Aurizon Holdings Limited (AZJ) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, and welcome to the 2023 full year results. We're in Brisbane today. Therefore, I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Turrbal and Jagera people. And pay my respects to the elders past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Aboriginal Australia. We must always remember that under the ballast, sleepers, or rail systems and office buildings where Aurizon does business was and always will be traditional Aboriginal land. I'm joined on the call by the CFO, George Lippiatt, and the rest of the Group Executive Team. We will shortly go through the presentation that we launched with the ASX this morning, which is also available on our website. As usual, at the end of the presentation, we will take questions. Turning to safety performance. A 2% improvement was recorded for the total recordable injury frequency rate, and a 2% improvement in equivalent lost time measure. The potential serious injury and fatality frequency rate was introduced this year to more accurately represent our business as it grows beyond rail. A reminder that this measure shows the number of events as represented per million hours worked that had the potential to cause or did cause a serious injury or fatality. We have recorded a significant improvement of 56% in this measure compared to the prior year. As noted at the first half results, we re-categorized 23 incidents in 2022, resulting in a restatement of the outcome as shown on the slide. Both metrics exclude Bulk Central as we transition processes and systems from the acquired business to the group with consolidated reporting from this year. In terms of risk, level crossings remain one of the areas of most concern for the rail industry and we continue our efforts to improve safety through education and engineering solutions. For example, in the 12 months to July, motor vehicles collided with our trains at level crossings on 11 occasions, with 6 of these occurring in the final 5 weeks of that period. It is fortunate that none of our train drivers have been killed or critically injured in these collisions. We understand, however, the lasting trauma that near misses and collisions can have on our drivers and on our recovery crews. There is already a range of measures to support level crossing safety, but we are determined to work with the community to do more to protect our drivers. We are working across 3 broad areas; engineering and technical, advocacy with regulators and government and education and awareness. As always, our focus remains on protecting our employees, our customers and the communities in which we operate. Before going into the results, I want to revisit the key messages from the Investor Day we held in Darwin last month. Aurizon has continued to build upon our position as Australia's leading integrated rail provider. We have an operational footprint that covers Mainland Australia as well as holding the largest fleet of locomotives and wagons. In recent years, we have significantly increased our exposure to non-coal commodities through new contracts with customers such as CBH and Centrex in addition to the One Rail acquisition. The investments we are making in standard gauge locomotives and container wagons support the growth opportunities for the Bulk business unit. This rolling stock is generally able to be deployed across the 18,000 kilometers of standard gauge track in Australia as we continue to diversify our geographic and commodity exposure. We took the opportunity to update our strategic aims, building upon what was introduced at Investor Day 2 years earlier. As shown on the next slide, this strategy is largely unchanged, although we lifted our aspirations in bulk and have added a new growth stream in containerized freight. The resilience of our highly disciplined network and coal businesses is unchanged, with a stable cash-generative platform supporting our growth aspirations. We have strengthened our bulk growth aspirations, driven by an increase in the estimated addressable bulk market, and more importantly, a greater aspirational market share of 25% to 30%, largely attributable to our exposure to Central Australia growth opportunities. We have introduced our aspirations for containerized freight of 500,000 TEUs on the back of our national interstate network and our integrated Bulk Central operations. In addition and while we held our Investor Day in Darwin, we shared our land-bridging concept. The land-bridging concept is, of course, not new, with the successful application in Europe and North America. And in the Australian context, the use of the Central Corridor for land-bridging was part of the original plans when the Alice Springs to Darwin line was constructed 20 years ago. So what is different now? From a volume perspective, container traffic at major Australian ports has doubled in the last 20 years to 8 million TEUs. Over the same period, there have been expansions at key ports, but the ability to continually extend operations to meet demand is likely to be challenged as is the development of new ports in major cities. Furthermore, no single entity and definitely not in the prime Darwin to Tarcoola corridor has had that rail infrastructure and capacity of Aurizon today to offer such a solution, including direct access to the port of Darwin. The previous owner of the concession saw no need to operate at the port with the concession subleased. We will operate at the port upon the delivery of mobile harbor cranes later in the year. So what does our land-bridging solution offer? From a cost perspective, the Darwin land-bridging solution requires less vessel sailing time when compared to delivery to all major Australian city ports. The distance between Shanghai and Darwin is half that of Shanghai-Melbourne. Aurizon's Berrimah terminal adjoins the port and therefore, limits costs and the transfer of containers between a ship and a train. Finally, delivery to rail terminals is generally in the outer suburbs of major cities, reducing the distance and cost of delivery to nearby distribution centers. From a value perspective, our proposed supply chain is estimated at 7 days or 40% quicker for the same Shanghai-Melbourne example when compared against current sea freight. In addition, shipping fleet capacity is released given the shorter sailing distance to Darwin compared to other ports. I remain absolutely convinced of the opportunity in front of us, particularly when combined with the considered staged approach to capacity we are taking. Limited additional rolling stock is required for Stage 1, and it is the exact same rolling stock that we currently use across bulk and containerized freight. Stage 1 is aspiring for 100,000 TEUs per annum, a reminder again that the total TEUs at major ports is 8 million per annum. To date, we have 2 MOUs in operation. And with that concept now in the public domain, the level of discussion with global shippers and beneficial freight owners has ramped up considerably. Rather than simply hearing about our strategic aims, the next slide shows our progress today. This slide shows the resilience of coal and network, bulk growth including the step-up this year, driven by both existing operations in the One Rail acquisition, our progress against the 500,000 TEU aspiration, including the contribution of Bulk Central and our first national interstate volumes and finally, the effective growth in bulk and containerized freight, resulting in our reducing share of thermal coal revenue. Now turning to the results. As noted at the first half results, wet weather has impacted our Coal Network and Bulk East operations, negating the uplift in earnings from the inclusion of 11 months of Bulk Central. Bulk volumes were 34% higher, again, driven by Bulk Central but also national grain volumes and the contribution of newer contracts such as Centrex and Tronox. Lower EBITDA and the One Rail acquisition has impacted ROIC this year, but this will improve in the future as earnings continue to grow. Free cash flow from continuing operations decreased by 61%. This was driven by higher CapEx supporting bulk growth in our Queensland regulated network, an increase in tax payments and working capital movements. George will spend some time going through the detail of the cash flow in a moment. Although recognizing a challenging year for Coal and Network volumes, the early results of Bulk investment can be seen with increased share of revenue, extending to 45% of the group excluding Network. A final dividend declared of AUD 0.08 per share maintains the payout ratio at 75%, which we believe is appropriate given the investment cycle we are currently in. This takes the total dividend for the year to AUD 0.15. Moving to our business units. A 5% reduction in coal volumes has driven a reduction in revenue and at the same time, higher non-pass-through access costs that George will speak to shortly. Outside of this, other operating costs increased by 5%, with fuel a key contributor in addition to general cost escalation in wages and materials. Yield, excluding fuel, increased as a result of CPI-linked price escalation, partly offset by the end of previously advised higher-yielding contracts. Importantly, it has been a busy year with new contracts signed, including a 10-year contract for the Maxwell Mine in the Hunter Valley, a 5-year contract for the New Wilkie Mine in South Queensland -- Southeast Queensland, a 5-year contract for the Tahmoor Mine in the Illawarra coal region and a BMA rail maintenance contract that commenced in June. We're also expecting first coal to be railed for Olive Downs in this financial year. Bulk has seen a step-up in earnings from the One Rail acquisition, but partially offset by the impact of wet weather, supply chain disruptions and customer-specific production issues, with much of this in the first half of the financial year. Bulk also signed a number of new contracts across a diverse selection of regions in commodities. The contracts cover a mix of supply chain solutions and have a duration of up to 6 years. We've spoken about the growth platform that has been set for bulk, and the contract book we have announced today provides evidence of this success. Turning to Bulk Central. We're now at 12 months of ownership, and the Bulk leadership team has focused on establishing the growth platform that is already in place across the rest of Bulk. As such, the commercial activity to date has been with contract extensions. The next phase is, of course growth, and I look forward to updating the market in due course. Network volumes were below the regulatory forecast, resulting in an under-recovery of allowable revenue and triggered revenue protection mechanisms, including take-or-pay of AUD 76 million. A further AUD 21 million of revenue will be recovered in 2 years' time. Network EBITDA growth is expected in 2024, driven by AUD 125 million increase in allowable revenue as a result of the uplift in the preliminary WACC and the reset of the asset base. A submission was made to the Queensland Competition Authority in July, with a proposed final reset WACC of 8.51% to apply through to the end of UT5 in 2027. This compares with 6.3% that applied up until June 2023, and a preliminary WACC of 8.18% used in FY '24 tariffs. Finally, to containerized freight, where we are now operating 2 weekly national interstate services in addition to our Central Corridor services, with almost 100,000 TEUs transported during the year. From our announcement in February, I'm pleased by the progress to date in standing up capacity. We've begun railing spot volumes for a second customer for national interstate. And I look forward to the full schedule being in operation in April. On that, I will hand over to George.

Thank you, Andrew, and good morning to those joining us on the call. These results are characterized by 2 major themes. Firstly, a recovery across all key financial metrics in the second half after a weather-impacted first half and secondly, investments in One Rail and equipment as outlined at the recent Investor Day. This meant higher depreciation and interest costs during the year, but will provide benefits as we utilize the capacity in future periods. As you can see on the table, underlying EBITDA declined 3% to AUD 1.428 billion. However, I note the second half was up around 12% on the first due to take-or-pay being booked and improved volumes across all business units. The change in full-year EBITDA was driven by an increase in network and bulk earnings, being more than offset by the adverse impact of lower volumes in Coal and start-up costs for containerized freight captured in other. The prior period also included the benefit of the divestment of the Rockhampton workshops and tax benefit from the Aquila sale. As noted on this page, we have also recognized a AUD15 million long service leave provision adjustment as a result of a legislative change impacting a period prior to the IPO. Aligned with an uplift in revenue, the inclusion of Bulk Central has also driven an increase in operating costs. The other main contributor to operating cost increases is fuel and energy costs, which increased across all business units and is mostly passed through. Staying at a group level, you can see in the table that depreciation increased 13%, again, driven by Bulk Central and investments made in support of bulk and containerized freight. We expect a further, albeit, much smaller step up in depreciation in FY '24. You can see interest costs outlined in the table. The increase was largely due to a higher debt balance to fund acquisitions and new equipment, with interest rates being a smaller contributor to the step up as we had pre-existing hedges in place for FY '23. As foreshadowed at the first half results, free cash flow was materially lower for the year. In addition to the change in EBITDA, this reflects higher capital investments and increased interest costs as well as a number of one-off or timing impacts, which we expect to reverse out in FY '24 as I will cover on a later slide. A final dividend of AUD 0.08 per share has been declared, bringing the total for the year to AUD 0.15 per share and representing a payout ratio of 75%. The dividend is to be franked at 60%, with this franking amount reflecting our expectation of paying lower cash taxes in FY '24, and therefore, having fewer franking credits to distribute. Moving now to Coal. The result for coal highlights the volume impact of prolonged wet weather and abnormally high non-pass through access take-or-pay costs. Turning to the bridge. EBITDA at the far right was AUD 455 million for the year, a decrease of 16% against the prior period. The first and largest impact was from volumes, which accounted for AUD 52 million or 60% of the EBITDA reduction. As mentioned at the first half results, we witnessed high levels of rainfall and it occurred over a prolonged period of time, meaning that our Coal customers and Network operators found it difficult to recover their operations at a time of labor shortfalls. The second red bar on the bridge is net take-or-pay, which was unfavorable against the prior period by AUD 28 million. In addition to wet weather impacts, volume was further impacted by a third-party derailment in late January, which saw the Blackwater corridor closed for almost 2 weeks. This contributed to higher non-pass through take-or-pay costs. As we have highlighted previously, commercial arrangements for customers vary and this take-or-pay feature has been in place for several years with a small number of customers. The last bar I'll touch on is operating costs, which increased AUD 13 million against the prior period when fuel and access costs are excluded. The increase represents a 2% uplift, which is a good result in a higher inflationary environment. We've also taken significant steps during the year, which provide operating cost certainty in future periods, including the commencement of TrainGuard, with the first driver-only operation successfully commencing in July 2023 as well as the agreement of Coal Queensland EAs at 4% to 5% for year 1, and inflation for years 2 to 4 with a floor at 3% and the ceiling at 4%. It was a challenging 12 months for coal. However, we did see a recovery in performance in the second half. For example, if the net take-or-pay of AUD 28 million is excluded, coal EBITDA improved 10% or AUD 23 million compared with the first half. And that's despite the third-party derailment in January, blocking Coal traffic in Central Queensland for 2 weeks. Looking forward to FY '24, we are expecting volumes to increase and the benefits from CPI contract resets to flow through, driving a strong improvement in coal earnings. Moving to Bulk. Bulk EBITDA increased to AUD 214 million, an uplift of AUD 79 million or 59%. This reflects the first 11 months of the new Bulk Central business and higher earnings from the WA operations, partly offset by lower earnings on the East Coast. For those with a keen eye, you will notice we've restated FY '22 Bulk EBITDA from AUD 130 million to AUD 135 million. This is due to the transfer of our third-party rail welding and infrastructure services area to Bulk, noting that it's adding other during FY '21 and '22. Revenue in Bulk was 52% higher, driven by the inclusion of Bulk Central as well as higher iron ore and grain volumes in WA. In terms of operating costs, this was AUD 849 million or 50% higher. However, similar to Coal, when excluding fuel and access costs, which are largely a pass-through, operating costs were up AUD 260 million as you can see on the bridge. This mainly reflects the new Bulk Central business, wage and materials escalation and the build of train crew capacity in the Bulk business in anticipation of higher future volumes. Our performance expectations for Bulk for the year were not met due to derailment and weather impacts in Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory as well as slower ramp-up of 2 key growth customers. It was encouraging, however, the Bulk second half EBITDA stepped up to AUD 114 million and that the fourth quarter was particularly strong. Looking forward, we expect higher revenue and EBITDA in FY '24, driven by increased volumes and the full-year inclusion of Bulk Central, including full realization of targeted synergies. Moving to Network. Network EBITDA increased AUD 12 million or 1% to AUD 813 million for the year. This outcome is despite railed volumes being 19 million tonnes or 8% below the regulatory forecast, once again highlighting the revenue protection mechanisms of our Network business. I'll turn now to the bridge, which is shown, net of fuel and electricity charges. That's done due to these charges being a pass-through to Network's customers. As you can see on the bridge, access revenue was AUD 19 million higher. This largely relates to higher allowable revenue and lower net under-recovery compared with FY '22. You may recall that at the half, we expected a AUD 100 million under-recovery due to a reduction in railings compared to the regulatory assumption, with AUD 60 million of that to be recovered via take-or-pay. The final outcome was AUD 97 million under-recovery, excluding GAPE, with take-or-pay triggering in 2 of the 4 main CQCN systems and the booking of AUD 76 million of non-GAPE take-or-pay in 2023. The remaining AUD 21 million is the net under-recovery and will be a part of the usual true-up in 2 years' time and be reflected in the FY '25 revenue cap. The second green bar shows other revenue, which was AUD 23 million higher as a result of external construction works, with associated operating costs on the bar to the right. Higher energy connection costs also contributed to the increase in costs. To assist you to model future years for Network, we've included a detailed maximum allowable revenue or MAR breakdown for FY '24, '25, '26 and '27 at Page 47. This shows the FY '24 MAR, excluding GAPE, will increase to AUD 1.088 billion before stepping up again in FY '25 to AUD 1.125 billion. That figure excludes the expected AUD 27 million rev cap from FY '23, which, if included, would take the FY '25 MAR to AUD 1.15 billion. This means the MAR has stepped up by AUD 125 million in FY '24 before stepping up a further AUD 35 million for FY '25 or a AUD 60 million step up for FY '25 if the revenue cap is included. Looking forward, the regulatory assumption of 208 million tonnes for FY '24 is far more aligned to current volumes and puts us in a better position to fully recover allowable revenue in the year ahead after having under-recovered for a number of years. Turning to free cash flow. We've dedicated a single slide to this topic because there are a number of one-offs and timing-related drivers behind the decline in free cash flow. Free cash flow excluding growth CapEx was AUD 297 million for the year, which is down by AUD 468 million. Working left to right, and the first item shown is one I spoke to earlier, which is the AUD 39 million reduction in group EBITDA for the year. The second item is working capital, which was AUD 102 million unfavorable. This is due to the inclusion of Bulk Central in FY '23 as well as lower cash receipts in Network due to take-or-pay. Take-or-pay is booked in June, but not collected from a cash perspective until the following year. In this case, FY '23 take-or-pay was materially higher than FY '22 and we're expecting around AUD 70 million of net take-or-pay to be received in the coming months. The third bar across is sustaining CapEx, which increased from a cash perspective by AUD 127 million. This was driven by the addition of Bulk Central as well as escalation impacts across the business. The next item across on the bridge is an adverse cash tax movement of AUD 118 million against the prior period. That prior period included the one-off cash tax benefit from the Aquila sale, and we've seen higher tax installment rates for '23. Due to the installment rates as well as accelerated depreciation of One Rail assets and the benefits of temporary full expensing from recent equipment purchases, we're expecting a cash tax refund of around AUD 100 million in the second half of FY '24. Interest costs were also higher by AUD 82 million, reflecting higher interest rates and additional debt to fund the One Rail acquisition and Bulk equipment purchases. This then arrives at AUD 297 million. As you can tell from the nature of the items in this bridge, we are expecting free cash flow to be materially higher in FY '24, with higher interest costs being more than offset by higher earnings, lower cash tax and receipt of FY '23 take-or-pay. Turning to CapEx. CapEx for the year was AUD 770 million, with AUD 212 million of that for growth CapEx. In terms of sustaining or non-growth CapEx, it increased AUD 121 million to AUD 558 million in FY '23. In terms of the 2 major drivers of this increase, firstly, we expanded the footprint of our business with the inclusion of Bulk Central and several port terminal operations resulting in a AUD 30 million sustaining CapEx increase for FY '23. Secondly for Network, we've seen escalation of materials and contracted rates in addition to FY '22 track work being delayed and pushed into FY '23. As a result, Network represented about half of the sustaining CapEx increase and 59% of total FY '23 sustaining CapEx. Looking forward, we are expecting an uplift in FY '24 sustaining CapEx to AUD 600 million to AUD 660 million, with AUD 40 million of that capital for transformation such as the TrainGuard rollout in FY '24 and more than half of the spend is attributable to Network, therefore, expected to roll into the regulated asset base. We expect growth CapEx for FY '24 to be in the range of AUD 250 million to AUD 300 million, predominantly for fungible equipment that can be used across different geographies, as I will talk to on the following slide. You may recall from first half results, we presented a slide showing the key growth capital projects supporting Bulk growth. This profile was subsequently updated when we announced the TGE contract and the standup of that containerized freight business shortly after results. At Investor Day in Darwin, we also introduced the land-bridging concept with a small incremental investment. Both the historical and expected FY '24 investments for Bulk and containerized freight are shown on this page. You can see that the majority of growth capital relates to standard gauge rolling stock, and port and terminal equipment that can be used across multiple commodities and freight types across Australia. I'd also comment that the additional locomotives and wagons being bought represent additions of 4% and 3%, respectively, to our existing fleet. As outlined in Darwin, around AUD 425 million of growth capital in total is expected to be initially allocated to containerized freight, including Stage 1 of land-bridging. Growth CapEx across all business units beyond this is likely dependent on new contracts or the successful delivery of containerized freight earnings. Moving now to funding. Our treasury team have also been busy on the Aurizon debt profile, with over AUD 2.4 billion of bank refinancing and debt capital market issuances. This continues to highlight the support we received from Australian and overseas banks as well as institutional debt investors. For Aurizon Network, funding activity consisted of issuance of AUD 100 million of new 10-year and 12-year private placements following reverse inquiries from Asian-based investors, refinancing of AUD 1 billion of Network bank debt facilities across 3-, 4- and 5-year tenors and a debut US private placement issuance of AUD 306 million across tenors of 10 years and 12 years. While for Aurizon operations, funding activity included a AUD 465 million refinancing of existing bank debt facilities with maturities lengthened to FY '27. And a debut US private placement issuance of AUD 503 million across 7, 10, 11 and 12-year tenors, with funds used to repay debt sourced as part of the One Rail acquisition. These recent funding outcomes are shown in green on the chart on the bottom right side of this slide. The long-term funding strategy remains unchanged. That is to ensure we access multiple pools of capital and lengthen debt maturity to align it with Aurizon's long-duration assets. Looking at some of the metrics on the page. I note the weighted average cost of drawn debt at 4.1%, which reflects a high fixed portion of Network debt through FY '23. For the year ahead, we've now hedged a large portion of Network debt to June 2027, aligned with the June averaging period on the WACC reset. This means the benefit of the WACC uplift in Network will be partially offset by an increase in group interest cost to around AUD 300 million in FY '24, noting the final cost will be dependent on timing of cash receipts and debt refinancings. We also saw group gearing increase to 53.7% during the year, a reflection of the debt utilized for the One Rail acquisition and recent equipment purchases. Despite that increase, with the trade sale of East Coast Rail and holding the dividend at a payout ratio of 75% in FY '24, we no longer plan the issuance of a hybrid. Importantly, we maintain a commitment to strong investment-grade ratings with Aurizon operations and Aurizon Network's credit ratings, both at BBB+, Baa1. Finally, I'll say in closing that while this year didn't deliver the intended financial performance due to the challenges outlined, we continued to deliver on our strategy, cost control and inflation-linked earnings in Coal, Bulk and Network and investments across the supply chain to meet the demand from containerized freight customers and the expected uplift in Australian Bulk commodity exports. Thank you. And I'll now hand back to Andrew.

