Higher-speed rail

Some commuter rail services that cover shorter distances may achieve similar speeds but they are not typically called as higher-speed rail.[20] Some examples are:

• Numerous regional ICRs in China such as Dongguan–Huizhou intercity railway and Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan intercity railway operate up to 200 km/h (120 mph).
• Coaster links Oceanside, California and San Diego on Pacific Surfliner trackage with top speeds of 90 mph (140 km/h)[45]
• MARC Penn Line covers 77 miles (124 km) on Northeast Corridor trackage and has been upgraded to 125 mph (201 km/h)[46]
• Metrolink Orange County Line and Inland Empire–Orange County Line, also on Pacific Surfliner trackage, operate at top speeds of 90 mph (140 km/h) on segments south of Santa Ana[47] and in Camp Pendleton.[48]
• Caltrain electrification project is underway between San Francisco to Tamien Station as part of upgrades for blended service with CHSR. The Caltrain trains will be capable of reaching speeds of up to 110 mph (180 km/h).[49]

In Victoria, Australia, the increased top speeds from 130 to 160 km/h (81 to 99 mph) in the Regional Fast Rail project required a change to the signalling system to account for increased braking distance. Prior to the project, the system comprised a mixture of equipment from pre-WWI mechanical signalling to the remote control systems of the 1980s. In some cases, operators needed to telephone the local operators to manually control the signal boxes. With the new speeds, the signalling needed to be computerized. The project employed the Solid State Interlocking with the newly laid fiber-optic communication between the components to use three computer systems to control the signals. When the output of one computer differs from the other two, the system will fail that computer and continue the signal operations as long as the outputs from the other two computers are consistent. The project deployed the Train Protection & Warning System which allows the system to automatically applies the brakes at a sufficient distance to stop the train if the driver does not control the speeds adequately. The project also incorporated Train Control and Monitoring System to allow real-time monitoring of the position of trains.[50]

In the United States, the first step to increase top speeds from 79 mph (127 km/h) is to install a new signal system that incorporates FRA-approved positive train control (PTC) system that is compatible with higher-speed rail operation.[51] They are both transponder-based and GPS-based PTC systems currently in use in the United States. By a mandate, a significant portion of the railroads in the United States will be covered by PTC by the end of 2015.[52]

Concrete ties on a BNSF line

To support trains that run regularly at higher speeds, the rails need to be reliable. Most freight tracks have wooden ties which cause rails to become slightly misaligned over time due to wood rot, splitting and spike-pull (where the spike is gradually loosened from the tie).[53] The concrete ties used to replace them are intended to make the track more stable, particularly with changes in temperature.[54] Rail joints are also an issue, since most conventional rail lines use bolts and fishplates to join two sections of the rail together. This causes the joint to become slightly misaligned over time due to loosening bolts. To make for a smoother ride at higher speeds, the lengths of rail may be welded together to form continuous welded rail (CWR). However, the continuous welded rails are vulnerable to stress due to changes in temperature.[55]

In Australia, the track condition before the Regional Fast Rail project could only support trains up to speeds of 130 km/h (81 mph). The tracks are with mixture of wooden and concrete ties. The rail weight varies but with majority being 47 kg/m (95 lb/yd). The track upgrade in the project included changing to use concrete ties and to use new standard of rail weight at 60 kg/m (121 lb/yd) in order to support the new top speeds of 160 km/h (99 mph).[56]

There may be restriction in maximum operating speeds due to track geometry of existing line, especially on curves. Straightening the route, where possible, will reduce the travel time by increasing the allowable speeds and by reducing the length of track. When straight routes are not possible, reducing the number of curves and lowering the degree of curvature would result in higher achievable speeds on those curves. An example is the elimination of three consecutive reverse curves in favor of one larger curve. Raising superelevation may be considered for sharp curves which significantly limit speed. The higher speeds on those modified curves, together with the higher superelevation, will require track modification to have transition spirals to and from those curves to be longer.[57]

Old turnouts may need replacement to allow trains to run through the turnouts at higher speeds. In the United States, some old turnouts have speed limit of 20 mph (32 km/h). Even with newer turnouts (rated #20), the diverging speed limit is still at 45 mph (72 km/h) which would significantly slow down the higher-speed train passing through those sections. High-speed turnouts (rated #32.7) are capable of handling maximum diverging speeds of 80 mph (130 km/h).[58][59][60]

In order to minimize the downtime to upgrade tracks, a track renewal train (TRT) can automate much of the process, replacing rails, ties, and ballast at the rate of 2 miles per day. In the United States, a TRT is used by Union Pacific Railroad on the track shared with future higher-speed rail service in Illinois area.[61][62]

For electrified track, the old catenary may need to be replaced. The fixed-tension catenary which is acceptable for low speeds may not be suitable for regular higher-speed rail services, where a constant tension is automatically maintained when temperature changes cause the length of the wire to expand or contract.[63]

With trains running at higher speeds throughout the route, safety at all at-grade crossings needs to be considered.

