Mr. Wolf, Amtrak's remuneration to each road, as Mr. Olesen immediately notes, holding a bilateral Operating Agreement is exempt from public disclosure under FOIA. But, considering my 40 year "absence" from industry affairs, I can only affirm what I read that such is "Bargain Basement".
I've "been gone too long" to fear reprisals, but back in my day, the total cost of maintaining a segment of track (including supervision as railroad Operating Officers have jurisdiction over Amtrak crews while on their lines) is allocated over the cost of all trains operated. As example, a line with twenty trains a day, with two being Amtrak, Amtrak will pay 2/20, or 10%. By that rationale, over the BNSF Chicago Sub, with its 140 trains a Weekday, eight of which are Amtrak, Amtrak pays 8/140, or 5.7%. If this formula holds with, say, the Rutland, which has "one a day" of their own and Amtrak's "one a day" (Ethan Allen), Amtrak is paying half the cost of maintaining their line. If there is any foundation to this reasoning, the Rutland is happy to have Amtrak around.
I'll certainly defer to anyone "more in the know" who is willing to discuss here.
But finally, I continue to hold that should Amtrak interests "press" the roads to "lay down" their Precision Railroading models solely for Amtrak benefits citing some "vagaries" regarding "priority", that would clearly be a "Taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Amtrak simply "gets what it pays for". Pay the roads the full opportunity cost of the High Priority ("Z" on the BNSF) Container train the road cannot handle owing to Amtrak requirements of service, and it would be "a whole new ball game".