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)


2

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


The Rebirth of Rail …. ….Key Realities

• Infrastructure Expansion

• More Energy Efficient

• High Intermodal Growth

• At MAX Capacity

Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System


Fuel Prices….

Source: Department of Energy


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

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

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


Historic Domestic Oriented Networks….

….vs. New Import Oriented Networks



Intermodal

• Growing to offset rising

diesel prices and

congested seaports.

COFC- “Container-on-Flat-Car”

TOFC- “Trailer-on-Flat-Car” or “Piggy-back”



Rail System Performance • Growing Volume

• Growing congestion

– Slower Trains

Source: Bureau of

Transportation Statistics


240

280

320

360

400

440

480

2002 Q1 2004 Q1 2006 Q1 2008 Q1 2010 Q1 2012 Q1

Billions of revenue ton-miles

Source: RITA – US DOT

15.0

17.0

19.0

21.0

23.0

25.0

27.0

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

Average line-haul speed (mph)

Source: RITA – US DOT

Missouri Rail Analysis 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


10

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.


11

Scope


12

Union Pacific System Map


13


14

2005 Amtrak On-time Data

System Analysis

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


15

Amtrak Line Delay & Station Delay

(#% of Total 2008 Amtrak Delay – Total = 123,425 min)

System Analysis

XRC

IDP

LEE

WAR SED

JEF

HEM

WAH KWD

XGA STL

KCY

0.7% 2.9%

9.9% 7.0% 18.2%

23.9% 5.1%

16.6%

3.6%

0.4%

1.2% 0.9%

0.5%

0.2%

1.1%

0.4% 1.3%

0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

1.1%

3.7%

0.5%

(#% of Total 2005 Amtrak Delay – Total = 107,300 min) XRC

IDP

LEE

WAR SED

JEF

HEM

WAH KWD

XGA STL

KCY

0.8% 3.2%

12.0% 8.4% 13.5% 16.7%

3.9% 19.1%

5.5%

1.0%

1.8% 2.0%

0.6%

0.2%

3.0%

0.3% 1.6%

0.7% 0.7% 0.4%

1.4%

2.3%

0.6%


16

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.

System Analysis

2005, 2008, 2009 (Q1, Q2) Amtrak Total Delay

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0% F

TI

DS

R

PT

I

DC

S

ITI

DM

W

HLD

RT

E

EN

G

SY

S

TR

S

AD

A

NO

D

OT

H

CO

N

WT

R

SV

S

CA

R

ITM

PO

L

ITT

DB

S

INJ

CT

C

2005

2008

2009


17

System Analysis

Current Reality

Tree

Amtrak train

delay Freight train

delay

Variable speed of

freight train

Reduced speed limits

Railroad failure

Number of cars on

freight train

Freight train stops

at yellow light

Amtrak follows

freight train for long

time

Amtrak is held by

dispatcher

Waiting for Amtrak to

leave station

Train closer than

security distance

Freight train

congestion

Train congestion

(Amtrak and

Freight)

Freight train

disabled

Amtrak held in

siding

Amtrak must

reduce speed

Amtrak

stopped

Yellow light

Equipment

failure

Broken rail, ties,

sub -grade

Switch

malfunction

Red light

Switch line

by hand

False hotbox

reading

Temporary speed

restrictions

Design of rail

curvature

Amtrak stays in

station longer

Railroad

deterioration

Passenger issues

(luggage, # passengers,

wheelchairs)

Current track design

overwhelmed

Amtrak trains meet

in opposite

direction

Weight of

transported goods

Long distance

between sidings

Delays from

previous trains

(Amtrak or UP)

Dispatcher priority for

Amtrak timeliness

Increased Train Load

Core Problem

Geographic

conditions

Maintenance

Processes

Crew scheduling


18

XRC

IDP

LEE

WAR

SED

JEF

HEM

WAH KWD

XGA STL

KCY

Improvement Alternatives

2007

0.8%

3.2%

12%

8.4% 13.5% 16.7%

3.9% 19.1%

5.5%

1.0%

1.8%

(#% of Total Amtrak Delay)

Extend Strasburg Siding (3 options - $10M, 8M, 2M)

Connect Strasburg &

Pleasant Hill Sidings ($10.5M)

Extend California Siding (2 options - $4M, 2.5M)

2nd Mainline @

Osage Bridge ($15M, 28M)

2nd Mainline @

Gasconade Bridge ($21M)

Webster

Crossover ($2.5M)


19

Project Description: • Build a 5000’ extension on the west of current 3500’ California

siding

Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)

$ 2.5 Mil

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.

155 154 153 152 150 151

California Siding – Alternative 1

Sedalia Subdivision

new siding

Elkhorn Rd South Mill Rd


20

Project Description:

• 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.

245 244 243 242 240 241

Strasburg Siding – Alternative 1

Sedalia Subdivision

new siding

MO Rt E Prv Rds


21


• Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg sidings with 20,000’ new rail

creating 7 miles of double track with universal crossover in middle


$ 10.5 Mil

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.

Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg Sidings / Double Track

Sedalia Subdivision

new siding

MO Rt E

247 245 246 244 242 243 250 248 249


22

Project Description: Construct new bridge of same span type and arrangement as existing bridge

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

Add Second Main Track to Osage Bridge Jefferson City Subdivision

(2008 UP Capacity Plan)

Missouri River

Bonnot Jct.

MP 116.80

Osage Jct.

MP 117.29

To St. Louis To Jeff City

Osage Bridge

Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007) $ 28.0 Mil


23

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

Project Description: » 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

Missouri River

Gasconade Jct.

MP 85.9

Morrison Jct.

MP 90.6

Single track bridge replaced

2002. New bridge designed

and built to accommodate two

tracks. Grading for 2nd track

at bridge also completed in

2002.

To St. Louis

To Jeff City

Add Second Main Track to Gasconade Bridge Jefferson City Subdivision


Gasconade Bridge

Universal Crossover

at MP 90.5

Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006) $ 21.0 Mil


24

Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006)

$ 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


» Construct LH crossover completing universal crossover at Webster-MP

10.75

Complete Webster Crossover

Jefferson City Subdivision


15 10 5

Kirk Jct. Webster Maplewood

MP 6.9

20

Keefer Creek MP 20.8

14 miles between existing crossovers

Crossover

Removed


25

240 110130150170190210230 220 200 180 140160 120 100 80 60 40 20 090 70 50 30 10260270280 250

University of Missouri-ColumbiaIndustrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering

2006 Passenger and F reigh t R ailway C apac it y S t udy

Jefferson City SubdivisionSedalia SubdivisionRiver Subdivision

In Cooperation with MODOT, Amtrak, and Union Pacific

L e e 's S u m m it Y a r d

J e f f Cit y Ya r d

Ka n s a s C it y Te r m in a l

St . Louis Ter m inal

D e p o tA m t r a kS e d a l i a

D e p o tA m t r a kS u m m i tL e e ' s

D e p o tA m t r a kI n d e p e n d e n c e

D e p o tA m t r a kW a r r e n s b u r g

A m t r a k D e p o tJ e f f e r s o n C i t y

D e p o tA m t r a kH e r m a n n

D e p o tA m t r a kW a s h i n g t o n

D e p o tA m t r a kK i r k w o o d

D e p o tA m t r a kK a n s a s C i t y

D e p o tA m t r a kS t . L o u i sS id in g

P le a s a n t H ill

S id in g

S t r a s b u r g

S id in g

C e n t e r v ie w

S id in g

K n o b n o s t e rS id in g

D r e s d e n

S id in g

S m it h t o n

S id in g

Do w

S id in g

C a lif o r n ia

S id in g

C e n t e r t o wn

J u n c t io n

R iv e r

J u n c t io n

R o c k C r e e k

C r o s s o v e r

M o r e a u

J u n c t io n

Os a g e

J u n c t io n

B o n n e t

C r o s s o v e r

A m e s J u n c t io n

M o r r is o n

J u n c t io n

G a s c o n a d e

C r o s s o v e r

B e r g e r

C r o s s o v e r

P a c e

C r o s s o v e r

S u m m it

C r o s s o v e r

Do z ie rC r o s s o v e r

K e e f e r C r e e k

C r o s s o v e r

M a p le wo o d

S id in g

R e n ic k

S id in g

M y r ic kS id in g

Ho d g e

S id in g

W a v e r ly

S id in g

N a p t o n

S id in g

L a m in eS id in g

W o o ld r id g e

S t a t io n

B o o n e v ille

S t a t io n

M a lt a B e n d

A m e r e n U E p l a n tW e s t L a b a d i e :

Alternative Analysis Simulation

Freight and Passenger Train Congestion Analysis Modeled using ARENA, a product of Rockwell Software.


26

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%

Alternative Analysis (2007) Simulation Results

(Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to:

Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges)


27

Sedalia Subdivision

Alternatives

S1 - Extend California Siding

S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding

S3 - Connect Strasburg &

Pleasant Hill

S4 - Extend California &

Extend Strasburg Sidings


& Connect Strasburg &

Pleasant Hill Sidings


Alternatives

J1 - Osage Bridge

J2 - Gasconade Bridge

J3 - Gasconade/Osage

Bridges

J4 - Webster Crossover

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

Alternative Analysis (2007)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

$ Millions

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

J2 J1

J4

% D

elay

J3


28

Sedalia Subdivision

Alternatives


S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding

S3 - Connect Strasburg to


S4 - Extend California &

Extend Strasburg Sidings


& Connect Strasburg to



Alternatives

J1 - Osage Bridge

J2 - Gasconade Bridge

J3 - Gasconade/Osage

Bridges

J4 - Webster Crossover

Amtrak Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

$ Millions

S1

S2

S3 S4

S5

J2 J3

J1

J4

% D

elay



29

% UP

Delay

Savings /

$M

% Amtrak

Delay

Savings /

$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



30

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


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


32

Improvement Alternatives

2009

(#% of Total Amtrak Delay – 2008 data)

XRC

IDP

LEE

WAR

SED

JEF

HEM

WAH KWD

XGA STL

KCY

0.7%

2.9%

9.9%

7.0% 18.2% 23.9%

5.1% 16.6%

3.6%

0.3%

1.2%

Kingsville Siding ($11.55M)

Track Enhancements

to Increase Speed ($56.6M)

Extend Knob Noster Siding ($8.5M)

2nd Mainline @

Osage Bridge ($33.8M)

Hermann

Crossover ($5.2M)

Webster

Crossover ($4.4M)

3rd Main

JC Yard ($9.7M)


33

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%

Alternative Analysis (2009) Simulation Results

(Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to:

Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges)


34

1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding

2 – Kirkwood Universal

Crossover

3 – Osage River Bridge

4 – Projects 2 & 3 combined

5 – Projects 1, 2, & 3 combined

6 – Build Kingsville Siding

7 – Herman Universal

Crossover

8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson

City Yard

9 – Track/Control to Increase

Amtrak Speed


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

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

1

7

8

9

2

3

5

% D

elay

$ Millions

6

4


35


1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding

2 – Kirkwood Universal

Crossover

3 – Osage River Bridge

4 – Projects 2 & 3 combined

5 – Projects 1, 2, & 3 combined

6 – Build Kingsville Siding

7 – Herman Universal

Crossover

8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson

City Yard

9 – Track/Control to Increase

Amtrak Speed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Amtrak Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M)

1

7 8

9

2 3

5

% D

elay

$ Millions

6 4


36

% UP

Delay

Savings /

$M

% Amtrak

Delay

Savings /

$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



37

Recommendations (2009)

Sedalia Subdivision

1. Extend Knob Noster Siding Project cost estimate = $8.5 million

2. Build Kingsville Siding Project cost estimate = $11.5 million


1. 2nd Mainline on Osage Bridge Project cost estimate = $33.8 million

2. Install Kirkwood Universal Crossover Project cost estimate = $4.4 million

3. Install Herman Universal Crossover Project cost estimate = $5.2 million


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

Documents

MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble