this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
90 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
86480 readers
3331 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I sense a big kaboom in this train’s future.
No specialist or anything, but I imagine most of the kaboom potential is puncture-based. I don't expect much to make it to the heart of a train as trains generally win in collisions.
Pressure vessel fatigue is possible too, but generally rated and tested well above pressure relief valves.
Depends on how you define "win". It only takes one small hydrogen leak for a catastrophe. A train will wreck any car or truck for sure, hit or miss with another train, but even a simple derailment of tanker cars often results in a significant mess.
There are nuclear rail transport containers that have been tested in collisions, and they've never leaked, but they're very big and heavy for not a whole lot of volume. And they're sealed, while a fuel tank needs holes to let fuel in and out.
Luckily hydrogen floats upwards pretty quickly. So paradoxically, storage tanks are safer the less protection they have around them. Or at least, above them.
Yes Rico,kaboum