foul waste Foul drainage. Remove inspection chamber?

[flanagaj]

The image below shows the inspection chamber at the beginning of the run.  As the first toilet comes in on the branch and the main leads off to the external SVP which is solely there for the sewage treatment plant, I’m concerned that I’m potentially going to get a blockage as there is no flow coming down the main run.

 

if I remove the inspection chamber, I can then route the pipe into the main channel of the next chamber.  This will enable the pipe to be rodded.

 

I am then not sure how I’d then branch off for the external SVP?

 

 

[Mike]

I'd move the IC & add a 45° bend so that the WC makes use of the main channel and connect the SVP run to the branch. But make sure your BCO is happy.

 

[flanagaj]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I'd move the IC & add a 45° bend so that the WC makes use of the main channel and connect the SVP run to the branch. But make sure your BCO is happy.

 

Thanks Mike.  That’s why this site is so helpful.  I hadn’t considered doing it that way 👍

[Nickfromwales]

6 hours ago, flanagaj said:

I’m concerned that I’m potentially going to get a blockage as there is no flow coming down the main run.

Based on what? That will work perfectly well, will not block, and is the normal way to do this.

 

If you adjust as above then the BCO will demand that you provide a rodding access point to service the change in direction. Not a good idea at all, and it’s the side of the house so who cares about the extra IC? 

 

Stop micromanaging, and stop worrying, leave as is and get the house built!

[Mike]

3 hours ago, Nickfromwales said:

That will work perfectly well, will not block, and is the normal way to do this. If you adjust as above then the BCO will demand that you provide a rodding access point to service the change in direction.

I've had a BCO reject doing it that way because it wouldn't be guaranteed to be self-cleaning - that is, any 'residue' that build up where the branch meets the main channel would not get washed away. The sketch above is more-or-less identical to the solution agreed. No rodding point needed provided the bend is not more than 45° and is directly off / within a short distance of the IC (1 or 2m, from memory - check the regs / manufacturer's instructions).

 

In my case no pipes had been laid so no issue.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Mike

[Nickfromwales]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I've had a BCO reject doing it that way because it wouldn't be guaranteed to be self-cleaning - that is, any 'residue' that build up where the branch meets the main channel would not get washed away. The sketch above is more-or-less identical to the solution agreed. No rodding point needed provided the bend is not more than 45° and is directly off / within a short distance of the IC (1 or 2m, from memory - check the regs / manufacturer's instructions).

 

In my case no pipes had been laid so no issue.

 

There's too much variation in 'interpretations' from various BCO's, as the last one made me put rodding access internally to tick his boxes.

 

The IC is simply rotated so you use the lower invert throughput, angle on the input and same on the output, and defo not come in on an angle from one of the higher branches. Then, then IC is simply a straight piece of pipe. Zero blockages, zero issue, done it enough times to know it works perfectly well.

 

Agree than another downstream IC within a couple of metres max will be plenty good enough for clearing blockages, but a blockage isn't going to happen if the job's done well (robustly) by a conscientious installer.

[flanagaj]

17 hours ago, Nickfromwales said:

Stop micromanaging

Foul drainage installed with my own fair hands 😀

[Nickfromwales]

1 hour ago, flanagaj said:

Foul drainage installed with my own fair hands 😀

Principles, not labour, squire.