Are they changing the seating layout on some of the Superliner Diner’s or is this car just an experiment?
This reduces the seating capacity–and I like to be able to look out the window by me as I eat.
Awful … first seated are squeezed into the middle, and with their backs to the scenery. And cross-table conversation is out or much harder.
I’m trying to think what possible upside for Amtrak there is here. For the sake of the paying customers, the founders of the feast, I pray this isn’t the future.
This looks to be about the most impractical seating arrangement I’ve ever seen. The small tables look to be big enough for two meals, but are surrounded by four seats. Everything looks to be permanent and immovable, which means it may be difficult to keep clean. It may be a surprise to the interior designer, but that’s important in a food service car. Capacity of the car is probably 48 people, with table space for 36 meals. That doesn’t compute. Unless I’m missing something, this needs some SERIOUS reconsideration. Another thing: Why can’t the tables be square or regular rectangles? Odd shapes are artsy-craftsy, but they aren’t practical where space utilization is important.
Tom
Looks like half are the traditional layout, half are booth-like. Choose what you prefer. No need to panic!
I believe the photo is outdated.
As a result of Congressional pressure to reduce its food and beverage costs, if I remember correctly, Amtrak re-configured a number of Superliner dining cars as per the photo. They were called Cross Country dining/lounge cars. They were assigned to the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans.
One half of the car was for dining, as shown, and the other half was to be a lounge area. The middle of the car had a service station with a sliding window, which is still the case, where passengers could presumably buy food and beverages.
Again, I am going on memory, but the idea was to remove the Sightseer Lounge cars from the Eagle and City of New Orleans as a cost saving measure. Half of the dining car would be a lounge area that would substitute for the lounge area in the Sightseer Lounge car and the other half would be for dining as shown.
The lounge cars were never removed from the Eagle, although the service attendant was removed from them and the ability to buy food and beverages in the lower level was suspended. I don’t remember how long this experiment lasted. Or if I even remember it correctly.
Ultimately, Amtrak presumably decided that the lounge cars were an important marketing feature for the Texas Eagle and City of New Orleans, and it re-staffed them so that coach passengers could buy food and beverages in the lower level. Also, the Cross Country dining/lounge cars were returned to normal or traditional table configuration.
The picture is labeled as being taken in 2009.
That makes it seven years old. In any case, none of the dining cars on the Texas Eagle, at least, are configured as per the photo. I don’t know about the City of New Orleans.
It appears that the photo was taken on the Texas Eagle. Subsequent pictures show the train at the Austin, TX station as well as a shot of Reunion Tower near Union Station in Dallas.
At one time the equipment from the Texas Eagle ran through Chicago and became the southbound City of New Orleans and vice versa. Whether that is still the case, I don’t know.
I Understand that if the Texas Eagle arrives in Chicago in time, its next trip out is to New Orleans–and the City of New Orleans comes into Chicago and goes out for San Antonio.
Therefore, the same diners are used for both trains.
If they are dated photos that would be a good thing as I do not like the new seating arrangements either. Less efficient. Also, I was surprised if they changed the seating they didn’t also add in the roof access hatch and improve the car suspension.
One observation here: Anytime I go to a restaurant my wife ALWAYS asks for a booth. Most females I have observed express that preference, too. Is it possible Amtrak is trying this as a response to passenger surveys?
Good point! But almost ALL regular posters here are men, many over 60, so perhaps they do not consider female preferences or are very traditional. There could be one more reason, which I will not mention.