[bluGill]

Railroads have nearly universally lost money on the dining car. In the 1880s they did it because it was a loss leader - people choose the train (vs carriage) for the nice meals - something they could do that the other travel options could not (it isn't clear if this made a difference but they thought it did).

Station meals make far more sense in general - there is a lot more space to work with. You can also put multiple options (rent space to different restaurants) in a station. The only downside of this is you need enough flex so that people can get off when hungry eat and get on a different train (meaning both empty seats for them and multiple train options). Still trains have different economics from airplanes and should attempt to run no more than 70% full.

[Symbiote]

I think hardly anyone would get off a train in order to eat, then get on a following train. At least in places like Japan and Europe, where a typical long journey is just a few hours.

It would mean arriving an hour (or more) later at the destination. It's usually preferable to eat at the destination, or make do with eating on the train (in a dining car, snacks sold on-board, or something purchased at the station or brought from home).

[bluGill]

japan is small and europe doesn't do cross border rail well. I could see doing it onia boston to chicago trip (you have to get off in ny anyway) though really it only makes sense for trips where flying makes sense.

[bobthepanda]

Japanese ekiben split the difference since they are all take out boxes; and there are some pretty luxe ekiben.