I think there's plenty of blame to go around here (but I don't think any of it actually gives rise to legal action). Ironically I actually think that in many respects that the TOCs are relatively blameless in this mess. I think it's notable, for instance, that the TOCs which knew they would be operating beyond the January 1 2020 deadline have either got their fleets sorted or have taken steps to sort it (which have then fallen apart due to delays but at least there was a plan!). Whilst the TOCs which were not in that position it is those that have taken over close to the deadline who are the ones where there are now issues (I'm thinking specifically of EMT into EMR). And I think that in many respects is to be expected! Why would TOC A who knows that their franchise expires at say the end of 2018 take steps to ensure that their fleet is compliant? I'm sure they wouldn't get in the way of work being done but they wouldn't want to pay for it themselves when they won't see the benefit.
So that then brings us to the ROSCOs and, again, in many cases they've taken steps to make their fleets compliant where there was a guaranteed future use. For instance the owner of XCs fleet of Mk3s has taken steps to ensure that they're compliant with the requirements of the PRM-TSI because they know that that fleet as some sort of future out to probably at least the mid-2020s. Meanwhile EMR's fleet of HSTs are non-compliant but then their future was very uncertain until the franchise award was finally made in April 2019 which leaves it a bit late in the day!
But then the it's hard for the ROSCOs to make plans and know which stock to make complaint when their customers move to the beat of the DfT! The DfT are, of course, the authority that is responsible for franchising and therefore has the sign off on the various plans put forward by TOCs in line with their legal requirements and franchise specifications. It is also the DfT that have thrown the franchising schedule into chaos since 2012 with franchise after franchise being delayed again and again. It is also the DfT that moved from long term franchises (up to twenty plus years in some cases like Chiltern) to short seven year franchises where by default there is much less long term thinking (by no means do I mean that there is no long term thinking but certainly there's much less of an incentive particularly where there is equally no guarantee of a reward should you be doing an excellent job). So the DfT have delayed a great many franchises (with at best short one or two year extensions) and the DfT have developed a system where the awards themselves when they are made are often relatively short.
So, to my mind, there's plenty of blame to throw around and it's hard to point the finger in one direction and say conclusively "it's your fault!". Personally I'd argue that the blame most squarely sits with the DfT as they're the only organisation since the demise of the SRA that can really lay claim to a "guiding mind" roll within the industry and they are the ones that have continually let franchises or direct awards which haven't included requirements for TOCs that are leaving the scene before the deadline to prepare their fleets (or to give the ROSCOs the certainty to take those steps themselves). But certainly this is not exclusively a DfT failing.
