Is the closure of lines, removal of services or the failure to provide any alternative transport discrimination under the Equality Act?

[JamesRowden]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #28 originally from this thread.

I do wonder whether the rules might be changed so that a 0930-1530 white space could be organised on a regular basis without bus replacement. The railway would save a fortune if it didn't have to provide alternative transport. Maybe it is time for the rules to be changed, provided it is advertised well enough.

This would appear to break the 2010 Equality Act unless about as convinient and expensive alternative transport was made available to those who are not permitted to have a driving licence for medical conditions that they are not responsible getting. Since otherwise indirect discrimination would be occurring.

 

[JonathanH]

This would appear to break the 2010 Equality Act unless about as convinient and expensive alternative transport was made available to those who are not permitted to have a driving licence for medical conditions that they are not responsible getting. Since otherwise indirect discrimination would be occurring.

Is that true? If the railway is shut altogether for six hours, how does that break the 2010 equality act any more than withdrawal of a rural bus service does?

If it is done on a weekday, the ability for passengers to do 'do it yourself' diversions using a normal bus service is easier than at the weekend when fewer buses run.

 

[JamesRowden]

Is that true? If the railway is shut altogether for six hours, how does that break the 2010 equality act any more than withdrawal of a rural bus service does?

If it is done on a weekday, the ability for passengers to do 'do it yourself' diversions using a normal bus service is easier than at the weekend when fewer buses run.

It's open to interpretation. How significant must it be before it becomes discrimination?

A railway service existing will make the bus services that serve a similar market worse or non-existant because almost all year a bus service similar to the railway service would not be required.

 

[Ianno87]

This would appear to break the 2010 Equality Act unless about as convinient and expensive alternative transport was made available to those who are not permitted to have a driving licence for medical conditions that they are not responsible getting. Since otherwise indirect discrimination would be occurring.

No, it would not break the equality act, no more than not providing an 0300 Sheringham-Norwich service would. Nor having any train departing Wick after 1600.

 

[JamesRowden]

No, it would not break the equality act, no more than not providing an 0300 Sheringham-Norwich service would. Nor having any train departing Wick after 1600.

Have a think about what you have just posted combined with the contents of my last post.....

 

[Ianno87]

Have a think about what you have just posted combined with the contents of my last post.....

I've had a think, and I don't understand the relationship to equality legislation.

 

[JamesRowden]

I've had a think, and I don't understand the relationship to equality legislation.

It's the effect on those with the protected characteristic compared to those without that counts. A normal person can decide that they are not going to depend on the railways and can acquire a driving licence and a car. The only valid justification I can think of that would allow such an effect to knowingly be produced would be a huge cost of the alternatives. I doubt that either of the followings options cost too much in situations where there is no decent alternative public transport to the railway (when also considering the positive effects on long term railway revenue by making the railway more attractive to depend on):

• Provide at least an every 2 hour replacement bus service that everyone can use and fit comfortably on.
• Provide replacement taxis which everyone can use.
• Provide replacement taxis that only passengers with Disabled Person's Railcards can use.

 

[yorkie]

It's the effect on those with the protected characteristic compared to those without that counts. A normal person can decide that they are not going to depend on the railways and can acquire a driving licence and a car. The only valid justification I can think of that would allow such an effect to knowingly be produced would be a huge cost of the alternatives. I doubt that either of the followings options cost too much in situations where there is no decent alternative public transport to the railway (when also considering the positive effects on long term railway revenue by making the railway more attractive to depend on):

• Provide at least an every 2 hour replacement bus service that everyone can use and fit comfortably on.
• Provide replacement taxis which everyone can use.
• Provide replacement taxis that only passengers with Disabled Person's Railcards can use.

That's not how equality works.

Is that true?

No

No, it would not break the equality act, no more than not providing an 0300 Sheringham-Norwich service would. Nor having any train departing Wick after 1600.

Agreed

 

[Starmill]

It's the effect on those with the protected characteristic compared to those without that counts. A normal person can decide that they are not going to depend on the railways and can acquire a driving licence and a car. The only valid justification I can think of that would allow such an effect to knowingly be produced would be a huge cost of the alternatives. I doubt that either of the followings options cost too much in situations where there is no decent alternative public transport to the railway (when also considering the positive effects on long term railway revenue by making the railway more attractive to depend on):

• Provide at least an every 2 hour replacement bus service that everyone can use and fit comfortably on.
• Provide replacement taxis which everyone can use.
• Provide replacement taxis that only passengers with Disabled Person's Railcards can use.

