Study to investigate re-opening Gobowen to Welshpool line

[A0]

but what will be the "opportunity cost" to rail generally of spending hug sums on road projects? Its costing £50 million a mile plus to convert a short stretch of the A465 into dual carriageway in South Wales

Time to face facts. IF you don't do the investment in the A5 then congestion will get worse and worse.

You can reinstate Gobowen - Oswestry if you like, but it will make sweet FA difference to the congestion that's happening. You can go as far as reinstating the whole line all the way to Welshpool - it will still make no difference.

You can jack taxes up on the road haulage industry - all you'll achieve are higher prices in the shops which hits the end consumer and job losses in the haulage industry - endless rail re-instatements won't off-set that.

You can continue with the congestion on the A5 which will deter tourists from visiting and staying in the area. If we were doing a family holiday to North Wales we'd want to take the car - if you want to make that a difficult, costly or unattractive proposition then fine - but we won't go on the train, instead we'll jump in the car and drive to Luton or Birmingham airport and fly off somewhere nice and sunny - so the economy of North Wales loses out - your choice.

The point I was making - which is still valid - is if the works are being done on the road, that is the opportunity for the CHRS to get their passageway over / under the A5 completed in a far more cost effective way than trying to self fund a bridge project.

Incidentally, I don't think you understand the concept of 'opportunity cost' - I suggest you go and look it up, because it's not what you seem to think it is.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Time to face facts. IF you don't do the investment in the A5 then congestion will get worse and worse.

You can reinstate Gobowen - Oswestry if you like, but it will make sweet FA difference to the congestion that's happening. You can go as far as reinstating the whole line all the way to Welshpool - it will still make no difference.

You can jack taxes up on the road haulage industry - all you'll achieve are higher prices in the shops which hits the end consumer and job losses in the haulage industry - endless rail re-instatements won't off-set that.

You can continue with the congestion on the A5 which will deter tourists from visiting and staying in the area. If we were doing a family holiday to North Wales we'd want to take the car - if you want to make that a difficult, costly or unattractive proposition then fine - but we won't go on the train, instead we'll jump in the car and drive to Luton or Birmingham airport and fly off somewhere nice and sunny - so the economy of North Wales loses out - your choice.

The point I was making - which is still valid - is if the works are being done on the road, that is the opportunity for the CHRS to get their passageway over / under the A5 completed in a far more cost effective way than trying to self fund a bridge project.

Incidentally, I don't think you understand the concept of 'opportunity cost' - I suggest you go and look it up, because it's not what you seem to think it is.

But the A5 isn't being dualled is it? Local Torys and the Shropshire Star may have a campaign asking for it but they also want lots of other road project lollipops too......and Theresa May hasn't got anywhere enough candy to keep all the children happy in all the places on the Tory back benches.


North Wales has already had its economic magic bullets - the A494 through Deeside/ A55 Expressway/ A483 to Ruabon- if big roads really do provide economic benefit can you please explain why the coastal strip of North Wales and Wrexham have not been transformed into the land of economic milk and honey? We were ploughing dual carriageways into the Valleys to regenerate them after King Coal left in the 70's and 80's and look how that turned out......

The evidence that road schemes can provide some wider economic driver is sadly lacking given the obsession with them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=opportunity+cost+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

opportunity cost
noun
Economics
noun: opportunity cost; plural noun: opportunity costs

1. the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.

So if you spend Transport budget on one mode you cant spend it on another.....

 

[krus_aragon]

PM we your e mail address for the slide show.

You've got an extra 0.5 tph Shrewsbury to Cardiff in there.

Thanks for the offer. PM on the way.

And yes, I overcounted: it'd be 2tph Shrewsbury-Cardiff (1tph CDF-MAN, 0.5tph CDF-HHD, 0.5tph CDF-SHR).

 

[A0]

But the A5 isn't being dualled is it? Local Torys and the Shropshire Star may have a campaign asking for it but they also want lots of other road project lollipops too......and Theresa May hasn't got anywhere enough candy to keep all the children happy in all the places on the Tory back benches.