In Australia, the levels of upgrade of the crossing in the rail improvements project were based on the risk analysis. The improvements included flashing light protection, automatic full barriers protection, and pedestrian gates crossings. The project also introduced the use of rubber panels at the crossings.[50]

In the United States, the FRA limits train speeds to 110 mph (180 km/h) without an "impenetrable barrier" at each crossing. Even with that top speed, the grade crossings must have adequate means to prevent collisions. Another option is grade separation, but it could be cost-prohibitive and the planners may opt for at-grade crossing improvements instead.[32]

The safety improvements at crossings can be done using combination of techniques. This includes passive devices such as upgraded signage and pavement markings. Another low-cost passive device is median separators which are installed along the center line of roadways, extending approximately 70 to 100 feet from the crossing, to discourage drivers from running around the crossing gates. More active devices include the four-quadrant gate, which blocks both sides of each traffic lane. Longer gate arms can cover 3/4 of the roadway. Video cameras can also be installed to catch the violators. A signal monitoring system can also be installed to alert the crews when the crossing equipment has malfunctioned.[64]

In Norway, grade crossing speed are not permitted to exceed 160 km/h.[65]

Norfolk Southern Railway freight enters the NEC from the Port Road Branch in Perryville, Maryland

In areas where there is frequent interference between freight and passenger trains due to congestion which causes the passenger trains to slow down, more extensive improvements may be needed. Certain segments of the line in congested areas may need to be rerouted. New track may need to be laid to avoid many curves which slow down the trains. In stretches of heavy freight train traffic, adding passing sidings along the segment should be considered. Sometimes certain stations may need to be bypassed.[66]

The "Main Line" portion of the Keystone Corridor is fully electrified.

Another consideration is electrification. Electrifying a railway line entails a major upgrade to the rail infrastructure and equipment. On the infrastructure side, it requires catenary lines to be built above the tracks. New transmission lines are needed to carry power from the power plants. Substations are required for each of the 40-mile (64 km) lengths to reduce severe voltage losses. There is also a need to consider the required amount of power supply and new power plants may be required. For locomotives, new electric locomotives are needed or existing diesel-electric locomotives can be retrofitted into all-electric locomotives, but it is a complicated task.[67] These factors cause electrification to have high initial investment costs. The advantages of all-electric locomotives are that they provide quieter, cleaner and more reliable operations than the diesel-electric counterpart. The fuel consumption, locomotive maintenance costs and track wear of all all-electric locomotives are also lower.[68] Furthermore, electric traction makes the operator more independent of oil price fluctuations and imports, as electricity can be generated from domestic resources or renewable energy. This was a major consideration in the electrification of the German Democratic Republic network, as lignite (and therefore electricity) was cheap and plentiful domestically whereas oil had to be imported at world market prices.

An alternative to catenary lines is to use a third rail system which has a semi-continuous rigid conductor placed alongside or between the rails of a railway track. However the operating speeds of this type of systems cannot be greater than 100 mph (160 km/h) due to its limitation of the power supply gaps at turnouts and grade crossings. Therefore, the third rail system is not generally used for higher-speed rail.[69]

One example in the United States that does involve electrification is the Keystone Improvement Project to provide higher-speed rail service along the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh segment of the Keystone Corridor in Pennsylvania. The plan includes additional track, a new signal system and electrification. If completed as planned, this would allow Amtrak to utilize electric power continuously on service from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. The first segment ("Main Line") has already been using electric locomotives with a top speed of 110 mph (180 km/h).[70]

NSW TrainLink XPT at Sydney's Central station

A Diesel Tilt Train at Bowen Hills

In 1999, the concept of Regional Fast Rail project was initiated by the State Government of Victoria with a goal to provide express higher-speed rail services between 4 main regional centres of Victoria (Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and the Latrobe Valley) and Melbourne. The initiative included a key component to upgrade rail infrastructure to have top speeds up to 160 km/h (99 mph). The development phase of initiative was between 2000 and 2002. Finally, the services on four lines began between 2005 and 2006 with top speeds of 160 km/h using VLocity trains.[71] Additionally, the services provided by Queensland Rail's Tilt Train, the Transwa Prospector and NSW Trainlink's XPT are considered higher-speed rail and all of those trains have a top service speed of 160 km/h (99-100 mph).[72][73][74]

