Regardless of the feasibility of rail in the US, I cannot think of anything less forward-looking then continuing to sink public money into the particular company Amtrak.
Most regional airfields are bigger money sinks than Amtrak. The federal government subsidizeds up to $800 per passenger in some of the more rural air routes in Alaska.[2]
Rail travel subsidies are a fraction of what the United States taxpayers spend on transportation. We have a concept of "essential" air and road travel subsidies, why not essential rail subsidies?
Think of how great this arm of our transportation infrastructure could be if we shifted 10% of what we spend on regional airlines to rail transport.
Other countries have clearly demonstrated that high speed rail works. And they don't spend nearly as much on infrastructure.
And what is wrong with just having subsidized slow passenger service across the continent either? I assure you it is not too expensive compared to what we already spend, and I think it is very beneficial. I think that we should continue to maintain a fleet of long distance passenger trains and stations. Passenger trains can be an essential safety where other forms of travel are unavailable. We just take it for granted that the government should spend as much as it wants building roads everywhere, but we count every penny when it comes to passenger rail.
[1]: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/23/meet-2020s-worst-high...
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120202212318/http://www.buses....
NEC = northeast corridor
The article also points out that Amtrak purposefully invests as little as possible into the unprofitable long distance network, which seems to be exactly what you’re asking for: to stop investing in Amtrak’s archaic routes.
The article also details a plan that focuses on profitable and popular intercity service. Routes like Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati that are a part of this plan are no-brainer expansions that will easily yield regional economic benefits.
As you’re aware, Amtrak is the government. Any economic benefit they bring to a region goes right back to the government in the form of tax revenue. It should be obvious then that Amtrak itself doesn’t need to be profitable for it to be a net positive investment.
We don’t expect our roads to be profitable and yet nobody questions whether highways are a “feasible” mode of transport.
The odds of Amtrak pulling this off are near 0. They earned their poor reputation.
This rail plan is 100% realistic because it appropriately de-emphasizes long distance rail that Amtrak is so infamous for.
It targets expansion in very obviously lacking intercity regions. These new routes will be profitable for the government either directly or in lasting economic benefits.
I've also rarely taken other city pairs.
What isn't practical except mostly as a one-off tourist thing for someone with lots of time is going Chicago to Seattle and similar routes or fantasies of drilling a tunnel through the Appalachians for a fast NY to Chicago run.
Amtrak's biggest challenge is that its service is inconvenient in most of the cities/towns it serves. For example, in Syracuse, NY, where Amtrak has 8 trains per day (four in each direction) that arrive at reasonably convenient times, the station is located on the outskirts of the city, far from the city center. Cleveland has the opposite problem: the station is near the downtown area, but all of the scheduled trains (4 per day, two in each direction) arrive between 1 am and 6 am. Where Amtrak is convenient to use (e.g. the NEC) it works reasonably well and is actually competitive with driving or flying.
Also used high speed trains in Germany.
I understand the resistance but there is no technical problem that prevents efficient passenger rail services in North America, we just need to do it.
But again, with Amtrak's record, where does the confidence come from that they could pull it off? As is pointed out above, it has never really succeeded, and has been propped-up by the government its entire life.
Change leadership, change direction and continually improve.