Log in to the online community
The bit I found most surprising though was the deletion of 5188.8.131.52 - which required duplicate c.p.c.s to be terminated independently of each other - as I always thought that a very sensible requirement as terminations seem to be the source of the majority of problems and there seemed little point to me in having duplicate c.p.c.s if they can both be disabled by the same loose connection. Does anyone have any insight into why such a change is being proposed?
Considering Regulation 411.3.3 (or 522.6.203) combined with 531.3.2 (ii), we're probably talking about very few circuits these days where two independent protective conductors are required - probably in the specialist arena, and many where other provisions to achieve the requirements (such as earthing to BS EN 50310).
Personally, I worry that the requirements for RCDs, and the protective conductor currents permitted by product standards, are not necessarily aligned. However, the evidence from years of using split-load CUs, is that perhaps I'm worrying unnecessarily for the most part - and of course use of RCBO's improves on that situation.
The deletion of 5184.108.40.206 could be viewed as being driven by manufacturers not wanting to put an extra terminal on their accessories. But connecting the two protective conductor circuits could be done using a couple of connectors in the enclosure and a couple of flyleads to the faceplate earth terminal, getting rid of the 1 point of failure for both circuits.