Good lord that's ALOT of cables! and 31 meters in there!

Shouldn't this be in the 'violations' area? Looks like there is no main disconnect, and there's more than 6....

Edit: OOPS... that's main to the left ... all those cables are on the 'load' side ..... what a mess!

I think the correct title for this post is 'Spaghetti Factory."

What a mess!

Ian A.

that has to be the most hideous code-compliant installation I have ever seen!!!
it looks to me like the electricians who installed this took quite a bit of care to make those cables straight and neat, but with that many it'd be a herculean task... there has got to be a dozen better ways to do this...

but imagine the look on the EC's face when he found out the job requirments for this

-Will

It looks like the original install was about a dozen meters, then someone decided to double the number of units. The bottom layer of cables look nice and secure, and then the second layer was ty rapped on top of the original install.

Larry

Good lord, another reason against centralised metering!

What about cable de-rating???

I can't believe anybody, no matter how inexperienced could walk away from that job and consider it to be done properly. That is really, really bad.

A large number of motels in the Wildwood area are being converted to condominiums, which may explain the "reason" for this install. NO, that is no excuse for the sorry looking install.

John

I can not believe that these meters where tagged.

Then the Electric service company installed meters.

What about 230.16, 36" clearance to openable windows?

Have these people never heard of trial lawers?

Oops I mean 230.9

That section does not apply to those cables. It only applies to unjacketed cables.

John,

The code does not require a main for this application. 230.71(A) permits 1 to 6 means of disconnet for each set of service entrance cables.
Don

How in the world can this mess possibly be Code compliant? Take a very close look at the second pic, top of each meter can, I see multiple cables passing through a single fitting, which BTW looks like a 2-inch EMT coupler!! And I wouldn't count on the goop packed around the cables to stop water ingress.

Finally, this is a prime candidate for what's know as a "cascading failure". One cable faults out, burning into the ones immediately next to it, and so on....

Hardly neat and workmanlike, I could never leave such a mess behind I would be too ashamed....

The Poco's around here usually do not care about the installation. As long as it's inspected and approved, they will plug a meter into it.

That POCO attitude is starting to expand here in ComEd territory too.

The last job that I wrestled out with them they were exclusively concerned with the possibility of the Customer getting unmetered power.

They couldn't have cared less about the risk of shock or fire, only that their bill gets paid.

Ah, the joys of deregulation in action....:)

OK Guys,
I can see your concerns,
But, at what stage does common-sense come into the equation?.
These cables are on the outside wall of a building, could someone tell me why they need to be de-rated, considering that they are in "Free-Air"?.
I think that sure there should have been a bit more cable tray installed for the stuff that was installed later on, possibly under the original tray.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this sort of thing is OK, it's not!.
One other thing, painters need to be shot for covering cables and thier supports with paint, ever taken a cable off of a wall and found the thing painted over multiple times and have the saddle screws tear a big patch of paint off the wall?.

I was helping my father replace the old run-under carpets-over doors-and-on molding living room TV coax. I got to rip the old one out, which the previous owners had painted hastily before selling the house. (Like everything else...)

The next day I had a can of gloss white Krylon H2O Latex spray paint, sand paper, wood-filler and a fan in my hands.

Ian A.

This is a perfect example of why code-compliance is a minimum standard. This looks like home-made sin, but last I checked ugly isn't a code violation.

The only violations I might see are 300.11(C) where it looks like the top group of cables is zip-tied to the bottom group, and 338.10(B)(4)(b) where the top cables seem to be secured at intrevals in excess of 4.5 feet. And both those violations could be fixed by another bag of those UV rated zip ties.

I can say that I've participated in installs very similar to this. Large condominiums, centralized meter banks, literally the only difference between what we did and this was the fact that our meter banks were located within the building and all the SER was hidden inside the walls.

So, does it come down to the fact that the only thing "wrong" with this install is that we can see all the SER? Because I could easily see myself in the shoes of the guy being told he had to run that SER, the real questions is:
How could it be done better?

-John

Here's what I don't like about these threads. We look at an ugly but code compliant installation (perhaps the SER needs to be neatened up a bit) and start ripping it apart. Yes, it looks awful.

But some questions need to be asked: Were any of us there at the install? Did anybody here bid on it? The point I'm trying to make is that we don't know the circumstances of why this happened. The building itself looks pretty crummy and I highly doubt the owners were willing to pay big bucks to get a first class electrical job. So this is the end result. It's always easier to say "what if they did it that way" when it's someone else's money.

Peter:
Yes, sometimes we at the forum are nit pickers. Some of us are neat freaks, others are fanatical at how we do things, and yes, we are critical. I happen to fall into all of the mentioned catagories, so please no flaming war!

Yes, I'm from NJ, although north of this area. Yes, I was an EC, and now an AHJ.

Workmanship cannot be written in NJ. This pictured job appears to have violations, support primarily, and possible incorrect connectors at the meter stacks. As to the ty-wraps being UV rated?? who knows.

Jobs like this are usually 'low budget', low bid wins. Economical decissions prevail. Exterior cable routing as opposed to interior is costly on retrofit work, which this probably was. Knowing the state of the economy, 'ya do what ya got to do'.

As to 'crummy', as I said above a lot of the old vintage motels in Wildwood are either being converted to condos, or being demo'd and condos going up. This was probably a conversion of a 30 unit motel to 30 condos, with one 'house' meter.

Interesting set up.
I wonder how many crossed services there are.

We have similar set ups on blocks of flats although on a smaller schale like 12 or so meters.
We found a lot of transposed hotwater circuits. e.g. one service paying for 2 hotwater supplies.

It probably doesn't apply in this case because i can not see any load control relays.

Rodalco:
I can't say for this specific job, but on a condo type conversion like this each unit would get a panel, and everything within said unit would go to that panel. The 'unit' is probably a 'kitchen area'; 1 bedroom, 1 bath, and a 'living room area'; similar to a 'suite in an extended stay hotel. Hot water could be gas, or electric; HVAC is usually a thru-wall combo unit.

John