Commit 7b919f
2025-04-01 21:53:19 R. Bishop: -/-| /dev/null .. fire alarms/panel selection.md | |
| @@ 0,0 1,380 @@ | |
| + | # Comparison of Major Fire Alarm Panel Brands in the UK |
| + | |
| + | Fire alarm control panels are the heart of a fire detection system, interpreting signals from detectors and triggering alarm outputs. This page provides a comprehensive comparison of **major fire panel brands used in the UK** – Advanced, Ampac, Kentec, C-TEC, Honeywell Gent, Honeywell Notifier, Ziton, and Siemens. Both **addressable** (intelligent) and **conventional** (non-addressable) fire alarm systems are covered where applicable. The comparison is intended for installers and specifiers, but also serves as a general educational resource for the fire and security industry. Key factors such as supported detection protocols, open vs. closed systems, notable features, pros/cons, and ideal use cases are outlined for each brand. UK-specific terminology (e.g. *call points*, *sounders*, *BS 5839* compliance) is used throughout. |
| + | |
| + | ## Introduction to Fire Panel Types |
| + | |
| + | Fire panels generally fall into two categories: |
| + | |
| + | - **Conventional Panels:** These have zones of hard-wired circuits. Detectors and call points are grouped by zone, and the panel indicates alarms by zone rather than by individual device. Conventional systems are suited to smaller buildings. Most brands offer conventional panels (e.g. **C-TEC’s CFP** range or **Gent Xenex** for simple zoned systems). |
| + | |
| + | - **Addressable Panels:** These use digitally *addressed* detectors and devices on one or more *loops*. Each device has a unique address, allowing the panel to pinpoint the exact location of an alarm. Addressable systems also support more complex cause-and-effect programming and are scalable to large networks. All the brands compared here offer addressable panels, which are the focus of the brand comparisons. |
| + | |
| + | A critical concept in the UK fire industry is **protocol** – the communication language between the panel and devices. Some brands use **open protocols** (supporting detectors from multiple manufacturers like Apollo or Hochiki), giving specifiers more freedom. Others use **closed (proprietary) protocols**, meaning the panels only work with that brand’s detectors and typically require manufacturer-trained installers. The tables and sections below highlight protocol compatibility, scalability, programming tools, and installer access for each brand. |
| + | |
| + | ## Summary Comparison Tables |
| + | |
| + | Below are summary tables comparing the brands on key criteria: **protocol compatibility**, **panel scalability**, **programming interface**, and **installer access requirements**. |
| + | |
| + | ### Protocol Compatibility by Brand |
| + | |
| + | | **Brand** | **Supported Detection Protocols** | **Open vs. Closed Protocol** | |
| + | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| |
| + | | **Advanced** | Apollo (XP95/Discovery/Core), Argus Vega, Hochiki ESP, Nittan Evolution | Open (Multi-protocol support; works with multiple detector brands). | |
| + | | **Ampac** | Apollo (XP95/Discovery), Hochiki. | Open (Multi-protocol panels; equipment available via distributors). | |
| + | | **Kentec** | Apollo, Hochiki, Argus Vega (configurable per panel/loop). | Open (Multi-protocol panels; no exclusive tie-in). | |
| + | | **C-TEC** | Apollo, Hochiki, or *C‑TEC’s own CAST* protocol (panel variant or loop card defines protocol). | Mostly open (Apollo/Hochiki variants are open; CAST is proprietary but hardware is sold openly). | |
| + | | **Honeywell Gent** | Gent proprietary S-Quad/S-Cubed protocol (closed digital loop supporting multi-sensor, VADs, etc.) | Closed (Only Gent devices; available via *Gent 24* approved integrators). | |
| + | | **Honeywell Notifier** | Notifier/HSQ protocol (System Sensor devices – e.g. FlashScan/CLIP). Newer panels (Pearl) use Notifier ID2net devices. | Closed (Exclusive to Notifier partners; Notifier devices only). | |
| + | | **Ziton** | Ziton ZP protocol (addressable ZP detectors and modules). | Closed (Ziton devices required; typically installed/serviced by authorized firms). | |
| + | | **Siemens** | Siemens Cerberus protocol (FDnet/C-NET) supporting ASAtechnology detectors. | Closed (Siemens devices only; installed by Siemens or partners). | |
| + | |
| + | **Notes:** *Open protocol* panels (like Advanced, Kentec) support detector lines from independent manufacturers (commonly Apollo or Hochiki), which means multiple installers can service the system and parts are widely available. *Closed protocol* systems (like Gent, Notifier, Ziton, Siemens) offer integrated proprietary technology but restrict who can install/program them (usually requiring manufacturer certification). |
| + | |
| + | ### Panel Scalability and Capacity |
| + | |
| + | | **Brand** | **Addressable Panel Models** (Max Loops) | **Devices per Loop** | **Network Capacity** | **Conventional Panels** | |
| + | |-------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------| |
| + | | **Advanced** | *MxPro 5:* up to 8 loops per panel. <br>*MxPro 4:* up to 4 loops (older series). | ~200 per loop max (protocol-dependent). Apollo/Hochiki ~126 devices/loop. | Up to 200 panels networked (Ad-NeT). | **QuickZone** conventional (2, 4, 8 or 12 zone). | |
| + | | **Ampac** | *FireFinder Plus:* 1–8 loops. <br>*LoopSense:* 1–2 loops (smaller panel). | ~126 per loop (Apollo limits). | Up to 99 panels (250 loops max) networked. | *ZoneSense* conventional (multi-zone, incl. twin-wire options). | |
| + | | **Kentec** | *Syncro AS:* 1–4 loops. <br>*Taktis:* 2–16 loops (modular 2-loop cards). | Apollo: 126; Hochiki: 127; Argus: 240 per loop (panel can mix protocols per 2-loop card). | *Syncro* network up to 64 panels; *Taktis* up to 128 panels. | **Sigma** conventional (2–12 zone panels) and **Sigma XT** extinguishant panel. | |
| + | | **C-TEC** | *XFP:* 1–2 loops. <br>*ZFP:* 1–4 loops (touchscreen panel). | devices per loop depends on protocol (Apollo ~126, CAST up to 255). | ZFP networkable (multiple panels; supports larger systems – e.g. network 64+ nodes). | **CFP** conventional (2–8 zones, widely used in small installs). | |
| + | | **Honeywell Gent** | *Vigilon:* 2, 4, or 6 loops per panel. <br>*Vigilon Compact/Nano:* 1–2 loop smaller systems. | Up to 200 devices per loop (S-Quad multi-function devices). | Up to 200 panels on network (multiple domains, copper or fibre). | **Xenex** conventional (small 2–8 zone panel for basic systems). | |
| + | | **Honeywell Notifier** | *Pearl:* 1–2 loops (modern panel). <br>*ID3000:* 2–8 loops (older flagship). | Up to ~198 devices/loop on ID3000 (addresses for sensors/modules). | *Pearl:* up to 16 panels networked (ID2net). <br>*ID3000:* up to 63 panels networked. | Some small conventional panels (often rebranded third-party) for simple applications. | |
| + | | **Ziton** | *ZP3:* 1, 2, or 4 loops. <br>*ZP2:* 1–2 loops (smaller modern panel). | 127 devices per loop (ZP protocol); panels support up to 508 points. | *ZP3:* up to 64 panels (over 30,000 devices networked). <br>*ZP2:* up to 32 nodes (for smaller networks). | Older conventional systems existed (legacy use), but focus is on addressable ZP series. | |
| + | | **Siemens** | *Cerberus PRO (FC720 series):* Typically 2–4 loops (expandable to 8). <br>*Cerberus FIT (FC360):* 1–2 loop for small sites. | ~252 devices per panel in mid-range (e.g. FC724: 4–8 loops, 512 points). ASA detectors handle multi-sensor signals. | High network capacity (tens of panels; modern systems support hierarchical networks). Typically up to 64 nodes on FCnet loops; new IP networking extends this (multi-hundred in large sites). | **Cerberus FIT conventional** panels for small applications (with Siemens conventional detectors). | |
| + | |
| + | **Notes:** All listed addressable panels are approved to **EN 54-2/4** (control and power supply standards). Scalability varies: e.g., Advanced and Kentec can protect very large sites with 100+ networked panels, whereas others like Ampac or Notifier Pearl target moderately sized networks. Conventional offerings are generally for legacy or budget-sensitive installations; most new projects lean toward addressable for flexibility per BS 5839-1 recommendations. |
| + | |
| + | ### Programming Tools & User Interface |
| + | |
| + | | **Brand** | **Programming Interface & Software** | **User Interface** | **Integration/Connectivity** | |
| + | |-------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| |
| + | | **Advanced** | *PC Software:* Advanced’s **Mx Configuration Tool** (for MxPro) with USB/serial connectivity. <br>*Front Panel:* LCD menu and navigation keys (for basic edits, diagnostics). | Text LCD display + LED indicators. Clear menu structure with menus for zones/devices. (MxPro 5 improves programming speed and has more intuitive config). | **Ad-NeT** networking (up to 200 nodes). **AdvancedLive** cloud (UK) for remote monitoring. Interfaces for BMS, paging, graphical head-ends (via add-on cards). | |
| + | | **Ampac** | *PC Software:* **ConfigManager Plus** for configuration (powerful cause/effect programming). <br>*Front Panel:* Yes – on-board menu and LCD for simple programming. | LCD text display, button keypad. Traditional menu navigation (FireFinder). User-friendly for basic operations; detailed programming via PC. | **Ampac networking** (peer-to-peer up to 99 panels). Options for graphical monitoring systems and high-level interfaces. Some panels (FireFinder) offer built-in network cards and **modem** connectivity for remote dial-in. | |
| + | | **Kentec** | *PC Software:* **Loop Explorer** (for Syncro) and **Taktis Config** tools. Taktis has a web-enabled **Virtual Resource** for remote access/monitoring. <br>*Front Panel:* Basic config via LCD/keypad on Syncro; **Taktis** features a 7” colour touchscreen for on-panel programming and status. | **Taktis:** full-colour touch display (800x480) with intuitive UI. Syncro: backlit text LCD with keypad. Both have clear event logs and zone LEDs. | **K-Net** networking (64–128 panels) for large sites. **Taktis** can integrate to BMS, CCTV etc., via I/O modules and has a **Media Gateway** for cloud services. **Ockular** graphical management software available for site monitoring. | |
| + | | **C-TEC** | *PC Software:* **C-TEC XFP/ZFP Configuration Suite** – intuitive programming on PC (XFP also programmable via front keypad). CAST systems use a dedicated config tool. <br>*Front Panel:* **ZFP:** full-colour touchscreen controls (no laptop needed for many tasks). **XFP:** LCD and push-button interface for programming in field. | **ZFP:** Touchscreen with context-sensitive controls and zone LED options. **XFP:** 2x40 character LCD, simple button navigation. User interfaces are designed to require minimal training. | **ZFP networking** allows multiple panels to act as one system. Options for integrating voice alarms or paging via add-ons. Some models support email alerts or dial-out modems. | |
| + | | **Honeywell Gent** | *PC Software:* **Gent Commissioning Tool (PC)** – required for complex programming (logic, cause and effect). Only accessible to Gent-approved engineers. <br>*Front Panel:* LCD display (8-line x 40 char) with a full numeric keypad allows viewing status, silencing, and basic menu navigation (limited programming). | Graphical LCD with detailed text and menu. Ample indicators (up to 500 zone LEDs via expansion for large sites). **Gent Vigilon** interface is known for clear event messages and a straightforward user menu (with access levels per BS 5839). | **Gent Network** (up to 200 panels) with full peer-to-peer logic. Integration to Honeywell’s **WINMAG** graphics or building management. Native support for *voice alarm* integration (S-Quad devices combine detectors, sounder, voice and strobe in one) – simplifying alarm and PA coordination. Wireless detection integration possible via Honeywell’s radio systems (e.g. EMS Radio). | |
| + | | **Honeywell Notifier** | *PC Software:* **Notifier Toolkit / VeriFire** (for older ID series) and new **Pearl Config** software – used by Notifier agents to configure panels. <br>*Front Panel:* LCD display with soft keys (Pearl has a modern display), allowing navigation of alarms, disablements, basic functions. Programming primarily via PC. | Traditional LCD (on ID3000) with simple text; **Pearl** panel has an enhanced user interface (improved screen and navigation keys for ease of use). Zone/fault LEDs and logical menu structure for user actions. | **ID2net** networking (Notifier’s network) for multi-panel sites – up to 16 on Pearl or 64 on legacy systems. **ONYXWorks** or Honeywell’s **Enterprise Building Integrator** can integrate Notifier systems for central monitoring. Wireless detector options via Notifier’s *Agile* system. Interfaces available for HVAC shutdown, access control, etc. | |
