Why don't train engines have governors to limit top speed?

[MarathonMike]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

 

[Roadrunner]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

The problem is not trains that go 100 +mph; the problem is engineers not paying attention to the fact that a curve is coming and the speed needs to be cut in half.

Or, noticing, and wrecking the train on purpose.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

Ask this myself about cars and motorcycles street-legal in the US. If the highest speed limit anywhere in the country is say 75 mph, why can most every vehicle greatly exceed this?

 

[Pogo]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

Of course there's reason for trains to go that fast. That's the whole point of using them. There are trains in Europe and I believe Japan that will do 300. Been out there for decades.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, going back several years, this particular engineer posted quite a lot on train safety blogs about safety issues.

Turns out he may well have been right but somehow, I doubt anyone will listen now any more than they did before.

Incredibly, there are actually some slime who are suggesting his sexuality played some role in this tragic accident. Or that he wrecked this train on purpose. Sick disgusting lies.

 

[MarathonMike]

If you have trains and tracks designed for ultra high speeds like the Bullet train of course there is a reason to exceed 100mph. Amtrak is not the Bullet train. And you would want governors/speed limiters built into the engine precisely to eliminate the possibility of engineers deliberately or otherwise causing a high speed crash. That is unless there is another reason to not have engine speed limiters.

 

[Pogo]

100 or 150 mph is not an unusual speed for a train to be capable of at all. It's not like a car going that speed.

And there is apparently a fail-safe system (called PTC) to prevent this sort of thing but that was not installed in Port Richmond. Why not is a whole 'nother question.

 

[Political Junky]

The tracks in the US aren't built for the kind of speed that is possible in Europe, China, and Japan.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

Actually, there ARE sections of that route where the safe speed is 100MPH. On straight sections, 70+MPH is common. In an area where tracks run alongside the highway, I have had an Amtrak train pass me while I was running ~80MPH...I'd guess it was pushing 90.

The Amtrak Acela cruises at 130-135 and tops out at 150.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

Ask this myself about cars and motorcycles street-legal in the US. If the highest speed limit anywhere in the country is say 75 mph, why can most every vehicle greatly exceed this?

You still cant make a ninety degree turn at 75 so what difference would it make?
And hit a bridge abutment at 75 and your just as dead as you'd be at 80.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well...I am relieved!

Now that we know.....as our nutters have so clearly explained....that the only reason that this train crashed is because the engineer fucked up....we can all now rest assured that we will be safe on Amtrak trains moving forward. That guy won't be operating any more trains. We are golden!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I still dont see why they dont put warning sensors on the tracks.
It's not like it would cost much. There are sensors at damn near every stop light in the country yet they cant put em on train tracks?
Gross mismanagement.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gross mismanagement? How have they managed before? Everyone else got lucky? Sounds like they need to screen candidates a little better.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Gross mismanagement? How have they managed before? Everyone else got lucky? Sounds like they need to screen candidates a little better.

It would make a lot of sense to put sensors on the track to help eliminate humane error.
That they havent done that is gross mismanagement.
Hell,I have warning buzzer on my 07 FJ that lets me know if I'm going to back into something.
You'd think the lives of hundreds of people would warrant a few sensors.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gross mismanagement? How have they managed before? Everyone else got lucky? Sounds like they need to screen candidates a little better.

It would make a lot of sense to put sensors on the track to help eliminate humane error.
That they havent done that is gross mismanagement.
Hell,I have warning buzzer on my 07 FJ that lets me know if I'm going to back into something.
You'd think the lives of hundreds of people would warrant a few sensors.

The best sensor is supposed to be the conductor.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Gross mismanagement? How have they managed before? Everyone else got lucky? Sounds like they need to screen candidates a little better.

It would make a lot of sense to put sensors on the track to help eliminate humane error.
That they havent done that is gross mismanagement.
Hell,I have warning buzzer on my 07 FJ that lets me know if I'm going to back into something.
You'd think the lives of hundreds of people would warrant a few sensors.

The best sensor is supposed to be the conductor.

You'd like to think so.
But the last two crashes have been caused by inattentive conductors.
You could have avoided both with a warning signal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm not an engine expert and I would like to hear from those that are. It seems like limiting speed at the engine is the way to go because there is no reason for a passenger train to ever go 100mph or even 70 for that matter. I'm hearing about elaborate and extremely expensive computer controlled systems that "take over" the engine controls. That is way overkill for this problem and also as we all know, computers are not foolproof. What do the engine experts say?

[begin Political Satire]

So, you liberals wanna have the government force limitations on vehicles now limiting or even controlling how fast things can do?

[end Political Satire]

 

[eagle1462010]

I would imagine that a pure governor limiting system wouldn't be the ticket.................as the engines would work at higher throttle positions dependent on the load being towed..........................

Therefore a speed sensor would have to be incorporated into a variable governor limiting system...............using this reference speed to determine throttle position wouldn't be that hard to design and install...............

Pretty old tech.........

But it's not an excuse for operator error in this case.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I still dont see why they dont put warning sensors on the tracks.
It's not like it would cost much. There are sensors at damn near every stop light in the country yet they cant put em on train tracks?
Gross mismanagement.

There was one on the train. It had apparently been deactivated.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Almost all company trucks, not owner operator trucks, have rpm limiters in them now. My truck will only run 66 mph, on flat ground, much slower climbing a hill with a heavy load, and I have topped it out at almost 76 going down some mountains on I-68 in West Virginia.

Wish those damn 4 wheelers would figure out how to drive around a truck, you pass it and go the hell on, and when that truck wants over, you better be paying attention and not texting, or it might be bye bye for the 4 wheeler.