Thanks, George. Aligned with guidance provided at Investor Day, we are guiding to a step up in earnings in FY '24 with an EBITDA of AUD 1.59 billion to AUD 1.68 billion. The top and bottom of this range is primarily driven by volumes across all business units, including and over or under-recovery of network volumes when compared to the regulatory assumption of 208 million tonnes. Network is supported by an uplift in the regulatory asset base to AUD 6.2 billion, and the preliminary reset WACC of 8.18% applying from 1 July, up from 6.3% in the year prior. Coal revenue and earnings are supported by the expectation of a recovery in volumes from existing and new customers in addition to CPI-linked contracts. Bulk revenue and earnings are supported by the expectation of higher volumes and activity in addition to the full-year contribution of Bulk Central. Finally, to containerized freight, which for this year will be reported in other. We are expecting EBITDA to be broadly neutral as we ramp up to the full schedule. As per our normal practice, we do not assume any material disruptions to supply chains such as extreme or prolonged weather or major derailments. Returning to what I said at the start of the presentation, Aurizon has continued to build upon our position as Australia's leading integrated rail provider with an operational footprint covering Mainland Australia and the largest fleet of locomotives and wagons. Aurizon is a strong and resilient business with a capital allocation framework that has seen AUD 5 billion return to the shareholders since 2016, while at the same time investing in Bulk and containerized freight. This investment has driven the uplift in our aspirations as presented at Investor Day. We're excited by what lies ahead for the business, including the land-bridging opportunity that has the potential to revolutionize supply chains in Australia. We look forward to delivering for investors both in 2024 and against our longer-term aspirations. With that, we will take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Andre Fromyhr from UBS.

