I have studied Amtrak for the last twenty years, and this I can tell you. The politics involved with public funding is almost an annual joke. It seems Republican administrations try and kill the system, then comes a Democrat who will fund it just enough to keep some air in its lungs (but still chained to a wheelchair).
Other posts have mentioned that the USA is unlike other countries, this is very true. Our economic system is very different. Other countries do fund near all costs, but folks that is called Socialism (not Communism, but Socialism). Have you ever made a complaint about the Post Office? Doesn't get anywhere does it. Our postal system is based on a Socialism concept, and it doesnt work very well either. Why is this? If it works in other places, why not here? One simple answer, you cannot blend Socialism and Capitalism together smoothly, at least here in the USA.
On the topic of private rail companies being forced to regain service is not a good idea, UNLESS, the government can provide tax incenties and not subsidies. If they are able to write off losses in frieght, you will have decent service, but being forced to regain service will result in horrible service. On April 30, 1970, the eve of Amtrak, the Federal governemt would have been better off to ensure private operations based on revenue per railroad class. Hence a Class I railroad would have to maintain three routes, a Class II would have to maintain two routes, etc , given the tax incentives and avoided the creation of Amtrak.
Thats hindsight now. What to do now to gain much needed self sufficient operations. Maintaining corridors of needed operations, for example NEC and So CAL among others. These can compete with passenger ticket revenues and traffic.
For long distance operations, there needs to be a way to generate more revenue, and this is one way to do it. Since Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation with its main holders being railroads such as BNSF, the Federal Government through votes can decide what can be done to change service. Cut costs, go where there is demand. Second, offer competing ticket pricing, why go by rail if an air ticket is 55% less? Third, offer in house gaming. People love to gamble and studies have shown that the average international air passenger gaming on international flights will gamble an amount almost equal to or more than their ticket cost. You can do this two ways, a gaming casino car per train, or in-seat video gaming. Swipe the card folks.
Subsidies are ok, but operation in a free market offers competition, better pricing, products or services customers WANT to buy. You must show a private operator why they should either invest or purchase the system. Simple put, you won't buy a broken item on a store shelf, neither will they.
Enjoy
Shipfitter