Good morning, and welcome to Aurizon's FY 2026 Results Presentation. Aurizon delivered strong execution across the business, with earnings per share increasing by 29%. Underlying EBITDA was above the midpoint of guidance, supporting full-year dividends of AUD 0.23 per share alongside the completion of the AUD 250 million on-market buyback. I will focus on three themes today. Strong financial performance, positive contributions from network, coal, and bulk, together with a clear pathway for containerized freight to achieve EBITDA breakeven in FY 2027. Progress on our strategic priorities, including UT5+, coal recontracting, bulk growth, and expansion into vehicle logistics. We are 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, rail systems, and office buildings where Aurizon does business was and always will be traditional Aboriginal land. I am joined on the call by the group executive team, including Ian Wells, who commenced as CFO in April. Turning now to safety. Our focus at Aurizon is protecting our employees, customers, and the communities in which we operate. While the reduction in serious injury frequencies is encouraging, the increase in total recordable injuries is not where we want performance to be. It was pleasing, however, that the second half had a much lower injury rate than the first half. I am pleased to announce that in FY 2026, we completed our TrainGuard rollout in CQCN, deploying the technology across 2,000 km of network and more than 100 electric locomotives. As a result, one-third of our national coal fleet now operates with supervisory braking protection, helping prevent signals passed at danger and uncontrolled train movements. Level crossings continue to be a safety issue for the rail industry, and we have updated our community engagement program, reframing the importance of waiting at a level crossing as an act of responsibility for the people that matter most. Billboards have been rolled out at target locations and used across social media. Our focus continues to be on improving safety performance through stronger frontline safety disciplines, enhanced intervention activity, and continuing targeted engagement with employees, contractors, and community. Before discussing the year in detail, I want to summarize why Aurizon remains a compelling long-term infrastructure investment. We own and operate strategically significant rail assets, including approximately 5,000 km of rail infrastructure, and have Australia's largest rail fleet. These assets connect key commodity basins and exhibit the characteristics of what has been described as halo assets: heavy assets with low obsolescence risk and high barriers to replication. We are also drawing volume away from road, as demonstrated in our bulk and containerized freight business units. Our earnings are supported by contractual and regulatory frameworks. Our haulage contracts generally include indexation mechanisms and fuel and energy cost passthroughs, supporting resilience through inflationary cycles. Together, these attributes provide investors with exposure to high-quality infrastructure assets, resilient cash flows, a diversified commodity portfolio, and disciplined capital returns. Finally, our capital allocation framework has delivered more than AUD 1.8 billion to shareholders over the past four years through dividends and buybacks. Turning now to the full-year results. FY 2026 was a strong financial result, with underlying EBITDA up at 9%, NPAT up 24%, and importantly, earnings per share increased by 29%. Underlying free cash flow was up 11%, and the board has declared a final dividend of AUD 0.105 per share, franked at 90%. This once again represents a 90% payout ratio of underlying NPAT. At AUD 0.23 per share, full-year dividends are up almost 50% compared to last year. A reminder that we also completed the AUD 250 million on-market buyback at an average price of AUD 3.72. This is a strong result for shareholders, high earnings, strong cash generation, a materially higher dividend, and additional returns through our completed capital management program. Turning now to the business units. Network underlying EBITDA increased 8%, driven by higher regulatory revenue, partly offset by increased operating costs. Importantly, UT5+ was submitted to the QCA in December 2025, and the QCA draft decision supports material components of the proposal. Coal underlying EBITDA increased 2%, with revenue yield and disciplined cost management driving this result. Since July 2025, over 60 million tons of annual volume has been recontracted. This includes today's announcement that major Central Queensland customers, BMA and Whitehaven, have been recontracted in our competitive market. Bulk delivered a very strong result with underlying EBITDA up 38%, driven by customer growth and the non-recurrence of doubtful debt provisions from prior year. The successful start of the BHP South Australia logistics contract during the year is a good proof point for our bulk strategy. Containerized freight continued to build momentum with national interstate TEUs up 25% against the prior year, including a significant uplift in non-foundation customer TEUs. We have reached an important inflection point with EBITDA breakeven expected in FY 2027, driven by continued customer growth. Importantly, we have made our entry into vehicle logistics with major new contracts as part of a land bridging strategy, which I will cover shortly. Turning to network. In December 2025, we submitted UT5+, a proposed 10-year access undertaking to the Queensland