The New South Wales XPT (short for Express Passenger Train) is the main long-distance passenger train operated by NSW TrainLink on regional railway services in New South Wales, Australia from Sydney to Dubbo, Grafton, and Casino as well as interstate destinations, Brisbane and Melbourne. The XPT is based on the British Rail designed High Speed Train and entered service in April 1982. It came to fruition in January 1978 when the Public Transport Commission invited tenders for 25 high-speed railcars similar to the Prospector railcars delivered by Comeng to the Western Australian Government Railways in 1971. Comeng's proposal for a train based on the InterCity 125 was announced as the successful bidder in October 1976.

The Tilt Train is the name for two similar tilting train services, one electric and the other diesel, operated by Queensland Rail on the North Coast line from Brisbane to Rockhampton and Cairns. In May 1999 the Electric Tilt Train set an Australian train speed record of 210 km/h (130 mph) north of Bundaberg, a record that still stands.[75][76]

The Transwa WDA/WDB/WDC class are a class of railcars built by United Goninan, Broadmeadow for Transwa in 2004/05 to replace the WAGR WCA/WCE class railcars on the AvonLink and Prospector services in Australia. They are capable of high-speed operation.

Geographically accurate map of CRH services.
Magenta and Red: High-speed rail
Yellow: Higher-speed rail
Black text in image: Cities that host CR divisions headquarters

In China, higher-speed railways are railways that are not officially categorized as high-speed rail but allow CRH EMUs run on it with speeds up to 200 km/h.[77] Typically these lines are classified as Grade I conventional railways and are used by both passenger and freight services.

Note that the majority of high-speed lines are also called "passenger-only"(Chinese: 客运专线) lines. Inside mainland China this word invokes a sense of higher-speed rail but the wording usage is inconsistent.

Identifiers starting with G indicates at least part of the train's route operates at a maximum 300 km/h or above (this is a characteristic of the line rather than the precise maximum speed of this exact train) and not running at deliberately reduced speed on any section. Other sections of the route may have lower speeds as low as 160 km/h.

Identifiers starting with C indicates short distance travel using CRH trains, the maximum speed is irrelevant (ranging from 160 km/h Urumqi-Korla service to 350 km/h Beijing-Tianjin (via intercity) service).

Identifiers starting with D indicates CRH services with maximum speed 265 km/h or less, including overnight sleepers on 310 km/h Beijing-Guangzhou line (running them 310 km/h overnight not only causes noises but also disturbs sleeping patterns of passengers. This is an example of deliberately reduced speeds).

Identifiers starting with S indicates metropolitan services using CRH rolling stock and have a different fare system to the national one. Their maximum speed is 160 km/h.

Note: The start and end station in the following lists accounts only CRH services. * denotes some section of this line doesn't have 160 km/h CRH services.

This section lists the deliberately reduced scenarios mentioned in "train identifiers" section above.

Since 1997, ongoing construction to upgrade and built higher-speed lines capable of speeds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph) is conducted. The P.A.Th.E. Plan (Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzonoi), as it is called aims at reduced journey times between Greece's main cities (Athens, Thessaloniki and Patra) as well as an improved rail connection between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. Currently, only the modernized lines of Domokos–Thessaloniki, Athens Airport–Kiato, and Thessaloniki–Strymonas are in operation at maximum speeds of 160 km/h (99 mph).[79]

Vande Bharat Express, also known as Train 18,[80] is an Indian higher-speed rail intercity electric multiple unit.[81] It was designed and built by Integral Coach Factory (ICF) at Perambur, Chennai under the Indian government's Make in India initiative over a span of 18 months. The unit cost of the first rake was given as ₹1 billion (US$14 million), though the unit cost is expected to go down with subsequent production.[82] At the original price, it is estimated to be 40% cheaper than a similar train imported from Europe.[83] The train was launched on 15 February 2019,[84] by which date a second unit will have been produced and readied for service.[85] The service was named 'Vande Bharat Express' on 27 January 2019.[86] As of July 2020, the Indian Railways operates two Vande Bharat trains.[87]

