He does make some interesting points, one of which was that if Amtrak were actually "privatized" it would lose access to all non-Amtrak rail systems, or at least would have no priority, and then presumably on all of the freight railroads' routes except for UP, Amtrak's OTP would drop to what it currently is on UP rails, and on UP rails, Sunset would take roughly one month to get from LA to NOL. It seems to me, though, that the sheer vastness of the funding that would be required to (1) purchase all that rolling stock to be leased, and (2) do the nationwide infrastructure upgrade that would be required to actually make a substantial increase in capacity, probably to double track everywhere it's single, and maybe triple track where it's double now, boggles the mind. New equipment seemed one of his primary areas of focus, and he didn't go into infrastructure that much after saying that roads and airports got much more favorable treatment. Roads aren't privately owned like the rails are. Of course, the rolling stock and infrastructure (rail) improvements would still probably be cheaper than the final bill for Iraq will be.
The other thing I'm having trouble with, though, is his idea of selling everything and leasing it back. Fine, ok, selling assets like stations and maintenance depots will bring some money in. Not very much, I would think, as most of them are rather old, aren't they? So you wouldn't get much for them, and then you have to start paying leasing fees, so your expenses just jumped higher. And of course whoever bought the building wants a decent profit, so the lease won't be particularly attractive, I wouldn't think, for Amtrak. After all, in a particular town or city, that station is THE station. It's not like buying a house, where there are hundreds on the market in any given city. There's just that one house. And they have to have THAT house if they want to have a station stop there. So they'd have Amtrak over a barrel on the leases.
It just seems like suddenly there are a lot of other people getting a profit from Amtrak operations, but those profits are going through Amtrak's hands and into the pockets of third parties. And the only place that money can come from is the passenger who buys a ticket, so the ticket prices have to go way up. Now, if Amtrak leases something, do they also then get the deduction for depreciation of a capital asset? I wouldn't think so.
And how are you going to sufficiently persuade some venture capitalist in the first place to put those billions into passenger rail infrustructure? How are you going to convince them that this scheme is suddenly going to make gobs of money, so that his investment in all that rolling stock will pay off? Who's going to take all that rolling stock off his hands if the venture fails? Am I missing something here, or are we just playing another hide-the-marble shell game.