> rail advocate or rail sided politicians

Who are they? My impression is that the Party that now controls both houses of Congress has no interest in railroads whatsoever, except:

1) FRA: defund them because they're a regulatory agency that gets in the way. But Investigate and publicly shame them when something bad happens because they have no money with which to function.
2) STB: defund them because they're a regulatory agency that gets in the way. But Investigate and publicly shame them when shippers or railroads have problems because decisions required by law don't get done timely.

See a pattern here? Don't change the law; just cut funding to the implementing agency so they can't do their job.

3) Amtrak: defund them entirely in the next budget, resulting in complete system shutdown. "Passenger trains should be privately operated if they're worth operating at all." Except in the Northeast Corridor which is the only place any politicians might use a train, and even there the funding will be only to put it in shape for sale. Ride any trains you're really interested in soon.
4) HSR other than current NEC ops only: no more federal funding for any HSR line; cancel any existing funding approvals effective the next budget (starting 10/2015) if not before. This will be regardless of private or public interest or support. If states want to go forward on their own, would an ideological No-HSR stance include prohibiting FRA from processing the legally-required documents, or other federal land and regulatory agencies from approving legally-required documents? If so, that would stop CAHSR and most other proposals even without federal $$.
5) DOJ would be prohibited from spending money on analysis and possible opposition to further railroad mergers.

Oh yes, and No Oil Trains! They would compete with the Keystone Pipeline.

Cheers?