The trouble is that a service being permanently withdrawn couldn't possibly be considered 'prohibited conduct' under the Equality Act because it doesn't treat disabled people, or any particular group of people, differently from others.

There are other things in the Equality Act such as the Equality Duty for the public sector, but these work differently.

 

[JamesRowden]

That's not how equality works.


No


Agreed

I'd rather have the day time Barnstaple-Exeter replacement bus services operate (when there is engineering work) than an 03:00 Barnstaple-Paddington intercity service every night.

Is this site wrong:

Your rights under the Equality Act 2010 | Equality and Human Rights Commission

Find out about your rights under the Equality Act 2010.

www.equalityhumanrights.com

Indirect discrimination​

This can happen when an organisation puts a rule or a policy or a way of doing things in place which has a worse impact on someone with a protected characteristic than someone without one. For example a local authority is planning to redevelop some of its housing. It decides to hold consultation events in the evening. Many of the female residents complain that they cannot attend these meetings because of childcare responsibilities.

I am suggesting that this situation with replacement services would be same as the example given, since the political justification for such a cut would be that the public can just chose to invest in a driving licence and car if they want to avoid such an inconvenience or taxi fare.

 

[JamesRowden]

The trouble is that a service being permanently withdrawn couldn't possibly be considered 'prohibited conduct' under the Equality Act because it doesn't treat disabled people, or any particular group of people, differently from others.

There are other things in the Equality Act such as the Equality Duty for the public sector, but these work differently.

No. What you are describing is direct discrimination rather than indirect.

 

[Starmill]

No. What you are describing is direct discrimination rather than indirect.

But even then it clearly isn't prohibited conduct, which is what you're describing in your first post on the subject. If you're suggesting it's a breach of the Equality Act via another route such as the Equality Duty then frankly it was on you to go into detail on that up front, and not just blithely claim it would be unlawful and imply that other people are foolish or unobservant for their failure to follow your reasoning.

 

[JamesRowden]

But even then it clearly isn't prohibited conduct, which is what you're describing in your first post on the subject. If you're suggesting it's a breach of the Equality Act via another route such as the Equality Duty then frankly it was on you to go into detail on that up front, and not just blithely claim it would be unlawful and imply that other people are foolish or unobservant for their failure to follow your reasoning.

I stated 'indirect discrimination' in my first post. I also said 'would appear' meaning 'would appear to me' at the opening of that post.

 

[Starmill]

I stated 'indirect discrimination' in my first post. I also said 'would appear' meaning 'would appear to me' at the opening of that post.

An argument that there's indirect discrimination by the railway company doesn't get off the ground if you can't show they're specifically treating people differently at all. Therefore an argument that their conduct is prohibited is not going to be able to progress. It's as simple as that.

 

[JamesRowden]

An argument that there's indirect discrimination by the railway company doesn't get off the ground if you can't show they're specifically treating people differently at all. Therefore an argument that their conduct is prohibited is not going to be able to progress. It's as simple as that.

It could be that the Government would be responsible for the discrimination in addition or instead of the rail operator. You don't seem to be getting the idea of indirect discrimination.

Driving licences and roads can be used easily by those (of a certain age) without disabilities, like non-disabled toilets can be used by non-disabled people on trains. But, the rules are that if toilets are provided on trains, there must be toilets for disabled people.

Telling all passengers that they can use non-disabled toilets if they want to go to a toilet on a train would not be direct discrimination since all the passengers would be treated the same. But it would be indirect discrimination since some disabled passengers would not have the capability of using those toilets.

 

[Starmill]

You don't seem to be getting the idea of indirect discrimination.

You don't seem to have a good understanding of how private businesses or public organisations can comply with the Equality Act.

 

[JamesRowden]

You don't seem to have a good understanding of how private businesses or public organisations can comply with the Equality Act.

Then actually provide some real information for your case which does not get contradicted by the training I was given about the act during an official qualification I completed over the past year. I do not claim to understand perfectly the legal applications of the act.

