Me too! Me too!
Ok, I disagree that there's no utility for a premium-cabin amenity car, at least on the more heavily-trafficked LD trains. I would first point out the mess when such a space was cut on the Auto Train a few years ago (and ridership duly took a nosedive after about a year; correlation may not be causation, but in this case the timing was amost perfect for it). Second, I would point out that Amtrak's own PIPs indicated issues with overwhelmed dining cars on the Builder. IIRC the Starlight has more sleeper pax than the Builder and the PPC has provided a certain amount of "relief" space.
Yes, but "those cars to attract passengers" numbered only five (four?). They existed on exactly one route. People who don't ride the CS (and I've only ridden it once) don't know, or care. They, presumably, enjoy what they *do* have, and it's good enough - for them. It will be interesting so see if ridership takes a hit after removal of the car.
Perhaps, but if you recall when an actual attempt at upgrading the Empire Builder to provide more enticements to rail travel the trains were sold out for long periods often. I didn't mean that one train represented what I am taking about. I meant that in the past, which some say is the past, all long distance trains that were worth riding had first class lounges, some first class diners, observation fan tail lounges on the rear often, card rooms, book cases of reading material, desk for writing company postcards showing your trip and features of the train. One response here will be "well that was then and this is now". I mentioned in another comment that watching some of the worlds best still running long distance trains all have exactly those kinds of features, they don't seem to think they are unnecessary. The Canadian being one example for sure, but then its using the original vintage cars which are fine, but when you check out some of the latter Japanese and other trains you will see wonderful modern adaptions that put us to shame.
I don't think anyone truly believes this specific decision isn't a prudent move from a financial perspective. But if prudence is all we're after then retiring the entire Superliner fleet and laying off most of the staff West of Chicago would probably save a lot more money. It just depends on how far you want to push this line of reasoning before you end up with a few busy commuter corridors and not much else.
For me, the Parlour Cars offered more, and better service than the Park Cars. When I rode the Canadian, my Park Car Attendants weren't anything better or worse than the Parlour Car attendants I had. The swivel chairs were more comfortable than the chairs in the Park Car, and they offered a second, private meal option. I do enjoy meeting people in the diner... but there was something very special about enjoying a private table in the Parlour Car.
(1) Amtrak could (and I would argue should) work with third-party operators to try and encourage such a business (and the associated haulage fees, which really do add up pretty quickly). From what I've heard, as often as not Amtrak has been a honey badger about this on many occasions (bordering on hostile on occasion). Granted, some of this has been from Ed Ellis, but what he's said has the ring of truth in many cases. A handy example is Amtrak not being *ahem* terribly open to having PV/charter pax board and disembark at any intermediate stations on their run (e.g. Iowa Pacific couldn't, as far as I can tell, sell tickets on their Chicago-New Orleans run to/from Memphis or Jackson).
Right. Wouldn't surprise me for Amtrak to find a way. Many years ago, working at a corporate owned bowling center, with about a hundred other locations in North America, I posted a couple of videos of the pinsetters and the machine that oils the lanes for people who were curious. Nothing other than how many lanes the center had would give away what location it could possibly be, even though many other centers had the same amount of lanes.
