I'm surprised we've gotten this far in the discussion without mentioning two possible area where private railroads may want to re-enter passenger service:
- The NEC. Wasn't there some sort of study ordered into the costs of operating service on this corridor?
- High-speed rail. Although this seems unlikely for long-distance travel, isn't the regional approach to high-speed rail setting up the possibility of companies other than Amtrak operating on these lines?
Aside from those two points, I don't see private railroads going back into long-distance passenger travel. It's been too long and I don't think they would be able to recoup the startup costs without heavy outside support.
I think you're right on the NEC point--I recall hearing something about it, but the NEC is so far off my radar that I don't rightly recall.
Per the second point:
In the broad strokes, yes, the current thinking about high speed rail opens the possibility of third-parties building and operating them. I know that the TGV people in France have shown some interest in domestic high speed rail--they've been mentioned in Texas, at least. And there is some thinking out there that the last thing regional high speed rail needs is Amtrak, if for no other reason than Amtrak brings with it the can of worms that is political wind--a point made in this very thread. Commit to having Amtrak lead the way under a friendly administration and then what happens when the next administration (or Congress, for that matter) is not so rail friendly? Or what happens when so-and-so's district gets funding for rail versus another so-and-so's district?
Okay, having said that, let's back up for a minute.
The reality of implementing high speed rail, whether it's a national network or a regional one, is that there will very likely be no day where a state says "Okay, today's the day we begin the eminent domain process for our bullet train right-of-way." Or, further, no day where a state says "Okay, today's the day we break ground on our new bullet train right-of-way construction." A backyard example for me would be the reaction to Rick Perry's darling Trans-Texas Corridor, which raised enough ire to seriously make people think Perry would be political poison in the primaries/general election. I would have been personally affected by the TTC--my family property abuts US 59, which was (and probably still is) going to become I-69. The TTC would have included right of way for express trains, freight, as well as additional lanes for interstate traffic, plus pipelines.
Even though I was wary of the thing, it DOES show a lot of forward thinking, and in all likelihood would have been a boon to the state of Texas.
Probably the final nail in the coffin of the TTC was the much-publicized agreement with a Spanish coalition to build it and operate it. There never was much discussion beyond that point; the NIMBYs were already livid over the way the state was going to have to acquire the right-of-way ("land grabs") and this Spanish consortium gave them the additional ammunition they needed to get the whole smash taken off the table, essentially.
Applied to the current thread, my gut feeling is that the citizens of other states would likely react the same way as Texans did. The more vocal of them, whom I'll dub CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) people, are the proverbial squeaky wheels.
So what we're left with is the incremental approach to high speed rail, which begins not with bullet trains and catenary, but with the process looking more like this:
1) Increase frequency of traditional rail service on already-serviced lines.
2) Taking advantage of the inroads from step 1 (which would likely require some degree of capital improvement) begin to increase the average speed of already-existing services. The upshot here is that the equipment is already good for a modest speed increase, and the new FRA requirements are going to set the table for increased speed (although on who's dime hasn't quite been ironed out.)
3) Pause here and focus on chasing a higher AVERAGE speed rather than a higher TOP speed (this is where, in many ways, the business side and the railfan side diverge--average speed of 39MPH isn't as sexy a pet project as top speed of 200MPH--even if the train only assumes that speed for a mile or so.)
4) Begin to add additional services that connect and/or feed existing ones, again following the basic template of steps 1, 2, and 3.
Then, sometime in the future, true high speed rail MIGHT come into the picture. But I'm not so sure that's step 6. It might be step 56, or step 256. To crib from the film "Apollo 13," we have 500 things that have to occur in order. We're on step 3.
Why is this relevant to the original question? Because look back at those incremental steps and ask yourself, "Who is the entity involved or potentially involved?" Without a major change in policy, the answer is "Amtrak." Set in stone? No. But pretty difficult to divest them from the process. That's likely why Amtrak is presenting itself as the de facto standard builder/operator for the future. And, in a large way, they do have a lot of experience and expertise. If the political baggage wasn't so heavy, they might even be the absolute best choice--I've met some of the folks in Amtrak management, and contrary to a lot of public opinion, they do know their railroading. They also know the realities of operating in the American political climate. That makes them realists, which I'm afraid many/most railfans are not. Enthusiasm has to be tempered by realism/pragmatism.
Just my .02.
Edited to add:
Focusing on step 3 for a second--I just ran some quick and dirty calculations that really illustrate the diminishing returns for chasing speed. Assuming a 500 mile route, the largest jump in time improvement occurs between the average speeds of 35 and 45 MPH. That cuts the travel time by 21%. With each 10MPH improvement, the results diminish:
45-55 = 15%
55-65 = 10%
65-75 = 8%
75-85 = 4%