Probably a question to George first. How -- to what extent would you add up some of the data that you provided in the press note to give a whole number for what you think of impacts in FY '23 from weather and from derailments? I see you've got minus 21 under-recovery at Network. You've given us AUD 52 million EBITDA impact on volumes in Coal. Is it fair to add those things together?

You take that one, Andrew?

Definitely, George.

Yes, Andre. I mean, you've got a few things you need to bear in mind. The first one is weather impacts. The second one is derailments. The third one is just customer production issues. What I'd probably say, if you look at weather and impacts on our above rail business and below rail business, in our Coal volumes, it's probably about 10 million tonnes. You then need to look through that as to the earnings impact. The good sign on Network is the one you've picked up, which is the under-recovery of AUD 21 million. We will, of course, get that back in 2 years' time. What we won't get back is the volumes we lost in our above rail Coal business. But that's why our earnings guidance in FY '24, as Andrew said, assumes no significant supply chain disruptions or prolonged wet weather.

Okay. Just one on the Bulk business. You've given some flags around new contracts that have been signed and those that have been extended. Can you talk a little bit about the -- you've talked about the term being up to 6 years, but what's the average contract term in the Bulk business? And what are the other sort of margin protections that you've got in those contracts like cost pass-throughs?

George, I might get you to talk a little bit about some of the cost pass-throughs and then Anna, I will get you to about contract wins and that sort of stuff?

Yes. Each of those contracts, Andre, have cost pass-throughs for a few at access. So there's nothing unusual about those. The other protection that you might be referring to is capacity charge or take-or-pay. Each of those contracts is different, but the general rule of thumb across our Bulk business when you look at it as a portfolio is around about 40% to 50% capacity charge or take-or-pay. So I hope that's the first part of your question. I might hand to Anna.

Okay. Thanks, George. Andre, in terms of the Bulk contract book, there is quite a lot of variety that we see across Bulk customers. And some of that comes down to commodity and some comes down to customer appetite and their actual means of production themselves. So we see anything from kind of 3-year out to 10-year terms across that contract book. Some even extending beyond that, but it really is on a customer-by-customer basis.

Okay. And then one last one from me, specifically about the contracts in the Coal business. We've seen in the period just gone, I guess, an increase in track access costs, with a decrease in track access recoveries. And George, I think you commented on the role of the derailment might have played in what's driving that. But I beg to just understand why that's not fully covered under your current contracts.

Ed, I might get you to handle that.

Yes. Thank you, Andrew. Thanks. Andre. Look, historically, we've carried some Network access take-or-pay risk in a small number of our haulage contracts. We find this strategic, and it's less than 10% of our book. Some customers requested, obviously, in exchange for trade in tariff risk tenor. It can be upside or downside depending on planning assumptions and actual railings. And in FY '23, we experienced, as you know, unprecedented low volumes in CQCN corridors, especially Blackwater. And this impacted by the weather and the major derailment, which had an effect, which you called out. So overall, the hauled volumes well below network regulated volumes and it went against us, don't expect it to eventuate again in FY '24.

Your next question comes from Matt Ryan from Barrenjoey.

My first question is just on the Bulk division and disclosure around the, I think, 7 new customers that you signed during the year. I was just curious to know about what that level of customer sign ups requires in regards to new train kits or CapEx. So obviously, you've disclosed the increased CapEx number for '24. How do we think about what's needed as you bring in a lot of the customers within that Bulk division?

Anna, I might get you to give some color on in response to that question.

Yes. No problem, Andrew. Thanks, Matt. So a lot of the additional volumes that we're looking at will come in as incremental depending on the corridors that they're operating on. But anything that does require additional capital will actually need to make that capital allocation framework that George talked about earlier. So realistically, on a case-by-case basis, we'll actually look at each opportunity, the region that it operates in and the returns that we can generate from it.

George, do you want to add something?

Yes. And Matt, probably what I'd add to that is a lot of the capital for those contracts was spent in FY '23. So if you look at our FY '23 growth CapEx, Bulk was more than AUD 100 million. Of it about AUD 130 million odd, we would expect lower bulk CapEx in FY '24, with more of the CapEx in FY '24 being driven by containerized freight. And so the reason I draw that out is it's a reflection that we invested with the confidence of the pipeline that Anna has spoken about before, and these opportunities are really realizing what we expected when we signed up for that capital. So these contracts just feel the capacity that we brought online or are bringing online.

Got it. And maybe a question for Ed. I think you've outlined a few contracts that you won in Coal, but I think the actual contracted coal volume number looks to be pretty flattish. So I might be stating the obvious, but does that sort of assume there was something in there that's gone away? And then just a question on utilization. It's been quite a long time since getting back towards that sort of 90% mark that we've spoken about in the past. Just anything structural in regards to why we couldn't get back to that sort of number in the '24 year?

I might take the second question first there, Matt. Nothing structural. And nothing other than what we've talked about in relation to the weather impact and the mining-related issues there and some labor tightness. And in relation to the first part of the question, then getting to the 90%, I had said this time last year, we'd expect it to get -- to see those sorts of volumes flow through. We are -- certainly, our customers, our collective customers this year are indicating, I expect full year volumes more in line with FY '21, and that is to, say, up about 10% on FY '23 volumes, which will put us closer to the 90% mark.

Matt, just a couple of things I'd add there. The thing that's negative on contract volumes in FY '24 is the Newlands mine closure. And effectively, that's being offset by the new contract wins that we've announced today. Just on your utilization point, the thing I'd underline is what Ed spoke of before, which is the Blackwater system. So while the overall Coal utilization was 80%, Blackwater was actually in the low 70%, which is wetter, but also that derailment that occurred in February. So both of those things, I don't think are structural.

Your next question comes from Jake Cakarnis from Jarden Australia.

Just the first one for Anna, if I could, please. Can you just commentate to the Bulk East performance through the second half of '23? Obviously, it was challenged in the first half. What gives you confidence that Bulk East can continue to improve into '24, please?

Yes. Thanks, Jake. I guess if I start with what gives me confidence, we know that we've got a strong business there and it's performed well before. To put, I guess, the weather and production impacts in Bulk case into context, the Queensland business lost over 81 days due to network closures across a number of weather events and 3 major derailments across their operations in FY '23. So that becomes a pretty challenging task to overcome in terms of lost volumes that you just simply can't catch up on. But yes, my position would be, as Andrew said, we don't plan for weather and disruption. We plan for delivering our customers' requirements as stated to us.

Okay. And then the second one, just for George. What was the motivation to tapping the USPP market this time around? Is it right in thinking that you haven't really accessed that market historically? I was just wondering why now for both ops and network?

