This is a reasonable accommodation. All the ADA requires is a reasonable accommodation.
You're saying that like Amtrak has no ability or agency to control modifications at the stations and platforms they stop at. I don't think this is the case.
Further, the height of platforms has nothing to do with whether or not bi-level cars are feasible or desirable. They are not. Stations have bridge plates for boarding off the platform and they go up and down. Even if you aren't in a wheelchair, there are a host of difficulties presented by a full set of narrow or steep stairs that are not presented by aisles across a wide range of disabilities.
The capacity issue you're talking about is theoretical and can be fixed by adding cars. The capacity issue we're facing is that we don't have enough rail cars available. The replacement bi-level for the Superliner failed safety tests and was abandoned. In the time it takes to reboot a bi-level car program, you've lost the ability to serve entire routes.
First off, the longest domestic flight in CONUS is 6 hours 40 minutes. It isn't until you get to Hawaii that you have a 9 hour flight.
Airlines have attendants that are trained on how to make that bathroom work that are on every flight that are available to assist in that situation. They have to be there because wheelchair-bound passengers almost always need to be buckled into a regular airline seat for safety purposes.
Amtrak can't have an attendant on call and has the ability to allow wheelchair passengers to safely ride in their chairs. Given that circumstance, a self-service bathroom is the ADA option. Also, it doesn't cost that much extra to make space on a rail car for an ADA bathroom when you're ordering new equipment. I don't even believe airlines have that as a logical design option on aircraft,
They were cancelled because they couldn't be built to the same safety standards that apply to single-level trains.
So which one is it? There's going to be no electrification or you simply change the electrification standard because you want to have a bi-level train that's less safe, is restricted to serving a portion of the country, less accessible all in the name of...higher passenger density?
Bombardier and Alstom have built what they classify as bilevel cars and are built to similar dimensions as the old Santa Fe hilevels that meet the modern requirements. The Cal3s failing is more likely down to incompetence, not building compliant rolling stock being against the laws of physics.
Platform heights can be a problem because it will either mean taller bilevel cars to not have a dip like a multilevel car or an ADA nightmare dealing with stairs on the end of each car.
If having one out of how ever many ADA rooms be next to the dining car is good enough, then an accommodation can be made for Superliners.
On electrification, it's not hard to see that we aren't going to be doing any large scale electrification in this county. Even if we did start, the railways aren't going to give up double stack container trains for it. Double stack trains can be 18 feet tall and bilevel passenger cars are around 16 feet. Just to accommodate the minimum clearance of a double stack is enough for a Superliner or similar car. Not to mention multilevels run on the NEC without problems at 14.5 feet. Not to mention they use similar cars in Europe where they have a lot of electrification and more sensible safety regulations than we did until recently.
So a new bilevel car can be built to modern safety standards, run under wire, have level boarding, and carry more people in fewer cars. Running longer trains also isn't the only solution, running more would do way more for Amtrak than running a longer one that will hold up traffic in many places that will get on people's nerves.