Now, your turn to give me a fully referenced and comprehensive expainarion for why it is impossible for my suggested interpretation to be correct. Here is your chance to actually say something substantiated rather than effectively just telling me to trust that you are correct.

 

[Starmill]

Then actually provide some real information for your case which does not get contradicted by the training I was given about the act during an official qualification I completed over the past year. I do not claim to understand perfectly the legal applications of the act.

Now, your turn to give me a fully referenced and comprehensive expainarion for why it is impossible for my suggested interpretation to be correct. Here is your chance to actually say something substantiated rather than effectively just telling me to trust that you are correct.

It's your claim that withdrawn train services would be unlawful under the Equality Act. You need to provide the evidence for that.

Analogies around toilets and driving licences so far have unfortunately not made any sense.

No doubt you were given sensible training at work, tailored toward providing a service you work with in a lawful way. Unfortunately that doesn't transfer into your argument that withdrawn train services would be an act of unlawful discrimination.

The Equality Act doesn't prevent people from facing all transport hardship as a result of their disability, nor is it designed to. I think everyone is in agreement with you that closing secondary brach lines would be highly undesirable on equality grounds as well as others, but that doesn't mean that it's unlawful.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's your claim that withdrawn train services would be unlawful under the Equality Act. You need to provide the evidence for that.

Analogies around toilets and driving licences so far have unfortunately not made any sense.

No doubt you were given sensible training at work, tailored toward providing a service you work with in a lawful way. Unfortunately that doesn't transfer into your argument that withdrawn train services are unlawful.

The Equality Act doesn't prevent people from facing all transport hardship as a result of their disability, nor is it designed to. I think everyone is in agreement with you that closing secondary brach lines would be highly undesirable on equality grounds as well as others, but that doesn't mean that it's unlawful.

What I communicated (or at least intended to) is that I thought the Equality act could be interpreted in such a way. Not that such an action would be illegal by simple proof.

Other people then claimed the Equality act would not mean such a thing. I am simply awaiting the proof from people such as yourself to educate everyone, and so to improve everyone who reads this thread. A lack of forthcoming proof would indicate to me that people might well be making a guess to criticise my suggestion rather than knowing for sure.

I provided a reference, more than you have done.

If a line got closed, there could be better permanent bus services as a result.

 

[tbtc]

I am suggesting that this situation with replacement services would be same as the example given, since the political justification for such a cut would be that the public can just chose to invest in a driving licence and car if they want to avoid such an inconvenience or taxi fare.

It all sounds well meaning, but you're ignoring the rather large elephant in the room that the past decade of austerity has seen huge numbers of bus routes cut - both commercial services that struggled for viability given road congestion and passenger fragmentation and also the large number of services subsidised by PTEs/ Councils

All of these bus services were lost with barely a whimper (even though many people with "protected characteristics" were unable to drive as an alternative), yet you think that a railway line removing off peak services for a few weeks to accommodate engineering works will mean court cases, even though leaving entire villages with no bus service (and therefore no public transport) happened without reaching the High Court

 

[JamesRowden]

It all sounds well meaning, but you're ignoring the rather large elephant in the room that the past decade of austerity has seen huge numbers of bus routes cut - both commercial services that struggled for viability given road congestion and passenger fragmentation and also the large number of services subsidised by PTEs/ Councils

All of these bus services were lost with barely a whimper (even though many people with "protected characteristics" were unable to drive as an alternative), yet you think that a railway line removing off peak services for a few weeks to accommodate engineering works will mean court cases, even though leaving entire villages with no bus service (and therefore no public transport) happened without reaching the High Court

I am afraid you have underestimated my consideration. I did consider the bus cuts and came up with a few possible explainations:

• No one successfully won a case against it despite it being achievable.
• People with this protected characteristic can relocate to a location with better public transport provision, so it is not the sole responsibility of one local authority that the individual has lost value for money mobility.
• The places that cannot support a commercial bus service will be a very small proportion of the authorities' population.
• The bus services scrapped would make a huge loss making the benifit to cost ratio much worse, whilst replacement bus services are much better used and so will have a substailly greater benefit to cost ratio (and may even make money for the railway indirectly long term by encorougung more people to depend on public transport).