The Vande Bharat express at Katra

The train flagged off for an inaugural run by Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, on 15 February 2019,[88] with its commercial run started from 17 February 2019 onwards. It will be running on the Delhi-Varanasi route,[89] via Kanpur and Prayagraj, connecting the holy city of Varanasi to the Capital city, reducing travel time along the route by 15 percent.[81] The train's regenerative brakes are also expected to allow a 30% savings in electricity costs as compared to its predecessor.[90] At an operating speed of 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph), it will outpace the Shatabdi Express by 30 kilometres per hour (19 mph).[89] Although the trainset has been tested for speeds up to 180 km/h, it is capable of running at speed of 200 km/h. Every other car on the train is motorised.[91] The 8-hour journey from New Delhi to Varanasi station has the Chair Car CC Class fare of ₹1,755.00 and covers the total distance of about 762 kilometers.[92]

This is the list of the current higher-speed rail services from the East Coast to the West Coast:

In South Korea, the term semi-high-speed rail(준고속철도) is officially used for tracks that have 200~300km/h maximum speed. MOLIT gives serial number starting from 200 on tracks that tracks satisfy criteria of semi-high-speed rail. On the other hand, some conventional sections in Jeolla Line and Jungang Line were upgraded to serve KTX up to 200~250km/h but not desingated as semi-high-speed line.

There have been several different attempts at higher speed rail in the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor, and several high speed rail attempts as well.[5]

In 2010, there was a report commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport as a mid-term review of Transport 21, an Irish infrastructure plan announced in 2005. The report recommended, among other things, a development of national rail to provide higher-speed rail services.[100] However, there have been no progress toward the recommendation.

There have been long-range visions to establish high/higher-speed rail networks in different regions of the United States but without adequate funding. During the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, there was a surge of interest to apply for grants from the federal government to start those projects. However, many proposals have been put on hold or cancelled after failing to secure funding or support from the public or key local politicians.[101][102]

Amtrak Cascades, a 467-mile (752 km) intercity rail service, stretches from Eugene, Oregon, through the State of Washington to Vancouver, British Columbia, in Canada. As of 2010, the long-term goal of this corridor was to have the top speeds of the segment of Eugene, Oregon, to Blaine, Washington, with top speeds in the 90 to 120 mph (140 to 190 km/h) range, and eventually 150 mph (240 km/h) on a dedicated track.[103] However, as of 2012, the Washington State Department of Transportation plans for its 300-mile (480 km) stretch to have top speeds of only 79 mph (127 km/h),[104] and the plan in Oregon is to limit the speeds to 79 mph as well, with safety and other freight service concerns voiced by the track owner, Union Pacific Railroad.[105] This essentially halts the plan to provide a higher-speed rail service on this corridor in the near future.

The Northern Lights Express project, in the planning stages and proposed to begin construction in 2017, would upgrade the BNSF trackage between Minneapolis and Duluth to support service up to 90 mph (140 km/h).[106]

Other higher-speed rail proposals are periodically considered, but would need to pass through neighboring states, which have thus far not agreed to cooperate. Minnesota transportation planners proposed a higher-speed rail service called the River Route, with top speeds of 110 mph (180 km/h), between Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Chicago, Illinois, via Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which follows the Empire Builder route.[107] There is no current progress with the River Route project due to the cancellation of the funding in Wisconsin.

Another alternative that has been discussed is to have a new route that heads south to Iowa to join the rail link from Iowa to Chicago.[108] There was a report in 2011 that Iowa would halt its involvement in high/higher-speed rail projects.[109] However, the Iowa Department of Transportation and Illinois Department of Transportation continue to pursue the study of rail link between Chicago and Omaha, Nebraska, through Iowa with top speeds of 110 mph (180 km/h).[110][111] Therefore, the status of the proposal to link Minneapolis–Saint Paul with Chicago via Iowa is unknown.

An un-rebuilt RTL Turboliner in New York in 1983.

