Without access to cheap oil -all militaries would be forced into mix of horse/donkey/camel & wagons PLUS trucks. In that case railways would take on strategic importance like in Germany. If auto are dead end technologically then surely there would be even less airpower ?
Not sure how you just have the internal combustion engine a 'dead end' - the development and refinement of technology doesn't quite work like that. In addition, all military powers planned for and utilized their railways extensively in OTL. Even well after the second world war utilizing the railways during war was key to their defense planning.
If Henry Ford's efforts to equalize the average person's ability to afford an automobile had not occurred and car's remained out reach for most Americans decades longer would the US have turned back to train technology and perhaps emulated some of the high speed rail developments of the Europeans and Japanese in the 1960's?
Ok, so ignoring that in Ford's absence someone else/other company would have done it - there's a few issues here.
Geography and population distribution, outside of the North East Corridor are substantially different in the US. High speed trains aren't really very useful (or profitable) with people commuting in from the suburbs. Technology wasn't really the issue here.
Would less car ownership impact the trams/trolley/streetcars/metros across the US? Thats where the impact is going to be felt. In most cases since the second world war, moving freight (and supporting moving the freight) is the only remotely profitable business for the railways.