MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble

Missouri Rail Analysis

Missouri Freight and Passenger Rail Analysis
James Noble, PhD, PE
Charles Nemmers, PE
Sean Carr, Stella Zhang, and Andres Gomez
Center for Excellence in Logistics and Distribution (CELDi)
University of Missouri

Phillip Borrowman, PE
Hanson-Wilson, Inc., Kansas City

Funded by Missouri Department of Transportation (OR08-001 & OR10-004)

Agenda

• Problem Context – U.S. Rail System
• Study Objective
• System Analysis
– Delay Data Analysis
– Theory of Constraints – Current Reality Tree
• Alternative Analysis (2007/2009)
– Simulation Results
– Delay Reduction / Cost Analysis
– Recommendations
• Implementation
2

Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System

The Rebirth of Rail ….
….Key Realities
• Infrastructure Expansion
• More Energy Efficient
• High Intermodal Growth
• At MAX Capacity


Fuel Prices….

U.S. No 2 Diesel Retail Prices ($/gal)
6

5

4

3

2

1

0
Mar-94
Mar-95
Mar-96
Mar-97
Mar-98
Mar-99
Mar-00
Mar-01
Mar-02
Mar-03
Mar-04
Mar-05
Mar-06
Mar-07
Mar-08
Mar-09
Mar-10
Mar-11
Mar-12

Source: Department of Energy


Historic Domestic Oriented Networks….
….vs. New Import Oriented Networks

COFC- “Container-on-
Intermodal Flat-Car”

• Growing to offset rising
diesel prices and
congested seaports. TOFC- “Trailer-on-Flat-Car”
or “Piggy-back”

Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
Billions of revenue ton-miles
480

Rail System Performance
440

400

360 • Growing Volume
320 • Growing congestion
280 – Slower Trains
240
2002 Q1 2004 Q1 2006 Q1 2008 Q1 2010 Q1 2012 Q1
Source: RITA – US DOT

Average line-haul speed (mph)
27.0

25.0

23.0

21.0

19.0

17.0

Source: Bureau of 15.0
2004 Q1
2004 Q2
2004 Q3
2004 Q4
2005 Q1
2005 Q2
2005 Q3
2005 Q4
2006 Q1
2006 Q2
2006 Q3
2006 Q4
2007 Q1
2007 Q2
2007 Q3
2007 Q4
2008 Q1
2008 Q2
2008 Q3
2008 Q4
2009 Q1
2009 Q2
2009 Q3
2009 Q4
Transportation Statistics

Source: RITA – US DOT

Trends Influencing the
U.S. Rail System

Rail Congestion

Train Volumes compared to
Corridor Capacity

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.


Remedies sought to unclog Missouri rail line
and help Amtrak heal
BRAD COOPER, The Kansas City Star
Across the country, passengers are herding onto Amtrak trains in
record numbers. But not in Missouri, where poor on-time
performance caused by heavy freight traffic between Kansas City
and St. Louis is scaring riders away in escalating numbers. Amtrak
service between Kansas City and St. Louis has lost more than
20,000 passengers since 2005, second in the country among short-
distance and state-supported routes. On a percentage basis, it
suffered the highest loss.

Published on 2008-01-11, Page A1, Kansas City Star

9

Study Objective

To develop a prioritized list of rail enhancements
that addresses current passenger and freight rail
performance on the Union Pacific line from St. Louis
to Kansas City in order to improve on-time
passenger service and reduce freight delays.

10

Scope

11


Union Pacific System Map

12


13

System Analysis
2005 Amtrak On-time Data
301/311/303/313 (Westbound)
STL Departure JEF Departure KCY Arrival
On-time <= 15 min 86% 44% 50%
On-time <= 30 min 90% 70% 65%
On-time <= 60 min 95% 86% 76%
On-time <=120 min 99% 96% 89%
> 120 min 1% 4% 11%
Average Lateness 5.6 31.3 33.1

304/314/306/316 (Eastbound)
KCY Departure JEF Departure STL Arrival
On-time <= 15 min 94% 29% 30%
On-time <= 30 min 96% 50% 43%
On-time <= 60 min 97% 78% 68%
On-time <= 120 min 99% 94% 90%
> 120 min 1% 6% 10%
Average Lateness 4.5 42.7 53.1
14

