Fuel cell power with flywheel energy storage. It can juice up the flywheel at each bus stop, minimizing the hydrogen consumption.

http://www.autotram.info/en/videos.html

I know they say it's "as easily manouverable as a commonly-sized bus", but I don't really see how it could be at that length.

Streetcars were restricted to their tracks, and the tracks forced them to follow a very narrow area. Some Streetcars (more common of modern LRVs, which are nothing but updated streetcars) can have pass areas with mini-meters of other Streetcars OR other objects like Streetcar stops.

Now, the Streetcar is kept on its narrow track by the physical nature of the track. This bus is doing the same but using computers to make sure the wheels of the last two sections follow the exact same track of the first section. With modern computers not a hard thing to do, all you would need is a computer program and connections with each set of wheels so that each follow the first. It is NOT the rock solid system of a physical rail, but if the computer, the program and the connections with the wheels are working, will work.

The main advantage of this system over Rail, is that it can operate on pavement, no need for a separate rail system. The main disadvantage is that do to its size, it can NOT operate like a normal bus, i.e. pull over to load and unload passengers around parked cars. It has to operate in areas with no on street parking OR the loading zone for buses are enlarged. For example, in areas with a lot of cars on the streets, it is not uncommon for bus drivers to pull the FRONT of the bus to the bus stop, load passengers, then pull out into the traffic lanes, keeping the rear of the bus in the traffic lanes the entire time. Can you image what that would do with a bus like this one? First set of wheels pulls to the curb, while the second set of wheels stays in traffic, then the first set of wheels of the second section will want to follow the first set of wheels to the curb, while the second set of wheels on the second section would want to stay in traffic, the same with wheels of the third section. Just a mess, that the computer program will have to handle OR just run the bus in areas with little or no on the street parking (or extra long, much longer then the bus, bus stops).

In many ways, except for the ability to use pavement not rails, this type of bus will have all the restrictions that a streetcar would have. Given that, this bus combined with a overhead wire for electricity (i.e. a "Trolley Bus) would be ideal in areas where the primary means of public transit is to used local roads (In areas with high populations that demands that public transport be on its own right of way, Light Rail/Streetcars would still be preferred, a physical restriction is just better then a computer generated one, rail is more energy efficient and there is a clear preference for rail over buses among commuters). On the other hand in areas where it is hard to install a separate right of way, this bus may be a solution.

If you've ever watched a luggage handler tow a string of those carts around the ramp, you'll notice that the steering linkages on the carts are set up so each cart precisely follows the track of the previous one. No matter how much fancy footwork the driver has to do to maneuver his tractor around obstacles, the carts will track right behind and clear the obstacles too.

But then again, luggage carts don't have to do lane changes.

The short distance between each cart and each cart's short wheel distances combine to minimizes the effect of going inside, but each goes inside. People tend NOT to know that tractor Trailers are actually easier to drive and maneuver then a full size truck with a trailer. The reason is the short wheel base of the tractor, combined with the short distance to the trailer from the tractor makes it easier to maneuver in tight places, The shorter the wheel base on any trailer, the less it can go inside whatever is in front of it. If you look at this bus, each section is relatively short so that this effect can help the program to keep each wheel to follow the previous set of wheels. The short wheel base helps both a cart and this bus, but the real significance is the computer program that get the wheel to follow the track of the previous set of wheels.

If this bus is usable, you could order one that has even more sections, including a dinning car. I can see a 4-5 section (or longer) bus of this type on the interstates. Ideally, given the size of such a bus, power would come from electrical overheads (i.e. a very long "Trolley Bus&quot . Several people have proposed overhead electrical lines on the Interstates to provided extra power to trucks going up long steep hillsides. i.e. A hybrid truck, that has a pantograph on top to connect to the over head wires, thus charging its batteries without the use of its diesel engine AND providing additional power to the electrical motors as the hybrid truck goes up hill. If you ever was behind a truck going up a long steep mountain side, you know how the hill climb just slows them down. If the truck used electrical motors for its propulsion and has access to electrical power from overhead wires, it could provide extra power to its wheel and go up the hills a lot faster. Both San Francisco and Seattle keeps Trolley buses on some of they steepest routes for this reason. Trolley-buses can go up steep hills faster then diesel or gasoline powered buses (San Francisco Cable cars go up even steeper hills, but at slower speeds. Going up steep hillsides is the advantage of the Cable car system over any other street running system.).

Side note: I use the term "any other STREET Running system, for funiculars, i.e Inclines, are even more efficient, but run on their own right of way).

Just a comment that this bus has some serious possibilities if you accept its limitations and understand it is NOT a substitute for Light Rail/Streetcars.

the equivalent of a rolling road block when combined with a 60mph semi passing a 55mph bus on a 75mph or 80 mph speed limit road like we have here in Texas.

