a more sensible adoption of PRM means accessibility for the substantial majority-with a view toward equal access as an objective.It is better for a service to run,than no service at all.
If used for emergency services,then an uncompliant unit will still allow 95% of prospective passengers to get to where they need to go,when they need to go.
a bit of common sense needs to be applied to the rules,rather than sticking to every single letter/paragraph of the text.
In this case, arbitrary cut off dates and Dft/government goalpost shifting re electrification have not helped matters, but it should have been feasible for a franchise committment to be written into the contracts stating TOC xxx will be leasing/purchasing PRM compliant units to replace them, to be introduced on a rolling one in/one out basis as and when the new units become available or have passed acceptance test and route clearing/training.
That way the TOC is under legal obligation to do so,with threat of legal action if they do not comply, but the time period has a bit of flexibility for things going pear-shaped built in.