Missouri Rail Analysis System Analysis
Amtrak Line Delay & Station Delay
3.0%
1.8% 2.0%
KCY XRC (#% of Total 2005 Amtrak Delay – Total = 107,300 min)
1.0%
IDP 0.2%
5.5% 2.3%
LEE 19.1%
0.8%STL
WAR 3.9% 13.5% 8.4% 3.2% XGA
0.6% SED 16.7% HEM
JEF WAH12.0% KWD
0.6% 1.4%
0.3% 0.7%
1.6% 0.7% 0.4%

1.1%
1.2% 0.9%
KCY XRC

0.4% (#% of Total 2008 Amtrak Delay – Total = 123,425 min)
IDP 0.2%
3.6% 3.7%
LEE 16.6%
0.7%
WAR 5.1% 18.2% 7.0% 2.9% XGA STL
0.5% SED 23.9% HEM
JEF WAH 9.9% KWD
0.5% 1.1%
0.4% 0.4%
1.3% 0.3% 0.3%
15

System Analysis
2005, 2008, 2009 (Q1, Q2) Amtrak Total Delay
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%
2005
30.0%
2008
20.0% 2009

10.0%

0.0%

WTR
OTH
FTI

ITI

ADA
NOD

CON

ITT
DBS

CTC
DSR

HLD

CAR
DCS

POL
TRS

ITM
SYS

SVS
DMW

RTE
ENG

INJ
PTI

FTI (Freight Train Interference = 52.7%) has the highest percentage of delay minutes
DSR (Temporary Speed Restrictions = 20.6%)
PTI (Passenger Train Interference = 9.6%).
* Top three causes contribute 82.9% of Amtrak delay.
16

Missouri Rail Analysis Amtrak train
delay
Freight train
delay System Analysis
Current Reality
Amtrak
Train congestion
(Amtrak and
Tree
stopped Freight)

Waiting for Amtrak to Amtrak must Red light
Amtrak held in
leave station reduce speed
siding
Freight train stops
Amtrak is held by at yellow light
dispatcher
Amtrak stays in
station longer
Reduced speed limits
Yellow light
Passenger issues Amtrak trains meet
(luggage, # passengers, in opposite Equipment
direction Switch line Railroad failure
wheelchairs) failure
by hand
Design of rail
curvature Broken rail, ties,
Dispatcher priority for Train closer than sub -grade
Amtrak follows
Amtrak timeliness security distance Switch
freight train for long False hotbox Temporary speed
Delays from time restrictions malfunction
reading
previous trains
(Amtrak or UP) Railroad
deterioration
Freight train
congestion

Long distance
Freight train between sidings
disabled Variable speed of Maintenance
freight train Processes

Crew scheduling
Number of cars on Weight of
freight train transported goods Current track design
overwhelmed
Geographic
conditions
Increased Train Load
17
Core Problem

Improvement Alternatives
2007

1.8%
KCY XRC
1.0% Connect Strasburg &
Pleasant Hill Sidings 2nd Mainline @
IDP

5.5% ($10.5M) Osage Bridge
($15M, 28M)
LEE 19.1% 0.8%
3.9% 13.5% STL
WAR
16.7% HEM
8.4% 3.2% XGA
SED
JEF WAH 12% KWD

Extend Strasburg Siding
(3 options - $10M, 8M, 2M) 2nd Mainline @ Webster
Extend California Siding Gasconade Bridge Crossover
(2 options - $4M, 2.5M) ($21M) ($2.5M)

(#% of Total Amtrak Delay) 18

California Siding – Alternative 1
Missouri Rail Analysis Sedalia Subdivision

155 154 153 152 151 150
Elkhorn Rd South Mill Rd

new siding

Project Description: Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)
• Build a 5000’ extension on the west of current 3500’ California $ 2.5 Mil
siding

Advantages:
1) Potentially lower cost than Alternative 2.
Disadvantages:
1) Additional grade crossings required at South Mill Street and Elkhorn Road.
2) More potential for land acquisition issues due to urban nature of proposed siding.

19

Strasburg Siding – Alternative 1

245 244 243 242 241 240
Prv Rds MO Rt E

new siding

• Extend current 5,000’ Strasburg siding 4,500’ west $ 2.0 Mil

Advantages:
1) Extending west should minimize cost of siding extension by utilizing majority of existing siding length.
2) Able to hold 8,500 foot long train with out blocking MO Route E.
Disadvantages:
1) Would extend across two private residential access roads – inhibiting the on demand use of their driveways.

20

Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg Sidings / Double Track

250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 242
MO Rt E

new siding

• Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg sidings with 20,000’ new rail $ 10.5 Mil
creating 7 miles of double track with universal crossover in middle
Advantages:
1) Extremely long siding capable of holding several 8,500 foot long trains.
Disadvantages:
1) Potentially high construction cost.
2) Additional grade crossings required at 4 private residential access roads and at 4 public roadways.