North Wales has already had its economic magic bullets - the A494 through Deeside/ A55 Expressway/ A483 to Ruabon- if big roads really do provide economic benefit can you please explain why the coastal strip of North Wales and Wrexham have not been transformed into the land of economic milk and honey? We were ploughing dual carriageways into the Valleys to regenerate them after King Coal left in the 70's and 80's and look how that turned out......

The evidence that road schemes can provide some wider economic driver is sadly lacking given the obsession with them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=opportunity+cost+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

https://www.google.com/search?q=opportunity+cost+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

https://www.google.com/search?q=opportunity+cost+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
Except it has provided benefits - it used to take the best part of a day to get from Chester to Holyhead - a journey which is now much reduced.

It's ensured Holyhead's viability as a port. It's allowed people who live on the north Wales coast decent access to Chester, the Wirral and Merseyside.

It's allowed people to make day trips viably to the north Wales coast which used to be unviable. All of those are benefits whether you like it or not.

So if you spend Transport budget on one mode you cant spend it on another.....

Which IF the reinstatement of the Oswestry line was a serious scheme would be true. But it isn't. It's not even on the "nice to have" list that government is working through. So it's a non-starter.

So in this context the opportunity cost is if the A5 is upgraded the CHRS might get their bridge of the A5 at a much cheaper cost. If it doesn't happen they'll have to pay the full price - which probably means it won't happen, your choice.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

Some people on here will never support investment in roads, which benefits most of the travelling public, but believe we can go back to the 1940s and all travel around on inefficient little branch lines to every small village. We need investment in both, as most economically successful countries do, so that goods and people can get around as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Here the M27 brought lots of commercial and office development to the area around the junction, and as a result thousands of those workers travel to and from work by rail, meaning the station is busier than ever. So you could argue both road and rail have gained, just as they could if the A5 were improved in the area of the level crossing. Of course that road was built as a single carriageway in that period when we did everything half-baked and cheap and cheerful. Not much has changed then.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Which IF the reinstatement of the Oswestry line was a serious scheme would be true. But it isn't. It's not even on the "nice to have" list that government is working through. So it's a non-starter.

.

The Oswestry to Gobowen reinstatement has a Transport and Works Act and an organisation looking to complete funding, the A5 dualling has a local newspaper campaign for it.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Some people on here will never support investment in roads, which benefits most of the travelling public, but believe we can go back to the 1940s and all travel around on inefficient little branch lines to every small village. We need investment in both, as most economically successful countries do, so that goods and people can get around as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Here the M27 brought lots of commercial and office development to the area around the junction, and as a result thousands of those workers travel to and from work by rail, meaning the station is busier than ever. So you could argue both road and rail have gained, just as they could if the A5 were improved in the area of the level crossing. Of course that road was built as a single carriageway in that period when we did everything half-baked and cheap and cheerful. Not much has changed then.

For about three decades now studies have consistently failed to find any positive correlation between road schemes and economic development. Most reports suggest that beyond the initial construction phase boost to that sector most development seen is either displaced activity or what new activity there is has chosen to locate around the road development as an alternative to a different location ie it's very hard to say something wouldn't have happened anyway just somewhere else.

Once we hit mass vehicle ownership point and the motor way box around the heart of England was complete there hasn't been any real leap forward on a scale big enough to make an impact. Simply put a few thousound vehicles a day moving a little quicker becusse of a rural bypass is simply swallowed up and spat out by the effect of other 35 million vehicles in the UK travelling in more congested conditions.

 

[ruthtom010]

For about three decades now studies have consistently failed to find any positive correlation between road schemes and economic development. Most reports suggest that beyond the initial construction phase boost to that sector most development seen is either displaced activity or what new activity there is has chosen to locate around the road development as an alternative to a different location ie it's very hard to say something wouldn't have happened anyway just somewhere else.

Once we hit mass vehicle ownership point and the motor way box around the heart of England was complete there hasn't been any real leap forward on a scale big enough to make an impact. Simply put a few thousound vehicles a day moving a little quicker becusse of a rural bypass is simply swallowed up and spat out by the effect of other 35 million vehicles in the UK travelling in more congested conditions.

