Mr. Pennsy, thank you for presenting your "mixed" thoughts to mine expressed immediately in an unquestionably mature and respectful manner.
I think we both agree that it is regretful commercial passenger carriers - Amtrak and the airlines - must go into a "Buddy can you spare a $B" mode, and that you agree that Mr. Anderson did make progress; the Acela 21 order was finalized and deliveries took place on his watch, and the single-level cars for Midwest and West Coast cars were likewise, although entry into revenue service will not occur until his successor is "on watch". That there remains "higgling and piggling" on an order for new Corridor cars must remain as "unfinished business". Lest we forget, the A-I's are now older than the P-70's they replaced - indeed a testament to their design using proven components and a builder who was of a "take 'em or leave 'em" philosophy.
Now so far as the LD's, you and I appear likely on different pages. On that point, I must admit that I have the advantage, and hold in my nearly 79 years around these parts the memories, in that I was riding railroad LD's such as the Century, Broadway, North Coast, Panama, Builder, Cities, Zephyr, and Super, back when those trains did provide an experiential ride (throw in several Transatlantic sailings to boot). But those days are in the history books; commercial passenger transportation is simply moving you from A to B. Mr. Anderson, and his successor Mr. Flynn, recognize this.
But "scalping the Chief", simply made all the economic sense in the world. Here was 350 miles of the route that, under contract between the Railroad and Amtrak, Amtrak was going to be responsible for all costs of its maintenance and operation. That one level of government or the other stepped up to "chip in the loot" to maintain this, to me absurdity, escapes me. That Clark, Olivia, Cary, and Eva, as well as me, once rode those rails sitting in a Pleasure Dome, does not give rise to present day political and social necessity. The "here I am in La Junta and I have to get to my Doctor in Kansas City" doesn't cut it - just get behind the wheel if you must.
We must not lose sight that, unlike Canada, there is no station served by Amtrak that cannot be accessed by highway. The "remote" argument put forth by the advocacy groups simply has no backing whatever "down here". If some political body believes there is a need to provide commercial transportation to that person in La Junta, then establish a system of vans/busses as a "transition" (five year phaseout as was to be the case with the LD's) - it will surely cost taxpayers far less than operating a system of LD trains.
Just my thoughts.