Take a look at what the US president says about the desire to revive incandescent lighting:

https://youtu.be/K_iFi1qH8Cg

All politics aside, he usually looks orange no matter what. Spray tan does that.

The industry wont revive anything tha does not make money.
So if people would be willing to buy tens of millions of bulbs for at least $2 each, with the expectations to continue so (withthe price being constantly adjusted for inflation) for at least two decades (to make the reinstallation of the machinery worth), then maybe. But dont think there would be that many customers willing to pay that prices.

Actually the machinery for making incandescent bulbs is still being used for make halogen bulbs and the retro Edison carbon lamps that are getting popular. The extra cost will come if they want to manufacture incandescent bulbs by themselves in weather country that is not China, because if the stores or brands want to revive incandescent bulbs they just need to sit to a computer and order a few thousand of bulbs.

Some of it is still used, but it is just nearly falling apart at the end of its life, the bigger maintenance investments long overdue with the expectation to be shut down within a year or so. So if new volume would have to start up, it would need complete overhaul so quite significant investments. And to make those investments, there should be clear expectation of a revenue from it, lamp makers are mainly companies designed to make profit.
They screwed up by competing on vheap retail price so burn revenue from them 30 years ago, then pushing the incandescent bans around the world 10 years ago, but that damage is irreversible, I'm affraid...

If you search for "retro incandescent lamp" on internet you will find actual carbon lamps for very cheap and with many hundreds or thousands of lamps available, after that they just take more of their storages to sell or make a few thousands more, so the incandescent lamp production is far to die.

Unlike consumer machinery, factory machines don't have planned obsolescence, so they can last for decades with minimal maintenance, so the investment in machinery is low and that explains the cheapness of the lamps. Also, the factories that are changing out to LED will sell their machinery, so the Chinese or whatever will buy that machinery for cheap, and will adapt it for make such lamps. Completely disassembling a machine and send it to the metal scrap would be way too expensive, instead they will turn it into smaller pieces and ship it to the buyer.

The carbon lamps will just pass away of the lighting ban, because those are intended as decoration lamps and not as general lighting, so you might also find one of those in a local store in EU countries.

You will find them, but not for 10 cents a piece. And that is the point.

And with what ma be the closest to many call "planned obsolescence" (intentionally put extra components artificially restricting the functionality), you may get surprised:
It is actually VERY common in industrial machinery, but very rare (I would more guess nonexistent) in high volume consumer goods.
In industrial machinery is a common practice to include all HW per the highest spec variant of the thing, but put there a kind of license based restrictions into the control software. E.g. you have a $10..30k oscilloscope family, where members differ in the sample rate, memory depth, even presence of additional features like generator, but if you take them apart, you discover they all are exactly the same machine, even e.g. a model "without the generator" featuring its connectors and control knobs on the front panel. The difference is, which parts are enabled in the firmware. Some even go so far to enable a few extra features for some time after first power ON at customers (as a demo) and then disable that features back.
It makes sense, because these things sell in low volumes, so the majority of the cost is the development. So making unified hardware makes the production cheaper, even when it means using components that are never going to be used with most of the units, the savings on the physical manufacture tooling costs just justify this. Plus it allows to use business strategy which allows customers to upgrade for higher level model by just purchasing extra license, sometimes even for just a limited time (so lower cost, for e.g. just one exceptional task).
Plus because of the limited quantity, it is cheaper to just overdesign the reliability than really go through details why and what fails.

On the contrary with high volume consumer goods, the development and tooling costs are so diluted over the production volume, spending $1000's on development to save few cents on production pays off, such use limiter would only increase tye production cost.
And compare to the past, here comes the science of reliability, so the knowledge why exactly fails exactly when. And this allows to e.g. control the really sensitive processing steps, or detect and reject components that wont make it through the designed life, allowing cheapen out parts and save production money. The consequence is, all parts are just made so they last the designed product lifetime and tend to break just short time after it passes. Plus it brings a huge obstacle to potential cloners: You may copy the design and guess the manufacturing process (because that has its characteristic features), but such process usually yields quite significant number of defective components tgat then fail way sooner. So without the exact knowledge on how to recogniize such components on the production line, the cloner is stuck with way inferior product. Until he practically redo the complete development again, but then the clone becomes more expensive than the original, so making no sense to do anymore.

With incandescent machinery the postponed mai tenance means e.g. just glue the tube fitting on a gas tube instead of remanufacturing and replacing it, so it holds still for some time more, but then requiring more parts to be replaced or often not fixable anymore when it fails again. And because of the view of incandescent end, most remaining machines are just "hotfixed" instead of proper repairs for already a few years, with an assumption once they become not fixable anymore, the production will stop and the machines will be scrapped.
It is true many machines from the incandescent lines were repurposed for mainly the filament LED business, but many machines are unique.
Andmainly the production capacity wont be there, the LEDs are sold in way lower volumes, so only small fraction of the original incandescent production capacity is maintained so it may continue to operate for long time to come. And that wont be able to meet the volume demand if the inandescent were to come back as mainstream.

Products based on incandescent lamps are still being massively produced, for example filament LEDs, lamps for reptiles, heating lamps and so. With that many products being produced all the old machinery should been fallen apart at that moment. Those products are not niche, they still have many thousands disponible for selling, and I bet they are capable of many hundreds of thousands per month, so there's no way they are still using old machinery.

I think that the cloners managed to make their own incandescent bulbs machinery based in released patents, internet knowledge and reverse engineering, then they distributed between the machinery manufacturers and now they are manufacturing incandescent lamps with brand new machinery, adapted to be made and repaired with new parts. Even if that costed millions all the cost diluted in the massive production, and it becomes even more cheaper because now they don't need to spend much when the machinery fails.

All the specialty lamps sell for about $2 or even more, there it makes sense to build the new machines (or completely and properly rebuild the old ones).
What I wanted to tell is, even with the incandescent ban revoked, no one will equip for production if the resale price wont be around the $2. Given the options regular consumers have (the way longer lasting, even when dubious quality filament LEDs,...), I doubt they will buy the incandescents for mormal general lighting for that much money. Special lamps, like decorative or heat ones, probably yes, these sell for way more, $5..10 is not that uncommon and that makes it an interresting thing to make. But not the general ones. And makers wont invest into the equipment if the selling price wont be at least that (dont forget you should subtract all the retail and distribution business margins, so you end up with barely $1 per lamp for the maker).