13 Mar '17 11:41>
Originally posted by humyI find it highly unlikely that the vertical supports would fail. Does that happen with overhead rail?
But the passengers will still be in big trouble if the vertical supports for the tube fail in an earthquake
which a assume would result in breakage of tube
Tube breakage is a definite risk even with minor shifting of the tube. Some flexibility (if it is overground) might be wise, but it must be noted that at high speeds, any deviation can be dangerous.
and then, to make matters worse, air rushing in at unimaginable speeds and force, a serious problem that conventional high speed rail wouldn't have.
This problem applies to any loss of pressure and is hardly unique to earthquakes. In fact I suspect that earthquakes would be one of the rarer causes.
I believe the solution might be to have controlled vents all along the track that can be opened in case of emergency so that air is introduced to the track evenly rather than from one end. In fact, introducing air in a controlled fashion while the train is moving would be an easy way to apply emergency braking - essentially one massive airbag.
Then there is the possibility that if the tube collapses, even if the train is stationary, the collapse could cause breakage of the train and sudden decompression for the passengers.
So here you are suggesting the car is breached but not the vacuum in the tube? Again, emergency venting of the tube should be built in.
In fact, if that even happened just once for real, it wouldn't surprise me if the governments banned the hyperloop purely on safety grounds (and I think rightly so)
Except that hasn't happened with high speed rail (which has suffered many catastrophic accidents).
I bet they also haven't given that dreadful possibility much thought either!
Who is 'they' in this instance?
Although I find the hyperloop a pretty interesting idea, the more I think about the problems with the hyperloop, the more I think the whole thing is both a safety nightmare and probably will never be cost effective and personally think the whole thing is SO problematic that its not worth any investment in it and any money spent on its development is wasted money that could be better spent on other things. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
I too am highly skeptical that it is cost effective or even close. The benefits of going slightly faster just don't seem to be worth it. (Think Concorde)
I see no reason not to ponder some of the engineering challenges, and many of them could be tested with ease without spending much money - which is one reason I find it interesting that Hyperloop One has not done so (or at least not publicly). Instead they have spent all their money on marketing and trying to raise more money. It looks like a scam to me.