Yes, no, it's a good question. It's diversity of funding sources really, Jake. So we haven't tapped that market for network or ops. It tends to be a long tenor market. So we think it's well suited to both network and ops, given their long-duration assets. It's also the case that the Aussie bond market tends to be a bit more fickle whereas the USPP market tends to be open more consistently. So we thought it was important to open that as a market to us. And from now on will be a follow-on issuer rather than a debut issuer. So that was the drivers.

Your next question comes from Justin Barratt from CLSA.

Just wanted to ask, within ORA -- or did ORA meet your expectations from a financial perspective in the first 12 months of ownership? I think you were targeting to get to about AUD 100 million of EBITDA over the first 12 months post acquisition.

George, I might get you to talk through that.

Sure. The short answer is it fell short, Justin. I mean, the first thing I'd say, though, is we only had it for 11 months. And so it's only 11 months reflected in this result. The second thing I'd say is much like Queensland, the Northern Territory weather worked against us and we had 2 derailments in the second half. And we also had a slower ramp-up of one growth customer. Probably the flow-on from that, though, is we absolutely expect One Rail to contribute AUD 100 million of EBITDA in FY '24.

Fantastic. And then maybe one for Ed. I just wanted to ask in relation to the lifting of the Chinese import ban on Australian coal. Just wanted to see if that end market had actually started taking some coal to a material extent and whether that was broadly in line with your expectations to this point?

Yes. Thanks, Justin. Yes, it was pleasing to see the first ship sail off to China in January, and we've certainly seen an uptick in demand from our customers, of course, as their end users. So at a portfolio level, we're certainly seeing good volume flowing through in the second quarter, which seems to be continuing to the first quarter.

Justin, I think if I just add, I think it's through the first ship sailing to the end of June, we saw 21.1 million tonnes of coal moved. 94% of that was thermal coal. Does that helps your calculations?

Yes. That's very, very clear.

Your next question comes from Anthony Moulder from Jefferies.

Can I start with Coal, please? You've got Olive Downs that are contributing sometime in '24. You've got the West Moreton mines that have come back. Obviously, Newlands is a negative drag to that. So are you seeing other mines that will get to end of mine that will drag down contracted volumes over the next little while, please?

Ed, do you want to paint a bit of a picture for the next little while?

Yes, for the next little while. In the appendices, we've got our sort of pie chart about contract in our pipeline. You can see that 21% of our contracted volume is contestable in the next 3 years. That gives you an insight. Most of that or 80% of that is -- expires in 2026. We're already working on those re-contracts. So does that answer your question, Anthony?

Well, I guess recontracting is fine because those mines are continuing, but you're starting to see mines coming to end of life that obviously wouldn't be recontracted from yourselves or others?

We're seeing -- other than Newlands, we're certainly -- there's certainly later in this decade, there'll be some mines that will probably end. Clermont particularly before the end of the decade, we expect. And other than that, and of course, we've got the Mount Arthur mine in Hunter Valley.

Yes, depending on when that closes, I guess. A question for George, if I could. Net interest cost obviously stepping up a lot in '24 to that AUD 300 million, obviously you've given 4.1%, I think, for '23, that's obviously going to be a lot higher for '24. But it sounded like the Building Blocks approach for network WACC is allowing you to recover some of those higher interest costs, but not all of that. Did I mishear that? And if I didn't, why is Building Blocks approach not allowing for a full recovery of network interest costs, please?

I think, Anthony, we'll effectively recover all of it, but they're through different mechanisms. So I mean maybe to start with interest costs, we're expecting FY '24 interest cost to be about AUD 300 million. Whether it's a bit less or a bit more will depend on the timing of when we do debt refinancings and whether we do them early in FY '24, ahead of the euro bonds that we've got coming due in FY '25 and '26. So that's on the interest cost line. In terms of the -- how that flows through to our network WACC, we've seen our WACC step up from 6.3% to 8.18% in FY '24. So that's a mass step up of AUD 125 million. We're also expecting it to step up a further AUD 60 million from FY '24 to '25, driven by the further WACC step up to 8.5% as well as the rev cap. So in all, in aggregate, that's about AUD 180 million of mass step up that we're expecting over that 2-year period. The other point I'd make is that our weighted average margin on our debt costs and network is pretty aligned with what we submitted to the regulator as our debt risk premium of about 2.5%. So hopefully, that gives you a bit more color.

And lastly, obviously, land-bridging was talked about in Darwin, which is probably a good soft launch for the service. Have you had any indications from freight forward to shippers that they would consider that? Or is it still too early days to start thinking about an earnings growth profile for land-bridging, please?

Thank you very much for the question. I'll do a little bit of a response on that, and I might ask Gareth to clean up anything that I get wrong. The thing that has surprised me since -- we were expecting when we made the announcement in Darwin and in since the idea becomes public that you would get a greater interest being received. And that is indeed what has happened. We're seeing interest across the full spectrum from large shipper to a small shipper, from specialists cargo, project cargo type people. The number of MAUs in discussion has gone up dramatically. And what I'm most delighted with is that one quote that I had was 5 days faster than Melbourne is gold, 7 days. It's what it is better than gold. So I'm -- I expected it. I'm delighted with what's happened today, but Gareth is living it every day, so I might just hand over to him to make a few comments.

I think you summarized it very well, Andrew. When we announced, we -- as Andrew said, we anticipated we'd get reaction from the individuals we were speaking to, but also beyond and that and certainly has been the case. Continue to approach it and are considered a cautious money in devaluating the options as we proceed. But yes, it's certainly been well received from the market.

Your next question comes from Sam Seow from Citi.

Just on coal, just noticed in the second half volumes were about 4% to 5% better, but looked like EBITDA declined in the second half there than first half. Just wondering if you can provide some color around the moving factors there.

George, I might get you to respond to that?

Yes. There's probably 2 things driving it. The first is that non-pass-through take-or-pay, which is unusual, as Ed touched on. But that was about a AUD 30 million impact to the second half because take-or-pay is only booked in June. So that would probably be the key one that drove the change half-on-half, which is why in my speech, Sam, when I look at the half-on-half, I back out that net take-or-pay. And if you do that, the EBITDA for coal improved half-on-half.

And just on contract utilization, just following up on some comments, current volumes has been 10% better. I think -- if you think back to pre, I guess, landing, you're expecting coal volumes nearly 25 million tonnes to 30 million tonnes higher on essentially the same [ to the tune of around ] 30 million tonnes contracted volumes. Just wondering if something has changed any underlying customer production behavior you'd called out since then?

Ed, do you want to help with that?

Yes. Thank you, Andrew. And thanks, Sam. Nothing structural, Sam. We're still -- we really -- the way we do our planning and budgeting is to listen to our customers and compile their orders for the year and what they expect to move. There's certainly some shifts in -- with new customers coming online, we're continuing to move the volume when it presents. So it's -- with a 230 million tonne contract headline, we -- as I said earlier, I think we will push -- we hope to hit closer to the 90% contract utilization this year and there's nothing stopping us moving beyond there when the coal shows up.

I think I'd just add, Sam, I think from an industry point of view, it just takes time for the system to ramp back up from your producers through the supply chain.

Your next question comes from Paul Butler from Credit Suisse.

I just wondered if you could give us some color on how you're seeing market conditions for contract bidding in the Bulk segment because you've obviously highlighted a number of contract wins in FY '23? What's the outlook for the opportunities going into '24?

Anna, I'll let you talk to that.

Thanks, Andrew, and thanks for the question, Paul. Yes, look, the bulk market is always fiercely competitive, no matter which region we're operating in. One of the things, I guess, that the Aurizon Bulk team are blessed with is an extraordinary footprint. And we absolutely are seeing the benefit of that connection of our east to west, north to south footprint across the entire country really coming into effect now. So yes, I think continuing to see difficult conditions and I would never say that we back it away, but we are certainly seeing ourselves compete really strongly with the addition of that gift of a strong footprint.

