Law banning the second employee from the train engine.
Debate Rounds (4)
To start, perhaps other changes could be made that are more efficient. Is it possible to have automatic systems that slow the train down for a turn if it's going too fast? Then you don't have to hire an employee, and guaranteed, there won't be another train derailing if everything works fine. Again, I don't know then first thing about trains, but please consider it.
Positive Train Control: https://www.fra.dot.gov...
(You could argue about how we don't need another trainman in the engine.)
If we were to get rid of this law, and if another derailment happens, it may be found that it happened because one employee was in the bathroom, and the other fell asleep, putting pressure to hire another employee to make sure there is always two employees in the control station (or whatever it's called). That means three employees would hired, which triples the regular cost for a trainmen. I am basing this off how the U.S. pilot system works.
Also, you mentioned that the PCT doesn't work well in desolate areas. Philadelphia doesn't not exactly remind me of a desolate area. Plus, how many accidents have happened that are caused by the failure of PCT in a desolate area! I haven't heard of many. Still, I acknowledge that I am ignorant of this subject
As stated before, Positive Train Control does not always help. I older train engines, such as the Elecro-Motive Division GP-30 (which were built around the 1960s and '70s) are obviously not fitted up with PTC than an EMD SD-70ace-p4 that was built this year. A lot of class 2 and class 3 railroads use older models ,such as the GP-30, because that is all they can afford to own. Sometimes these lower class railways have a pact signed with class one railways to use their tracks to commute to distant facilities that they don't have tracks to. During that long travel, they may encounter other trains heading towards them. With out the PTC system, they will not know that the other train is heading towards them until it is too late. On August 26, 2000, a Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern train bound for Central South Dakota was derailed in Brookings, South Dakota, killing the conductor and severely injuring the engineer. The accident was caused intentionally. The suspect called it a 'prank.' PTC doesn't and cannot prevent this type of wreck. PTC has a homing device, like radar, that sends up an alert message saying that a train is to close. It cannot tell if a switch is lined against them until they wreck. (When a switch is lined against them, it means that the switch is set up for a train to cross over to the other track on the other side. It is set up as a one way deal.)
Chatsworth is just North of Los Angeles; definitely not a desolate area. This happened when A Metrolink commuter passed a red signal and collided with a Union Pacific freight train. That line is one of the routes that sees more trains a day than, lets say, Detroit and the Great Lake areas. Since it is that place sees more travel, it would be key to protect that route from wrecks. The only way to protect it is with Positive Train Control (PTC). Still, even with PTC, Metrolink plows right into the Union Pacific train.
Chatsworth Derailment: http://en.wikipedia.org...
DM&E derailment: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rami forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daem0n 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits and concedes.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.