21

Add Second Main Track to Osage Bridge
Missouri Rail Analysis Jefferson City Subdivision
(2008 UP Capacity Plan)

Osage Bridge

Missouri River

To Jeff City To St. Louis

Osage Jct. Bonnot Jct.
MP 117.29 MP 116.80

Construct new bridge of same span type and arrangement as existing bridge $ 28.0 Mil
Advantages
1) New superstructure designed in accordance with current loading and fatigue requirements, thus a more certain service life.
Disadvantages
1) More costly than Alternatives #2

22

Add Second Main Track to Gasconade Bridge

Gasconade Bridge

Universal Crossover
at MP 90.5
Missouri River
To Jeff City
To St. Louis

Morrison Jct. Gasconade Jct.
MP 90.6 MP 85.9

Single track bridge replaced
2002. New bridge designed
and built to accommodate two
tracks. Grading for 2nd track
at bridge also completed in
2002.

Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006)
Project Description: $ 21.0 Mil
» Construct second main line across Gasconade River -
- Construct 4.5 miles second main track along existing right of way
- Add universal crossover at MP 90.5; distance between crossovers 18.2 miles - future project to add crossover near MP 82.0
- Added superstructure for double-track bridge completed in 2002

Benefits:
» Eliminate train delay caused by single track bottlenecks over bridges
» Reduce need to fleet trains in order to accommodate Amtrak
» Increase maintenance of way flexibility by adding crossovers

23

Complete Webster Crossover

Crossover
20 15 10 5
Removed

Keefer Creek Webster Maplewood
MP 20.8
Kirk Jct. MP 6.9

14 miles between existing crossovers

Project Description:
» Construct LH crossover completing universal crossover at Webster-MP Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006)
10.75 $ 2.5 Mil

Benefits:
• Increase ability to sort trains into and out of St. Louis Terminal
• Facilitate maintenance access to either main line between Keefer Creek and Maplewood

24

Alternative Analysis
Simulation

University of Missouri-Columbia
Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering

M al a Bend
t
Ho d g e St at i n
o
Ka n s a s Ci y Te r m i a l
t n Re n i k
c M yr i k
c W aver l
y
Si i g
dn Si i g
dn Si i g
dn Si i g
dn

Roc k Cr e e k Na p t o n Boonevi e
l
i n
o St at i n
o
K a n s a s C u n ct t n d e p e n d e n c e
J
i I y Si i g
dn
A m t r a k A m t r a k
W ool r i ge
d d
D e p o t D e p o t Lam i en
Si i g
dn

Si i g
dn

Lee'
s Sum m i
t Ya r d
M o r r i oGa s c o n a d e
s n
L e e ' s J un c t i nJ un c t i n
o o Ber ger
S u m m i t
Am es
Cr os s ov e r St . Loui Ter m i al
s n
Cr os s ov e r
A m t r a k Bonnet
D e p o t J unc t i n
o H e r m a n n
S e d a l i S a it h t
m on J ef f Ci y Y a r d
t A m t r a k
Cent e r v i w
e
A m t r a k id in g
S
Do w
Cal or ni
f
i a
Os a g e D e p o t Pac e W a s h i n g t o n
Pl as ant
e Hi
l
Si i g
dn
D e p o t
Si i g
dn
Si i g
dn
C e n t e r t o wn J unc t i n
o A m t r aW e s t
Cr os s ov e r k K i r k w oM oa p le wo o d
d
Si i g
dn L a b a d i e :
D e p o t A m e r e n U E Ap m a n t k
l t r a L o u i s
Si i g
dn Cr os s ov e r S t .
St r as bur g
Si i g
dn W a r r e n s b u r g Ri e r
v D e p o t A m t r a k
D esden
A m t r a kK n o b n o s t e r in g
Sid
J unc t i n
o
M or eau
D e p o t
Si i g
dn
D e p o t Cr os s ov e r
J e f f e r s o n C i t y
A m t r a k D e p o t Sum m i t Do z i r
e Kee f e r Cr e ek
C r o s s o v e r C r o s s o v e rr o s s o v e r
C

280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Freight and Passenger Train Congestion C ap ac it y S t u d y
2006 P assen g er an d F reig h t R ailway Analysis River Subdivision
Modeled using ARENA, a product of Rockwell Software. Sedalia Subdivision
In Cooperation with MODOT, Amtrak, and Union Pacific Jefferson City Subdivision
25

