I know, weird question. But if a station is on even slightly higher ground, then an approaching train will lose speed naturally, without braking (as much). The saved energy would then be used to help the train accelerate (down-hill) as it leaves the station the other side.
I realise that the differences in speed/acceleration involved would be marginal, but with the energy needed to move the hundred tons plus of just an average commuter train, any small help would translate into a substantial saving of energy.
Now I may be being a muppet, and there may be a very obvious reason why this is a bad idea, but I can't find it. OK, ok, considerable start up costs of hoiking Waterloo up 10 feet in the air, but aside from that........ can anyone tell me why this wouldn't work in principle?
2007-08-29
02:59:38
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Green Living