replacement for Crouse-Hinds breaker
- Thread starter toplessHO
- Start date
Murray is the successor company to Crouse-Hinds, it is also the name they were prior to being Crouse-Hinds, if you look on the label, some C-H loadcenters were marked to accept ITE EQ-P, & EQ-T, breakers, also Bryant BR, ITE is now Siemens, and Bryant is Eaton, but can't go wrong with Murray, & HD carries them.
Notgrownup
Well-known member
Crouse Hinds was acquired by Cooper industries and then Eaton Corp...A CH style breaker should work ...I have a Eaton panel and all my breakers are CH.
I use to work for Crouse Hinds in Canada, My wife just retired after 40 years with them.
We only messed with Industrial Starters and breakers enclosure but mostly the explosion proof stuff.
I use to work for Crouse Hinds in Canada, My wife just retired after 40 years with them.
We only messed with Industrial Starters and breakers enclosure but mostly the explosion proof stuff.
Last edited:
thanks but I think youve confused things more than helped.
CH is also the abbreviation for Cutler Hammer. So which is it?
If you meant CH to be Crouse -Hinds,of course you can use Crouse-Hinds breakers in a Crouse-Hinds panel.
But Im pretty sure they didnt make a Crouse-Hinds 1 inch 2 pole,with internal common trip.
And Ive also heard years ago that Seimens bought Murray/Crouse-Hinds,not Eaton.
The twist is that the distribution equipment division was sold to Siemens (and brought back the Murray name). I believe that was the Charlottesville group.
2nd twist is that Siemens is retiring the Murray brand.
Last edited:
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
What is the make and model of panel you have?
Just because theres a particular brand of breaker in there doesnt mean its listed and labeled for use in that panel.
The twin breakers that Crouse-Hinds had are obsolete they were nice because you can get 240V with a twin, did not have to use a quad breaker like you have to now with any brand other then GE, Challenger also was very similar to Crouse-Hinds, but were prone to frying the bus like Zinsco.
If the OP uses Murray they will be fine, as they are the successor company.
If the OP uses Murray they will be fine, as they are the successor company.
Notgrownup
Well-known member
The division I worked for like I said was the Industrial division so a different animal. Didn’t mean to confuse, sorry if I did.
I was more involved in the JOY manufacturing side of Crouse Hinds, the rubber molded high voltage connectors...This is how I met my wife, She worked at the USA plant here in NC for 40 years.
I was more involved in the JOY manufacturing side of Crouse Hinds, the rubber molded high voltage connectors...This is how I met my wife, She worked at the USA plant here in NC for 40 years.
Notgrownup
Well-known member
Different division...like I said, sorry if I misled. Eaton did buy Cooper that bought Crouse Hinds Electrical Construction Material (ECM) division that owned Arrow Hart, Joy and ECM.
Last edited:
alfredeneuman
Well-known member
If it says common trip it means it has an internal common trip
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
yeah maybe for new breakers but not the case for some old ones.
i took apart an old breaker couple years ago that was double pole handled tied and said common trip on it. I discovered There was nothing internal that tied the inerds together.
I will look for the pics and post them up here.
GE is the only mfr I was able to find that uses the description “internal common trip” for breakers in this category. Siemens and SQ D both use the term “common trip” on their full-size 2p and 3p cb’s. The Quad breaker suggested has 2 pairs of 30A CB’s each with common trip.
Whether you choose Murray or Siemans is a moot point as neither breaker brand is formally classified (that I can find) for use in Crouse-Hinds panels.
Pick whichever is cheaper/shorter trip. Siemens Q23030CT2 = Murray MP23030CT2.
You will probably need another twin for the two 1/2 cb's on either side of the 30's.
Not surprising with two competing product lines from the same company with physically interchangable parts that Siemens will stop producing the Murray brand by yearend, so it doesn’t matter.
Whether you choose Murray or Siemans is a moot point as neither breaker brand is formally classified (that I can find) for use in Crouse-Hinds panels.
Pick whichever is cheaper/shorter trip. Siemens Q23030CT2 = Murray MP23030CT2.
You will probably need another twin for the two 1/2 cb's on either side of the 30's.
Not surprising with two competing product lines from the same company with physically interchangable parts that Siemens will stop producing the Murray brand by yearend, so it doesn’t matter.
Get it straight from the mfg.