| + | | **Ziton** | *PC Software:* **Ziton ZP3 Config** (Windows-based) – used by trained engineers to set up loops, logic, etc. <br>*Front Panel:* Mono LCD display with keypad. ZP3 has a straightforward menu and on-board printer option for event logs. Basic programming (like device text labels) possible from panel, but full programming via PC recommended. | ZP3 interface is functional: 2x40 or larger LCD, numeric keypad, and LED zone indicators. The system provides detailed device status and allows on-site controls easily. ZP2 (newer panel) offers a more modern LCD UI and even Ethernet connectivity for programming. | **ZP network** connects panels and repeater panels (ZP3 up to 64 nodes). Integration via serial/Modbus interfaces for BMS is available. Legacy integrations exist with security systems since Ziton was part of larger security product lines. However, integration is generally less open than newer brands, requiring specific Ziton interface modules. | |
| + | | **Siemens** | *PC Software:* **Cerberus-Engineering-Tool (Xe)** – comprehensive configuration environment for programming ASA parameters, logic, etc. Only available to Siemens and partners. <br>*Front Panel:* Large backlit LCD and menu wheel on most panels (e.g. the Cerberus PRO range) for navigation. Some models have user-friendly graphical displays. Basic configuration (like assigning text labels or adjusting thresholds) can be done on panel for smaller changes. | Siemens panels typically have a high-resolution LCD with multi-line readouts, and an intuitive *rotate-and-press* selector knob (on Cerberus PRO) or touchscreen on high-end units. User interface emphasizes clear plain-English messages and guidance for fire-fighters and facilities staff. | **Siemens FCnet** networking allows very robust, fault-tolerant networking of panels (often in ring topology). Large sites can have dozens of panels networked, and via IP gateways even larger cluster networks. **Desigo CC** or **Cerberus Works** stations provide integration with building management, and the newer **Cerberus Cloud** connects systems to mobile apps and remote dashboards. ASA detectors integrate with HVAC (for smoke control) and are known for minimal false alarms, even in challenging environments. | |
| + | |
| + | ### Installer Access and Certification |
| + | |
| + | | **Brand** | **Availability to Installers** | **Installer Certification** | **Ideal Use Cases** (summary) | |
| + | |------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------| |
| + | | **Advanced** | Sold through fire trade distributors; any competent installer can purchase and install. Technical support and training available but not mandatory. | No exclusive certification needed (open market). Installers should be familiar with programming tools but the protocol itself (Apollo/Hochiki) is open. | Wide range: from small offices (1-loop) to large campuses (network of 100+). Ideal when an open, flexible system is desired, or retrofitting where existing Apollo/Hochiki devices are reused. | |
| + | | **Ampac** | Available via distributors (in the UK market, Ampac panels and Apollo detectors are obtainable). Less common than Advanced/Kentec but supported in UK. | No strict certification program known – considered open protocol in practice. Basic product training is recommended for complex programming. | Small to mid-sized buildings using Apollo protocol devices. Good for installers preferring Apollo devices with an alternative panel solution. Suitable for marine projects as well (Ampac offers marine-approved panels) and projects needing Apollo compatibility with different panel hardware. | |
| + | | **Kentec** | Widely available through UK fire equipment suppliers. Very common in industry – spare parts and panels are easy to source. | No mandatory certification; many contractors are familiar with Kentec. However, Kentec offers training courses especially for new Taktis systems. | Broad usage: commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. Open protocol flexibility makes it ideal where client wants freedom in maintenance contracts. Taktis is chosen for complex sites needing high integration and networking, while Syncro suits simpler addressable jobs. Kentec conventional panels are a go-to for basic systems as well. | |
| + | | **C-TEC** | Readily available (UK manufacturer with distribution channels). Often chosen for cost-effective compliance in small/medium projects. | No exclusive installer requirement for Apollo/Hochiki versions. For CAST protocol, training from C-TEC is advisable to leverage its features, but panels are purchasable openly. | Schools, small offices, residential blocks – especially where budget is tight but an addressable system is needed. The ZFP’s touchscreen ease-of-use can be a selling point for sites that want modern UI. C-TEC conventional panels are very popular in small installs (shops, etc.) due to their simplicity and low cost. | |
| + | | **Honeywell Gent** | Only supplied to Gent’s approved network (*Gent 24* distributors). End users typically must go through these for new installs or expansions. | **Required** – Installers must be Gent-certified (training provided by Honeywell Gent) to get programming software and panel access. Service tools are restricted. | High-end applications where advanced multi-sensor detection and integrated voice alarms are needed: e.g. airports, large offices, shopping centres. Also often specified in PFI/Hospitality projects for its performance. Ideal if the client is willing to commit to a single-manufacturer solution for long-term maintenance. | |
| + | | **Honeywell Notifier** | Supplied through Notifier Engineered Systems Distributors (ESDs). Not sold openly on general market; tied to authorized companies. | **Required** – Only Notifier ESDs get access to programming tools and parts. Certification ensures quality but limits competition. | Large-scale and mission-critical facilities (airports, universities, industrial complexes) where a fully engineered solution by a top-tier Honeywell partner is desired. Good when integration to other Honeywell systems (security, HVAC) is planned, as part of a unified solution. End users should be aware of the service contract implications of a closed protocol. | |
| + | | **Ziton** | Historically supplied via select integrators (e.g. originally GE/UTC dealers like Chubb). Not commonly found through open distribution. | Effectively closed – training was provided by the OEM to select companies. Independent engineers may find it hard to get software or new devices outside official channels. | Existing Ziton sites (many installed in 1990s-2000s in public buildings) – ideal to continue using Ziton for expansions to maintain compatibility. Offers reliable detection and was known for false alarm immunity, but **for new projects** it’s less frequently chosen today given the prevalence of open systems. Typically seen in local authority buildings, some hospitals, etc., especially ones historically serviced by large firms. | |
| + | | **Siemens** | Provided directly by Siemens Building Technologies or approved partners. Not available in general wholesalers. | **Required/Expected** – Siemens or partner engineers handle commissioning. Specialized training on Cerberus systems and ASA detectors is needed due to the sophisticated features. | Premium projects requiring high integration and reliability – e.g. metros, airports, large corporate campuses with Siemens BMS, or sites with challenging environments (manufacturing plants) where ASAtechnology’s false alarm reduction is valued. Also chosen in multi-nationals wanting a global brand. End users trade open access for a very high-spec system with strong support from a large manufacturer. | |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | *An **Advanced MxPro5** series addressable fire panel. Advanced panels are multi-protocol, supporting Apollo, Hochiki, Nittan and more on a single hardware platform. Open protocol systems like this allow installers to mix device brands and give clients flexibility in service providers.*  |
| + | |
| + | *An **Ampac FireFinder Plus** addressable panel (right) shown next to a larger networked enclosure (left). Ampac systems in the UK primarily use Apollo detectors (XP95/Discovery). The panels feature integral LCD displays and straightforward controls, with powerful PC configuration software for programming complex cause-and-effect logic.*  |
| + | |
| + | ## Brand-by-Brand Breakdown |
| + | |
| + | In this section, each brand is discussed in detail, covering their key panel models, protocols, notable features, pros and cons, and typical applications. |
| + | |
| + | ### Advanced |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Advanced Electronics is a UK-based manufacturer known for its versatile *open-protocol* fire panels. The flagship **MxPro** range (MxPro 4 and the newer **MxPro 5**) is among the most popular addressable systems in the UK. Advanced also produces conventional panels (**QuickZone** series) and specialist panels like extinguishant release controllers. Their equipment is approved to EN54 and is widely used across the globe. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** The **MxPro 5** is an EN54 addressable panel available in 1, 2, 4, or 8 loop versions (in various enclosure sizes). It succeeds the older MxPro 4. MxPro 5 brought enhancements like a faster processor and improved networking up to 200 nodes. For conventional systems, Advanced offers the **QuickZone** and **QuickZone XL** (supporting 2 to 12 zones, and even “Sav-Wire”/two-wire configurations for retrofit). |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** A major selling point is multi-protocol support. The same MxPro panel can be ordered with different loop cards or firmware to work with Apollo (Discovery/XP95, now also Apollo Core protocol) or Hochiki ESP devices, or less commonly Nittan and Argus Vega devices. This means an installer can choose detectors based on project requirements or even network different protocol panels together. Advanced calls this “additional open protocol versatility”. All Advanced panels are *open* in that technical information and tools are available to the trade. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** Advanced’s panels are known for robust networking (the **Ad-NeT** network supports up to 200 panels in peer-to-peer style with full cross-communication). They also have sophisticated programming options including dynamic cause-and-effect, timed functions, and integration of graphical mapping via software. The MxPro 5 introduced **AlarmCalm** – a false alarm management system that allows timed investigation delays and filtering of alarm signals to reduce unwanted alarms. Advanced panels can interface with other building systems: they support Modbus, have I/O expansion boards, and even a smart remote monitoring service (**AdvancedLive** in the UK) for checking panel status via cloud. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - *Flexibility:* The open protocol nature gives end-users freedom to use various detector brands and to competitively tender maintenance. |
| + | - *Scalability:* A single MxPro 5 network can handle very large sites (hundreds of loops, tens of thousands of devices). |
| + | - *Reliability:* Advanced has a reputation for well-built hardware and stable software (many professionals cite their reliability). |
| + | - *Ease of Use:* Installation and commissioning are considered straightforward – the PC configuration tool is user-friendly, and the panel UI, while text-based, is logical. Many installers appreciate features like an easy-remove chassis and auto-learn functions. |
| + | - *Integration:* The ability to integrate with BMS, paging systems, etc., via standard protocols or cards is a plus for complex projects. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - The user interface on the panel (monochrome LCD with a keypad) is not as flashy as some newer touchscreens; less tech-savvy users might find navigation less intuitive than, say, a full graphical panel. However, training can mitigate this. |
| + | - Because Advanced is so flexible, a poor programming approach by an inexperienced engineer could result in a less optimized cause-and-effect (flexibility requires responsibility). |
