Download - 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)
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
The Rebirth of Rail …. ….Key Realities
• Infrastructure Expansion
• More Energy Efficient
• High Intermodal Growth
• At MAX Capacity
Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
Missouri Rail Analysis
Fuel Prices….
Source: Department of Energy
Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
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)
Missouri Rail Analysis
Historic Domestic Oriented Networks….
….vs. New Import Oriented Networks
Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
Missouri Rail Analysis
Intermodal
• Growing to offset rising
diesel prices and
congested seaports.
COFC- “Container-on-Flat-Car”
TOFC- “Trailer-on-Flat-Car” or “Piggy-back”
Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
Missouri Rail Analysis
Rail System Performance • Growing Volume
• Growing congestion
– Slower Trains
Source: Bureau of
Transportation Statistics
Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System
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.
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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.
Missouri Rail Analysis
11
Scope
Missouri Rail Analysis
12
Union Pacific System Map
Missouri Rail Analysis
13
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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%
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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)
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
20
Project Description:
• Extend current 5,000’ Strasburg siding 4,500’ west
Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)
$ 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
Missouri Rail Analysis
21
Project Description:
• Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg sidings with 20,000’ new rail
creating 7 miles of double track with universal crossover in middle
Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)
$ 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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
(2007 UP Capacity Plan)
Gasconade Bridge
Universal Crossover
at MP 90.5
Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006) $ 21.0 Mil
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Project Description:
» Construct LH crossover completing universal crossover at Webster-MP
10.75
Complete Webster Crossover
Jefferson City Subdivision
(2006 UP Capacity Plan)
15 10 5
Kirk Jct. Webster Maplewood
MP 6.9
20
Keefer Creek MP 20.8
14 miles between existing crossovers
Crossover
Removed
Missouri Rail Analysis
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.
Missouri Rail Analysis
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)
Missouri Rail Analysis
27
Sedalia Subdivision
Alternatives
S1 - Extend California Siding
S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding
S3 - Connect Strasburg &
Pleasant Hill
S4 - Extend California &
Extend Strasburg Sidings
S5 - Extend California Siding
& Connect Strasburg &
Pleasant Hill Sidings
Jefferson City Subdivision
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
28
Sedalia Subdivision
Alternatives
S1 - Extend California Siding
S2 - Extend Strasburg Siding
S3 - Connect Strasburg to
Pleasant Hill Sidings
S4 - Extend California &
Extend Strasburg Sidings
S5 - Extend California Siding
& Connect Strasburg to
Pleasant Hill Sidings
Jefferson City Subdivision
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
Alternative Analysis (2007)
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Alternative Analysis (2007)
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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 ($9.7M)
Missouri Rail Analysis
33
Overall % Reduction
in Delay
Union
Pacific Amtrak
1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding 30.9% 42.2%
2 – Kirkwood Universal Crossover 32.9% 19.3%
3 – Osage River Bridge 36.8% 17.9%
4 – Projects 2, 3 combined 43.7% 23.3%
5 – Projects 1, 2, 3 combined 58.5% 44.7%
6 – Build Kingsville Siding 26.5% 24.0%
7 – Herman Universal Crossover 19.9% 17.4%
8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson City Yard 25.5% 11.4%
9 – Track/Control to Increase Amtrak Speed 50.8% 72.9%
Alternative Analysis (2009) Simulation Results
(Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to:
Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges)
Missouri Rail Analysis
34
1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding
2 – Kirkwood Universal
Crossover
3 – Osage River Bridge
4 – Projects 2 & 3 combined
5 – Projects 1, 2, & 3 combined
6 – Build Kingsville Siding
7 – Herman Universal
Crossover
8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson
City Yard
9 – Track/Control to Increase
Amtrak Speed
Alternative Analysis (2009)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Union Pacific Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($M)
1
7
8
9
2
3
5
% D
elay
$ Millions
6
4
Missouri Rail Analysis
35
Alternative Analysis (2009)
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Alternative Analysis (2009)
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Jefferson City Subdivision
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
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
Missouri Rail Analysis
Missouri Rail Analysis
40