Actually, the evaluation evidence is a bit stronger for roads than for rail:

http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/policy-reviews/transport/

 

[yorksrob]

Some people on here will never support investment in roads, which benefits most of the travelling public, but believe we can go back to the 1940s and all travel around on inefficient little branch lines to every small village. We need investment in both, as most economically successful countries do, so that goods and people can get around as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Here the M27 brought lots of commercial and office development to the area around the junction, and as a result thousands of those workers travel to and from work by rail, meaning the station is busier than ever. So you could argue both road and rail have gained, just as they could if the A5 were improved in the area of the level crossing. Of course that road was built as a single carriageway in that period when we did everything half-baked and cheap and cheerful. Not much has changed then.

We do indeed need investment in both, however whereas even the most parochial dual carriageway scheme seems to get money thrown at it with abandon, even relatively limited rail reinstatements which could bring whole towns back to the railway network are stymied. Not just Oswestry, but also Wisbech and Tavistock as examples.

Until I see proper investment in both new local roads and local railways, I say "a plague" on local road investment.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Actually, the evaluation evidence is a bit stronger for roads than for rail:

http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/policy-reviews/transport/

Given Daft fund it and it's jointly run by ArUp there's no vested intrests then?

 

[ruthtom010]

Given Daft fund it and it's jointly run by ArUp there's no vested intrests then?

Well, if so, the review is surprisingly sceptical about transport in all forms.....and not sure the money going into HS2 suggests DfT have a strong anti-rail position.

 

[Rhydgaled]

the private slideshow briefing (which I no longer have a copy of. Would any kind soul care to forward a copy my way?) which Rhydgaled tells us gives much the same message.

I know you're getting the presentation via PM, but for everyone else somebody has attached it to a post elsewhere on this forum and I've just uploaded a copy of that here.

And yes, I overcounted: it'd be 2tph Shrewsbury-Cardiff (1tph CDF-MAN, 0.5tph CDF-HHD, 0.5tph CDF-SHR).

No, you were right before; you've lost the CDF-Liverpool now.

IF the reinstatement of the Oswestry line was a serious scheme would be true. But it isn't. It's not even on the "nice to have" list that government is working through. So it's a non-starter.

Projects occasionally spring up from nowhere. The Fishguard Trains campaign seemed to be going nowhere for a few years and then all of a sudden in 2011 five extra workings were introduced, effectively reopenning the line to passenger services. Admittedly the track between Gobowen and Oswestry is probably not in particularly great condition, but were it not for the level crossing issues might be a relatively quick win.

Some people on here will never support investment in roads, which benefits most of the travelling public, but believe we can go back to the 1940s and all travel around on inefficient little branch lines to every small village.

I don't necessarily believe in "inefficient little branch lines"; I used to have dreams of reopenning the CardiBach and the Rosebush & Fishguard etc. but now realise that was extremely unrealistic. Nowdays, I accept that there are some places (Cardigan probably being one of them) that will always be off the rail network. Yet I still will not support 'investment' in roads because, having come to the conclusion that rail is not sensible in some areas, I now feel that it is vital that ways are found to make bus services an attractive alternative to private car journies in these areas. Most pepole's idea of road 'investment' simply makes buses even less attractive compared to the car, it needs to stop.

 

[krus_aragon]

No, you were right before; you've lost the CDF-Liverpool now.

I've been a bit distracted by work today. Thanks to both you and Gareth for sorting out my ramblings. Hopefully I should make a bit more sense after a good night's sleep.

 

[muddythefish]

We do indeed need investment in both, however whereas even the most parochial dual carriageway scheme seems to get money thrown at it with abandon, even relatively limited rail reinstatements which could bring whole towns back to the railway network are stymied. Not just Oswestry, but also Wisbech and Tavistock as examples.

Until I see proper investment in both new local roads and local railways, I say "a plague" on local road investment.

Well said.

In addition, the A5 scheme won't solve congestion but, like with so many other road "improvements", merely shift the problem farther down the road ( so to speak). So in end it's a waste of money, which could and should be spent on alternatives.

The argument for more roads as an economic driver is also false. There are towns in the north of England which have superb roads links yet are among the poorest areas in Europe.