Kenneth Fretz
siemens industry inc
customer support
866-663- 7324
If possible give him the panel # ( paper label on door) - he can advise you. Have him send a follow up email, so there is no mistake . He also included the link to the UL approval of the substitute breakers
Kenneth Fretz
siemens industry inc
customer support
866-663- 7324
If possible give him the panel # ( paper label on door) - he can advise you. Have him send a follow up email, so there is no mistake . He also included the link to the UL approval of the substitute breakers
Last edited:
A confusing post, so which is it - you're requesting(hoping) there is classified approval or its already been provided and there is a link to this info?
If a link exists, please provide!
A link would be great, because the only UL classified list that there is a link to some panels is from Eaton.
https://www.eaton.com/us/en-us/cata...on/classified-circuit-breakers.technical.html
I tried at the Siemens site but it is a PITA.
He can supply the link for the ul approval (if any) for your specific breaker- call him (or them ) on Monday. Information from the source. Breaker interchange & ul approval (if any)
Any link I have might not apply to your breaker, so best to get it from Siemans.
Any link I have might not apply to your breaker, so best to get it from Siemans.
Last edited:
OK will call and see
And I agree with WD,and its why I specified internal common trip.
a tie bar classifies as a common trip.
But as the picture shows its a piss poor attempt at it.
I trust that SqD is because it has only one breaker handle.
Will most likely yank this Frankenstein panel out and replace with a good GE or SqD
when I get the chance.
And I agree with WD,and its why I specified internal common trip.
a tie bar classifies as a common trip.
But as the picture shows its a piss poor attempt at it.
I trust that SqD is because it has only one breaker handle.
Will most likely yank this Frankenstein panel out and replace with a good GE or SqD
when I get the chance.
Common trip with an external mechanical connection provides the same functionality as an internal common trip design. 2 pole and 3 pole cb’s are required to simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded circuit conductors as required in NEC 240.15(B). A cb identified as common trip does exactly that.
The handle ties that can be added to 2 adjacent cb’s are permitted for MWBC’s as per NEC 240.15(B)(1). Each pole can trip independently of the other, but when used to open the cb (as a disconnect), the handle tie will open each breaker pole. This is known as independent trip.
The handle tie you have in your panel on that 2 pole ½ mini is to be used for a MWBC only and not for a 240v load. Same goes for the breaker below it. It looks like a joy stick as compared to a rigid fixed connection found on 2p and 3p cb’s. Can easily see how in the trip position there is so much slop in that linkage that it would not trip the other. At least by today’s code requirements your panel has the wrong cb’s in use for 240v circuits. Maybe someone else can tell if this was at one time ever code compliant??
Your panel could probably use an upgrade looking at all of the ½ space cb’s in it. I would not change it out simply b/c I couldn’t find an internal trip style cb. You have been given part #’s for an acceptable replacement part that utilizes common trip, not independent trip.
Good point that those old 2 pole slims wire not never made as common trip. But you don't need common trip for 240v only loads or MWBC with only 120v loads. You need common trip for things like electric dryers and kitchen ranges which usually have have 240v heating elements with 120v controls.
Just my 02¢ but I have used the Eaton and Siemens to replace some bad CH that were making small arcing sounds. They both snap into the buss tighter than the crouse hinds and i feel safer even though neither has been formally approved by UL as suitable replacements.
Go to the links I posted in reply #47 of the Electrical FAQ. It references 2 memos from UL for this situation.
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
You feel safer even though you violated the listing? Boy thats a contradiction.
Why not get the correct replacement breakers?
Not following…… Murray and Siemens CB’s are equivalent as documented by the UL letters referenced and the Eaton’s are classified for replacement of CH full size. These are what mdb007 used in his CH panel.
Otherwise, what would the correct cb’s be then?
wyliesdiesels
Well-known member
The way i read it, he used siemens breakers in a CH panel or in place of CH breakers.
Last edited:
From the electrical FAQ's
View attachment UL breaker-substitutions-murray-MH-T(crouse hinds)1.pdf
Decided to add this too.
View attachment UL Letter of Authorization to Substitute I-T-E Gould and Siemens Circuit Breakers(1).pdf
View attachment UL breaker-substitutions-murray-MH-T(crouse hinds)1.pdf
Decided to add this too.
View attachment UL Letter of Authorization to Substitute I-T-E Gould and Siemens Circuit Breakers(1).pdf
Last edited:
Me too, and it's no longer an issue as clarified by UL statements made in '93/97.
I called UL and they sent me those letters and I posted here in June. That old story is no more.
The Eaton CL's are UL classified to replace CH MP's so that is also a non-issue.