So, unless your hobby is howling at the moon in righteous indignation, it's best to get behind something that might actually work, particularly if your interest is in there being more passenger trains.
This post is offensive, and I have reported it to the moderators.
There is a broader issue than whether a claim that the broader advocacy community "is howling at the moon" is on the face of it an offensive personal attack, in contrast with, say, responding with a four-letter word in response to a link to a Wikipedia page, clarifying that there are many near-200 MPH HSR lines in Europe but actual 200 MPH+ in regular service is more rare.
That broader issue is whether proposals of reform or improvement or increased efficiency of Amtrak are welcome within the advocacy community. There appears to be a defensive reaction within the advocacy community to any change to Amtrak apart from increasing trains speeds and train frequencies.
Back in the day of the David P Morgan editorship of Trains, Trains Magazine was reform-minded in its editorial policy, both with respect to passenger trains trains and freight trains. The editorial view was that not only were passenger operations in peril through the pattern of financial losses and ICC train-off petitions, but that the supposed profitable freight side of railroading was also at risk. That risk came to be an actuality with the Penn Central bankruptcy that culminated in Conrail, a kind of super Penn Central of bankrupt or tottering Eastern lines.
The David P Morgan stand was "we are foremost railroad enthusiasts and we would like to see railroading continue so there would remain trains that we could be enthusiastic about. What can we do to see that railroading survives?" Hence that era of Trains gave page space to all points of view, but it gave a column to John Kneiling "The Professional Iconoclast", one that drew a lot of criticism, much as certain iconoclastic commentators here draw criticism from the main-stream passenger-train advocacy point of view.
There is nothing like The Professional Iconoclast in today's Trains Magazine. John Kneiling was saying all of the brash and iconoclastic and to many people also offensive things to "save the railroad industry he loved as a train enthusiast", but David P Morgan, the train enthusiast's train enthusiast, was thinking many of the same things -- you just had to read Morgan's editorials that expressed many of the same ideas, although without the finger-in-the-eye critical-of-labor-and-management-with-a-broad-brush of Kneiling. But today's Trains is pretty much in the main-stream passenger train advocacy camp, ladies and gentleman and for lack of a better word, passenger trains are good, passengere trains are powerful, and people who don't want to fund passenger trains in the style they are accustomed to are ignorant or maybe worse.
Is there any place for iconoclastic opinion in passenger advocacy? I don't agree 100% with the (other) iconoclasts (I once called us as a group "heretics" and received outrage directed my way for using an "offensive" and "religious" term, although the word iconoclast has a religious meaning, and there was a decade long stretch where that word was a byline in Trains Magazine). But I am of the opinion that the main-line passenger train advocacy position has not accomplished enough in the 40 years since Amtrak, and that we need iconoclasts if passenger train service is to survive.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?