In 1998, New York State initiated a $185 million program in partnership with Amtrak to increase the speeds of the Empire Service to 125 mph (200 km/h) by reconstructing all seven gas-turbine Turboliner trainsets, originally built in 1976–1977, to the new RTL-III specification. The reconstructed trains, coupled with track improvements, would cut the travel time between New York City and Albany by 20 minutes. However, the project ran into many problems including issues with the trains and the unsuccessful implementation of required track improvements.[112] New York ended the rehabilitation program in 2005 after spending $70.3 million.[113] Fallout over the program led to litigation between New York and Amtrak; Amtrak would eventually pay New York $20 million and commit to funding $10 million in track improvements.[114] New York auctioned off its surplus Turboliners in 2012 for $420,000.[115]

The Ohio Hub, a rail improvement project proposed by the Ohio Department of Transportation, is aimed at revitalizing passenger rail service in the Ohio region. The proposal was to increase the top speeds to 110 mph (180 km/h) in the network connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, commonly referred as the 3-C corridor.[116] The project is currently in an unknown state after the U.S. government rescinded the federal funding from Ohio and redirected it to other states.[101]

In October 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation adopted the Connections 2030 plan which is the long-range plan for state transportation needs. The plan includes Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030, the twenty-year plan to improve the state railroad system by 2030. In the rail plan, there is a multi-phase project to upgrade the rail service from Chicago, Illinois, to Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin, with top speeds of 110 mph (180 km/h). The latter phases of the project will expand the same service to Minneapolis–Saint Paul in Minnesota and another route to Green Bay, Wisconsin.[117] There was a reaction against the project in 2010, and the $810 million grant the state originally received for the project from the federal government was rescinded.[101] As of 2012, the rail plan is postponed indefinitely.[118]

The three Baltic states have been working with the European Union as part of the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) initiative on a study to build a higher-speed rail line in the Rail Baltica corridor to connect Warsaw, in Poland, and Tallinn, in Estonia.[119]

Bangladesh Government has taken initiatives to develop high-speed rail (HSR) in between its two major cities - Dhaka, the National Capital City and Chattogram (former Chittagong), the second largest and the principal Port City of the country. Bangladesh Railway (BR), the Government-owned and-managed transportation agency of the country, signed a contract of BDT 102 crore on 31 May 2018 with a Consortium of China Railway Design Corporation (CRDC), a Chinese Company and Mazumder Enterprise (ME), a Bangladeshi Pvt. Ltd. Company for feasibility study and detailed design for construction of proposed Dhaka-Chattogram via Cumilla/Laksam HSR line.

With 320.79 km length, Dhaka-Chattogram is the main business corridor and life line of BR, and at present, the railway route is a circuitous way through Tongi-Bhairab Bazar-Brahmanbaria-Cumilla-Chattogram. The proposed shorter route, which would be Dhaka-Cumilla/Laksham-Chattogram, will cut short the length by about 91 km, making the total length around 230 km. The expected speed of the proposed HSR would be above 250kmph (yet to determine) and it would take less than one hour to reach Chattogram from Dhaka, which currently takes more than five hours. Under the 18-month contract, the Consortium's responsibilities will include identifying alternative alignments, assessing the viability of the project, preparing detailed engineering design, and cost estimation. [120]

For a rail route to connect Windsor, Ontario to Detroit, Michigan in the United States, a higher-speed rail plan was proposed as an alternative after a study on the Windsor to Quebec City route in Canada was to consider only high-speed rail with top speeds of 200 km/h (124 mph) or more. Politicians in Windsor area proposed in 2012 that having higher-speed rail connection between Windsor and Detroit must be part of the consideration.[27][121][122]

Another feasibility study is ongoing as part of the Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative to connect between Boston and Montreal trains at top speeds of 90 mph (140 km/h).[123]

A project to modernize railway network in Greece is ongoing. A new 106 km (66 mi) alignment between Tithorea and Domokos is designed to avoid the mountainous part. The new line will have speeds of 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph).[79]

In October 2013, the Minister of Railways announced at the two-day international technical conference on High Speed Rail Travel; Low Cost Solution that the focus of India's rail improvement is to implement a lower cost solution to meet the immediate needs by providing higher-speed rail services as an incremental step before the dedicated track high-speed rail can be achieved. India's higher-speed rail will be in the range of 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph).[8] On 3 July 2014, a trail run with the new top speeds of 160 km/h (99 mph) was successfully completed on a journey of 200 km (120 mi) between Delhi and Agra. The new service, operational since 5 April 2016, cut the travel time from 126 minutes (compared to standard trains) with a top speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) to 99 minutes.[124]

In 2019 the government approved 3 rapid regional railways including Delhi–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System with speeds up to 160 km/h.[125]

The KTM ETS is an inter-city rail service operated by Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad utilizing electric multiple units. The KTM ETS is the second electric train service to be operated by the Malaysian railway company, after the KTM Komuter service.

Commencing in August 2010, the ETS is the fastest metre gauge train service in Malaysia and operates along the electrified and double-tracked stretch of the West Coast Line between Gemas and Padang Besar on the Malaysia-Thai border by the Malaysian national railway operator, Keretapi Tanah Melayu.