| + | - **No proprietary detector features:** Since they rely on third-party detectors, they don’t have ultra-specialized sensor tech like Gent’s multi-sensor with speech. If a project demands those unique devices, an Advanced panel may not support them (e.g., Gent’s S-Quad isn’t usable on Advanced). |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Almost any – this brand is often the default choice for many consultants when an open protocol system is desired. From small standalone systems in offices/shops (one 2-loop panel) to huge networked systems in hospitals, universities, shopping centres, *Advanced* fits well. It’s especially ideal in scenarios where the client wants to ensure future servicing can be competitive (not tied to one make). Also, for retrofits, if a building has Apollo or Hochiki devices from an older panel, upgrading to Advanced allows reuse of devices and wiring. Advanced is also common in multi-occupancy buildings where each tenant’s system might interface to a central panel (thanks to wide compatibility). |
| + | |
| + | ### Ampac |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Ampac is an international fire panel manufacturer originally from Australia, with a growing presence in the UK. Their panels in the UK are generally **open protocol** addressable systems, primarily designed to work with Apollo detectors. Ampac’s product line includes addressable panels like **FireFinder** and **LoopSense**, as well as conventional and extinguishant release panels (ZoneSense range). In 2018, Ampac joined Halma plc (which also owns Apollo), further solidifying its use of Apollo protocol devices. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** The **FireFinder Plus** is Ampac’s flagship addressable panel line in the UK/EU (approved to EN54). It is modular, available in 1, 2, 4, or up to 8 loop versions, and can be expanded later if needed. FireFinder panels come in various enclosure sizes to accommodate larger batteries or additional loop cards. The **LoopSense** panel is a smaller 1-2 loop addressable panel targeted at small to medium sites; it provides many of the same features in a compact form. For conventional systems, Ampac offers **ZoneSense** (a multi-zone conventional panel which can also do “two-wire” mode on zones, often used in facilities like schools or smaller offices). There’s also a specialized **Marine** version of FireFinder for ship installations, indicating the robustness of the platform. |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Ampac panels in the UK support **Apollo/Hochiki** communication protocols – specifically the Apollo XP95 and Discovery range of detectors. This makes them compatible with a huge range of sensor and device types (heat, smoke, multi-sensor, beam detectors, interfaces, etc., from Apollo’s lineup). As of now, Apollo is the main protocol (Ampac do now support Hochiki, but Apollo remains primary). Ampac is a great choice primarily if you plan to use Apollo devices. Being Apollo-based also means Ampac systems can be integrated into sites that already use Apollo (e.g., expanding an Apollo loop from another panel type, though cross-panel networking would require all panels to be Ampac FireFinder on a common network). |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** Ampac FireFinder has strong programming flexibility, achieved through its **ConfigManager Plus** PC software. Installers can set complex logic, delay timers, investigation periods, and more. The front panel interface allows for straightforward navigation and even programming of simple functions via a built-in menu and standard controls – helpful if a laptop isn’t on hand for minor changes. FireFinder supports networking of up to 99 panels or nodes, with a maximum of 250 loops across the network. This network can be arranged in peer-to-peer style, and is often used to link a large site or multiple buildings. Ampac also supports connection to graphical monitoring systems (they mention support for “High-Level Graphical Interface” integration), meaning a central monitoring PC can show fire alarm events from the panel – an important feature for larger facilities. Another notable aspect: Ampac panels are known for *allowing mixed conventional and addressable* – e.g., on a FireFinder, some zones can be conventional via zone monitor modules, which can be useful for retrofitting portions of systems. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - Ampac provides an **alternative open-protocol solution** that is less ubiquitous than Advanced or Kentec, which can sometimes translate to a cost or availability advantage in certain markets. |
| + | - Using Apollo protocol ensures **device quality and variety** (Apollo is a UK leader in detector tech). |
| + | - The panels are built to international standards and have a solid feature set (loop capacity, decent network limits, etc.). |
| + | - Ampac’s **front panel programmability** is a plus for technicians making on-site adjustments without a PC. |
| + | - For installers already familiar with Apollo systems, learning Ampac’s panel is relatively straightforward. |
| + | - In niche areas like **marine applications**, Ampac’s solutions are well-regarded (their marine FireFinder is an approved solution for shipboard use). |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - Being less common in the UK, there is a **smaller support community** – fewer engineers might be familiar with Ampac compared to, say, Kentec or Advanced. This means a learning curve or reliance on manufacturer support for tricky issues. |
| + | - Ampac as a company, while now part of a larger group, doesn’t have as extensive a UK track record; conservative specifiers might shy away for that reason unless they specifically want an Apollo open system and an alternative to the usual UK brands. |
| + | - The user interface (green LCD with text and many buttons) is a bit dated in appearance compared to new colour touchscreens, though it is functional. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Ampac is ideal for **medium-sized commercial buildings** where an open Apollo-based system is needed. For example, a warehouse or an office park could use a couple of FireFinder panels networked. Installers who prefer Apollo detectors for their reliability might choose Ampac as the panel to build the system around. It’s also suitable for **retrofit of older Apollo-based systems** (replacing an older panel like a Menvier or older Advanced with an Ampac, while keeping existing detectors). Also, if an engineer has Australian or Asian project exposure, they might favour Ampac for its global consistency. Finally, Ampac conventional (ZoneSense) panels can be used in places like small schools or simple buildings where a robust conventional system is needed – though in the UK this segment is crowded with many options (C-TEC, etc.). |
| + | |
| + | ### Kentec |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Kentec Electronics is another UK manufacturer, very well known for both conventional and addressable fire panels. They have been a staple in the industry for decades. Kentec panels are **open protocol** and are synonymous with reliability and ease of use. The product range spans from simple conventional units to high-end addressable with networking. Two key addressable series define Kentec’s line-up: the older **Syncro** series and the newer **Taktis** series. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **Syncro AS / Syncro**: A workhorse addressable panel available typically in 1, 2, 4 loop versions. Often each Syncro panel is dedicated to one protocol (Apollo or Hochiki, etc., via different model numbers). Syncro AS panels have been installed in countless sites – known for straightforward operation and programming via *Loop Explorer* software. |
| + | - **Taktis:** Kentec’s next-generation panel, available in configurations from 2 loops up to 8 or even 16 loops (the hardware is modular – it comes in a 4-slot or 8-slot chassis, each slot taking a 2-loop card, hence max 16 loops). Taktis has a large colour touchscreen UI and much-enhanced processing power. It’s designed to be highly configurable not just for fire, but potentially other control applications, reflecting a modern *platform* approach. |
| + | - For conventional needs, **Sigma** series panels by Kentec are extremely common in the UK (e.g., Sigma CP for general conventional detection, Sigma XT for extinguishing release control, Sigma Intrinsically Safe panel for hazardous areas, etc.). They offer 2 to 12 zones in their conventional panels and are appreciated for their robust simple design. |
| + | - Kentec also provides **repeaters** (e.g., Syncro View repeater displays, Taktis Vision repeaters) and communications accessories like **Vizulinx**, an alarm management/GSM dialler module. |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Kentec’s addressable panels support multiple detector protocols, similar to Advanced. Specifically, **Apollo** and **Hochiki** are primary, and additionally **Argus Vega** is supported on Taktis (and some versions of Syncro). The Taktis system allows even mixing protocols: each 2-loop card can be configured for Apollo, Hochiki or Argus, and different cards in one panel could theoretically run different protocols if needed. This is quite a powerful feature – e.g., a large site takeover where one building has Apollo devices and another has Hochiki could network under one Taktis network. Notably, Kentec does **not** support some proprietary protocols like Gent or Notifier (unsurprisingly), and historically they did not support System Sensor’s protocol on their standard panels (as System Sensor was tied to Notifier). However, Apollo and Hochiki cover the vast majority of open-protocol devices in UK. All Kentec protocols are open and information is shared, making it service-friendly. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - Kentec panels are renowned for being **installer-friendly**. The configuration software (Loop Explorer for Syncro, and a new config tool for Taktis) is considered intuitive by those used to it. The hardware has ample wiring space, removable terminal blocks, and generally thoughtful design. |
| + | - **Networking:** Kentec’s Syncro panels can network up to 64 nodes (a common figure for older systems). The Taktis goes up to 128 panels or repeaters on a network, which is on par with high-end systems for very large sites. Networking can be done in multiple topologies (e.g., ring for fault tolerance). |
| + | - **User Interface:** The older Syncro uses a standard LCD and buttons, but the **Taktis has a 7-inch colour touchscreen** with an intuitive menu and even an embedded thermal printer option for event logs. This modern interface makes it easier for end-users to operate and for engineers to navigate settings. |
| + | - **Integration:** Taktis is built with integration in mind. It has multiple slots for I/O expansion (relay boards, input boards, sounder circuit boards, even conventional zone cards for hybrid systems). Kentec offers the **Taktis Media Gateway** for connecting panels to the internet/cloud so that their **Virtual Resource** software can remotely collect data (allowing remote diagnostics and even programming). There’s also **Ockular**, a graphical fire management software that can display alarms on maps, etc., which pairs with Taktis networks. All these allow Kentec to play in complex scenarios historically dominated by larger proprietary systems. |
| + | - Another feature: Kentec panels (Syncro/Taktis) often come in variants including those branded by detector manufacturers. For instance, Hochiki markets a variant of the Kentec panels under their brand (“Hochiki HFP” which is essentially a Kentec with Hochiki protocol), demonstrating the industry trust in Kentec’s design. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **Reliability and Support:** Kentec has a solid track record; their panels often run for years with minimal issues. Spare parts (like boards, expansion cards) are widely available. Technical support from Kentec UK is well-regarded, and a large community of fire alarm techs is familiar with their products. |
| + | - **Open Protocol Freedom:** Just like Advanced, using Kentec means the end user isn’t locked into a single service provider. This competitive aspect can lead to cost savings over the system’s life. Also, it can integrate different device ecosystems under one roof (Apollo or Hochiki). |
| + | - **Scalability:** The range of panel sizes means you can use Kentec for a tiny two-loop job or a massive multi-panel job. Taktis’s 16-loop capacity in one panel is among the highest in the market (if fully loaded, albeit EN54 may limit total devices per panel). |
| + | - **Feature-rich for Price:** Kentec’s pricing is generally competitive, and one often gets high-end features (networking, touch display in Taktis, etc.) without the premium of a fully closed brand. The **configurable protocol license** on Taktis (unlocking protocols as needed) can simplify inventory and give flexibility. |