Competition Authority. The proposal was lodged with customer support approximately 18 months before its scheduled commencement, providing the potential for greater long-term regulatory certainty in the network business. In June, the QCA published its draft decision. In material respects, it supported key elements of the proposal, including the WACC methodology, accelerated depreciation profile, and the throughput payment. The draft decision also establishes a pathway towards final approval, with submissions currently invited. The slide shows regulatory revenue under UT5+ increasing by almost AUD 200 million in the fifth year of the undertaking. These figures are based on our December submission, which included a placeholder WACC of 7.79%. This indicative figure is now approximately 8.3%, but the final WACC will be determined using prevailing market parameters in 2027. As a rule of thumb, a 25-basis point increase in the risk-free rate would increase network revenue by approximately AUD 15 million per annum. The undertaking is subject to QCA's usual process, and we expect to see progress through the calendar year. Turning to the coal contract book. It has been a significant year for coal recontracting, with more than a quarter of the portfolio recontracted since July 2025, and with these contracts now expiring in the mid to late 2030s. This includes major Central Queensland customers, BMA and Whitehaven. The BMA contract represents 100% of the tons tendered for recontracting and services their five coking coal mines in the Bowen Basin. The contract is effective from 1 July 2028 for a period of up to 12 years. The Whitehaven Coal contract is a new 10-year contract for the haulage of coal from their Central Queensland mines of Blackwater and Daunia. Aurizon will continue to be the exclusive rail provider for Whitehaven's Central Queensland coal portfolio. The contract began on 1 July 2026. Although the 60 million tons of recontracting has been undertaken in a competitive environment, we've not seen a material change in the haulage rates. As shown on this chart, when looking out to FY 2028, the task is not yet complete, and recontracting discussions are taking place with around 10 counterparties at the moment. Before turning to vehicle logistics, I want to provide some context on coal markets. The relevant consideration for Aurizon is not simply the outlook for total global coal consumption, but the outlook for seaborne traded markets and Australia's position within them. The key point is that demand for Australian coal is not simply a function of global coal consumption. It is more specifically linked to seaborne traded markets, which are increasingly concentrated in Asia. For steel-producing coking coal, India is expected to be the largest driver of seaborne coking coal demand over the coming decades. India has a deficiency of high-quality domestic coking coal and sources over 90% of supply from the seaborne market. India is already the largest destination for Australian coking coal exports, accounting for more than a quarter of export volumes. For thermal coal, global import volumes are around record levels at over 1.2 billion tons per annum. The share of Asian demand has increased from 35% of the import market to almost 90% last year. When we look at the average age of coal-fired electricity assets in Asia, it is just 15 years, compared with an expected retirement age of 40 years. Over 99% of Australian thermal coal is destined for Asia. As demonstrated on this slide, the demand for Australian coal remains strong, but there is no doubt opportunity is being lost to competing supply nations like Russia and Indonesia. Despite significant reserves of premium coking coal and thermal coal, Australian supply is not keeping up with demand, which is flowing through to diminished export volume and in turn, our above rail contract book. There are a number of factors contributing to this, including Queensland's coal royalty regime. Finally, I want to turn to vehicle logistics, which is an important development for containerized freight and land bridging. Following our earlier engagement with major vehicle logistics providers, Aurizon has customer contracts to transport vehicles using our containerized freight network and a land bridge through the Port of Darwin. The first is a long-term partnership with CEVA, operator of the largest national vehicle logistics network. Aurizon will transport vehicles by rail for the domestic market, which is a significant road to rail conversion. Initially, vehicles will be carried on existing containerized freight services in CEVA-owned and Aurizon-owned car containers. The service is expected to transition to purpose-built auto wagons following their delivery in mid-FY 2028. The contract commenced in June and also includes general freight, contributing additional volume in FY 2027. The second contract provides for the initial movement of 7,000 imported vehicles per annum from the Port of Darwin for logistics partner NYK. While this initial volume is subscale, as it involves only partial vessel discharges in Darwin, the longer-term objective is to move to larger scale volumes through full vessel discharges. This has the potential to reduce port calls and improve fleet utilization for our logistics partner. A reminder that a total of 1.25 million cars are imported into Australia each year. The Aurizon auto wagons under construction are fully enclosed with a ventilated sidewall design to protect vehicles during long-haul moves. They are double-stacked and