AB 140-G Circuit breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
Semi-retired engineer
An interesting "lunch and learn" yesterday put on by AB at our facility.

AB is completely ditching their old line of 140-U MCCB in favor of an IEC style they are calling the 140-G line. Eight frame sizes from 15 to 3000 Amps.

As of February 4 you won't be able to order the old ones even as spare parts unless there just happens to be one available on a distributor shelf somewhere. Their plan is that if you have an old style CB fail in a MCC, you will have to replace the whole bucket.

It sounds a lot like they had a major falling out with CH (their current MCCB supplier), although when asked directly the AB guy would not comment about it nor would he say who the new supplier is.

They are also replacing their miniature CBs, both the supplemental and UL489 series, with something new.

They had a printout of the old style breakers we used during the previous year. Over 150 different part numbers. It would appear none of them will have any direct replacements.

I asked about MCPs and never actually got an answer. I don't know if the AB guy just never got around to answering that question or if he deliberately avoided it.
 
Last edited:
petersonra said:
An interesting "lunch and learn" yesterday put on by AB at our facility.

AB is completely ditching their old line of 140-U MCCB in favor of an IEC style they are calling the 140-G line. Eight frame sizes from 15 to 3000 Amps.

As of February 4 you won't be able to order the old ones even as spare parts unless there just happens to be one available on a distributor shelf somewhere. Their plan is that if you have an old style CB fail in a MCC, you will have to replace the whole bucket.

It sounds a lot like they had a major falling out with CH (their current MCCB supplier), although when asked directly the AB guy would not comment about it nor would he say who the new supplier is.

They are also replacing their miniature CBs, both the supplemental and UL489 series, with something new.

They had a printout of the old style breakers we used during the previous year. Over 150 different part numbers. It would appear none of them will have any direct replacements.

I asked about MCPs and never actually got an answer. I don't know if the AB guy just never got around to answering that question or if he deliberately avoided it.
Click to expand...
It's not really predicated by a falling out with the current supplier, it's the fact that the new 140-G CB line was developed in-house, even thought the manufacturing is contracted out. So it is a true Rockwell breaker, it is not a "brand label" agreement as the previous 140 lines were. You will not be able to buy this same breaker elsewhere under a different name.

I can address a number of your concerns, but because I work for Rockwell, I'm not sure what I can and cannot say publicly in the forum at large. I will PM you.

But yes, the falling out is taking place, but that is an effect, not a cause. Rockwell has had a long and prosperous relationship with Eaton via their previous relationship with Westinghouse, but it needed to change. Turns out this has been under development for a long long time, but miraculously nothing leaked out about it until very recently, probably when the UL listings became official. It even caught us by surprise internally! So apparently Eaton just found out about a month ago themselves and has reacted, as predicted, by immediately closing off the spigot. That's why the change seems so sudden, Rockwell could not say anything until the inventory, supply chain, and compliance issues were all aligned. I was around when Allen Bradley changed from ITE to Westinhouse breakers in the late 70s. It was a very similar process. It happens, is upsets the apple cart for a while, then everyone moves on...
 
"New Breaker"

"New Breaker"

Why wouldn't consumers of the product purchase the Breaker from Eaton? Most If not all Rockwell distributors are Authorized Eaton distributors.
It would be a Form-Fit-Function Equal plus I?m sure the UL flies are linked.

Plus all the End-Users with their installed base-this sounds like a big mess! It may have worked in the 70?s from ITE to Westinghouse but I have a hard time believing it will work today?s economy.

Also-Didn't the NEC state a breaker is a breaker is a breaker? Why would you buy a whole new bucket on an MCC for 4 times the cost of original if Eaton has an equal?

Thoughts?
 
Control Craig said:
Why wouldn't consumers of the product purchase the Breaker from Eaton? Most If not all Rockwell distributors are Authorized Eaton distributors.
It would be a Form-Fit-Function Equal plus I?m sure the UL flies are linked.

Plus all the End-Users with their installed base-this sounds like a big mess! It may have worked in the 70?s from ITE to Westinghouse but I have a hard time believing it will work today?s economy.

Also-Didn't the NEC state a breaker is a breaker is a breaker? Why would you buy a whole new bucket on an MCC for 4 times the cost of original if Eaton has an equal?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

AB is very good with FUD. They will not lie to their customers but will imply strongly that the only answer does not involve using Eaton breakers.

If I had a bunch of older AB equipment and needed to fix it, I would not hesitate to buy the Eaton breakers as replacement parts.
 
Bottom line:
Next year those C-H breakers will become obsolete anyway. They will still be able to be used in switchgear (sold in North America only) for a few more years until the US and Canada catch up to the international "RoHS" regulations (Reduction of Hazardous Substances, essentially the cadmium in the contacts and the fact that the thermoplastic is not recycleable). But A-B is not in the switchgear business, yet control panels and MCCs are shipped all over the world. Eaton chose not to ask A-B what they wanted, nor did they let them know their plans, but once the breakers become obsolete and C-H didn't let them plan ahead, that could seriously damage A-Bs business, especially the MCC business. Maybe that was their plan? Who knows. So A-B took charge of their own destiny rather than wait for a competitor to decide it for them.

The problem with those old Westinghouse breakers is coming to everyone sooner or later. A-B was the biggest OEM user of those breakers for Eaton but Siemens brand-labels some of them as well, and they are jumping ship too for the same reason. With that lost, Eaton will likely obsolete them quicker now themselves.
 
I just spent the better part of 2 hours looking for a 3000A MCCB that has an external operating handle for a quote I am working on. It does not appear that such a beast actually exists.

Sometimes it is easier for a customer to draw a one line up than it is for me to actually implement it. :)

The cable style handles for AB's new line of CBs goes up to 1200A. They used to only go up to 400A, although they had a rod style that went upto 1200A.
 
GoldDigger said:
So your spec calls for an operating handle rather than just a charging crank and manual trip?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

it is an industrial control panel with a type 3R enclosure for outside use. I don't know how to interlock a door with that type of CB in a way that is UL508a compliant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top