The world is very complicated and I do not think it can modelled so simply

 

[domcoop7]

I am afraid you have underestimated my consideration. I did consider the bus cuts and came up with a few possible explainations:

• No one successfully won a case against it despite it being achievable.
• People with this protected characteristic can relocate to a location with better public transport provision, so it is not the sole responsibility of one local authority that the individual has lost value for money mobility.
• The places that cannot support a commercial bus service will be a very small proportion of the authorities' population.
• The bus services scrapped would make a huge loss making the benifit to cost ratio much worse, whilst replacement bus services are much better used and so will have a substailly greater benefit to cost ratio (and may even make money for the railway indirectly long term by encorougung more people to depend on public transport).

The world is very complicated and I do not think it can modelled so simply

My view (and I'm a solicitor specialising in civil litigation with higher court rights of audience if you doubt my bona fides) is it's not indirect discrimination, nor is it direct discrimination. It isn't discrimination at all!

Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2/crossheading/discrimination) says discrimination is when a person (i.e. the TOC) treats one person (i.e. the disabled traveller without a driving licence) less favourably than another person (i.e. the traveller with a car and driving licence) and the reason for that treatment is due to a "protected characteristic".

Problems your argument has are:-

1) Nobody is treated more or less favourably than anyone else by the TOC. If they don't run the "Dominic Express" 11:15am Gathurst to St Helens Central, even though I want them to run that service (since it would be convenient for me), I am treated no more and no less favourably than anybody else as a result of the decision.

2) In any event, the reason for the treatment (them not running a train) is nothing to do with protected characteristics - it's to save money.

What about "indirect discrimination"?

Section 19(2)(b) Equality Act 2010 makes it indirect discrimination if four criterion are met, namely, a) the thing you are complaining about applies to people with a protected characteristic and people without; b) it puts people with the protected characteristic at a disadvantage compared to others; c) it puts the person complaining under that same disadvantage (i.e. not just a nebulous group - an actual specific person); and d) it isn't a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Problems with this argument are:-

1) Whilst you could show not running a service applies to people with a protected characteristic and without;

2) You couldn't show that people with a protected characteristic were at a disadvantage compared to people without (since both disabled and non-disabled people would be disadvantaged);

3) Again you could find somebody who had a protected characteristic who is personally affected; but

4) Not running a service is not only a proportionate way of the legitimate aim of saving the cost of running the service, it is the only way to save the cost of running the service!

I could link to caselaw expanding on these themes, but it's so obvious I don't think there's any point.

Now there are duties on public bodies to consider Equality, and so when GBR or the TOC apply to the DfT for permission to withdraw the service, there are procedures to be gone through, and consultations to be had, and if a case was made that the closure would disproportionately affect disabled people and there were alternatives, then the DfT could be taken to Judicial Review if it failed to take these matters into consideration before giving the go-ahead. But in what we call "public law" (judicial review of officials' decisions), the duty is to consult and take into account relevant considerations. There is no duty to follow some or other particular outcome. They can consult, and say "we've listened, but we don't care".

 

[JamesRowden]

My view (and I'm a solicitor specialising in civil litigation with higher court rights of audience if you doubt my bona fides) is it's not indirect discrimination, nor is it direct discrimination. It isn't discrimination at all!

Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2/crossheading/discrimination) says discrimination is when a person (i.e. the TOC) treats one person (i.e. the disabled traveller without a driving licence) less favourably than another person (i.e. the traveller with a car and driving licence) and the reason for that treatment is due to a "protected characteristic".

Problems your argument has are:-

1) Nobody is treated more or less favourably than anyone else by the TOC. If they don't run the "Dominic Express" 11:15am Gathurst to St Helens Central, even though I want them to run that service (since it would be convenient for me), I am treated no more and no less favourably than anybody else as a result of the decision.

2) In any event, the reason for the treatment (them not running a train) is nothing to do with protected characteristics - it's to save money.

What about "indirect discrimination"?

Section 19(2)(b) Equality Act 2010 makes it indirect discrimination if four criterion are met, namely, a) the thing you are complaining about applies to people with a protected characteristic and people without; b) it puts people with the protected characteristic at a disadvantage compared to others; c) it puts the person complaining under that same disadvantage (i.e. not just a nebulous group - an actual specific person); and d) it isn't a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Problems with this argument are:-

1) Whilst you could show not running a service applies to people with a protected characteristic and without;

2) You couldn't show that people with a protected characteristic were at a disadvantage compared to people without (since both disabled and non-disabled people would be disadvantaged);

3) Again you could find somebody who had a protected characteristic who is personally affected; but

4) Not running a service is not only a proportionate way of the legitimate aim of saving the cost of running the service, it is the only way to save the cost of running the service!