engineered to the exterior dimensions required to fit under bridges and access Melbourne and Sydney directly, and the only rolling stock in the country able to do this. The initial order has been made with associated CapEx of around AUD 100 million through to FY 2028, including around AUD 20 million outlaid in FY 2026. Returns are expected to be in line with previously outlined IRR targets of low double digits. This is another example of using Aurizon's strategically significant assets to drive growth for the business supported by customer contracts. Importantly, vehicles will be transported using Aurizon's existing containerized freight services, including the Tarcoola to Darwin rail line, driving asset utilization. On that, I will hand over to Ian to present the financial results in more detail. Well, thanks, Andrew. It's great to be joining you today for the first time as CFO and Group Executive Strategy of Aurizon. Since joining the company, I've taken the opportunity to visit some of our strategically significant infrastructure and meet with employees. I've got to tell you, I'm impressed with what I saw. I'm excited for the opportunities ahead for the company, and I acknowledge the quality of employees delivering against our strategic objectives. It's a privilege to be presenting today's results on behalf of the team, and it's a strong financial performance. To start, we've delivered against all major metrics, EBITDA of AUD 1.7 billion, AUD 718 million of combined sustaining and growth capital, as well as FY 2026 total declared dividends of AUD 0.23, all within guidance. A couple of headlines. Group revenue of AUD 4.2 billion increased by 6%. That was driven by higher regulatory revenue and network, bulk customer growth, as well as the above rail coal business performing consistent with 2025 levels. Underlying EBITDA increased by AUD 148 million or 9%, and importantly, we delivered a significant increase in shareholder returns. In the face of elevated fuel prices and inflationary pressures, combined with customer growth in bulk and containerized freight, total operating costs increased by 4% compared with the prior year, reflecting the focus on cost discipline and targeted savings program implemented from the start of the year. We had expected an under recovery of fuel costs of approximately AUD 10 million, but by year-end, we had fully recovered these costs at a consolidated group level. Depreciation and amortization were steady year-on-year. Net finance costs increased by 3%, and there was no change in the effective tax rate. That delivered an underlying net profit after tax, which increased by 24% to AUD 433 million. At a statutory level, EBITDA was AUD 1.62 billion. That's AUD 101 million lower than underlying EBITDA. Statutory net profit after tax was AUD 71 million lower at AUD 362 million. So important context for our results are the key items in the underlying earnings reconciliation, which includes the recognition of network revenue, that's a timing difference, and the exclusion of two expense items. As Aurizon indicated to the market in August 2025, we disclosed the intention to align network revenue recognition with the cost of operating and maintaining the Central Queensland Coal Network. The disclosure advised that from FY 2026, the full regulatory allowable revenue, that's including the revenue cap timing component, would be recognized in underlying earnings regardless of actual volumes hauled. Actual volumes were lower than the regulatory assumption this year, which has resulted in AUD 27 million being recognized in underlying earnings. Turning to the two expense items. The first one is a AUD 54 million non-cash impairment, which was recognized against our New South Wales coal assets, and that is after undertaking a carrying value assessment, which included the changed New South Wales contract book, intercompany transfer of locomotives, as well as operating cost changes. Just for context, this impairment represents less than 3% of the above rail coal asset base. The second item was a AUD 20 million expense for enterprise resource planning system upgrade and some redundancy costs associated with the cost out program. I would just note a full reconciliation to statutory earnings is included in the appendix of this investor pack. Moving to the next slide, slide 14. One of Aurizon's key strengths is the quality and consistency of our cash generation, and the metrics on this slide demonstrate how that underpins sustainable shareholder returns. Return on invested capital increased by 1.4 percentage points on the prior year to 9.5%, driven by higher earnings and therefore improving returns from our invested capital base. Importantly, it was another strong year of cash generation with underlying free cash flow. That is free cash flow before growth CapEx increasing by 11%. This year, we have also added free cash flow to equity, so that is the bottom line, cash available to equity with no adjustments. Free cash flow to equity is equal to operating cash flow, less total CapEx, less interest paid. Turning to dividends, the board has declared a final dividend of AUD 0.105 per share, 90% franked, including the interim dividend of AUD 0.125. Full year declared dividends of AUD 0.23 represents a payout ratio of 90% of underlying net profit after tax. You can see that free cash flow translates into higher shareholder returns with FY 2026 dividends per share increasing by 46%. The successful completion of our buyback reduced shares on issue by a further 3.8% in FY 2026, on top of