Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: trumbull panel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Corinth, NY
    Posts
    87

    Default trumbull panel

    This older Trumbull panel had newer breakers installd that would not allow the panel cover to fit tightly. I don't know if there are breakers that could be purchased that would fit properly, but recommended to my client to have it replaced. The service entry wire was only good for 100 amps and was weathered quite badly, and improperly stapped. I could not find any information on trumbull panels, that they are a problem. Any one have any input?

    Thank you,

    Russ

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    NHIE Practice Exam

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: trumbull panel

    Old obsolete panels installed not installed in compliance with their vintage listings, vintage editions of the NEC, etc. Therefore all pictured equipment as installed has voided any former listing status - and would not pass field evaluation by todays standards, is unsafe and should be removed and replaced with safe equipment.


    Both distributon panels (middle and left) and what is contained therein are OBSOLETE, as are what is contained therein. Scotching/arc marks middle panel bottom wireway.

    The search feature on the forum works. Here are two recent discussions that pertain to Trumbull.

    http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...rgot-name.html

    http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...ectric-co.html

    Same issues - up must be on, down must be off, not the case here. Although you don't show the T panel open - conductors in excess of listed/labeled limitations.

    Double tapped load side terminals on the fused disconnect/service.

    Low untested (calculated) SCIR, too low for today's standards. Unclassified breakers in middle panel for non CTL panel, installed in opposite to the panel instructions.

    Neither panel provides for separated ecg for branch circuits.
    regardless of older allowances for installations, the installation is compromised even by the "old rules" which were not intended for this ancient obsolete equipment, and even IF permitted, was applied incorrectly and against the listed, labeled limitations of the equipment pictured, therefore violative even THEN. Therefore it should be called out as unsafe and in need of replacement with safe, undamaged, and modern, safe equipment.

    P.S. Am in no way confident that that fused safety switch being used as service disconnect met or was labeled "suitable for use as service equipment" THEN, it would not meet todays standards - no separation of ECG from N+G bond - three-wire (bonded N & G) leaving same into both panels to the left of same. - Leaving this safety disconnect load side, Neither is a "main power feeder" i.e. double tap(s).

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 03-14-2012 at 08:56 AM. Reason: added post script.

  3. #3
    Robert Rolleston's Avatar
    Robert Rolleston Guest

    Default Re: trumbull panel

    SE cable was painted and the paint is just peeling. Double taps in the disconnect box. Replacing both of those panels with one would be my choice and feeding the new panel with a four wire feed in conduit from the disconnect. To make them upgrade it to 200 amps would be beyond what is required.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Corinth, NY
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: trumbull panel

    The entrance cable was more than just paint peeling. It is original to the home, about 60 years, and in very poor condition.


    Thank you very much for your evaluation.

    Russ


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •