Just a few comments and clarifications:

>As far as Amtrak or other passenger operation, under the present FRA rules they could in fact run engineer only,

Cross out the word "could" and replace it with "can" and/or "do".

>I believe the current BLET union agreement allows Amtrak to run a single engineer on the head end as long as the scheduled running time is less than 6 hours.

This is true, however, "scheduled running time" = departure time from initial [passenger] station to arrival time at final [passenger] station. It doesn't mean on-duty time to off-duty time nor include the time necessary to take a train from the originating passenger yard nor to the terminating one.

>The engineer can't copy any authority while at the ocntrols of a moving train,

This is a CFR/FRA requirement which also applies to freight and all other trains on all other railroads in the US.

>so Amtrak typically assigns an assistant engineer in TWC/DTC/OCS territories.

This isn't necessarily true. What is true is that once the written authority is issued, both the conductor and engineer must have [written] copies in their hot little hands while using the authority.

>If the alertor fails, a second rules qualified person has to be in the cab.

Another CFR/FRA requirement for passenger, not sure about freight.

>As far as layovers - I have also been involved where the scheduled layover was too short to accomodate a late running train to allow a train crew to be legally rested. It really isn't that easy to schedule trains because there is so much more to consider that just crew efficiency.

I worked a job like this for two years. It's called "being short-rested" and can be done either from your home terminal or away from home one. The simple explanation is that every other rest period must be 8 hours or more.

>as well as where they can add extra time to the schedule to account for the insane delays caused by the host railroad.

This isn't planned for in the running times of the main operating contract with the host RR unless the host RR so demands during the periodic negotiations for those contracts. Amtrak resists this tooth and nail. About 5-6 years ago, the UP lost a major lawsuit brought by Amtrak over these types of train delays. Overnight trains 5 & 6 went from waiting for the Z train to the Z train waiting for 5 & 6.

>Plus - allowing for any work windows or dodging the rush of other freight or passenger trains on the same line.

This occurs only when the project is extensive enough over a long enough period of time.

Whenever there are schedule adjustments to accommodate major M/W windows and things of that nature, the host RR and Atk work out an agreement ahead of time (which supplements the main operating contract). There are also provisions for a host RR to "buy" time over and above those specified in the operating contracts. This means that for a predetermined fee, a host RR can exceed running times for specified segments of the run for the window without having to renegotiate the entire contract, incurring penalty payments, nor completely losing incentive payments. Usually, crew schedules aren't re-arranged for this.

>Though I did hear a rumor that a few years ago when union negotiations where at an impass, Amtrak was considering eliminating all UTU covered positions leaving the operating crew as an engineer and assistant engineer letting the service employees take care of everything within the train.

This impasse, as you call it, was entirely Amtrak-created. Presidential Emergency Board 243 recognized this, and slapped Amtrak's hand. The VP-Labor relations (J. E. Bress) eventually wound up losing his job because of pursuing a policy of stonewalling contract negotiations, in some cases for nearly 10 years. Nor can Amtrak "eliminate the UTU" without going through the extensive and torturous procedures specified in the Railway Labor Act. In other words, it wouldn't have and still won't happen unless the UTU goes willingly or there is an A-card vote to transfer the Trainmen's contract (union agreement) to some other union certified under the RLA, like the BLET, IBEW, machinists, clerks, etc.

For further details, read OPRMS's link to the Canadian situation. Canader might be a foreign country, but there has always been a great deal of precedents which cross the border to and from The Great Frozen North (eh?). After all, it was a CLRB ruling which the NRLB (US) relied upon to say that a remote doesn't need a certified engineer to operate the belt pack.