the 4.9% reduction in FY 2025. The reduction in the shares supports growth in earnings per share, dividends per share, and therefore enhancing shareholder returns. Turning now to our operations and the network business. Network EBITDA increased by AUD 74 million or 8% to AUD 1.03 billion. Turning to the bridge on the right on slide 15, access revenue increased by AUD 95 million, reflecting a higher allowable revenue driven by increased returns on and of capital, together with a higher maintenance cost allowance. These figures are shown net of energy costs, which are passed through to network customers. Although volumes increased by 2%, the regulatory assumption of 221 million tons was not reached, leading to an under-recovery and future revenue cap. The regulatory regime sets the per ton revenue based on a forecast of 221 million tons. When actual volumes were lower at 212.5 million tons. The regulatory mechanisms allow Aurizon Network to receive the under-recovery in cash in FY 2028, and this under-recovery of AUD 27 million, which I mentioned earlier, is recognized in underlying revenue in FY 2026. The inclusion of this timing difference matches revenue with the cost of operating and maintaining the CQCN, providing increased transparency, consistency and predictability of the network and the consolidated Aurizon group. Looking forward to FY 2027, in terms of the broader maximum allowable revenue, we see a further uplift of around AUD 60 million inclusive of the FY 2025 revenue cap adjustment. We expect approximately 60% of this to flow through to increased FY 2027 EBITDA due to it being offset by an expected step up in maintenance costs and other costs. As usual, the appendix has got a full table on the maximum allowable revenue. Just to focus for a moment on UT5, Andrew provided important context for where we're at in the process. The UT5 regulatory reset takes effect from FY 2028, and it provides an additional 10 years of certainty on the single largest contributor to the group's earnings and cash flow. Moving to bulk. Bulk's underlying EBITDA increased to AUD 233 million. That's an uplift of 38% year-on-year. The result was driven by contract and customer growth, including a 6% increase in rail volumes and the non-recurrence of a prior year provision for doubtful debts. Bulk revenue was up 10% to AUD 1.23 billion, driven by base metals grain and new iron ore customers in WA, partially offset by lower iron ore volumes in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Excluding the prior year identified doubtful debts provision, operating costs increased by 11%, including costs that are not expected to flow through to FY 2027. Turning your attention to the waterfall. After adjusting for the prior year provision, the increase in revenue can be seen in the first green column, and then we're showing two cost elements. The second element is AUD 23 million of one-off margin impacts around fuel timing that is expected to recover in FY 2027, with the balance attributable to start-up costs and a number of new contracts that commenced in FY 2026. On the fuel timing, some of our bulk contracts adjust quarterly rather than monthly, so the June quarter uplift was not fully recovered within the financial year. On contract start-up costs, establishing and standing up these contracts do involve upfront investment, and that doesn't always align perfectly with revenue. We don't expect this margin impact to reoccur in FY 2027. Looking ahead, we expect bulk EBITDA to grow again in FY 2027, supported by a higher contribution from the BHP South Australia copper contract, higher grain volumes and the reversal of the fuel timing impact. These benefits are expected to be partially offset by lower iron ore volumes in South Australia. Regarding containerized freight, whilst it's not reported as a separate business unit, I'd like to call out some performance indicators for the year. Andrew mentioned that national interstate 20-ft equivalent units, or TEUs, were 25% higher than the corresponding period. That's representing growth from both existing and new customers. Transport revenue, as shown in the segment note, increased by 32% to AUD 150 million. As a result, containerized freight monthly EBITDA run rate has improved over the course of FY 2026, though not yet at a break-even level. Two things change from here for containerized freight. Operationally, we expect continued growth from existing customers, increased utilization, and the SCT Logistics agreement is now operational. We've successfully mitigated the third-party rail network outages in Southeast Queensland that constrained us this year. On that basis, containerized freight is expected to reach break-even in FY 2027. Turning to coal. Coal EBITDA increased by AUD 13 million, which is consistent with consistent year-on-year demand reflected in hauled volumes remaining at 192 million tons. The moving parts on tons hauled showed higher volumes in the Blackwater, Southeast Queensland, and Goonyella corridors, and they were offset by lower railings in the weather-impacted New South Wales, Newlands, and Moura. Operating costs, that is operating costs excluding access and fuel, were flat and importantly, controllable unit costs, which are operating costs excluding access and fuel, reduced by 1% on a net ton per kilometer basis, reflecting the cost discipline across the business unit and matching operating costs with volumes hauled. At the start of the year, we had expected yield to be negatively impacted by customer mix, and that is exactly what