Alternative Analysis (2007)
Simulation Results

Overall % Reduction in Delay

Union Pacific Amtrak
Sedalia Subdivision Alternatives
S1 - Extend California Siding 5.9% 15.9%

S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding Freight 8.3% 8.5%
S3 - Connect Strasburg & Pleasant Hill Sidings 0.1% 11.7%
S4 - Both Extend California Siding & Extend
Strasburg Siding for Freight 12.6% 12.3%
S5 - Both Extend California Siding & Connect
Strasburg & Pleasant Hill Sidings 7.3% 23.5%
Jefferson City Subdivision Alternatives
J1 - Osage Bridge 2nd Mainline 17.5% 9.0%
J2 - Gasconade Bridge 2nd Mainline 18.7% 5.5%
J3 - Gasconade/Osage Bridges 2nd Mainlines 27.4% 4.0%
J4 - Webster Crossover 20.0% 1.4%

(Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to:
Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges) 26

Sedalia Subdivision
Union Pacific Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M) Alternatives

S1 - Extend California Siding

S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding
J3
25 S3 - Connect Strasburg &
Pleasant Hill
20 J4 S4 - Extend California &
J2
% Delay

J1 Extend Strasburg Sidings

15 S5 - Extend California Siding
& Connect Strasburg &
S4
Pleasant Hill Sidings
10
S2 Jefferson City Subdivision
S5
S1 Alternatives
5
J1 - Osage Bridge
S3
0
J2 - Gasconade Bridge
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
J3 - Gasconade/Osage
$ Millions Bridges

J4 - Webster Crossover

27

Sedalia Subdivision
Amtrak Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M) Alternatives

S1 - Extend California Siding
25
S5 S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding

20 S3 - Connect Strasburg to
% Delay

S1 S4 - Extend California &
15
Extend Strasburg Sidings
S4
S3 S5 - Extend California Siding
10
S2 J1 & Connect Strasburg to
5 J2
J3 Jefferson City Subdivision
Alternatives
J4
0
J1 - Osage Bridge
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

$ Millions J2 - Gasconade Bridge

J3 - Gasconade/Osage
Bridges

J4 - Webster Crossover

28

% UP % Amtrak
Delay Delay
Savings / Savings /
$M $M Cost in Millions
Sedalia Subdivision Alternatives
S1 - Extend California Siding 1.48 3.97 4 or 2.5
S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding Freight 0.83 0.85 10 or 8 or 2
S3 - Connect Strasburg & Pleasant
Hill Sidings 0.01 1.12 10.5
S4 - Both Extend California Siding &
Extend Strasburg Siding for Freight 0.90 0.88 14 or 12.5 or 12 or 10.5 or 6.5 or 4.5
S5 - Both Extend California Siding &
Connect Strasburg & Pleasant Hill
Sidings 0.50 1.62 14.5 or 13
Jefferson City Subdivision Alternatives
J1 - Osage Bridge 1.16 0.60 15 or 28
J2 - Gasconade Bridge 0.89 0.26 21
J3 - Gasconade/Osage Bridges 0.76 0.11 36 or 49
J4 - Webster Crossover 8.00 0.56 2.5

Note: objective to maximize the Delay Savings / $M 29

Recommendations (2007)

1. (S1) Extend California Siding- Alternative 2
Project cost estimate = $4 million
2. (S3/S5) Connect Strasburg & Pleasant Hill Sidings
Project cost estimate = $10.5 million
3. (J1) 2nd Mainline on Osage Bridge
Project cost estimate = $15-28 million
(UP already completing Gasconade)
Further analysis of UP Maintenance Processes
a) scheduling of routine and major maintenance windows
b) scheduling of signal and track inspections

30


Money allocated to improve Missouri Amtrak service
9th May 2008, 06:30 am
The Missouri General Assembly has sent a capital
improvements bill to the Governor and it includes $5
million for improving Missouri’s Kansas City to St. Louis
Amtrak service. If a $5 million federal match is secured
then the money will be used to build two new sidings
along the route. These sidings will allow long coal trains
to pull over so passenger trains can pass by.