 

[snowball]

We do indeed need investment in both, however whereas even the most parochial dual carriageway scheme seems to get money thrown at it with abandon,

Then why are there so many road schemes that were first proposed decades ago that are not showing any sign of happening? Why was the trunk road network in England slashed around the turn of the century?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some people on here will never support investment in roads, which benefits most of the travelling public,

No. Those on here who are better informed about transport economics will be reluctant to support investment in roads because they know that doing so rarely works. And that, far from benefitting most of the travelling public, investing roads in most cases simply leads to a vicious cycle of more congestion and more self-defeating car dependency. It's the easiest thing in the world to say 'this road is congested. Let's widen it/build a new one' but history had shown time and time again that that almost never solves the problem.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well said.

In addition, the A5 scheme won't solve congestion but, like with so many other road "improvements", merely shift the problem farther down the road ( so to speak). So in end it's a waste of money, which could and should be spent on alternatives.

The argument for more roads as an economic driver is also false. There are towns in the north of England which have superb roads links yet are among the poorest areas in Europe.

Rural Greece, Spain and Portugal are awash with purpose built dual carrigeways (EU funded) yet their GDP still lags behind. Look at a pan European level and there's a fairly strong correlation between Rail/Light Rail Usage and higher GDP - the country's/regions that use rail more tend to be the ones with higher GDP, the country's/ regions with lower GDP tend to be more road dominated.

The evidence is counter intuitive to the belief values of many people.

 

[yorksrob]

Then why are there so many road schemes that were first proposed decades ago that are not showing any sign of happening? Why was the trunk road network in England slashed around the turn of the century?

I can think of several new dual carriageways and by-passes built across the country in the last ten years. Examples are in Leeds, Wakefield, Lancaster, and those are only in the places I frequent. Its high time that links for towns such as Oswestry, Wisbech and Tavistock back to the rail network were given equal, if not greater priority.

 

[yorksrob]

The argument for more roads as an economic driver is also false. There are towns in the north of England which have superb roads links yet are among the poorest areas in Europe.

Indeed. Towns need decent public transport links as well as road, and those which rely wholly on road tend to get left behind.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Then why are there so many road schemes that were first proposed decades ago that are not showing any sign of happening? Why was the trunk road network in England slashed around the turn of the century?

Partly because the Senior Civil Servants in the mid 90's accepted the SACTRA Report's findings plus there was huge budgetary constraints at the end of the Major Government, partly because the Blair Government had other spending priorities so turning tap back on the "roads to prosperity" agenda was not done when the economy improved.

However underpinning this was a complete failure by the Politicians to learn the lessons of SACTRA. Labour weren't interested in a Government report 3 years before they came to power in a policy area that wasn't a priority. The Conservatives were too busy tearing themselves apart about Europe and the trauma of the "natural party of Government" being kicked out of power for 13 years.

Roll the clock forward to 2010 and the Conservatives certainly at local levels are desperately trying to resurrect every scheme in "roads to prosperity" and the senior civil servants that SACTRA shocked in the mid 90's have retired. Devolved Government in Wales and Scotland since 1999 have an agenda that stated that the Tory's deliberately under invested in their county's from 1979 to 1997 so they authorize road schemes partly on the premise that there playing catch up.

 

[ivanhoe]

Indeed. Towns need decent public transport links as well as road, and those which rely wholly on road tend to get left behind.

Their decline was more to do with the de industrialisation of those towns as opposed to lack of any perceived rail link. As for reopening of Gobowen to Welshpool Line, simply ask the locals what their preference would be. I suspect better roads and by passes would be their preference. If you’re poor, you’re priced off rail anyway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Their decline was more to do with the de industrialisation of those towns as opposed to lack of any perceived rail link. As for reopening of Gobowen to Welshpool Line, simply ask the locals what their preference would be. I suspect better roads and by passes would be their preference. If you’re poor, you’re priced off rail anyway.

In Oswestry's case it suffered badly as it was a railway town that had its works closed down. The locomotive works, engine sheds, station , goods yards, Headquarters of the Cambrian Railways and latter Oswestry Division GWR & BR(W) were the major employer in the town.

 

[A0]

Rural Greece, Spain and Portugal are awash with purpose built dual carrigeways (EU funded) yet their GDP still lags behind. Look at a pan European level and there's a fairly strong correlation between Rail/Light Rail Usage and higher GDP - the country's/regions that use rail more tend to be the ones with higher GDP, the country's/ regions with lower GDP tend to be more road dominated.

