Receptacle Plugs in Lighting Track...Violation of 410?

[newservice]

Customer's 100 yr old house has a very odd small bedroom, with a probably 60's or 70's lighting track installed not for lights but on the wall for receptacles. There are little plug-in single receptacles that can be moved around. (None of them work and the neutral feed is open to the track).
My 96 code book says "Lighting track fittings shall not be equipped with general-purpose receptacles." That all being said, I do see assemblies advertised as exactly this, and supposedly they are UL listed.
Thoughts?

 

[dkidd]

It must be ok. its sold here

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Nora-Lighting-Linear-Outlet-Adaptor/4580955

and they say it is UL and ETL:huh:

 

[newservice]

Yeah, I'm wondering whats to stop someone from just running this around the room 18" from the floor instead of cutting wiring into the walls :ashamed:

 

[newservice]

Answer my own question,

From 2005 NEC

410.101 (A) Lighting Track
``Lighting Track shall be permanently installed and permanently connected to a branch circuit. Only lighting fittings shall be installed on lighting track. Lighting track fittings shall not be equipped with general – purpose receptacles.´´

410.101 (C) Locations Not Permitted
``Lighting Track shall not be installed in the following locations:
1. Where likely subjected to physical damage
2. In wet or damp locations
3. Where subject to corrosive vapors
4. In storage battery rooms
5. In hazardous (classified) locations
6. Where concealed
7. Where extended through walls or partitions
8. Less than 1.5m (5 ft) above the finished floor except where protected from physical damage or track operating at less than 30 volts rms open - circuit voltage.
9. Within the zone measured 900mm (3 ft) horizontally and 2.5m
(8 ft) vertically from the top of the bathtub rim´´

 

[steve66]

Yeah, I'm wondering whats to stop someone from just running this around the room 18" from the floor instead of cutting wiring into the walls :ashamed:

I don't think these could be used as a substitute for permeant receptacles since they are not permeant (they can be moved and removed).

 

[newservice]

I don't think these could be used as a substitute for permeant receptacles since they are not permeant (they can be moved and removed).

Good point , which is probably why the existing ones are broken and missing. Not only that but the whole thing is connected as an extension of K&T which is not allowed in my jurisdiction.

 

[cpinetree]

Any chance of posting a picture of the track and receptacle?

At one time Intermatic made a product much like track lighting that you could plug receptacles into.
The recptacles had 1 grounded (3prong) and two ungrounded (2prong) receptacles one on each edge.






Found a link to a catalog: https://www.platt.com/search.aspx?N...&viewpromo=Intermatic Electra Source 1997.pdf

I incorrectly thought they had lights that also plugged into it, I do not see that in the linked catalog though.

 

[newservice]

Any chance of posting a picture of the track and receptacle?

At one time Intermatic made a product much like track lighting that you could plug receptacles into.
The recptacles had 1 grounded (3prong) and two ungrounded (2prong) receptacles one on each edge.

View attachment 16026

View attachment 16027


Found a link to a catalog: https://www.platt.com/search.aspx?N...&viewpromo=Intermatic Electra Source 1997.pdf

I incorrectly thought they had lights that also plugged into it, I do not see that in the linked catalog though.

I think it's moot for me now, code won't allow within 5 feet vertically of the floor, or where exposed to damage. I can assure you what is left of it is toast and to reinstall new would be a violation.

 

[Russell Ensslin]

If it's a receptacle track than it's not a lighting track; therefore 410 doesn't apply.
If it's got exposed neutral chapter 1 might have some issue but if it's grandfathered in that might not apply.
If it's dangerous to children urge them to remove it on grounds of safety!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Russell Ensslin]

If it's a receptacle track than it's not a lighting track; therefore 410 doesn't apply.
If it's got exposed neutral chapter 1 might have some issue but if it's grandfathered in that might not apply.
If it's dangerous to children urge them to remove it on grounds of safety!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then / not than :-/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steve66]

If it's a receptacle track than it's not a lighting track; therefore 410 doesn't apply.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That does seem to ring a bell. I think I remember a sales person saying their track was listed as something slightly different than standard lighting track, and therefore they could offer receptacles.

 

[dkidd]

From the UL White Book:

The following components are not part of the certified track-lighting system
and are not acceptable for use with a certified track-lighting system: 1)
receptacle adapters that when inserted into a track section will accommodate
attachment-plug-connected products and 2) power-supply-cord connectors
that when inserted into the end of a track section enables the track system
to serve as a power-supply cord connected to its source of supply.

 

[mwm1752]

I don't believe you would call a ceiling mount track with a receptacle adapter as general recepts due to location & being switch.

 

[tkb]

Customer's 100 yr old house has a very odd small bedroom, with a probably 60's or 70's lighting track installed not for lights but on the wall for receptacles. There are little plug-in single receptacles that can be moved around. (None of them work and the neutral feed is open to the track).
My 96 code book says "Lighting track fittings shall not be equipped with general-purpose receptacles." That all being said, I do see assemblies advertised as exactly this, and supposedly they are UL listed.
Thoughts?

This sounds like a side job I did in the 70's in a bedroom of a girl I knew.
Is this in CT?