Wow, I really didn't expect people would even try and defend this one.
The problem is that if the propulsion unit (or whatever you'd call this garbage) fails, the rolling stock fails with it. If a conventional locomotive, steam, diesel or other, suffers a simple traction failure, the brakes fail ON and the passengers are able to shelter in place until help can come to them. On this contraption, a power failure, assuming some constriction doesn't spin it down immediately, results in a mandatory evacuation every time. In any weather, no matter how rustic the terrain.
Else-wise, it will need to carry it's own support rig with it, where-ever it goes. This is hardly going to be a kick-stand. You could probably rely on gravity to drop it but it would need to be raised pneumatically (hydraulic or steam would be too heavy). It is going to have to be substantial and will be heavy - on a vehicle that would already be pushing weight-distribution limits of conventional rail. Many civil engineers of that period would veto it because of excessive weight per wheel. It is going to be (unnecessarily) harsh on the infrastructure, bridges, banks and viaducts etc. Forget it in coal-mining country! Far from saving money compared with twin-rail, this could be more expensive!
If it were to fail, out in the sticks/boondocks, you couldn't drag it dead to a depot for repairs, as with conventional locomotives & rolling stock. You would need all gyros operational before setting off. Could another power unit energize it's own gyros and all of the gyros of the dead unit or would you need dedicated "Thunderbird" engines? Hauling around replacement gyros and fitting them in situ sounds both fun and profitable.
This is a monumentally bad, indefensible concept.