And if I could just ask a couple on network. Is there any sort of significant risk around the QCA approval of the 8.5% WACC? And if so, what -- any particular aspects of it?

Pam, can you talk through process and any risks that are attached to the process from here?

Thanks for the question, Paul. I think it's fair to say the only contentious issue if there was one to consider as part of the reset, it's DRP. Again, the risk is fairly small. It's quite a narrow range. And so that's probably the area that the QCA will consider. In terms of timing of the process, I think QCA hasn't actually communicated a timetable for the final decision. So I would expect this first half of FY '24 for a decision because we have already set prices for FY '24, there's actually no pressure to make a decision prior to that point.

And just one more on network. The regulatory volume forecast for FY '24 of basically 208 million tonnes. I mean that's pretty much in line with the volume last year. Whereas in past years, that forecast volumes tend to be a bit optimistic. I'm just -- so I'm just wondering what's driven that apparent change in the way the QCA is having a look at that forecast.

Yes. I mean, it's a process that we go through with the QCA. I mean obviously, remember the volumes are network. We have 4 operators and many customers. And the way we sort of set the volumes is looking back as well as looking forward. So some elements are quite mechanical and there's an element of judgment. But given the last 3 years, it made sense to set it at where it is now. Remember, the purpose of regulatory volumes is to purely recover the MAR not to over-recover not to under-recover. Again, things happen like weather, derailments, mine issues through the year. So again, you can't predict that number.

The other thing I'd add, Paul, just to reiterate is that the midpoint of our EBITDA guidance is based on that regulatory assumption of 208 million tonnes, which is a practice that we've consistently adopted over the last few years.

Your next question comes from Cameron McDonald from E&P.

Just a quick question on depreciation for George, if I can, before some other bulk questions. But -- so with the depreciation step-up of AUD 74 million this year, and you've said it's going up again next year, but by not the same amount, but yet you've got CapEx invested this year and next year also stepping up from the prior periods. So when you say it's going to go up, what sort of quantum should we be thinking about there in terms of that increase?

Yes, Cameron, I'm not going to get into the -- providing guidance on depreciation, but maybe this is a way to help you with it. So of that AUD 70-odd million step-up in depreciation from FY '22 to '23, a bit more than a majority of that, so call that AUD 40 million to AUD 50 million was due to One Rail depreciation. So that's not dependent on that growth CapEx that we called out in our presentation. And so if you back that out, then that gives you a step-up based on the rest of the CapEx profile. As I said, we are expecting a step up, but nothing like the step up we had from '22 to '23 because we're not acquiring another One Rail.

And then just in terms of the sort of bulk, you've talked about the potential requirement for CapEx expenditure to support that. What about OpEx? Like are you actually having to invest in capability from an OpEx perspective to support these contracts as they come through?

Anna, do you want to just take that one?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Cameron. So look, we've already talked about the investment that goes into creating those opportunities. But I think fundamentally, when we're looking at operating expenses, most of the time we're working through installed capacity. So adding stuff to the back of the train. It's the same operations requirements, running a shorter train is running a longer train for the most part. So we're always trying to maximize the amount of product that we're putting on each service and any sort of incremental growth just adds to the bottom line in that respect.

So not much in terms of OpEx. And then finally, Anna, while I've got you, how do you think about counterparty risk in your analysis of these customers? I mean, 6 months ago, you highlighted that you signed Aeris Resources. And I note that they've put themselves into care and maintenance on one of their major projects, and so it won't be hauling anything. So I mean, a lot of these companies that you're dealing with are significantly smaller with significantly less financial capability. How do you protect yourself from that when you're having to spend CapEx and potentially trucks, et cetera, to actually support these companies?

George, it might be worth you just talking through the general approach. I mean, it applies to all of our customers and not just the bulk comps.

Sure. So Cameron, whether it's a coal or a bulk customer, we look at the commodity and the end market for the commodity. We look at the counterparty in terms of their financial position, but also their background in mining and then we look at the specific cash flows and contract positions we're taking. Before I hand over to Anna, the thing I'd point out is that we have very much focused on putting in assets into our business that are fungible across customers. So whether that's locomotives or whether that's flatbed wagons, if you look across a lot of the customers that we've announced today, they can all be serviced with the same equipment. So while there could be a lead time to shift that equipment from one customer to another, it gives you a lot of operational flexibility.

Yes. Look, thanks, George. I think George has done a great job, Cameron of educating us on the thresholds and expectations that he has when I'm coming to him looking for investment in new opportunities. And the way he's described it is exactly as it is. We look at each additional opportunity and assess it on its merits and where we assess a risk to be higher on either of those functions, we'll actually make sure that we're working within the contract to ensure we're controlling for the risk.

And Cameron, I'd add that not only to George's point about the fungibility of the asset that we installed to actually haul the product, the reality is if a mining operation goes into care and maintenance, which is not an unusual sort of activity, it's happened for probably the life of mining. And if you look in our coal business or to look at a non-bulk example, when coal assets shut down regularly from time to time, they start up again. So as long as the asset -- the minerals in the ground at some point in time, it will find its way to the marketplace. So in a sense, it's a timing, it might be several years of timing, but it's a timing issue.

Your next question comes from Owen Birrell from RBC.

Just a couple of questions for me. The first one on network take-or-pay, I just wanted to confirm, in the network accounts talks to AUD 100 million of take-or-pay to be taken during the period, whereas in the press note, it's about AUD 76 million. I just wanted to confirm what the difference between those 2 numbers were? And also just in terms of the structuring of that take-or-pay agreement, is that -- I noticed you say that the volumes are only down 8% versus regulatory. Is regulatory the mark that the take-or-pay is measured against and what are the trigger points?

Pam, I might get you to talk through that network issue.

Yes. Thanks for the question. With regard to the trigger points, there are a number of trigger points and it's done at the sort of mine sort of level. It includes things like FM or cancellations by network. So there's actually more complicated than just looking at the pure tonnage and we look at eGTK and GTK. So the calculation is quite a formula we follow, but not as simple as just looking at the tonnes year-on-year. And then...

Just to confirm, that's done on a year-on-year basis, not a monthly basis?

Yes, that's correct, correct. So that's why we sort of book it at the end of the year because it can change as we go through the year depending on how each mine is operating.

And in terms of the discrepancy of the numbers that were quoted?

Yes, I can cover that one. The difference is GAPE. So AUD 76 million of take-or-pay relates to 2 of the 4 major systems, that's ex-GAPE. There's AUD 24 million of GAPE take-or-pay. That's the difference between the AUD 176 million.

That clarifies that. And in terms of the actual -- I mean, as I said, it was sort of -- I know it's sort of calculated at the mine level, but is that mine level calculation versus what the regulatory assumption is at that mine level? Or is it -- is there a different...

The key is the regulatory volumes compared to what is actually railed and then you look at other things like FM and cancellations, et cetera.

And just a second question for me for Anna. Looking at the -- I guess, the bulk's opportunity going forward, a lot was made around the road-to-rail conversion that you guys are kind of expecting to emerge through to 2030. I'm wondering if you're able to quantify what the market opportunity is that you're seeing ahead of you, not in terms of what you think you're going to get. But what is the size of the opportunity out to 2030, noting that you've delivered 68 million tonnes in FY '23. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the runway is.

Yes, sure. Thanks, Owen. So when Andrew talked earlier in the presentation about our restated bulk aspiration, that AUD 1.7 billion market sizing was based on what we call kind of the sweet spot in bulk, so end-to-end customer requirements. So that includes the rail center but also the diversification of service offering is included in the restatement. And then we've given you a good guidance on how much of that we're going after with our bulk aspiration in the 25% to 30% mark.