happened. The cost escalation protection within our haulage contracts is reflected in a AUD 10 million year-on-year benefit of access, including AUD 7 million of fuel cost recovery benefit. Noting on a group basis, there was no impact because coal offset bulk. Moving to an update on the contract book as we move into FY 2027. As noted on slide 18, FY 2027 contracted volume stands at 211 million tons, which is a 20 million ton reduction when compared with prior year. Half of this volume is the non-renewal of a major Hunter Valley contract announced this time last year, and the majority of the difference relates to customers rightsizing their contracted volumes to match against respective production plans. In FY 2027, we expect rail volumes to remain at a similar level to FY 2026, which against a lower contract volume, will see contract utilization lifting from around 83% to over 90%. Whilst there is a cost to rising holding capacity to match contracted volumes, the direct operating cost is relatively low and the fixed revenue coming out therefore carries a higher margin. The impact is that coal earnings reduce even though the haulage task doesn't change. In response, and to mitigate the earnings impact, we have a three-year coal transformation program targeting AUD 30 million in annualized savings. The program includes deployment and rolling stock optimization, overhead reduction, and consideration of TrainGuard or single driver only services across the diesel fleet in Queensland. At the same time, we remain focused on the contract pipeline to maximize renewals, improve asset utilization, and repricing approach. Progress cost to serve initiatives and further redeployment of New South Wales capacity. Our focus is on the areas within our control, including discipline management of controllable unit costs and aligning our cost base with contracted volumes. Finally, a tighter contract utilization does come with greater opportunity for surge and spot volumes where customers are seeking to push more volume into the market and may be hitting the contractual volume ceiling. In closing on operations, the FY 2026 results and future outlook highlights Aurizon's portfolio with the network and coal businesses underwriting shareholder returns while continuing to support investment and growth. I will just switch gears now and move to the balance sheet, gearing, and capital allocation. Having reviewed our funding and balance sheet, one of the things that stood out to me is both the diversity of Aurizon's funding sources and the strong support we receive from globally diversified lenders and debt investors. This reflects the quality of our asset base and resultant investment-grade credit profile. Our funding strategy remains the same. At a group level, available liquidity comprising cash and undrawn facilities at 30 June was AUD 1.1 billion. Net debt of AUD 5.2 billion is unchanged. Interest costs are hedged to 95% and group gearing, that's the book value of net debt over net debt plus equity, is 57%. Importantly, a key component of our capital allocation framework is our commitment to maintain strong investment-grade credit ratings. Aurizon Operations and Aurizon Network's credit ratings are both BBB+ from S&P and the equivalent Baa1 from Moody's, and this commitment is supported by group net debt to EBITDA of 3x. Turning to capital allocation. Slide 20. Strong free cash flow generation combined with lower capital expenditures continue to support higher shareholder returns through both dividends and share buybacks during the year. This has been reflected in total shareholder returns for FY 2026, which was 45%, including reinvested dividends. Having spent time understanding the business, another observation is Aurizon's capital allocation framework strikes a good balance between maintaining a BBB+ credit rating, funding reinvestment capital back into the business, returning capital to shareholders, while also allowing the flexibility to invest in growth options. The overriding objective, of course, is to optimize each individual part of the framework to maximize returns to shareholders. I'd like to make one point on durability. A 90% of underlying NPAT payout is supported not by a single year of low capital expenditure, but by the structural improvement in free cash flow that follows the completion of our elevated investment phase. As capital expenditure normalizes to the levels I'll come to shortly, we expect dividends to remain in the upper end of the policy to target 70%-100% of underlying NPAT. We also remain disciplined in our approach to capital expenditure, as shown in the chart. Over the past four years, we've moved through a period of elevated investment and now seeing the benefits with lower capital expenditure and the growth in earnings from those investments contributing to cash flow generation. As a result, the proportion to shareholders has increased in FY 2025 and 2026, noting that share buybacks were funded principally with debt, not operating cash flow. Looking ahead, we believe the framework continues to position us well to optimize shareholder returns, reinvestment and growth CapEx, as well as maintain balance sheet strength. Based on the dividend guidance that Andrew will speak to shortly, we expect similar proportions allocated to shareholder returns in FY 2027. In closing, Aurizon has the privileged position to operate critical national infrastructure and deliver returns to our shareholders and other stakeholders across Australia. Aurizon has a disciplined capital allocation framework