with an example. I can't work out from your reply whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with that point, I'm afraid. If you think the difference is irrelevant, I will have to beg to differ.

Yes they do- I think you missed the irony. Gas supplies are exactly that. They are only tolerated because they already exist. If they were suggested now (having not existed) they wouldn't be allowed at all.

Aha! a point we seem to agree on (see my earlier posting on fitter's negligence, lack of care etc) :o)

Bob

[Lobster]

I'm sure your right: a bit like the old argument that if alcohol were invented tomorrow it would immediately be made illegal!

David

[Mary Fisher]

And aspirin.

Mary

[Vera]

Penicillin too.

[John Stumbles]

So you'd have been happy if it had gone straight up, horizontally at high level and down again?

I would have, but I can't off the top of my head think of whether that's mandated anywhere and frankly can't be bottomed to trawl through the relevant standards (e.g. BS6891) checking :-)

[Mary Fisher]

Everyone seems to be being contentious about this, I can't be bothered replying to any more mischievous replies.

[Ed Sirett]

It may not have been what the customer wanted/expected. But, provided the correct materials were used, clipped at the right intervals and sleeved correctly it would comply with the regs.

[Mike]

[Mike]

Actually the oil and gas recommendations both say that above ground is the preferred method, and only if this isn't acceptable is the following, hugely expensive method to be used.

[Mike]

Oil must be in plastic covered copper. I would have assumed this best for gas as well.