London midland 'maintain' XC Turbostars, whenever I've been on a London Midland DMU they have been in good condition, however XC 170s often have light coverings missing, expired emergency lighting and other minor faults, including tables missing for a number of weeks.
It's more of a function of the different uses that the two fleets get. LM Cl170s are effectively short to medium distance commuter units whereas XC Cl170s are used on longer runs. The XC units get more internal wear and tear because they generally carry more items of luggage which are usually wedged tightly into the overhead racks, damaging the ceiling panels and dislodging light diffusers. By contrast, the LM units don't get the same amount of wear and tear.
I would dispute the claim that there are missing tables, though. I certainly am not aware of any missing fixed tables. However, items like these are not routinely held in stock by any depot.
They also seem to break down a lot more often including this morning before 7AM.
One failed unit does not indicate a trend.
I have to say that the fleet is generally very reliable. What knocks them out is usually things like broken windscreens and wipers due to bird strikes (always more devastating at 100mph between Cheltenham and Bromsgrove than it is pootling along the Cannock Chase line at 50mph) and failure of in-cab equipment such as GSM-R.
How do LM get away with treating there own units, more importantly than XC units? Are they other operators (not manufactures), that maintain other operators units? if so do they treat there own units more importantly than the other operators?
I have a privileged position of having seen inside and out of both fleets and I honestly have to say that I don't see it that way. Yes the care that Tyseley are giving to the XC fleet is far from perfect, but it doesn't strike me that there is a two-tier system in operation. Certainly the LM units are no less draughty, rattly or unpleasant than the XC fleet inside the cabs.
O L Leigh