I could link to caselaw expanding on these themes, but it's so obvious I don't think there's any point.

Now there are duties on public bodies to consider Equality, and so when GBR or the TOC apply to the DfT for permission to withdraw the service, there are procedures to be gone through, and consultations to be had, and if a case was made that the closure would disproportionately affect disabled people and there were alternatives, then the DfT could be taken to Judicial Review if it failed to take these matters into consideration before giving the go-ahead. But in what we call "public law" (judicial review of officials' decisions), the duty is to consult and take into account relevant considerations. There is no duty to follow some or other particular outcome. They can consult, and say "we've listened, but we don't care".

Thankyou for your professional input.

If one looks at this at a national level, I think that all of these requirements could be met in a way. This would be via our political system. If we assume that people are more likely to vote for things that are in their own interests rather than others, whether someone regards a lack of replacement bus services to be much of a problem may depend on whether they have a disability which does not allow them to drive, and people with such conditions are very much a minority. So in a way, the root of cause of the less favourable treatment is the disability that few people share with them.

Condition 'a' is certainly met as you state.

Condition 'b' is met since those who voted without the disability have the potential to drive, which if they do have the means to, means that a lack of replacement buses would not have an effect on their personal mobility or finances like it would someone with the disability.

Condition 'c' could obviously be met.

Condition 'd' is really the main point of my original post, in that cutting well used replacement bus services might well cost the railway in the long term than save any money.

The collective nature of the country descrimination against a minority might perhaps be an unofficial from of descrimination which I might call 'Collective Unaware Indirect' descrimination rather than meeting the official indirect descrimination definition, but to me it looks just as ethically important to stop, even if it is not necessary to punish an individual for knowingly doing it.

 

[Starmill]

Thankyou for your professional input.

If one looks at this at a national level, I think that all of these requirements could be met in a way. This would be via our political system. If we assume that people are more likely to vote for things that are in their own interests rather than others, whether someone regards a lack of replacement bus services to be much of a problem may depend on whether they have a disability which does not allow them to drive, and people with such conditions are very much a minority. So in a way, the root of cause of the less favourable treatment is the disability that few people share with them.

Condition 'a' is certainly met as you state.

Condition 'b' is met since those who voted without the disability have the potential to drive, which if they do have the means to, means that a lack of replacement buses would not have an effect on their personal mobility or finances like it would someone with the disability.

Condition 'c' could obviously be met.

Condition 'd' is really the main point of my original post, in that cutting well used replacement bus services might well cost the railway in the long term than save any money.

The collective nature of the country descrimination against a minority might perhaps be an unofficial from of descrimination which I might call 'Collective Unaware Indirect' descrimination rather than meeting the official indirect descrimination definition, but to me it looks just as ethically important to stop, even if it is not necessary to punish an individual for knowingly doing it.

While this objective is laudable I think it would be better to focus on dealing with the unlawful discrimination which already exists.

To give one example, trains at Marsden used to serve a platform which had step free access. Since May 2018, in general, they don't serve that platform any longer. This change was known in advance to be necessary. Train services are still regularly provided from the two platforms which have no step free access. It would be possible, albeit costly, to provide step free access at both of the platforms.

So any people who can't use steps have had their situation changed from one where they could access a train on a walk-up basis without the need for booking, albeit only in one direction, to one where no train is accessible whatever. Now TransPennine Express do provide an assisted travel service which should of course book them into accessible road transport. But this would be a service which would almost certainly take longer and would take much, much longer if not booked in advance.

If no publicity and consultation regarding the changes took place, and I think it very likely that it didn't, and there is no new justification for making the change which might be a lawful reason for discrimination, the change could have been unlawful.

Of course, the company could succeed in arguing that their alternative transport road service is the reasonable adjustment which is necessary, something which I find questionable indeed. But there would only need to be a person, with standing, who had some repeat negative experiences of that discrimination to make a strong argument.

 

[JamesRowden]

While this objective is laudable I think it would be better to focus on dealing with the unlawful discrimination which already exists.

