From: grammatim@verizon.net   
      
   On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:37:32 PM UTC-4, danny burstein wrote:   
   > In <9c1dfa88-f4bc-42c5-a225-1406f77d6ca4@googlegroups.com> han   
   ock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:   
   > >On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 3:16:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   > >> I can't think of how that'd relate to trains with electric traction.   
   > >Very broadly, but the overall principal is the same--slower acceleration   
   > >saves power. In old style DC power control systems, there was a control   
   > >'logic' the regulated how much power was fed to the motors to accelerate   
   > >the train. They used a combination of resistance and series/parallel   
   > >connection of the motors. The economy mode optimized that combination   
   > >to save on power.   
   >   
   > Why would slower accelration save power? I could see it reducing   
   > the peak demand, but the total power used to bring the train up   
   > to speed should be the same whether you're feeding the motors   
   > five hundred kilowatts or two thousand.   
   >   
   > It'll just take longer...   
      
   Fuel economy tips, e.g. from the Car Talk guys, always say to avoid jackrabbit   
   starts (and try not to come to a _complete_ stop when you need to stop).   
   Conserving gasoline should carry over to conserving the motive source of   
   rail transit as well, whether steam, diesel, or electric.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)