and cash generation that is both consistent and predictable. That combination is what converts the quality of this asset base into returns for shareholders, and that is what we will be focused on protecting and improving. We'll continue to focus on the things that we can control, which includes safety, volumes and costs, to deliver long-term shareholder returns. Thank you, and I'll now hand back to Andrew. Thanks, Ian. FY 2027 group underlying EBITDA is expected to be between AUD 1.72 billion and AUD 1.77 billion, with full year dividends of AUD 0.23-AUD 0.24 per share. Non-growth CapEx expected to be between AUD 590 million and AUD 660 million, including AUD 25 million of transformation capital. Growth CapEx is expected to be between AUD 70 million and AUD 120 million. Network earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2026, reflecting increased regulatory revenue, including the final recognition in underlying earnings of prior year revenue cap adjustments, partly offset by higher direct costs. Coal earnings are expected to be lower than FY 2026, reflecting reduced contracted volumes and yield, with whole volumes expected to be broadly flat. Bulk earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2026, driven by full year contributions from new customer growth and non-recurrence of one-off costs, offset by reduced iron ore volumes in South Australia. Other earnings are expected to be higher than FY 2026, with containerized freight expected to break even on an EBITDA basis. As usual, guidance assumes no significant disruptions to supply chains or customers, including major derailments, extreme or prolonged wet weather, or inability to access fuel. Overall, the FY 2027 outlook reflects stronger network earnings, continued bulk growth, improvement in containerized freight, and a reset in coal as contracted volumes become more closely aligned with customer production plans. To conclude, FY 2026 was a strong year for Aurizon. We delivered earnings growth, strong cash flow, a higher dividend, and completion of the AUD 250 million buyback. Bulk continued to demonstrate our strategy in delivering new customer contracts and earnings growth. We secured over a quarter of the coal contract book. We progressed UT5+, with the QCA draft decision supporting the material components of the proposed undertaking and providing a pathway to final approval. The progress against our strategic aims can be seen on this slide, with Aurizon's resilient network and coal businesses continuing to support growth in bulk and containerized freight, while at the same time supporting shareholder returns. Thank you, and I will hand over to the operator for questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you would like to cancel your request, please press star two. If you are on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question today comes from Anthony Moulder from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. A few questions, if I can, on coal. The BMA contract, if I start with that, 65 million tons is what I remember it signed at previously. It is now down to 37 million tons. I appreciate that includes the sale of Blackwater and Daunia. But should there also be some lower nominations that they are making for that reduction from 65, less those contract or those sale of mines down to 37, please? Oh, hi, Anthony. I will get Ed to give you some background on the BMA contract. Thanks, Andrew, and thanks for the question, Anthony. The way you think about BMA at the 65 million tons is with their current nomination. I will not get into the specifics of their actual nominations. But if you add back in, as you rightly say, the volume associated with the divestment of Blackwater and Daunia to Whitehaven, but also the previous divestment of BMC, that is how you will get back to the 65 million ton portfolio. Right. Okay. Importantly, no nomination changes from BMA on the mines that they have still got. That is commercially sensitive for BMA, so I will not get into that. Suffice to say, nominations can go up or down, and that is with our portfolio of contracts, which is what our customers seek. Yeah. Secondly, if I can, still on coal, that re-signing, you have re-signed 60 million tons of coal contracts in the last 12 months. Can you comment then on the competitive intensity that you are seeing and the yield pressures that you are seeing more broadly across that recontracting phase, please? Thanks again, Anthony. I cannot get into the specifics of the contracts, of course, and the negotiations. But as Andrew said in his speech, we have not seen material change in freight rate or deterioration during the recent contracting since July 25. It remains a competitive market. Every renewal has its trade-offs around price, flexibility, risk-sharing, and performance. However, as I said, across the portfolio, we are not seeing a material change in rate per ton, and flying through to FY 2027. Right. Okay. But some of these contracts are obviously signed for beyond 2027, so that is still potentially ahead. Is that fair to think? Yeah, that is fairer. If I can just ask quickly on the breakeven that you are expecting through containerized freight. Sounds like it is not currently breakeven, but expected to get to that point throughout FY 2027. So will it exit FY 2027 breakeven, or will it report a breakeven result throughout FY 2027 on average, please? I might get George to talk about that, Anthony. Hey, Anthony. We are expecting over the full FY 2027 for it to be breakeven at an EBITDA level. Maybe