| + | - **Conventional line-up:** Their conventional Sigma panels are almost an industry default – known for robustness (metal enclosures, simple LED interface) and are often the choice for replacing old panels or new small builds. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - The **Syncro series** (though dependable) is an older design – for example, it lacks some more modern niceties like USB direct connect (it uses RS232 or needs a USB serial adapter) and the interface is text-only. It’s also limited to 4 loops max per panel, so very large applications required multiple panels networked (which is fine, but just a point). |
| + | - **Software complexity for Taktis:** With greater power comes a slightly higher complexity; some installers new to Taktis have to learn its software and capabilities which are broader than Syncro. It’s still easier than proprietary systems perhaps, but there is a learning curve stepping up from Syncro to fully utilizing Taktis. |
| + | - **Protocol licensing on Taktis:** While having multi-protocol is a plus, the fact that protocols can be *locked/unlocked* per panel could be seen as a minor inconvenience – you’d need the correct license from Kentec to enable Apollo vs Hochiki on a given panel, etc. This is a different approach than just buying a distinct model number like in Syncro days. It offers flexibility but also requires proper procurement planning. |
| + | - Not truly a disadvantage, but one could argue Kentec (like other open systems) doesn’t have a **bespoke detector range** with advanced functions – it relies on Apollo, Hochiki devices. However, those brands offer advanced detectors too (Apollo’s multi-sensors, Hochiki’s multi-sensors etc.), even if not to the same integrative extent as Gent’s devices. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Kentec is commonly found in **office complexes, shopping centres, universities, hospitals**, etc. It is a favourite for many local authority projects or public tenders that specify open protocol. For example, a university campus with multiple buildings might use a Kentec network so that in-house engineers or a choice of contractors can maintain it. Kentec’s **Sigma XT** panel is almost a standard for many FM-200 or gas suppression systems in server rooms, due to familiarity. If a site requires mixing existing Apollo detectors and adding new sections with new devices, a Kentec Taktis could handle both on the same network, which is ideal for phased upgrade projects. Also, for **export projects**, Kentec panels are used internationally, so an installer might stick with Kentec for consistency across UK and overseas sites. |
| + | |
| + | ### C-TEC |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** C-TEC (Computionics) is a UK manufacturer known for life-safety equipment including fire alarm panels, power supplies, nurse call systems, etc. In the fire realm, C-TEC is prominent in the conventional panel market and also offers addressable panels targeted at small-to-medium installations. C-TEC’s systems are valued for being cost-effective and user-friendly. Their addressable panel lines include the **XFP** and the newer **ZFP**. They also introduced their own digital protocol called **CAST** in recent years. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **XFP**: A 1 or 2 loop addressable panel, available in different versions supporting Apollo protocol or Hochiki protocol, or CAST (depending on model). The XFP is a simple, entry-level addressable panel typically used in smaller buildings. It has a menu-driven LCD interface and supports up to 16 zonal LED indicators on the fascia (if needed). |
| + | - **ZFP**: A more advanced panel available in configurations from 1 up to 8 loops (usually 4 or 8 loops max, as per C-TEC’s documentation). The ZFP is modular and features a full-colour touch-screen display with an optional physical zone LED/fire-fault indicator array for compliance in certain applications. ZFP is meant for larger or more complex sites than XFP and can network multiple panels together for campus-style systems. |
| + | - **CFP**: C-TEC’s conventional panel range (8 zone, 4 zone, etc.), extremely common in small installations like shops, small schools, apartments, etc., across the UK. These are non-addressable but worth mentioning as part of C-TEC’s offerings. |
| + | - **Hush** systems: C-TEC also developed the Hush Button solution and Hush-Pro (for reducing false alarms in HMOs – not a panel per se, but a decentralized system for flats). While not the main focus here, it showcases C-TEC’s catering to specific UK market needs (HMO fire protection per BS 5839-6). |
| + | - **Extinguishant**: They have an older EP203 extinguishing panel, although other brands like Kentec are more known in that segment. |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Historically, C-TEC partnered with Apollo and Hochiki, so their XFP panels come in Apollo XP95/Discovery or Hochiki ESP versions (the panel must be ordered with the intended protocol type). The ZFP panels similarly have Apollo or Hochiki versions, and they also support **CAST** (C-TEC’s own protocol) by selecting a CAST-enabled panel or loop card. The CAST protocol (standing for C-TEC Addressable Signal Technology) is an interesting development: it allows up to 255 devices on a loop and is a fully digital communication designed by C-TEC. CAST devices (detectors, sounders, etc.) are made by C-TEC and only work with their panels. So, if using CAST, it becomes a proprietary system in terms of devices – however, C-TEC still sells them broadly without an exclusivity network (so it’s “closed protocol” in a technical sense but “open market” in availability). In summary: an XFP or ZFP could be Apollo, Hochiki *or* CAST depending on variant. They do not support mixing protocols on the same panel; you choose one. C-TEC does not support other brands like Nittan or System Sensor – they stick to these three ecosystems. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - **Cost-Effective Networking:** The ZFP panels can be networked (the literature mentions powerful networking capabilities, though specific node counts aren’t always advertised publicly; likely in the dozens of panels range). This means you can have a small network of ZFPs in, say, different buildings of a site, which historically one might not consider using C-TEC for, but it’s possible. |
| + | - **Touchscreen Interface:** The ZFP’s standout feature is its 7-inch touchscreen. It’s very intuitive – similar concept to a smartphone interface for a fire panel. This can reduce the training needed for users (as C-TEC promotes “everyone’s been waiting for” such ease). The screen allows quick access to disable/enable devices, view logs, etc., via tapping menus rather than navigating text. |
| + | - **CAST Protocol Advantages:** CAST devices have distributed intelligence – each device can store configurations and make decisions, which improves speed and robustness (e.g., less dependency on continuous polling from the panel). CAST loops support a higher number of devices (255) which can reduce wiring for very device-dense installations (though one must consider electrical loading). It’s touted as “the world’s most advanced distributed intelligence protocol” by C-TEC. CAST also supports synchronized sounders and EN54-23 VADs on the loop with optimized power management. |
| + | - **PC Programming:** Both XFP and ZFP can be configured via a PC software. For XFP, there’s a simple tool (XFP Programming Tool) which connects via a serial lead. For ZFP/CAST, a more advanced software handles the logic. The ZFP also allows firmware updates via USB and even email (the panel can email its firmware for remote updates, as one feature highlights) – indicating a forward-looking approach. |
| + | - **Integration:** C-TEC panels can interface with other systems via I/O modules (like any addressable system). The ZFP has an available pager interface and graphical interface option, which implies it can connect to things like alarm monitoring stations or fire management software, albeit such software might be vendor-specific or third-party. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **Affordability:** C-TEC’s addressable panels (especially XFP) often come at a lower price point than bigger brands, making them attractive for tight-budget projects that still need an addressable solution. |
| + | - **Simplicity:** The XFP is known for being a relatively *simple* addressable panel – good for installers who want minimal fuss for smaller jobs. The configuration is straightforward, and it doesn’t overwhelm with options not needed in that scale. |
| + | - **Touchscreen (ZFP) = Ease for Users:** End-users like building managers might find the ZFP panel easier to operate due to the clear touchscreen and possibly less intimidating interface than rows of buttons. |
| + | - **Flexibility with CAST or Apollo:** An installer can choose to use Apollo devices on a C-TEC panel if they prefer those, or go full CAST if they want to try C-TEC’s integrated range. This dual offering means C-TEC can either be part of an open solution or provide a more closed one, as appropriate. |
| + | - **Conventional Dominance:** If the project has a mix of addressable and conventional (for example, an addressable panel for the main building and a conventional for an external shed), sticking with one brand like C-TEC for both can streamline maintenance. |
| + | - **Domestic/HMO Solutions:** C-TEC uniquely addresses the HMO sector with Hush-Pro, which can integrate with CAST systems. So for residential blocks with mixed grade A/grade C systems, they have a one-stop solution. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - **Scaling Limitations:** While ZFP can do reasonably large systems, it isn’t as commonly used in huge networks. A very large project (dozens of panels) would more often use Advanced/Kentec or a proprietary like Gent, simply because C-TEC hasn’t historically been positioned as the choice for big infrastructure. Part of this is perception, but also the lack of very high loop count panel (max 4 loops in one ZFP cabinet) means more panels need if device count is large. |
| + | - **Less Complex Cause-Effect:** XFP (and to an extent ZFP) might have some limitations in really complex programming scenarios. They can handle standard cause and effect, but some intricate logic that high-end panels do might not be as straightforward. For instance, Gent or Advanced have very detailed cause-effect mapping tools; C-TEC’s are more basic (though improving). |
| + | - **CAST is New:** The CAST protocol and devices, while innovative, are relatively new in the field. Some installers might be hesitant to deploy CAST until it’s more time-proven. Apollo and Hochiki are known quantities with long track records; CAST is proprietary to C-TEC and not yet as widely proven (only a disadvantage in terms of risk perception). |
| + | - **Professional Perception:** Fair or not, some in the industry perceive C-TEC as the “entry level” or “budget” brand. This means for high-spec projects, consultants might avoid it thinking it’s not as prestigious or feature-rich (even if it can do the job). This perception can limit C-TEC’s adoption in bigger projects. |
| + | - **Closed Protocol if CAST:** If you do go with CAST, you’re essentially in a closed world (only C-TEC devices). While C-TEC will sell them to anyone, the question is whether other panels can ever use them (no, they can’t), so you are committing to C-TEC for that system’s life. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** C-TEC shines in **small to medium buildings** like small schools, apartments, offices, where budget is a key factor but an addressable system is desired for future-proofing. Many **local electrical contractors** opt for an XFP in, say, a primary school or a small care home, because it’s simple and gets the job done under budget. The ZFP could be a good fit for, example, a medium-sized hotel or a residential block – places that have up to, say, 4 loops worth of devices and where the facilities staff would benefit from a nice touchscreen panel. C-TEC is also very common in **housing association** buildings for fire alarms in communal areas, often because they might integrate with the Hush systems in flats. Essentially, C-TEC addresses the gap between conventional systems and high-end addressable: it’s a capable addressable for those who don’t need the extremes of capacity or complexity. |
| + | |