The evidence is counter intuitive to the belief values of many people.

Greece, Spain and Portugal have always had much lower GDPs than France, Germany, Italy, UK or Netherlands, however it's got pretty much nothing to do with public transport and its use. It's more to do with their recent history and culture - that of high public spending, poor productivity and ineffective public governance - Greece being the worst offender in that respect by a long way.

The idea of the EU funded roads was about improving connectivity across those countries, which in many cases was notoriously poor. Whereas in the UK, France, Germany etc by the mid 80s there was a half-decent roads network with plans for further improvements and enhancements.

The countries which have among the highest public transport usage also tend to be smaller geographically with a high population density, usually clustered around a few key places. Look at Netherlands, Singapore or Japan for example all have a population density of over 300 / sq km, compared to Spain 92 / sq km or Greece 83 / sq km.

 

[MarkyT]

...If you’re poor, you’re priced off rail anyway.

Many, particularly younger people can't afford to run cars either so have to use whatever public transport is on offer, which can be expensive whatever the mode, or they have to walk, cadge lifts or cycle.

 

[yorksrob]

Their decline was more to do with the de industrialisation of those towns as opposed to lack of any perceived rail link. As for reopening of Gobowen to Welshpool Line, simply ask the locals what their preference would be. I suspect better roads and by passes would be their preference. If you’re poor, you’re priced off rail anyway.

But you'll find that whereas those areas without a good rail link have declined further and faster than those with them, which have been able to build on their links with nearby cities for example.

The old argument of the railway being a "rich mans toy" is complete tripe in relation to the regional railway especially. Come and visit the railways around Leeds and Manchester on a Saturday and you will find all walks of life using the local railway to go about their local business, to the shops or visiting friends and relatives. Yet because they're not high powered businessmen, the value of these sorts of journeys aren't valued as much as part of society, hence why no one is prepared to invest in the regional railway.

 

[A0]

Well said.

In addition, the A5 scheme won't solve congestion but, like with so many other road "improvements", merely shift the problem farther down the road ( so to speak). So in end it's a waste of money, which could and should be spent on alternatives.

The argument for more roads as an economic driver is also false. There are towns in the north of England which have superb roads links yet are among the poorest areas in Europe.

So what's your answer then? The demand for travel in the UK isn't going to miraculously disappear, especially with the population heading towards 70 million - and the demand for more flexible travel i.e the ability to travel unhindered by timetables or only only where the bus/train goes isn't going to be met by public transport.

Your attitude is soundly stuck in the 60s or 70s - the state "tells" people how they will travel, when they will travel, where they can travel to, yet that's not what people want.

Where the rail network responds to what customers want - they have trains which are well used. But routes like the HoWL, the branches in East Anglia etc are relatively lightly used - last year I used the Ipswich - Lowestoft line on a Saturday, mid afternoon I doubt the train was even half full and there are loads of similar examples around.

Oswestry isn't 'cut off' in the way places like Hawick or Galashiels were - Gobowen station is about 4 miles away, which is no worse than many larger towns are where the station is on one side of a town.

Reinstating the railway to Oswestry would lead to a 1 or 2 car DMU shuttling back and forward every 30 mins. Oswestry's population is about 17,000. You'd need about 10% of the population to be using it daily to even think about making it viable - bearing in mind the 153 shuttling between Bedford and Bletchley (two much bigger places) is carrying fresh air most of the day.

Yet improving the A5 would benefit people not just travelling to / from Oswestry, but you know that anyway - and if you leave the road alone it will just get to the point where nothing moves, so people will leave the area or stop travelling.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Greece, Spain and Portugal have always had much lower GDPs than France, Germany, Italy, UK or Netherlands, however it's got pretty much nothing to do with public transport and its use. It's more to do with their recent history and culture - that of high public spending, poor productivity and ineffective public governance - Greece being the worst offender in that respect by a long way.

The idea of the EU funded roads was about improving connectivity across those countries, which in many cases was notoriously poor. Whereas in the UK, France, Germany etc by the mid 80s there was a half-decent roads network with plans for further improvements and enhancements..

