Rail/Bus This idea has been tried several times in various forms over the last half century, and was always abandoned, not only for technical but economic reasons. I remain sceptical. The problem as I see it is that a rail/bus, instead of just uniting the advantages of the two modes, also carries over negatives. Such as: it is too lightly built for rail use but heavy (->more fuel use) for road use, the railing device introduces extra possibilities for breakdown and higher maintenance needs.
If it was anybody but the Japanese, I'd suspect much the same thing. And, indeed, the previous versions of rail/road vehicles I saw were far more complex beasties, with two separate drive trains and with the rail trucks raised and lower on hydraulics.
This seems to be a much more direct beast, with the road wheel and rail wheel as an integrated unit and the Roll-On-Roll-Off designed into a specialized siding. Call the signal center to get clearence, get a green light to go onto the siding, and away you go.
If you read the article, the main economic appeal to JR Hokkaido is that it costs 1/4 as much as their conventional passenger rail set ... and while it obviously does not have anywhere near that capacity, a large number of JR Hokkaido's routes are carrying fewer than 500 passengers per day, so it allows them to maintain frequency at a lower capital cost per vehicle. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Just as, in the US, the main advantage would be when there is a lightly used rail line that can be used for an express run, free of traffic congestion and traffic lights. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