| + | ### Honeywell Gent |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Gent, a historic British fire detection brand, is now part of Honeywell. Under the name **Honeywell Gent**, it remains a premium, technology-driven manufacturer of fire systems. Gent systems are **fully closed protocol** – only Gent-approved installers (Gent 24 network) can usually work with them. In exchange, they offer some of the most advanced detection technology (like multi-sensor with integrated sounder/VAD/voice) and robust networking for large sites. The flagship addressable system is known as **Vigilon**. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **Vigilon**: The main panel range for Gent. Vigilon panels come in a few sizes – typically supporting **2 loops, 4 loops, or 6 loops** per panel. The 2-loop version is sometimes called *Compact* (or *Vigilon Compact Plus* in latest iteration), and the larger 4-6 loop versions are the standard Vigilon panel (sometimes referred to as Vigilon Plus for the latest generation). The panels have a distinctive user interface with an 8x40 character LCD and a numeric keypad. Modern iterations have networking cards that allow extensive networks. |
| + | - **Nano**: Gent Nano is a single-loop *small* addressable panel aimed at smaller premises that still want Gent technology. It supports Gent’s protocol devices but only up to 1 loop (maybe ~100 devices). The Nano is a standalone, non-networkable panel for small sites that require perhaps just one loop’s worth of detection (like small commercial units or maybe as a remote panel in a larger Gent system that then triggers an interfaced input to the main system, etc.). |
| + | - **Conventional:** Gent offers the **Xenex** conventional panel, which comes in 2, 4, or 8 zone versions. This is a simpler panel for small sites that don’t need addressable. While not as famous as their addressable, Xenex exists to round out the portfolio (some installers might stick to Gent even for small buildings so they use Xenex). |
| + | - Gent also has specialized equipment like voice alarm systems (**Voice EVAC** panels, though nowadays Honeywell’s VA systems can integrate with Gent), and they have the S-Quad range of detectors which somewhat blurs the line because each S-Quad device often incorporates multiple functions (smoke/heat sensor, sounder, strobe, speech all in one). |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Totally proprietary. Gent panels communicate using Gent’s own protocol with **S-Quad** and older series detectors. The devices use digital communication allowing very rich data (for example, an S-Quad multi-sensor sends smoke, heat, CO values, etc., and the panel runs advanced algorithms on them). No non-Gent device can be added to a Gent loop (with a few minor exceptions like there might be some standardized input units, but generally one uses Gent call points, Gent interfaces, etc.). Gent did release something called “Open Protocol Interface” for BMS integration, but that is unrelated to using detectors – it’s just a way for external systems to read alarms. So in practice, if you choose Gent, you are using only Gent detectors, bases, etc., and only Gent engineers can program it. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - **Advanced Sensing:** Gent’s hallmark is the **S-Quad sensor range**. These devices combine multiple sensing elements (optical smoke, heat, and optional CO gas sensor) along with built-in sounder and voice and strobe (in certain models). The panel can receive data from all sensors and make intelligent decisions to distinguish real fires from false phenomena (e.g., steam or dust). This yields excellent false alarm resistance and fast response to real fires. The integration of sounder/voice/strobe in each detector means that when an alarm triggers, that same unit can alert occupants locally with sound or voice messages, eliminating the need for separate sounders in many cases. |
| + | - **Voice Alarm Capability:** Gent’s system uniquely allows distribution of voice messages through detection devices. Each S-Quad (with speech) can broadcast pre-recorded emergency messages (for example, an evacuation or alert message). This essentially creates a distributed PA system for fire alarm, which is very valuable in high-noise or complex buildings. While dedicated voice alarm (PA/VA) systems can do more, the Gent approach covers many scenarios without extra wiring. |
| + | - **High Loop Capacity:** Up to **200 devices per loop** are supported, which is higher than most open protocols that often max ~125. This is partly because Gent counts combined devices differently (since one physical S-Quad might count as multiple functions but one address). This means fewer loops needed for a given number of devices, although one must ensure sounder current limits etc. |
| + | - **Robust Networking:** Gent networks (often called the **Vigilon Network**) can connect up to 200 panels in large systems. They support both copper and fibre connections, and allow complex cause and effect across the network. The network is often arranged in fault-tolerant loops and can be segmented (multi-domain) for manageability. A feature is that the whole network can act as one system or as segregated zones of control depending on programming. |
| + | - **Graphical & BMS Integration:** Honeywell Gent provides a PC-based graphical monitoring/control system (e.g., **WINMAG** or newer Honeywell software) that can integrate not only Gent fire but also other security systems. Gent panels also output standard fire signals to sprinkler panels, HVAC systems, etc., and can interface via BACnet or Modbus through optional gateways for BMS integration. |
| + | - **Diagnostics and Logging:** Gent panels maintain extensive logs and diagnostics. Engineers with the software can retrieve detailed event histories (valuable for tracing intermittent faults or alarms). The panel also continuously monitors device status (e.g., it can alert if a detector is getting dirty and needs maintenance, using an algorithm for drift compensation). |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **High Performance Detection:** Gent systems are often praised for *virtually eliminating false alarms* in properly configured sites, thanks to multi-sensor technology and programming. This is a huge benefit in places like hospitals or schools where false alarms are not just nuisance but disrupt operations. Also, the speed of detection for real fires can be improved (for instance, detecting a fire early by sensing a rise in CO and heat even if smoke is not fully developed yet). |
| + | - **Integrated Devices = Cost Savings:** Although the devices are pricey, having sounder and strobe in the detector can reduce installation cost (less wiring circuits for separate sounders/VADs, less devices on ceilings). This also means a cleaner look aesthetically (one device instead of three on the ceiling). |
| + | - **Excellent Build Quality & Support:** Gent hardware is robust. The panels and devices are built for longevity (metal enclosures, good QC). Being under Honeywell, support is available and R&D is ongoing. Many large UK integrators have a lot of experience with Gent and speak to its reliability in the field. |
| + | - **Large System Capabilities:** Gent can handle very large and complex sites, like major airports or skyscrapers, with ease. The network capacity and loop capacity are such that very few other systems could compete without splitting into multiple subsystems. If one vendor’s kit is to cover a massive project, Gent is often in the shortlist. |
| + | - **Certification ensures expertise:** Because only trained companies install them, the end result tends to be well-engineered (in theory). The Gent 24 network of integrators are audited and kept up-to-date. This means end users usually get a high-quality installation and maintenance by specialists deeply familiar with the system. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - **Closed Protocol (Vendor Lock-in):** The flip side of Gent’s approach is that the owner of a Gent system is effectively tied to using Gent-approved service companies. This can reduce competition and lead to higher maintenance costs over time. If a customer is unhappy with their current Gent service provider, they cannot easily find just any fire alarm company to take over; they must find another Gent-authorized firm. Spare parts and expansion must go through these channels as well. |
| + | - **Higher Initial Cost:** Gent systems, especially S-Quad devices, tend to be more expensive upfront than open-protocol equivalents. The cost is often justified by reduced false alarms or fewer devices needed (sounder in detector), but the panel and network cards etc. are premium-priced. |
| + | - **Learning Curve for New Engineers:** If a facility manager or in-house technician is used to simpler systems, Gent’s programming and operation might seem complex. It’s typically not user-programmable (you wouldn’t expect to make cause-effect changes without the certified software). So the owner is reliant on external support for any configuration changes. |
| + | - **Proprietary Peripherals:** If a specific type of detector or base that only Gent makes fails, you must get that exact replacement. There is no mix-and-match. This is usually fine because Gent’s product line is broad, but in rare cases it can be limiting (e.g., Apollo offers a very specific type of flame detector or something not in Gent’s range, you couldn’t just add it – you’d need Gent’s own if they have or find a way to interface). |
| + | - **Panel UI slightly dated:** The Vigilon panel interface (while effective) is text-based and button-heavy, not a modern colour touchscreen (at least not as of latest versions, which still have text LCD). It requires training to use effectively (the user manual is a must for understanding what all the function keys do). However, Gent has mitigated this by offering good documentation and training end-users during handover. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Gent is often chosen for **large, complex buildings and campuses** where the risk of fire is high and the cost of false alarms is also high. Examples: airports (where an evacuation costs huge money if false), *hospitals* (where evacuations are very undesirable, so you need absolute trust in alarms), *stadiums, shopping malls, high-rise office towers, major universities*. Also, any site requiring integrated voice evacuation without installing a separate PA system might use Gent to get some voice messaging capability out-of-the-box. Many corporate headquarters and high-profile buildings use Gent because they might have long-standing relationships with Gent integrators and trust the brand’s performance. Gent is also found in many government buildings. Essentially, if the specification says “no compromise on fire safety, must use the best technology, and budget allows for it”, Gent often comes into play. The end user, however, must be comfortable with a maintenance contract with a Gent specialist. |
| + | |
| + | ### Honeywell Notifier |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Notifier is another major brand under the Honeywell umbrella, historically one of the largest fire system manufacturers globally. In the UK, **Notifier by Honeywell** systems are widely deployed, typically through a network of Engineered Systems Distributors (ESDs). Notifier’s portfolio includes advanced addressable panels for large systems and some smaller panels. Notifier systems are **closed/proprietary** in terms of protocol and are usually serviced by authorized companies. The brand emphasizes high reliability and integration within the Honeywell suite of life safety products. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **ID3000**: In the 2000s and 2010s, the Notifier ID3000 panel was a common sight in medium to large installations. It is an addressable panel supporting 2 to 8 loops, with a network capacity of up to 63 panels. It has an LCD screen and a fairly plain interface (a numeric keypad and some function buttons). Many existing Notifier installations still run on ID3000s today. |
| + | - **Pearl**: Introduced as a next-generation panel, the **Notifier Pearl** (launched around mid-2010s) is a 1 or 2 loop panel aimed at small to medium sites or as distributed nodes in a network. Pearl panels come with a more modern look and improved networking (ID2net). However, one limitation is a network of Pearl panels can be up to 16 nodes, which is smaller than the previous generation’s 63. Pearl is said to be the first of a new family, possibly indicating future larger panels (but as of now Pearl is the main newer model in the UK lineup). |
| + | - **ONYX Series (NFS2-8 etc.)**: Notifier globally has the ONYX range (like NFS2-640, NFS2-3030, etc.), but these model numbers are more used in the US. In the UK, comparable functionality might be delivered via ID3000 or the newer forthcoming products. (The details of which US model equivalents are offered under Notifier UK branding can vary; some ESDs do use products like the NFS2-3030 for very large apps but configured for UK standards.) |