just to give you a bit of a sense on the three things we need to deliver that. The first one is volumes. So we grew volumes by 25% in FY 2026. We need to grow volumes again by 25% in FY 2027 to hit that. We are expecting half of that growth to come from new contracted volumes, including CEVA, where we are moving cars in containers and also general freight, and then the other half to come from non-contracted customers. So we are expecting to see that growth come through. The second lever is on the cost side. I have talked before about our new terminal in Perth, Kewdale. Maybe remind everyone, we currently operate at Forrestfield, which is three 300-meter tracks. We'll be moving to Kewdale in September when it'll become operational, and we'll be able to bring in two 1,800-meter trains. That'll reduce shunting time, reduce train crew costs. That gives you a sense of some of the cost efficiencies that help support that earning shift from FY 2026 to 2027. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Andre Fromyhr from UBS. Please go ahead. Thank you. Maybe if I could pick up on that question around containerized freight. I guess if I look broadly at the other segment that includes it, we're seeing AUD -3 million EBITDA move year- to- year. But I think if you take out the legal settlement benefits from last year, it would have been more like AUD +17 million. I'm just curious to understand how much of that AUD +17 million would have come from movements in corporate costs versus the movements in containerized freight itself. I guess whether or not what's required, as George laid out, to get to breakeven in FY 2027 is as big a step as what we saw as an improvement in 2026. Ian, I might get you to try and help Andre with that. Yes. When you unpack it, Andre, the costs include, you have quite rightly identified the legal settlement in other income. When you unpack the cost, is corporate costs or unallocated corporate costs in there. That will give you a better idea of what the EBITDA contribution from CF was, which for the year was obviously a loss, which we have called out an EBITDA loss. I guess I am just talking about the scale of improvement. If it improved by AUD 10- AUD 15 million, is that the same order of magnitude that you have got to improve by in FY 2027 as well? George, do you want to see if you can help? Yeah, sure, Andre. No, it needs to be a bigger improvement from an earnings perspective in 2027 compared to what we saw in 2026. A few things that I'd call out that are behind that. The first one is we only started moving the CEVA volumes in April, contracted in June. We'll get the full benefit in FY 2027 of that. Secondly, we'll get Kewdale online in September, which will drive the cost benefit. The other thing I'd say is in the second half of FY 2026 in containerized freight, we had multiple weeks of track outages, which we're not assuming to repeat, and that's consistent with how we provide our guidance to the market. Sure. That's perfect. Then maybe one for Ian, just to pick up on the comments he was making earlier, in the prepared remarks about the capital intensity. I guess if we look at the above rail coal maintenance CapEx to D&A, I know this is a topic we've spoken about before, but it fell again year-on-year to only 39% for FY 2026. I guess I'm curious to understand, how much of that is a factor of where you are in the cycle and reflecting the investments that you've made in terms of asset productivity, but also a more broad question about what's a more normal rate going forward, and is that a combination of CapEx coming up and D&A coming down because you're now a less capital-intensive business? Or just how we should think about that. Yeah. Okay. Well, there's a few moving parts. Firstly, I'd say with respect to coal, that it is part of the cycle. That's point number one. Point number two, if you separate sustaining capital from growth, which I think that what you're looking at is that we are investing at less than depreciation, which as a major infrastructure company, that's what you would expect. However, we will go through peaks and troughs. A big part of coal, for example, is refurbishment programs, which you do over time. But this is all scheduled and known and taken into consideration of all of our operating and capital cost planning. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matt Ryan from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Thank you. I just had a question on the contracted coal volume expectations for the next 12 months, and I guess specifically around those customers that have right-sized their coal contract nominations. I guess I'm trying to sort of interpret what's happening here, and just interested in your thoughts on whether this is being driven by the expectations for haulage being lower or whether it's perhaps driven by some sort of cost-saving initiative, and the expectation is maybe that they potentially will haul but won't have the certainty of volumes they could potentially move into the spot market, for example. Yeah. Just interested in your thoughts on what's happening there. Sorry, that's a great question, Matt. Look, I'd start at the top, actually. If you look at demand for coal in the markets that Australia supplies to, it's quite strong. You can see Australia's actually losing market share in countries like India, and we're losing it to Russia, et cetera. If you step back and say, well, if that's happening, there's probably a challenge with supply. If you look in both states, there's different reasons