In other words building the roads didn't really do anything vis a viz the relative economic position of these countries as other factors are more important yet its perceived wisdom here in the UK that road building helps the economy. The same non effect on the economy can be seen in Wales with the dual carriageways built into the South Wales valleys which were magically going to regenerate the valleys and the A55 Expressway across Anglesey in early 2000's.

 

[A0]

In other words building the roads didn't really do anything vis a viz the relative economic position of these countries as other factors are more important yet its perceived wisdom here in the UK that road building helps the economy. The same non effect on the economy can be seen in Wales with the dual carriageways built into the South Wales valleys which were magically going to regenerate the valleys and the A55 Expressway across Anglesey in early 2000's.

I don't think you can make that assertion - it's more likely that without that investment those areas would have declined further owing to poor connectivity.

The South Wales valleys have seen some investment, though part of the problem there is social. An attitude of 'well we've always worked in the local pit, why should we travel to 'xxx' for work', or the generational attitude that 'it's alright to claim benefits' that's despite rail links to Cardiff and Newport being in place, which is where many of the jobs are.

Oswestry clearly hasn't suffered owing to it's loss of the rail works or its own station - because its rate of claiming unemployment benefit is lower than the UK average https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-oswestry-croeswallt-shropshire-29146.html - and people are evidently commuting to Shrewsbury, Telford or Chester for jobs.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I don't think you can make that assertion - it's more likely that without that investment those areas would have declined further owing to poor connectivity.

That's conjecture - the identifiable and verifiable facts are a lot of money was spent on road infrastructure but the relative position of the nations economy's within Europe stayed the same.

The South Wales valleys have seen some investment, though part of the problem there is social. An attitude of 'well we've always worked in the local pit, why should we travel to 'xxx' for work', or the generational attitude that 'it's alright to claim benefits' that's despite rail links to Cardiff and Newport being in place, which is where many of the jobs are.

So its the peoples fault they didn't use the roads properly? I would take a trip down to South Wales and see how they clog the roads from the Valleys to Cardiff to death with cars every weekday morning......and please note you cannot physically provide anymore road capacity from the A470 across the M4 Interchange into Cardiff without demolishing Cardiff's suburbs and many valley communities.

Oswestry clearly hasn't suffered owing to it's loss of the rail works or its own station - because its rate of claiming unemployment benefit is lower than the UK average https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-oswestry-croeswallt-shropshire-29146.html - and people are evidently commuting to Shrewsbury, Telford or Chester for jobs.

When I first moved to Mid Wales in the late 70's/early 80's it was well known that Oswestry had declined after the railway had left. However back then road projects could be transformational on a scale that could make a difference. The work on the A483/A5 Oswestry Bypass and Chirk Bypass in the mid to late 80's was a massive leap forward in connectivity for the area as journey times northward were substantially slashed to start with at least until the road filled up with twice the traffic it was designed for and 2 miles tailback where the A483 intersects the A55 south of Chester appeared every morning. In 2018 everyone in the area who can afford a car already has one , dualling the A5 will not produce any seismic shift in connectivity unlike what the road did 30 years ago. Whereas in 1988 when you came off the road to access Chester, Wrexham and Shrewsbury etc you could mostly drive straight into them now the queues already out of town so shaving a fee seconds/maybe minutes off journey time to reach queue is somewhat futile. The basic problem is we now have c35 million vehicles on the road compared to c25 million 30 years ago.A little bit of extra road here and there really makes no difference.

 

[MarkyT]

An attitude of 'well we've always worked in the local pit, why should we travel to 'xxx' for work', or the generational attitude that 'it's alright to claim benefits' that's despite rail links to Cardiff and Newport being in place, which is where many of the jobs are.

Most of those who had been down the pits are pensionable age now. Are you suggesting they must continue to work? I can't see that attitude being likely in the young.

Oswestry clearly hasn't suffered owing to it's loss of the rail works or its own station - because its rate of claiming unemployment benefit is lower than the UK average ... and people are evidently commuting to Shrewsbury, Telford or Chester for jobs.

A possible case for a Shrewsbury - Birmingham link then, perhaps a new direct chord via a parkway station at Park Hall for the hospital. All stations to Shrewsbury, then limited onwards to Birmingham.