This article from Railway Age takes a look at implications of such thoughts. https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/repeat-actions-dont-produce-different-outcomes/ While I encourage everyone to read the full article, please allow a few brief "fair use quotes. This si probably true when you consider the capacity requirements. While you may have a fees for service, it can't compare to the costs of owning and being responsible for your territory. However, due to the the lack of usage, it may be easier to say these assets, which are billed to a specific train drive up the costs of that train. This is where the economies of scale come into play. Running more service will make this asset more worthwhile since its cost isn't going to change much...particularly with agents being cut. This is what I was referring to in the Hoosier State tickets sales suspended for after June 30[/ur] thread. What makes anyone think the states will want to fund the majority of their costs all of a sudden? it is not logical to conclude that most states will want he additional costs, particularly when they are already receiving the service now. Do you think congressional members will vote to raise the costs to their constituents? That is what they will do if the eliminate the 750 mile rule requirement, so I'm not sure a state with a train would vote to overturn it. I'd like to see a citation on this. While it is true that trains are often sold out, that doesn't mean adding capacity would do more than create a glut. After all, that is what happens on the NEC. It is sized for the busiest points. Indeed, those train could use more capacity between key points. But, then you have a glut at other points. At any rate, I love the Wick Moorman references. It is interesting the Gardner and company pushes an agenda that most previous CEOs say is self destructive.