| + | - **Conventional**: Historically, Notifier wasn’t focused on conventional, but they have offered smaller conventional systems (often re-badged or OEM from others like Bardic/Morley). Many Notifier integrators would use, say, a Morley-IAS conventional panel if needed, since Morley is also Honeywell. So Notifier’s strength and focus is addressable systems. |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Notifier panels use **System Sensor** communications protocol for detectors. System Sensor (also part of Honeywell) produces detectors that speak either the older CLIP protocol or the faster **FlashScan** protocol. Each Notifier panel generation had its specifics (ID3000 could support up to 198 devices per loop, which corresponds to maybe two addresses per device in some cases, etc., indicating the use of System Sensor protocol). Newer panels like Pearl presumably use an enhanced protocol but still only Notifier’s own device library. Some detectors branded Notifier are actually shared with other Honeywell lines (for instance, Notifier’s optical smoke might be similar internally to a Morley or Gent addressable smoke except for the protocol firmware). But bottom line, you must use Notifier detectors, bases, call points on these panels. There is a range called *Opal* detectors for Notifier (not to be confused with Apollo; it’s just a brand name). They also have wireless solutions under Notifier (like *Agile* wireless, which can interface via a loop translator). But again, those wireless devices are proprietary to Notifier’s system. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - **Networking (ID2net):** Notifier’s peer-to-peer network (ID2net for Pearl, or standard network for ID3000) allows complex cause and effect across nodes. A key aspect is speed – Notifier networks prioritize alarms to propagate quickly (they claim under 3 seconds across network). This ensures in large distributed systems, an alarm in one panel triggers sounders on another panel with minimal delay, meeting code requirements. |
| + | - **Integration with Honeywell portfolio:** Notifier panels can be integrated into Honeywell’s building management platforms. For instance, Honeywell’s **Enterprise Buildings Integrator (EBI)** or **ONYXWorks** (a dedicated fire graphics platform) can supervise multiple Notifier panels, providing a unified interface. This is often a selling point for large clients using multiple Honeywell products (security, HVAC controls by Honeywell can tie in with Notifier fire alarm under one umbrella). |
| + | - **Detectors & Devices:** Notifier (System Sensor) offers multi-criteria detectors (e.g., multi-sensor that combine smoke/heat), albeit not with voice like Gent, but they do have CO detection integration in some models. They also have a line of aspirating detectors (FAAST) that can integrate, and specialty detectors (flame, beam, etc.) that tie into loops via interfaces. |
| + | - **Programmability:** Notifier panels are fully programmable in terms of cause and effect, timers, etc., using their software (each ESD uses the programming tools to configure). They can handle sophisticated logic needed in big sites (like phased evacuation, conditional delays, etc.). |
| + | - **Remote Support:** Some Notifier ESDs implement remote connection units to dial into panels for diagnostics or program tweaks, though officially remote programming might be limited for security (but alarm monitoring is possible). |
| + | - **Expandability:** The panels support a variety of loop cards, communications cards (for networks, for serial connections to third-party systems), zone LED boards, etc. For example, you could add a peripheral to an ID3000 to get more relay outputs or a printer. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **Proven in Big Projects:** Notifier has been behind many large installations worldwide; their systems are known to scale reliably. The brand has decades of experience in complex life safety, which gives consultants confidence. |
| + | - **Honeywell Ecosystem:** If a building already has Honeywell security or BMS, going with Notifier fire can make integration smoother. Also, Honeywell’s support and R&D ensure the product line stays updated with standards and tech (for instance, developing new panels like Pearl). |
| + | - **Distributor Network:** While closed, the Notifier ESD network means that those installers are generally very competent. They can offer turnkey solutions from design to install to maintenance. For clients who want a single point of responsibility and a high-quality job, choosing a Notifier ESD (with Notifier equipment) can be reassuring. |
| + | - **Device Quality:** System Sensor detectors are quite reliable and have good false alarm rejection (not to the level of Gent’s multi-sensor, but the multi-criteria ones are decent). The devices are also usually slightly cheaper than Gent’s, meaning the overall device cost in a large Notifier system might be lower than a Gent system. |
| + | - **Wireless and Modern Options:** Honeywell Notifier’s **Agile** wireless fire system can seamlessly integrate with Notifier panels. This is advantageous for retrofits or areas where wiring is problematic. Having a wireless option within the same brand is a plus. |
| + | - **Longevity:** Notifier systems tend to have long support lifespans. Even older panels (pre-ID3000 era) often can be kept going or replaced gradually. Honeywell usually provides support or recommended upgrade paths, protecting the investment. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - **Closed Protocol (Lock-in):** Like Gent, Notifier users are bound to authorized companies for service. Switching service providers might be possible (if another Notifier ESD is willing to take on the contract), but the pool is limited. Also, prices for spare parts, expansions, etc., are controlled within that network. |
| + | - **Cost:** High-end Notifier systems can be expensive – maybe not as high as Gent in devices, but the overall cost including engineering might be up there. The difference is Notifier ESDs often bundle the engineering as part of a project package, so the client might not see line-item costs for the panel vs. service, etc. |
| + | - **Less Open Device Choice:** If the facility has specific detection needs not met by Notifier’s device range, integration can be tricky. For example, if a special third-party detector is needed, one must find a way (maybe a conventional interface) to tie it in, rather than a native loop device as would be possible on open protocol systems. |
| + | - **Panel Upgrade Cycle:** The introduction of Pearl panels with a new network that only allows 16 nodes might complicate upgrades of older large networks (63 nodes). A large existing system on ID3000 wanting newer features might have to wait for a bigger new Notifier panel to be released or otherwise segment into sub-networks of Pearls. This transitional issue is temporary, but it’s something to manage (the Pearl can interface into older network via some bridging or running mixed networks, but that can add complexity). |
| + | - **Comparatively Plain:** Notifier’s user interface and features are robust but not flashy. For instance, there’s no colour touchscreen panel in the Notifier range (as of now) in the UK. So from an end-user perspective, it may not *look* as modern as some competitors (though this is a minor point; functionality is what counts in a fire). |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Notifier is often chosen for **hospitals, airports, large office complexes, industrial sites, and public infrastructure**. Many hospitals in the UK have Notifier systems, installed by one of the Notifier ESD companies, because they trust the brand’s reliability and the companies’ expertise in complex cause and effect programming (like progressive horizontal evacuation schemes). Also, building owners who already have a relationship with a Honeywell Notifier ESD (like a nationwide FM company that installs Notifier in all their sites) will stick to it for consistency. If a project requires tight integration with other Honeywell systems (like a Honeywell smoke control system or Honeywell CCTV that want fire triggers), Notifier fits naturally. Additionally, some consulting engineers have standard specs that favor Notifier for certain building types (for example, many high rises in London ended up with Notifier or Gent as a spec). In short: big, critical, complex facilities where a controlled, engineered solution by a top-tier manufacturer is desired – those are Notifier’s domain. |
| + | |
| + | ### Ziton |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Ziton is a brand that was prominent particularly in the late 20th and early 21st century in the UK fire industry. Originally an independent company, Ziton became associated with GE Security, then UTC, and more recently Carrier. Ziton systems are **closed protocol** and were often installed by large integrators like Chubb. The most famous addressable panel from Ziton is the **ZP3**. Ziton systems are known for reliability and were ahead of their time in certain aspects, though they are somewhat legacy now as the market shifted to open protocols. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **ZP3:** An analogue addressable panel that comes in 1, 2, or 4 loop versions. This was Ziton’s flagship for many years. The ZP3 panel typically has a simple LCD display with a membrane keypad. It could be expanded with zone LED modules, printer, etc. The panel can support up to 508 devices (which is 4 loops × 127 devices) on the largest version. |
| + | - **ZP2:** A newer panel range introduced by UTC/Carrier as a sort of refresh for smaller systems. The ZP2 panels are 1 or 2 loop panels with updated styling and support for newer Ziton devices. They are aimed at small to medium sites, bringing “high-end processing to small applications”. ZP2 panels have an updated LCD UI and support modern networking, but cap out at fewer loops. |
| + | - Ziton also had a range of conventional panels historically, but those were not as widely known or were OEM from others. |
| + | - Repeater panels and sub-panels existed for the ZP3 (ZP3 had repeater displays). Also, Ziton offered some voice alarm integration and other peripheral systems under the GE/UTC umbrella. |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Ziton uses its own **ZP protocol** on the addressable loop. All devices (smoke, heat, call points, sounders, etc.) must speak ZP. Ziton detectors and modules are unique in design – for instance, the ZP700 series smoke detectors. There was no cross-compatibility with other brands. The protocol allowed each loop to support 127 addresses (sensors, interfaces, etc.) and also had loop-powered sounders in the mix (Ziton loops can drive loop sounders, each occupying an address or part of an address). A distinctive feature was how Ziton panels handled zones and addresses – the panel could be programmed with up to 255 software zones, and each device can belong to zones as needed (some older text talk about “50 zones optionally 128” in panel front display). |
| + | - Because Ziton eventually fell under larger conglomerates, some later **Ziton systems could interface with other system components** like some detectors from ESL or wireless from UTC, but by and large if it’s a Ziton panel, it’s Ziton detectors. |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - **False Alarm Management:** Early on, Ziton pushed the idea of intelligent algorithms to reduce false alarms. They had multi-sensor detectors (optical + heat) and the panel could be set to filter or verify signals. A snippet from their marketing: *“advanced panel design combined with high sensitivity smoke sensing enables the ZP3 to disregard false conditions and recognize real fires sooner”*. This shows they had their own approach to signal processing. |
| + | - **Loop Power & Sounders:** The ZP3 loops support loop-powered sounders and beacons, which at the time was a bit less common. This reduces wiring for installing sounders. The panel has logic to synchronize and control these loop sounders. |
| + | - **Networking:** Ziton ZP3 panels can network together; sources indicate up to **64 panels** networked, covering over 30,000 devices, which is a substantial capacity. The network was a token-ring style using an RS485 cable or similar. Ziton networks allow global cause and effect (so one panel can trigger outputs on another). |
| + | - **Integration:** Ziton being under GE/UTC meant it often integrated with security or building systems those companies provided. For instance, Ziton panels could interface with CCTV or access control such that a fire alarm triggers a CCTV recording or door release, using either hardwired relays or some high-level links if both were GE systems. They also had conventional zone interfaces to tie in older systems or other brands’ conventional detectors into a Ziton addressable loop. |
| + | - **Software:** The Ziton ZP3 programming software was DOS or early Windows based, used by trained engineers. It allowed labeling devices, setting cause/effect, etc. As the ZP3 is older, everything can be done from the panel as well, but PC tools made it easier. The newer ZP2 likely has a more modern software and maybe USB connectivity. |
| + | - **Wireless:** Ziton/UTC had a wireless fire detection system (ZYDACRON or something historically, or later on a system called Pathfinder?), but integration was not as seamless as newer hybrid systems. This was not a big factor in mainstream usage. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **Installed Base:** There are many Ziton systems still in operation, especially in certain sectors. For example, a lot of local government buildings and older PFI schools had Ziton installed by contractors like Chubb. These systems, if maintained, have proven reliable over decades. So one advantage is if you already have a Ziton, you know it’s a solid system and you might continue with it rather than replace everything. |
| + | - **Robust Design:** The ZP3 panels and devices are built well (often a bit large/bulky, but robust). The electronics were proven – the systems could handle harsh electrical environments with little issues, partly due to GE/UTC’s rigorous testing (ZP3 is reportedly good at handling interference and not throwing false alarms). |
| + | - **False Alarm Resistance:** Although lacking the modern multi-sensor-with-CO, Ziton multi-sensor detectors with their algorithms did provide good false alarm resistance in many scenarios. People have noted that well-configured Ziton systems had few nuisance alarms. |
| + | - **Simplicity for Users:** The ZP3 panel UI, while not fancy, is straightforward for a trained user – it has zone alarm LEDs, an LCD for details, and clearly labeled buttons for Reset, Mute, Evacuate, etc. Fire fighters or staff could operate it without needing a complex menu dance, which is important in emergencies. |
| + | - **Backward Compatibility:** Ziton tended to maintain backward compatibility. Newer Ziton detectors often could be used on older panels (to an extent) and vice versa, so upgrades could be incremental. Also, if expanding a site, adding another ZP3 panel to network in was feasible without huge changes, as long as you could get the equipment. |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - **Closed and Niche:** In today’s market, Ziton is not front-of-mind for new projects. It’s hard to justify specifying a Ziton system over an open one unless you have a specific reason (like matching existing). New installers might not have access to training or software easily since the brand isn’t actively pushed in UK by Carrier (Carrier often pushes their other brand, Kidde/FireClass, for open market and keeps Ziton for legacy support). |
| + | - **Availability of Parts:** As Ziton is now legacy under Carrier, getting new Ziton parts might involve going through certain channels or even refurbished markets. Manufacturing of some Ziton devices may be winding down. This could be a long-term issue for maintenance. |
| + | - **Outdated Tech:** While functional, Ziton ZP3 lacks some features of modern systems, like graphical interfaces or dynamic displays. It also might not meet some newer EN54 interpretations (for example, EN54-23 VAD requirements – I’m not sure if Ziton has loop beacons that are EN54-23 compliant; they might not since that standard is newer. So adding visual alarms might require separate circuits). |
| + | - **Proprietary Lock:** As with other closed systems, owners of Ziton are reliant on specific service providers (commonly whoever installed it, often a large company). If service is poor or expensive, the client’s options are limited except doing a full system replacement to an open one. |
| + | - **Integration Limitations Now:** Ziton used to integrate well with sister systems (CCTV, access) when under one company, but nowadays if a building has more modern BMS, integrating a 20-year-old Ziton panel to it for monitoring might require custom work (like adding relay outputs or a new gateway device) since it doesn’t natively speak modern protocols like BACnet/IP. This can be a disadvantage in smart building projects. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Today, a new installation using Ziton would be rare unless it’s a direct expansion of an **existing Ziton system**. So the ideal case is: a campus or building already has Ziton (ZP3 network), and they want to add a new wing or building – it could make sense to install Ziton again to seamlessly join the network, keeping everything consistent. Some organizations, due to long relationships, might still standardize on Ziton (maybe some university estates or certain councils that had many Ziton systems and stocked spares). Another scenario: a building owner specifically values the performance they’ve seen from Ziton and doesn’t want to switch; they might require any upgrade to remain with Ziton devices. |
| + | |
| + | Outside of that, if someone were considering Ziton versus other brands for a fresh project, it would usually come down to a specific feature or trust factor: perhaps the consultant or client had a great experience with Ziton and less so with others, and they stick to what they know. Or perhaps in an infrastructure like a railway system that historically used Ziton, they might continue for compatibility reasons. However, generally, new projects now lean toward either open protocol (Advanced/Kentec) or other proprietary (Gent/Notifier) rather than Ziton, simply because Ziton’s market presence has faded. |
| + | |
| + | ### Siemens |
| + | |
| + | **Overview:** Siemens is a global technology leader, and in fire safety they offer high-end **closed-protocol** systems known for innovation and integration. In the UK, Siemens Fire Safety (formerly Cerberus, earlier iterations included names like Protec, Siemens-Algris, etc.) markets the **Cerberus PRO** and **Cerberus FIT** ranges. Siemens systems are typically installed by Siemens’ own projects team or certified solution partners, often as part of wider building solutions. They emphasize advanced detector technology (ASAtechnology) and deep integration with building management systems. |
| + | |
| + | - **Key Panel Models:** |
| + | - **Cerberus PRO (FC720 series):** This is an addressable panel line intended for medium to large buildings. For example, **FC724** is a 4-loop panel (expandable to 8 loops with an expansion). The **FC726** is a larger panel variant (up to 8 loops out of the box, expandable). These panels support networking and a wealth of features for complex sites. |
| + | - **Cerberus FIT (FC360 series):** A smaller addressable panel line for simple applications, often limited to 1 or 2 loops and not networkable (or limited networking). The idea is “Smart can be simple” for small/medium buildings. FC360 panels give core Siemens detection tech at a lower price point for standalone systems (like small retail, etc.). |
| + | - **Desigo Fire Safety:** In some contexts, the Siemens fire system is integrated into the **Desigo** line (which is Siemens’ building management platform). The panels might also be referred to as Desigo Fire panels, but essentially they are similar to Cerberus PRO hardware with additional integration capabilities for BMS. |
| + | - **Legacy lines:** Siemens acquired Cerberus (back in the 90s) and also had other lines like **AlgoRex** and **SIGMASYS** historically in Europe. In the UK, older large sites might have a **Siemens FireFinder** (common in US) or a **MX** system from the 90s. But currently, Cerberus PRO is the mainstay name. |
| + | - **Conventional:** Siemens does have conventional detectors and panels under Cerberus FIT for small systems, but these are not widely advertised in UK since addressable is standard for most non-residential. However, for completeness: the Cerberus FIT conventional range covers 2 to 12 zone panels and devices with Siemens detection algorithms (notably, their conventional detectors use some of the same tech to reduce false alarms). |
| + | |
| + | - **Supported Protocols:** Siemens panels communicate over their proprietary loop (sometimes called **C-NET** or **FDnet** depending on generation). The detectors and devices must be Siemens Cerberus devices. A highlight is **ASAtechnology (Advanced Signal Analysis)** detectors, such as the OOH740 (optical/heat) or OOHC740 (optical/heat/CO) detectors. These detectors are configurable with different parameter sets (for example, a mode for clean office, a mode for dirty industrial area, etc.) and the panel can switch these on schedule if needed (day/night sensitivity changes). The loop protocol also supports intelligent sounder bases, manual call points, interface modules, and special detectors (flame, aspirating via interfaces, etc.). There’s no support for non-Siemens devices on the loop, though Siemens does have an integration module (IR interface) if connecting an external system (like maybe connecting to a Bosch panel loops in certain projects historically, but not common). |
| + | |
| + | - **Notable Features:** |
| + | - **ASAtechnology Detectors:** These are a key differentiator. ASA detectors can be software-configured to recognize specific fire signatures and ignore specific deceptive phenomena. For example, in an environment with diesel exhaust, you can set the detector to a mode that is tolerant to that but still responds to real fire signatures. They essentially have built-in algorithms that can be tuned from the panel or tool, reducing the need to physically change detectors for different environments. This yields extremely low false alarm rates – Siemens often demonstrates that their detectors can even tell apart steam vs smoke by analysing particle signatures and such. |
| + | - **Auto-Test Features:** Newer Siemens detectors with **DFTtechnology (Disturbance-Free Testing)** can self-test without setting off alarms. As noted in a press release, detectors can be tested automatically at set times without disturbing building occupants (no audible/visible alarm). This is a leap in maintenance – ensuring devices work without having to do manual call point tests that cause alarms. |
| + | - **Networking and Redundancy:** Siemens networks (FCnet) can be looped for redundancy. They also have options for full IP networking and even networking across multiple sites via IP. The systems can be arranged in a client-server style if needed, where one panel acts as a “master” supervising multiple clusters. Large installations like airports often benefit from Siemens’ approach to network design (often they can segregate alarm traffic by segments to ensure critical areas aren’t affected by faults in others, etc.). The exact number of panels can be very high if using newer IP-based **cluster networking**, but in a traditional sense, 16 or 64 was often a bus limit for local networks – modern extensions surpass that by using Ethernet infrastructure. |
| + | - **Integration with Building Management:** Perhaps Siemens’ biggest selling point is integration. Their fire system can be part of a **Siemens Desigo CC** building management platform that also controls HVAC, access control, etc. The fire panel data can be used to trigger other building responses (e.g., fan shutdown, lift grounding, door release) through an integrated approach rather than a bunch of relays. There’s also a **Cerberus Connect mobile app** now that allows building managers to get fire system notifications on the go and check statuses. |
| + | - **Voice Evacuation:** Siemens provides voice alarm systems (under the name Siemens VAC or via third-party EVAC tied in) that can fully integrate with the fire panels. In a fully Siemens solution, the panel triggers messages in a Siemens voice alarm system, again all under one ecosystem. |
| + | - **Quality and Compliance:** Siemens products adhere to not just EN standards but often exceed them. They tend to incorporate failsafes (the panels have advanced diagnostics, and the system is built to remain operational under various fault conditions). For example, many Siemens panels have built-in loops for redundant CPU or communication if one path fails, ensuring higher availability. |
| + | |
| + | - **Advantages:** |
| + | - **Top-tier False Alarm Immunity:** With ASA detectors, Siemens arguably leads in environments that are challenging (e.g., industrial manufacturing with occasional smoke/fume, or hotel rooms where steam from showers causes alarms – ASA can often handle that by switching to heat-only temporarily, etc.). Some high-end sites choose Siemens specifically to avoid unwanted evacuations. |
| + | - **Strong Service Support:** Siemens being a huge company means they have a 24/7 support infrastructure. For mission critical sites (like a power plant or an airport), having the might of Siemens behind the system can be reassuring. They can also offer extended maintenance contracts including remote monitoring of the system’s health. |
| + | - **Integration and Future-Proofing:** If the building owner wants a unified smart building, Siemens can deliver fire alarms integrated from day one. The data from the fire system can feed analytics (e.g., how often detectors go into pre-alarm, trending dirty detectors – which the system does track – to plan maintenance, etc.). In an era of IoT, Siemens is embedding connectivity (as seen with the cloud and app features), so their systems are evolving with modern tech. |
| + | - **Global Consistency:** For multinational companies, using Siemens in all facilities can standardize training and maintenance. Siemens fire products are available worldwide, so a company can roll out similar systems in different countries and get local Siemens branches to support them. |
| + | - **Innovation:** Siemens invests heavily in R&D. Features like automated detector self-test (DFT) and cloud connectivity came early from them. Clients who want cutting-edge tech might be drawn to that. |
| + | - **Reliability:** There’s a German engineering confidence that comes with Siemens. Their hardware typically has redundancy features and high build quality. Their panels often have dual power supplies, battery deep discharge protection, etc. The loops can tolerate multiple faults (some models allow operational with a single earth fault and open circuit, etc., by isolator strategy). |
| + | |
| + | - **Disadvantages:** |
| + | - **Closed Protocol (Vendor Lock-in):** As with Gent and Notifier, a Siemens system usually means the client will rely on Siemens (or a few select partners) for life. Switching to a different service provider likely means switching the system entirely. This lock-in can lead to higher lifecycle costs and less flexibility. |
| + | - **Cost:** Siemens solutions are generally expensive. The detectors especially (ASA) cost more than standard smoke detectors. However, one might offset that by needing fewer of them if they cover bigger areas or serve dual purposes. Still, initial capital outlay is high, and spare parts likewise. |
| + | - **Complexity:** Operating or programming a Siemens system is not trivial for those not trained. There are many features, which is good, but it means casual maintenance staff can’t easily tweak things – you need a specialist. The configuration environment is sophisticated; an untrained person fiddling could cause issues, so it’s hands-off for most end users. |
| + | - **Less Penetration in Small Market:** Siemens isn’t typically used for smaller standalone buildings because the overhead is too high. This means if a small site has one, finding external people with experience on it is hard outside Siemens. In contrast, a small site with an Advanced panel might have local fire companies who know it well. So in the small end, Siemens can be overkill and not cost-effective. |
| + | - **Tie-in with BMS might be overkill:** Some clients might not want or need the BMS integration and fancy features, but still pay for them if they choose Siemens. If a building just needs a reliable fire alarm and nothing else, an open simpler system could do it cheaper than a Siemens that has capabilities the client won’t use. |
| + | |
| + | - **Ideal Use Cases:** Siemens fire systems are ideal for **large, complex facilities especially where integration or special detection is needed**. Examples include: *Airports* (which value false alarm immunity and integration to ventilation control), *datacentres* (where early detection via ASA and integration to suppression systems is key), *underground stations or tunnels* (ASA can be set to very insensitive to avoid false alarms from dust but still catch real fires), *museums or heritage buildings* (where you might need very customized detection modes to avoid alarming from ambient conditions), and generally any **smart building** that uses Siemens for everything (common in some modern office campuses or hospitals with full Siemens solutions). Also, *global corporate chains* (like a big tech company outfitting all its campuses with Siemens so that they can centrally monitor all via Siemens software). In summary, Siemens is chosen when a client prioritizes state-of-the-art detection and plans to integrate fire safety deeply with overall building operations – often the high budget, high importance projects. |
| + | |
| + | ## Guidance on Choosing Between Brands |
| + | |
| + | Selecting the right fire alarm system brand for a project requires balancing technical needs, regulatory compliance, budget, and future maintenance considerations. Here are some practical guidelines: |
| + | |
| + | - **Open vs. Closed Protocol:** If you want the flexibility to get competitive maintenance quotes and use widely available parts, an **open protocol** solution (Advanced, Kentec, or possibly C-TEC/Ampac) is advantageous. These are ideal for most commercial projects, as they ensure the owner isn’t tied to a single supplier. However, if the project demands a very specific technology (like Gent’s multi-sensor voice alarms or Siemens’ ASA detectors) and the owner is prepared for a dedicated service relationship, a **closed protocol** system can offer top performance. Closed systems (Gent, Notifier, Ziton, Siemens) are often chosen in high-end projects or where an existing site standard dictates it. |
| + | |
| + | - **Project Size and Complexity:** For a **small building or simple system**, there is little sense in choosing an ultra-sophisticated, closed-brand panel. A small office or restaurant can be well served by a C-TEC XFP or Kentec Syncro or Advanced single-loop – all cost-effective and straightforward. For **very large or complex sites**, consider brands known for handling large networks reliably: Advanced and Kentec can do it openly; Gent, Notifier, and Siemens can do it with proprietary tech. If the site is campus-like with multiple buildings, ensure the chosen system has robust networking (Advanced’s 200 node network, etc., are suited for campuses). Ziton (up to 64 nodes) could handle a campus, but given its legacy status, one might lean to newer systems for a new campus. |
| + | |
| + | - **Specific Feature Needs:** Identify any special requirements: |
| + | - If **voice evacuation** through fire alarm is needed but a separate PA is not desired, **Gent** is uniquely strong (S-Quad with voice messages). Notifier and Siemens also can integrate voice systems but via separate VA panels. |
| + | - If **very harsh environment detection** or extremely low false alarms are needed (e.g. an aircraft hangar with occasional exhaust fumes, or an atrium with sunlight that sets off beam detectors), **Siemens ASA** detectors or Gent’s multi-sensors might be worth the premium. Advanced and Kentec using Apollo/Hochiki also have multi-sensor detectors, but those aren’t as programmable as ASA. |
| + | - For **heritage buildings** with wiring restrictions, or temporary installations, a system with good **wireless integration** could be key. Notifier (Agile) and Advanced (via Apollo’s XPander or Hyfire radio on Apollo loops) and Kentec (via Argus or Hyfire on Hochiki loops) can all incorporate wireless. Gent can too (they have done hybrids with EMS radio). Siemens also has a wireless option (SWING detectors) for their system. Ensure the chosen brand has a proven wireless solution if needed. |
| + | - If the building has an existing **older system to be part-reused** (say, an old Apollo conventional system in part of a site), an open-protocol panel that can take in those devices or at least easily interface may be better. For example, you can often reuse Apollo detectors on an Advanced/Kentec addressable by swapping in addressable bases or using zone monitors, which is cost-effective. Doing the same with a closed system might force wholesale replacement. |
| + | - If **graphics or BMS integration** is a must (like the client wants a central monitoring room with a single PC showing alarms from security and fire together), ensure the system provides a gateway to common protocols or has its own unified software. Open systems can integrate via Modbus/BACnet modules or third-party software like *Graphix* or *Skyline*. Proprietary systems like Siemens integrate with their BMS easily; Notifier and Gent have their own graphical packages (ONYXWorks, WINMAG). |
| + | |
| + | - **Installer Competence and Availability:** Choose a system that your appointed installer is *expert* in. For instance, if you’ve hired an integrator who is a Gent Elite supplier, going with Gent makes sense due to their proficiency. If you have a local fire alarm company you trust and they mostly do Advanced/Kentec, it’s wise to pick one of those brands to leverage their experience. The quality of installation and commissioning matters more to the end result than the brand name alone. A well-installed open system will outperform a poorly-installed fancy system. So, match the brand to the installer’s strengths, or vice versa. |
| + | |
| + | - **Maintenance and Lifecycle:** Think beyond installation. Open protocol systems generally mean after the warranty, you could bid out the maintenance and get competitive rates. Closed systems mean you need to budget for possibly higher maintenance costs, but you might get more specialized attention. Also consider the **lifespan**: brands like Advanced and Kentec have historically ensured backward compatibility for device ranges (Apollo detectors from decades ago can still be used on new Advanced panels, for example). Some closed brands also maintain backward support (Gent often can support older Gent devices on new panels, Notifier Pearl was made to be ID3000 network compatible). However, if you foresee expansions 5-10 years out, ensure the system will still be around. For instance, going with a somewhat declining brand like Ziton might pose an issue if in 5 years parts are scarce – whereas a growing brand like Advanced or an evergreen like Gent will likely have support. |
| + | |
| + | - **Compliance and Standards:** All listed brands meet UK standards (EN54, BS5839). However, details like *BS 5839 part 8 (voice alarm)* or *BS 7273-4 (actuation of door releases)* might sway choices. Some panels have specific solutions for these (Gent has a Deaf Alert pager and integration, Advanced has a known solution for BS7273-4 fail-safe modes, etc.). If compliance in a certain aspect is tricky, consult each manufacturer’s guidance; one might have an edge with a built-in function. |
| + | |
| + | - **Budget vs. Benefit:** As a rough spectrum: **C-TEC** and **Ampac** tend to be budget-friendly for basic needs; **Advanced** and **Kentec** are mid-range in cost with high feature-to-cost value; **Notifier** and **Gent** are premium cost but with high-end capabilities; **Siemens** is premium and often part of an even larger package (sometimes bundled in a construction project’s overall systems). **Ziton** would typically only come in play if an existing system dictates it. Choose a solution where you are paying for features you will actually use. It might not make sense to pay for Gent or Siemens in a small school where an open system would suffice. Conversely, it might be false economy to put a low-end open system in a huge airport – the risks and demands there may warrant a Gent or Siemens despite the cost. |
| + | |
| + | In summary, **installers and specifiers** should consider the project requirements first (size, complexity, special risks), then weigh the open vs closed approach, check the preferred brand’s support in that region, and align with the client’s expectations for maintenance. Often an open protocol system like Advanced or Kentec is a *safe default* for typical projects due to flexibility and proven performance. But there are scenarios where the advanced offerings of Gent, Notifier, or Siemens justify their selection – usually when top-notch performance or integration is paramount and the client accepts the proprietary nature. And for tight budgets or simpler jobs, brands like C-TEC provide a compliant and reliable solution without frills. |
| + | |
| + | Lastly, always ensure the chosen system is designed and installed by competent professionals in accordance with **BS 5839-1:2017** (for non-domestic premises) or other relevant codes. All the brands discussed have solutions capable of meeting UK fire safety requirements – the key is selecting the one that best aligns with the project’s needs and constraints. |