In terms of the tonnage, you're not sort of drawn on that because it sort of gives us a sense of what types of tonnage you're going to be picking up?

Owen, I don't think we've talked tonnage. But if you got your ruler out and looked at that pie chart that we presented at Investor Day, you get to about 1/3 of that profit pool is road. More is rail, but about 1/3 is road.

Your next question comes from Reinhardt van der Walt from Bank of America.

First one, maybe for Ed, it's been a pretty active year for new coal contract wins. Can you maybe just give us a bit of color around what you saw on the competitive dynamics, specifically on pricing and whether you think we may be looking at a period now of yield improvement after the negative role of a couple of years?

Thank you for the question, Reinhardt and hello. So there's a couple of questions in there. In terms of yield improvement, I think prices have stabilized in the recent negotiations, we've seen certainly acceptable and above threshold returns. On a competitive dynamic or market, we were always alert to the risk not alarmed and keep focused on what we can control. We did a little bit today, we can recontract tomorrow. We have a solid contract book. Haulage capacity, in my view, is constrained at a macro level, especially in CQCN. So no structural shift in surplus capacity. And we're seeing that our value proposition continues to appeal to customers and evidenced by the recent wins, BMA Rail, [ Unila, Tamo ], Wollongong, Malabar, Hunter Valley and Pembroke. You will hear, of course, 4 of those being met coal related. So we never take our customers for granted. And our people understand we need to continually transform, improve our safe delivery performance for them.

And maybe just a question for Pam. I noticed that the latest QCA schedules have got CapEx for Blackwater and Goonyella stepping up towards, I think it was FY '25 and '26. Is that growth CapEx? Or is it just sort of periodic increase in maintenance CapEx?

Yes. Most of it is sustaining. We don't tend to have too much growth at this point in time.

And maybe just a final one for George, perhaps. You've obviously been engaging with debt capital markets over the last year. The business is obviously in different shape to the last time you went through a big refinancing. Where do you think your creditors are seeing the sort of the investment-grade thresholds now for the business in terms of gearing and FFO to net debt?

It's -- look, it's something we discussed with the rating agencies as well as debt investors, Reinhardt. In terms of FFO to debt on network, the threshold is 13%. We sit at the mid- to high-teens. We're pretty comfortable there. And I don't see those thresholds changing much. If you were to equate that to net debt-to-EBITDA on network, it will be about 4 to 4.5x. On the operations side, what we've seen change is that the rating agencies post One Rail reduce their thresholds. So we used to be at 50% FFO to debt on ops. They've now come down to 35% to 40% FFO to debt and that was really a reflection of the fact that we bought a business in One Rail that has track infrastructure and has a really strong market position as well as it being diversified from a commodity perspective. We're expecting to be within that credit rating thresholds on ops by the end of FY '24. And from a net debt perspective or net debt to EBITDA, that's about 2 to 2.5x on ops.

Your next question comes from Scott Ryall from Rimor Equity Research.

First one, hopefully, for Ed, reasonably easy one. Could you just give us an update on the TrainGuard progress, please?

Yes, certainly. Thanks for the question, Scott. It's going well. We've been really pleased with the rollout during the first quarter. We've done about 100 driver-only legs between Kalamunda and Bluff and backwards quarter-to-date, and we expect to be sort of fully deployed in the system by the end of the first quarter.

And then rolling out to other systems?

Rolling out after we finished in -- we've already started training in the Northern system. So this time next year, probably again, first quarter, all going well. We should be -- well, again, roll the system into the Goonyella corridor between Coppabella and Jilalan. In both cases, we expect the technology to release about 60 FTEs in each system, qualified train crew, which we'll be able to deploy to business.

This one is probably for Andrew. Could you -- I forget whether it's annual set or biannually that you guys at the Board level, discuss the ownership of the network, but I was wondering if you could give us an update on how that process went for 30 June just gone. Whether or not you guys would consider? I'm not so much asking about a full sale or a control sale, but a minority stake, is that something that's on the table or not?

Yes. So we actually do the review every 12 months as part of the annual planning process. So we did that in the first half of the calendar year. The results of that and we do consider all the options that you -- and more that we put on the table. The reality is that -- and it's about what generates the best value. The reality is the result of the calculations and discussion at Board level would say that it is not the right thing to consider at this point in time. But to your original way you introduced the question, it is something that we do on an annual basis and at some point, that position may change, and we're open to that.

And then my last question, just on the containers and your land-bridge strategy, and I apologize I wasn't able to make it to Darwin. But now that it's public, as you say, you're talking to customers about it, is there -- I'm just interested if you're getting any residual issues from the manner in which you exited the intermodal business, please?

No. We're not getting any residual issues. I'm just trying -- not at all. What we're getting is a sort of a broad-based interest and desire to be part of -- or not be left out of, which is probably more important, an alternative supply chain to the eastern states of Australia. So that's how I'd summarize where we're up to at this moment in time.

Your next question comes from Anthony Longo from JPMorgan.

Just a quick question on coal and the volumes there. I just wanted to just confirm my understanding. With respect to the revenue yield improvements, you also sort of saying -- and I appreciate your commentary with respect to the utilization and the like. But you're largely saying that, that incremental volume that you have signed is incrementally margin accretive? Or how should we be thinking about that?

Happy to take that one. So there's a couple in there. So the short answer is modestly accretive. CPI benefits we're going to see flow through again. But remember, they'll be offset by capacity charge dilution over a higher volume base. In addition, we've always got to remember the impact on revenue yield of haul-mix and in particular, performance mechanisms for the customers you rail for in the year. So overall, expecting modest revenue yield improvement on the increased volumes for '24, consistent with recent trends.

And then in terms of thinking about the ROIC targets, I mean clearly, like with the invested capital base rising and the impact on operations, it's really compressed this year, but still in the context of the amount of investment you've got over the next few years. So how should we be thinking about the time line for you to ultimately hit some of those targets that you place out there, whether it's mid-double-digit type targets. I mean any color around that, that you can provide?

George, do you want to provide some color?

Yes, I can, Anthony. I mean what I said when we announced the TGE contract was that we expect that as an example, to be hitting those return targets in year 3 or 4. And so if you think about that AUD 425 million that we're putting into containerized freight, that gives you a good example of where we're expecting the broader business. So we've invested ahead of the volume coming online. And I'd expect in year 3 or 4, the group to be similar to what I described with containerized freight.

So in terms of -- I mean, if you've done sort of 7.5% this year, you were over 10% last year sort of getting above 10% just given the operational improvements and some of the challenges you faced this year. You're still sort of expecting that still in what, 3 to 4 years from now?

Yes, and we're expecting a step-up in FY '24, pretty consistent with the broader earnings step up.

And final one for me. With respect to just following-up on a previous question on debt. Just looking at the gearing within network and the regulated asset base, it's certainly grown. But I'm just wondering why that amount of gearing certainly stepped up a lot. I'm just wondering, number one, about the optimal level within network, but also why do you need to carry that higher level of debt within there?

I mean I can answer that, Anthony. And the first thing to go back to an answer I gave on an earlier question, while it has stepped up in terms of the net debt, we're comfortably within our BBB+ rating threshold. So our threshold is 13%. We're at the mid- to high-teens. And you have to remember, we've got an earnings step up in network in FY '24 because of regulated revenue. So it'll become even more comfortable in network in FY '24. The one thing we don't want to do is be under geared because debt is cheaper cost than equity. And if we geared lower than the regulatory assumption, then we wouldn't be -- or we'd be losing value rather than creating it.