Now I am using Tractor-Trailers for comparison, in Ohio a Triple trailer, A Tractor and three trailers can be as long as 115 feet and weigh up to 114,000 pounds. The Indiana East-west Turnpike has similar "restrictions": Please note, none of the triples and doubles permitted TODAY on the interstate have anything like the computer program to keep the wheels directly behind the wheels ahead. i.e. Each trailer will turn inside the previous trailer. This what makes such long combinations Vehicle (LCV) so dangerous. Thus I am using the dimension of this "Triple" for comparison only. On the other hand, given its computer program control wheels, a five to ten "Vehicle" length would NOT be impossible, in fact perfectly usable on interstates, getting off and back on at every intersection.

http://www.ohioturnpike.org/media/pdf/PROVISIONS-TRIPLES_05-01-07_.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/110721/sec3.htm

Here is a PDF report from the early 1990s on tractor trailers use in the US including Triple trailers, Ohio had a 95 Foot and a 115,000 weight limit at that time period. Today, 2012 it is 115 feet.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/Vol2-Chapter3.pdf

Alberta Canada has 125 feet limit with a weight limit of 138,000 pounds.:

http://www.highwaysafetyroundtable.ca/member/documents/RAC%20Heavy%20Truck%2003.pdf

Today, Triples are permitted in the following states:
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/exemptions/lcvs.htm

but never fear in 5-10 yrs they will do away with the worse bottleneck in america.

oh yes,if you have a really good solution they are willing to look at your idea. yup,so far they do`t have a clue about a design.

Articulated buses run about 60 feet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_bus

Here are some Articulated bues in operation in Pittsburgh

http://www.pittsburghtransit.info/artic.html

http://www.pittsburghtransit.info/flyer.html


The problem with these buses, is the Bus Companies push them for they haul more passengers per drivers then other buses but at a reduce schedule. I.e. instead of two buses at 15 minute intervals, you have one bus every 30 minutes. That sounds OK, till you realize that frequency is almost as important as speed AND the the bus exists. The chief reason Streetcars declined stated in the 1930s (in urban areas, 1918 if you include Rural Inter-urbans) is that they ended up in death spirals. As fewer people took them, service frequency was cut, that made it more inconvenient for more people so more people stop using the streetcars, which lead to further cuts in service, which lead to even more people stop using the streetcars. This death spiral starting in the late 1920s for urban streetcars (1918 for Rural Inter-Urbans) till they lost 90% of more of their passengers by the 1950s.

Frequency of service is as important as providing the service itself. A fact often lost by bus providers run by people who do not use the bus on a daily basis (Which are most broads of Directors running most bus systems).

Thus this bus will be a good bus on lines with a lot of riders, but only if frequency of service is maintained. In most places frequency of service has been maintained, but I have seen a drop in service in some situations. For example, just under 10% of all riders into Downtown Pittsburgh take the new LRV system (Which replaced a 1905 Streetcar system, same route, just new cars and a four stop Subway in Downtown Pittsburgh). When this system ran PCC on its 30 years ago, the cars came more frequently then they do now. The old PCC has seats for up to 60 people, and a "Crush Capacity" of up to 100 (and in my youth I saw many a PCC with "Crush Capacity&quot .

PCC Streetcars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcar

THe LRVs have 62 seats but an additional "Crush load" of 216

http://www.pittsburghtransit.info/index8.html

The Renault/Heuliez Megabus for the city of Bordeaux

Furthermore Renault/Heuliez only sold 10, and in 2004 was replaced by a Streetcar/Tram/LRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway_de_Bordeaux

Other examples of double articulated buses:
http://busexplorer.com/PHP/MidPage.php?id=1032

The problem with all of them is that they all lack the computer program that keeps the wheels following each other, in these older system, each section will turn inside the previous section. Thus, at best can only be used in limited locations, for example Bordeaux only purchased 10 and then only in an effort to fight off the push to install a Tram/Streetcar/LRV system. In Brazil, where these are popular, they run on dedicated right of ways that makes sure the turns are within the capacity of these extra long buses.

More on bi-articulated systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-articulated_bus

Hess out of Switzerland has 82 foot trolley buses in three sections:

http://www.hess-ag.ch/de/busse/trolleybusse/lightram.php

And 82 foot low buses:

http://www.hess-ag.ch/de/busse/linienbusse/niederflur.php

In Brazil, bi-articulated buses are build on Volvo bus chassis.

Volvo web site for chassis:
http://www.volvobuses.com/bus/global/en-gb/products_services/buses/City%20buses/volvo_7900_articulate/Pages/Specifications.aspx