To give one example, trains at Marsden used to serve a platform which had step free access. Since May 2018, in general, they don't serve that platform any longer. This change was known in advance to be necessary. Train services are still regularly provided from the two platforms which have no step free access. It would be possible, albeit costly, to provide step free access at both of the platforms.

So any people who can't use steps have had their situation changed from one where they could access a train on a walk-up basis without the need for booking, albeit only in one direction, to one where no train is accessible whatever. Now TransPennine Express do provide an assisted travel service which should of course book them into accessible road transport. But this would be a service which would almost certainly take longer and would take much, much longer if not booked in advance.

If no publicity and consultation regarding the changes took place, and I think it very likely that it didn't, and there is no new justification for making the change which might make it , the change could have been unlawful.

Of course, the company could succeed in arguing that their alternative transport road service is the reasonable adjustment which is necessary, something which I find questionable indeed. But there would only need to be a person, with standing, who had some repeat negative experiences of that discrimination to make a strong argument.

I see this as the same form of descrimination of reducing the speed/affordability/flexibility of the mobility of disabled people in order for it to potentially cost the country less.

Your example could simply be a rail company falling to meet it's contract, and the country failing to consider in proportion the needs of disabled people, by not getting the company to fix the problem promptly.

 

[Starmill]

I see this as the same form of descrimination of reducing the speed/affordability/flexibility of the mobility of disabled people in order for it to potentially cost the country less.

Your example could simply be a rail company falling to meet it's contract, and the country failing to consider in proportion the needs of disabled people, by not getting the company to fix the problem promptly.

Indeed it could well be. But this case is quite different to most similar ones because the access has historically been offered, but recently it was removed, and also because they cost of just using the platform which does have step free access doesn't seem to me to be a justified barrier to making a better reasonable adjustment.

 

[JamesRowden]

I shoved the effective discrimination point in at a certain point of the thread, but I was trying to make people think about this potential form of discrimination and its importantance to the whole topic of the thread.

 

[Wolfie]

This would appear to break the 2010 Equality Act unless about as convinient and expensive alternative transport was made available to those who are not permitted to have a driving licence for medical conditions that they are not responsible getting. Since otherwise indirect discrimination would be occurring.

How? There is no obligation to provide any service. If there is no train service for anyone how are disabled people being discriminated against?

No, it would not break the equality act, no more than not providing an 0300 Sheringham-Norwich service would. Nor having any train departing Wick after 1600.

Agreed. The law calls for reasonable adjustments.

The trouble is that a service being permanently withdrawn couldn't possibly be considered 'prohibited conduct' under the Equality Act because it doesn't treat disabled people, or any particular group of people, differently from others.

There are other things in the Equality Act such as the Equality Duty for the public sector, but these work differently.

Spot on.

It could be that the Government would be responsible for the discrimination in addition or instead of the rail operator. You don't seem to be getting the idea of indirect discrimination.

Driving licences and roads can be used easily by those (of a certain age) without disabilities, like non-disabled toilets can be used by non-disabled people on trains. But, the rules are that if toilets are provided on trains, there must be toilets for disabled people.

Telling all passengers that they can use non-disabled toilets if they want to go to a toilet on a train would not be direct discrimination since all the passengers would be treated the same. But it would be indirect discrimination since some disabled passengers would not have the capability of using those toilets.

You rather miss the point that if the Courts were to decide that your frankly extremist position was acceptable HMG could still legislate to change the law.

 

[IanXC]

Indeed it could well be. But this case is quite different to most similar ones because the access has historically been offered, but recently it was removed, and also because they cost of just using the platform which does have step free access doesn't seem to me to be a justified barrier to making a better reasonable adjustment.

I did once see someone post that this was OK because even if you can travel westbound you can't travel back, which totally ignores the possibility of doubling back via Huddersfield which, although it would take longer, means that said passenger is not reliant on booking in advance or waiting for road vehicles at all.

The route in and out of platform 3 presumably takes a little longer than via platform 2 whether that is enough of a difference to 'break' the timetable I'm not sure.

 

[tomuk]

The only way I could see it being discriminatory was if the line or stations carried/served a high proportion of "protected characteristic" passengers, eg a blind school nearby the station or a line that served an area with a high ethnic population.