That's a good point...even on the Regionals, the hard product of BC can vary (technically coach can as well; I was on 66/67 once back at Thanksgiving and though I got stuck in coach, BC being sold out, I was put in one of the renovated BC cars for a "normal" Regional. I've also been on a few Regionals where a cafe had the 2-1 seats (and have generally had luck asking the OBS for permission to move from the "actual" BC to the 2-1 seating).
My biggest concern is that, with a few very narrow exceptions, the hard and soft products on sleeper trains are pretty close to standard (the Auto Train is an oddball, but the Auto Train is also specifically marketed and doesn't connect with anything else). The exceptions of the Starlight (with the PPC) and the Cardinal (with a lack of a proper diner) aren't problematic...but the Starlight also gets special marketing for the PPC, really leaving the Cardinal as the stand-out...but with only a single sleeper running 3x weekly, also not a service likely to have much impact on Amtrak's brand. Making a hash of the Silver Star could cause issues for the sleeper service's branding, so to speak.
Back on the BC front, I agree that Amtrak needs to do a far better job of handling the branding there. Whether they resurrect a "Custom Class", "Club Class", or "Parlor Class" name or do something different isn't really relevant, but they really do need to work to standardize BC into one or two "products" (possibly one on the extended NEC and one elsewhere or one on short-haul trains and one on long-haul trains).
I do think this manages to (for good or ill) raise the prospect of a two-tier sleeper product (akin to VIA's distinction between "Sleeper" and "Sleeper Plus"). For what it's worth, there was a similar situation back in the late 1990s/early 2000s (for a time the Silver Palm/Palmetto, Three Rivers, and Twilight Shoreliner all ran with a sleeper but no diner), so these antics should be survivable...but it would probably do Amtrak some merit to look into a differentiation, particularly in light of the resurrection of the Twilight Shoreliner and/or the Cap-Pennsylvanian cars.
My biggest concern is that, with a few very narrow exceptions, the hard and soft products on sleeper trains are pretty close to standard (the Auto Train is an oddball, but the Auto Train is also specifically marketed and doesn't connect with anything else). The exceptions of the Starlight (with the PPC) and the Cardinal (with a lack of a proper diner) aren't problematic...but the Starlight also gets special marketing for the PPC, really leaving the Cardinal as the stand-out...but with only a single sleeper running 3x weekly, also not a service likely to have much impact on Amtrak's brand. Making a hash of the Silver Star could cause issues for the sleeper service's branding, so to speak.
Back on the BC front, I agree that Amtrak needs to do a far better job of handling the branding there. Whether they resurrect a "Custom Class", "Club Class", or "Parlor Class" name or do something different isn't really relevant, but they really do need to work to standardize BC into one or two "products" (possibly one on the extended NEC and one elsewhere or one on short-haul trains and one on long-haul trains).
I do think this manages to (for good or ill) raise the prospect of a two-tier sleeper product (akin to VIA's distinction between "Sleeper" and "Sleeper Plus"). For what it's worth, there was a similar situation back in the late 1990s/early 2000s (for a time the Silver Palm/Palmetto, Three Rivers, and Twilight Shoreliner all ran with a sleeper but no diner), so these antics should be survivable...but it would probably do Amtrak some merit to look into a differentiation, particularly in light of the resurrection of the Twilight Shoreliner and/or the Cap-Pennsylvanian cars.