The rail service is operated by KTM Intercity Division. It was previously operated by ETS Sendirian Berhad, a fully owned subsidiary of Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad. The operation speed for this train is 140 km/h.

Pressure group Greater Auckland proposed the Regional Rapid Rail initiative in 2017, including tilt trains with a maximum speed of 160 km/h.[126] This network would link Auckland with Hamilton, Tauranga and Rotorua. In December 2018, the Government of New Zealand committed funding to reintroducing a five-year trial rail service between Papakura in southern Auckland to Hamilton, starting in 2020.[127]

China claimed to invest capitals into 160 km/h rail corridor, total length would be 491 km.[128]

The state-owned Philippine National Railways plans to rebuild its historic South Main Line from Manila to the Bicol Region in the southeastern tip of Luzon. The agency will build 639 km (397 mi) of track, with the main line itself leading to Matnog, Sorsogon and a spur line leading to Batangas City. It will be a standard-gauge railway served by Chinese-built diesel multiple units with a maximum speed of 160 km/h (99 mph) and an average speed of 107 kilometres per hour (66 mph) including stops.[129] The project will start construction in mid-2020 and is set to open partially by 2022.

The Government of Thailand considers a plan to build out its high-speed rail corridors. As an alternative to the high-speed trains, the government also considers medium-speed trains with top speeds of 250 km/h (160 mph).[26]

This is a partial list of ongoing higher-speed rail projects from the East Coast to the West Coast.

* The study includes higher-speed rail alternatives with top speeds of 90 (options A and B) and 110. It also has high-speed rail options with top speeds of 125, 160 and 220 mph. As of March 2012, the Tier 1 EIS has eliminated the high-speed rail options, except for the 125 mph option. The numbers on the table represent the 125 mph alternative. The other alternatives are for non-electrified track with average speeds of 57 mph (for 90A option), 61 (for 90B option), and 63 (for 110 option).[148]

** The study includes two main alternatives for higher-speed rail. The first alternative is called Shared Use with top speeds of 90-110 mph. The second alternative is called Hybrid High Performance with top speeds of 130 mph. (however it would be classified as high-speed rail) There are also high-speed rail alternatives in the same study with top speeds of 180-220+ mph. The numbers on the table represent the first two alternatives.[149] Federal Railroad Administration signed the Final EIS and Record of Decision in September 2017 to formally complete the Tier 1 EIS process for Atlanta to Chattanooga route.[150]

*** The study includes higher-speed rail up to 110 mph and high-speed rail of 150+ mph options.[151]

In addition to ongoing projects, there are proposed routes that have not reached the feasibility study stage yet. In Pennsylvania, a rail advocacy group started fund raising efforts in 2014 to obtain $25,000 for a preliminary study and additional $100,000 for feasibility study of the route from Erie to Pittsburgh. The proposal is for 110 mph (180 km/h) express train services to directly link the two cities. An alternative is to have intermediate stops in Ohio cities including Ashtabula, Warren, and Youngstown before heading back to New Castle, Pennsylvania.[152]

In Ohio, a rail advocacy group works with local political leaders in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois to consider a higher-speed rail line from Cincinnati to Chicago. This is in response to another advocacy group in Indiana that gained funding for the Columbus, Ohio – Fort Wayne – Chicago route that is already in feasibility study stage. The group persuaded the Hamilton County government in Ohio to advocate for the study.[153] The county commissioners unanimously voted in September 2014 to pursue a feasibility study. As a possible route that goes through the states of Kentucky and Indiana, the county expects that Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments will help fund a feasibility study.[154]

In Michigan, a feasibility study sponsored by an environmental group is in progress for a new rail line between Detroit and Grand Rapids. The proposal is to have trains running at speeds between 79 and 110 mph (127 and 177 km/h). The state transportation department is interested in the study but is not ready to move beyond this study.[155]

In Texas, the East Texas Corridor Council proposed a higher-speed rail route between Longview and Dallas. The trains will operate at speeds of 80 mph (130 km/h) and 110 mph (180 km/h).[156]

In 2018, Vietnam planned to build a higher-speed rail line in the northern part of the country to link between Haiphong, Hanoi, and Lào Cai which is then connected to China. The 391-kilometre (243 mi) line will run parallel to the existing regular speed railway. The top speeds for the new services will be up to 160 km/h (99 mph).[157]