Your next question comes from Ian Myles from Macquarie.

A couple of quick questions for you. Firstly, franking, with that tax refund you're getting through, should we be thinking that you're not being able to frank the FY '24 dividend?

George, do you want to talk about that?

We will still be able to frank it, Ian. It just won't be a level of franking consistent with what we've done over the last year. So we've just announced this dividend, our final at 60% franking. We'll have to see how the final tax refund sits, but I wouldn't expect it to decline materially from the level we're talking about today.

On to network, you indicated where you've got a AUD 19 million one-off payment for termination, I assume, of future fees. So I was just wondering what does that translate into reduced work income in FY '24?

Anna, do you want to talk about that?

Ian, I'll take that away and come back to you, but it's not material.

Can we also ask about or talk about the customer contracts? I assume it's a bit like Greg, where you book a profit upfront and then you depreciate it over the years. You sort of made a comment that you picked up AUD 23 extra million. I was wondering how sustainable is that customer contract revenue that you've got in there? Or are we going back to step down to something more normalized? And what sort of level would that be?

Ian, it's a one-off construction, which flows into FY '23 and some into FY '24. It's not a repeating revenue as such.

But the margin, Ian, certainly, is not AUD 23 million. It's immaterial in the scheme of network.

Correct.

So there's a corresponding cost?

Absolutely.

In the op cost side or CapEx?

Yes. It's in the op cost.

And just one final one. You talk about on the land-bridging the 7-day saving. What term you're thinking about bringing that into in Victoria? Is that into the Beveridge Terminal? Or is that into an existing terminal in the system?

Gareth, I might let you talk through.

Ian, so in terms of our terminal strategy, we have both our immediate and then our medium-term optimal strategy. So our immediate terminal operation is Vic Doc, and that's where we're operating our interstate volumes from. In the medium term, we will be operating out of beverage. You've seen the announcement around that, and there may well be other locations. So that saving can be attributed both to operating out of Vic Doc but also out of Beveridge.

Your next question comes from Rob Koh from Morgan Stanley.

May I firstly start a question with Slide 47, which is the detail on the MAR. And thank you very much for that slide as always. I just want to double check, because FY '24 is off the prelim WACC of 8.18%, the true-up versus 8.50% should come in FY '26. I think the footnote says that, but I'm getting a bit older, I can't read it, sorry.

Pam, do you want to talk...

Yes. The difference between the preliminary and final WACC that we don't collect in '24 will come back in '26. And these numbers don't include that so that's about AUD 25 million.

And Rob, these numbers also don't include the rev cap, so which you'd have to add to AUD 25 million. So you add sort of AUD 27 million to FY '25, and then you add that WACC true-up that Pam spoke about to '26.

My next question, I guess, following-on for Mr. Ryall's question because you've done your annual review of network. Within the One Rail business, there's also some below rail assets, albeit regulated. Is that covered in the scope of the review? And any thoughts on monetizing any of that asset?

It's not -- the particular review that I was referring to is only about the consideration of the network business as a part of Aurizon or otherwise. And that's the one we do every year. We haven't made any thoughts or decisions about what -- whether separating the value and gaining value out of the bulk central line would be. I'd have to say that as a first pass thought, it would be a resoundingly difficult decision to make given the value that we see by having the asset and providing a lot of the rolling stock operation in that area.

And then just final question on the land-bridge strategy, apologies I couldn't attend your Darwin presso. But does the review of the ownership of Port of Darwin, which I believe the report has gone to government, but we haven't seen a result of it yet. Does that have any implication at all on your strategy? I presume not.

I think your presumption is right. I mean at the end of the day, what we're most interested in and have announced many times is increasing volume through the rail system and it has to go either through the Port of Darwin in one direction or the other. So for that to happen, it generates more returns for the Port of Darwin owners. So I suspect that, that issue is attractive to anybody owning the Port of Darwin. So a review by the government and I want speculators to have no idea what the outcome may be. It won't change the underlying fact that the volume will be very attractive. So I'm not seeing it have play out in any way that is of concern.

And then last question. I guess you had talked about the land-bridge strategy potentially providing a carbon saving versus shipping and low-grade shipping oil being burned all around the East Coast. Have you got an indicative sense of what the carbon saving would be for diesel train versus ship?

I might get Gareth to talk through the general thinking in that area.

Rob, so certainly, there is a dividend there, but recognizing that shipping continues to evolve and shipping equally as we are looking at lower carbon footprint methods of fuel, we're actually targeting carbon neutrality. We're not necessarily seeking to see a carbon dividend through the land-bridge solution.

Your next question comes from Nathan Lead from Morgans Financial.

Just 2 quick questions from me. So the first one, in your presentation, you referenced labor market tightness or sourcing of labor tightness. I've been hearing that it's difficult for industry to actually source sufficient train drivers. So I'm just wondering how meaningful is that an issue for Aurizon, particularly in the context of the volume requirements for the guidance and just what you're doing to mitigate the issue?

Look, the train driving tightness has been around for quite some time. The particular area where it impacted us in recent months has been -- or in the recent financial year was around Central Queensland, where on top of this, the general tightness, there was another rail business was ramping up and they don't train their staff, so that they went to the one place where you think if you've got nearly 70% market share where you can get a fair chunk of your train driving personnel and other personnel. Where we are growing is the only other place. So we have -- sorry, to address that, we put in place a comprehensive review of our training processes to improve the time taken to train, reducing it being the significant benefit and that is monitored right through to me on a monthly basis. And we look at all the hotspots they have been and the trends in the future. The reality is I'm very happy with what I'm seeing and the issues with Central Queensland, while it does take 12 months to train a train driver in -- are largely recovered and will be completely recovered in the next couple of months. Where the business is growing volumes is obviously where you'll get other areas with train driver of [ our ability ] and that same process that we have -- I talked about for Central Queensland is in place across the country. There are no -- we alert 2 issues. There are no alarms going off. The issue is not with attracting people for the role of train driver, the issue is actually the time taken to train somebody who comes in off the street to a role of train driver. It just takes so long to do that. We get more than enough applicants for the role of train driver. Where we had -- and so the issue is where you have really short-term need as we did in the Central Queensland, where it's just very difficult to hire people off the street as train drivers because there was a shortage of them. Hopefully, that kind of light helps you understand where the issues are and have been.

Second question for me, obviously, when it comes to networks, the MAR, the AUD 125 million step-up, you referenced that, excluding GAPE. Can you talk about what the profile is for GAPE going forward though it's MAR, but also just give us a refresher in terms of what's happening with the top-up revenue? My belief was that there was every 3 years, the risk-free rate under that got reset. So if we could just give us a refresher on that, please.

Anna, do you want to do a refresher on MAR?

Yes. Thanks, Nathan. Yes, with the GAPE asset base, as you know, it doesn't inflate, it depreciates. So you have a dropping asset base and 2027 is the end of the GAPE term. So obviously, that will ramp down going back to sort of the regulatory recovery with those assets.

There's one more reset left, Nathan. It does happen every 3 years. The last one happened, I think it was June '21. So next one, I think, is June '24.

So there's a bit of risk-free rate upside from that one?

We'll see what the risk-free rate is in 12 months.

There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Harding for closing remarks.

Look, thank you very much, everyone, for attending the call. I hope that you can see that Aurizon has continued to build upon its position as Australia's leading integrated rail provider and particularly with the expanded operational footprint and with Australia's largest fleet of locomotives and wagons. It was as a result a tough year, but we're excited with what lies ahead for the business, including the land-bridging opportunity that has the potential to revolutionize supply chains in Australia. Thank you very much.