31

Improvement Alternatives
2009
Track Enhancements
1.2%
KCY XRC
to Increase Speed
0.3% ($56.6M)
2nd Mainline @
IDP

3.6%
Osage Bridge
($33.8M)
LEE 16.6% 0.7%
5.1% 18.2% STL
WAR
23.9% HEM
7.0% 2.9% XGA
SED
JEF WAH 9.9% KWD

Kingsville Siding
($11.55M) Hermann
Extend Knob Noster Siding 3rd Main Crossover Webster
($8.5M) ($5.2M)
JC Yard Crossover
($9.7M) ($4.4M)

(#% of Total Amtrak Delay – 2008 data) 32

Simulation Results

Overall % Reduction
in Delay
Union
Pacific Amtrak
1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding 30.9% 42.2%
2 – Kirkwood Universal Crossover 32.9% 19.3%
3 – Osage River Bridge 36.8% 17.9%
4 – Projects 2, 3 combined 43.7% 23.3%
5 – Projects 1, 2, 3 combined 58.5% 44.7%
6 – Build Kingsville Siding 26.5% 24.0%
7 – Herman Universal Crossover 19.9% 17.4%
8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson City Yard 25.5% 11.4%
9 – Track/Control to Increase Amtrak Speed 50.8% 72.9%
(Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to:
Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges)
33


Union Pacific Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M)
80
% Delay

70 1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding
2 – Kirkwood Universal
60 Crossover
5
9 3 – Osage River Bridge
50

4
4 – Projects 2 & 3 combined
40
3
5 – Projects 1, 2, & 3 combined
30 2 1
86 6 – Build Kingsville Siding
20
7 7 – Herman Universal
Crossover
10
8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson
City Yard
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 9 – Track/Control to Increase
Amtrak Speed
$ Millions

34


Amtrak Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M)
80
% Delay

9 1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding
70
2 – Kirkwood Universal
60 Crossover

3 – Osage River Bridge
50

5 4 – Projects 2 & 3 combined
40
1
5 – Projects 1, 2, & 3 combined
30
6 – Build Kingsville Siding
6 4
20 7 – Herman Universal
2
7 3 Crossover
8
10 8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson
City Yard
0 9 – Track/Control to Increase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Amtrak Speed
$ Millions

35


% UP % Amtrak
Delay Delay
Savings / Savings /
$M $M Cost in Millions
1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding 3.6% 4.9% 8.5
2 – Kirkwood Universal Crossover 7.4% 4.4% 4.4
3 – Osage River Bridge 1.1% 0.5% 33.8
4 – Projects 2, 3 combined 1.1% 0.6% 38.2
5 – Projects 1, 2, 3 combined 1.2% 0.9% 46.7
6 – Build Kingsville Siding 2.3% 2.1% 11.5
7 – Herman Universal Crossover 3.8% 3.3% 5.2
8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson City Yard 2.6% 1.1% 9.7
9 – Track/Control to Increase Amtrak Speed 0.9% 1.3% 56.6

Note: objective is to maximize the Delay Savings / $M

36

Recommendations (2009)
Sedalia Subdivision
1. Extend Knob Noster Siding
2. Build Kingsville Siding
Jefferson City Subdivision
1. 2nd Mainline on Osage Bridge
2. Install Kirkwood Universal Crossover
3. Install Herman Universal Crossover
37


Major Rail Infrastructure Project Contract Awarded
Osage River Bridge Construction to Begin this Spring
MoDOT News Release - February 03, 2012
JEFFERSON CITY - A project that will remove the last single-track bottleneck on the Union Pacific
Railroad line between Jefferson City and St. Louis was approved Wednesday. The Missouri Highways
and Transportation Commission awarded a contract for a new railroad bridge over the Osage River to
OCCI, Inc., a Fulton, Mo.-based construction company. When completed, the new bridge will
significantly improve freight and passenger rail service.
The project, estimated at $20 million, will construct a second railroad bridge over the Osage River,
adjacent to the existing Union Pacific bridge at Osage City. It also includes a new second mainline
track on both sides of the new bridge, totaling about one-half mile. The new track will connect to the
existing line, providing approximately 130 miles of double track from Jefferson City to St. Louis.
In 2006, a rail line capacity study was commissioned by MoDOT with the University of Missouri
to address increasing delays to Amtrak and freight trains operating across Missouri. The study
helped MoDOT and Union Pacific engineering and network planning groups identify projects to
increase rail line capacity between St. Louis and Kansas City and on-time performance of both
Amtrak and freight trains.
"This project eliminates the last bottleneck on the eastern half of the St. Louis to Kansas City corridor,"
said Ben Jones, Union Pacific's director of Public Affairs. "Removing this last single track portion will
improve the velocity of both Amtrak and freight trains."
38


40

MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Mid-America Transportation Center

More from Mid-America Transportation Center (20)

MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble