• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble
 

MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble

on

  • 221 views

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

MATC 2012 Fall Lecture Series

Statistics

Views

Total Views
221
Views on SlideShare
221
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble MATC Fall Lecture Series: Jim Noble Presentation Transcript

    • Missouri Rail Analysis Missouri Freight and Passenger Rail Analysis James Noble, PhD, PE Charles Nemmers, PE Sean Carr, Stella Zhang, and Andres GomezCenter 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 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail SystemThe Rebirth of Rail …. ….Key Realities• Infrastructure Expansion• More Energy Efficient• High Intermodal Growth• At MAX Capacity
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System Fuel Prices…. U.S. No 2 Diesel Retail Prices ($/gal)6543210 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System Historic Domestic Oriented Networks…. ….vs. New Import Oriented Networks
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System 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-miles480 Rail System Performance440400360 • Growing Volume320 • Growing congestion280 – Slower Trains240 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Trends Influencing the U.S. Rail System Rail Congestion Train Volumes compared to Corridor CapacitySource: 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 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Scope 11
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Union Pacific System Map 12
    • Missouri Rail Analysis 13
    • Missouri Rail Analysis System Analysis 2005 Amtrak On-time Data301/311/303/313 (Westbound) STL Departure JEF Departure KCY ArrivalOn-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 33.1304/314/306/316 (Eastbound) KCY Departure JEF Departure STL ArrivalOn-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 Delay3.0% 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis System Analysis 2005, 2008, 2009 (Q1, Q2) Amtrak Total Delay60.0%50.0%40.0% 200530.0% 200820.0% 200910.0% 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 PTIFTI (Freight Train Interference = 52.7%) has the highest percentage of delay minutesDSR (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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis 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% KWDExtend 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 sidingProject Description: Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)• Build a 5000’ extension on the west of current 3500’ California $ 2.5 Mil sidingAdvantages: 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 Missouri Rail Analysis Sedalia Subdivision 245 244 243 242 241 240 Prv Rds MO Rt E new sidingProject Description: Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)• Extend current 5,000’ Strasburg siding 4,500’ west $ 2.0 MilAdvantages: 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 Missouri Rail Analysis Sedalia Subdivision 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 242 MO Rt E new sidingProject Description: Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)• Connect Pleasant Hill and Strasburg sidings with 20,000’ new rail $ 10.5 Mil creating 7 miles of double track with universal crossover in middleAdvantages: 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 116.80Project Description: Estimated Project Cost (HW 2007)Construct new bridge of same span type and arrangement as existing bridge $ 28.0 MilAdvantages 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 Missouri Rail Analysis Jefferson City Subdivision (2007 UP Capacity Plan) 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 2002Benefits:» 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 Missouri Rail Analysis Jefferson City Subdivision (2006 UP Capacity Plan) Crossover 20 15 10 5 RemovedKeefer Creek Webster Maplewood MP 20.8 Kirk Jct. MP 6.9 14 miles between existing crossoversProject Description:» Construct LH crossover completing universal crossover at Webster-MP Estimated Project Cost (UP 2006) 10.75 $ 2.5 MilBenefits:• 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis 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 oKa 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 oK 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 dnA m t r a k A m t r a k W ool r i ge d dD 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 0Freight 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 SubdivisionModeled using ARENA, a product of Rockwell Software. Sedalia SubdivisionIn Cooperation with MODOT, Amtrak, and Union Pacific Jefferson City Subdivision 25
    • Missouri Rail Analysis 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2007) 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2007) 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 Pleasant Hill Sidings% Delay S1 S4 - Extend California & 15 Extend Strasburg Sidings S4 S3 S5 - Extend California Siding 10 S2 J1 & Connect Strasburg to Pleasant Hill Sidings 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2007) % UP % Amtrak Delay Delay Savings / Savings / $M $M Cost in MillionsSedalia 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 13Jefferson 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Recommendations (2007)1. (S1) Extend California Siding- Alternative 2 Project cost estimate = $4 million2. (S3/S5) Connect Strasburg & Pleasant Hill Sidings Project cost estimate = $10.5 million3. (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
    • 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 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% KWDKingsville Siding ($11.55M) Hermann Extend Knob Noster Siding 3rd Main Crossover Webster ($8.5M) ($5.2M) JC Yard Crossover ($9.7M) ($4.4M) (#% of Total Amtrak Delay – 2008 data) 32
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2009) Simulation Results Overall % Reduction in Delay Union Pacific Amtrak 1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding 30.9% 42.2% 2 – Kirkwood Universal Crossover 32.9% 19.3% 3 – Osage River Bridge 36.8% 17.9% 4 – Projects 2, 3 combined 43.7% 23.3% 5 – Projects 1, 2, 3 combined 58.5% 44.7% 6 – Build Kingsville Siding 26.5% 24.0% 7 – Herman Universal Crossover 19.9% 17.4% 8 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson City Yard 25.5% 11.4% 9 – Track/Control to Increase Amtrak Speed 50.8% 72.9% (Note: Overall % Reduction in Delay relative to: Double Tracking Lee Summit to Jefferson City and Osage/Gasconade Bridges) 33
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2009) Union Pacific Percentage Delay Reduction vs. Cost ($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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2009) 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
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Alternative Analysis (2009) % UP % Amtrak Delay Delay Savings / Savings / $M $M Cost in Millions1 – Extend Knob Noster Siding 3.6% 4.9% 8.52 – Kirkwood Universal Crossover 7.4% 4.4% 4.43 – Osage River Bridge 1.1% 0.5% 33.84 – Projects 2, 3 combined 1.1% 0.6% 38.25 – Projects 1, 2, 3 combined 1.2% 0.9% 46.76 – Build Kingsville Siding 2.3% 2.1% 11.57 – Herman Universal Crossover 3.8% 3.3% 5.28 – 3rd Mainline in Jefferson City Yard 2.6% 1.1% 9.79 – Track/Control to Increase Amtrak Speed 0.9% 1.3% 56.6 Note: objective is to maximize the Delay Savings / $M 36
    • Missouri Rail Analysis Recommendations (2009)Sedalia Subdivision1. Extend Knob Noster Siding Project cost estimate = $8.5 million2. Build Kingsville Siding Project cost estimate = $11.5 millionJefferson City Subdivision1. 2nd Mainline on Osage Bridge Project cost estimate = $33.8 million2. Install Kirkwood Universal Crossover Project cost estimate = $4.4 million3. Install Herman Universal Crossover Project cost estimate = $5.2 million 37
    • 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 Pacifics 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