On Apr 10, 12:01*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:14 am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott"

Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide
an optimal solution overall"?

If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost
always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated
energy? *North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid
anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR
routes.

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. *I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line.

That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote surely?

Yes, but people such as yourself are suggesting that the trains will
not now be running to the more remote outposts of the network. There
will always be enough trains on the Brighton main line and inner
suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my
understanding. Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise?

BTW - The South London RUS now suggests that the Arun Valley or Seaford
won't see Thameslink trains, unless they'll run further off-peak of
course...

Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections
which have suffered a loss of traction supply..?

Well that is one of the reliability requirements - as I pointed out a couple
of posts ago - so some form of onboard energy storage is essential.

My view is that dragging around supercapacitors, batteries or even
flywheels to cater for extremely infrequent events is counter to the
general objective of keeping weight as low as possible. The marginal
benefit does not exceed the cost IMHO.