EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:01 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

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?

I don't have access to any figures about the required amount of traffic that
allows for regen - but don't you also need to allow for start and end of
service, and I guess reduced frequencies on Sundays etc.

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.

Agree entirely - its just like the stupid point they make about removing
'unneccessary sophistication' most of which is to meet DfT requirements...

Paul