for why supply is not keeping up with demand. Then if you look at the, just by way of example, and I mentioned it very briefly in my speech, if you look at the Queensland coal royalty situation, then you've clearly got a lot of angst being expressed by our customers publicly, quite strongly. You have really got a policy setting and supply side settings driving Australian supply into a higher demand market. If I think of my having managed a lot of mines in the past, if I think about my reaction to those sort of situation, and if I put myself in Queensland, particularly, I know I am taking a view that actually, the royalty situation is not conducive to investment. I add in a second thing, which is cost pressures, which the customers are clearly under and have talked about regularly in public communications. You would be reacting to that. To your very point, one of the ways that you can actually manage your cost exposure, if you take a view that, from a contracting point of view, you might risk reducing the volumes that you contract closer to your actual mine plan. Mine plans are updated all the time, and they reflect all the assumptions that a business will make about its near and medium term to longer term future. You make that cost decision. No decision is risk-free. One of the risks that you actually get when you actually make a decision like that is, if the world turns out to the upside from a production point of view, then you will have to compensate for those decisions, probably, for example, in the spot market and those sort of things. Hopefully that gives you some color as to what we believe is happening. It just occurred to me that when Ed finished his answer to Anthony, I think it was, I should make it clear that there is no material change in haulage rates for the 60 million tons recontracted since July 2025. Just reflected that that might have been a possibility of misconstruing what he said. Then if you think about what is seen on the contract expiry chart, which he was talking to at the time, we still have contracts to renew and that the outcome of those negotiations will, of course, impact coal earnings in future years. But you have got to get through the contract negotiation cycle to actually get to that point. Just to be clear on those right-sized contracts, within your guidance, you have effectively taken a hit for the capacity charge, that you would receive going down, but you have not assumed anything for spot volumes that would offset that at all? If you think about what happens in the way the coal business gets its revenue, it gets it from the supply of capacity. The capacity sits there and it is just available, and you have got to be able to supply it on demand. Then you get a payment that is associated with how many tons you actually move, and that is to incentivize the moving of the volume. When we talk about the capacity contracted volume going down, being the driver of revenue, you can see that in the volumes, we are talking about the volume being flat from year- to- year. It is actually that capacity charge that is actually being reduced and it. Yeah, stop there. Fair enough. Then just the decision not to announce another buyback today? The decision-making behind buybacks from a process point of view, if you look at the way the board has done it in the past, you make it based on your assessment of where things are at moment in time and where you think the world will be. That is a pretty generic sort of statement. If you look at Aurizon's practice with announced buybacks, at the full year end, at the half year end, we are not necessarily trying to establish a pattern as to what time of the year that we would actually announce a buyback. The board will consider the matters that lead into a decision like that, and make a decision at the right time. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Jacob Cakanis, from Jarden Australia. Please go ahead. Hi, Andrew. Hi, Ian. I just wanted to pick up on the other segment, if I could, please. It is probably not the first time that we have had the expectation that we would get back to break-even for that division. Notwithstanding that, there has been really strong volume growth. I am just trying to tie together the volume growth and the operating leverage in that business. It looks like FY 2026 EBITDA for containerized freight was at or around the FY 2024 levels. What gets us back to break-even from here? I appreciate that there are some costs, but how do we get confidence that volume is the driver that George was just describing, please? Yeah, I might get George to talk through those details rather than Ian. Hey, Jake. Yeah. I will start with 2026, then I will move to 2027. There are three things to be aware of in 2026. Yes, we had strong volume growth, 25% higher TEUs, but we had three things that impacted the business. The first was we are paying SCT to do that hook and pull arrangement. We had to enter into that because we could not get into Brisbane for a quarter of the year with the Cross River Rail closures, which will continue for three years. There is an extra cost to that we have to offset with volume. The second driver was particularly in the second half, we had about three weeks of track outages, which impacted us on the revenue line, but we have still got to keep paying train crew and paying for track access in other parts of the country where the track wasn't out. The third thing to note is we stood up a new service. We started the year running four Melbourne to Perth services. We are now running five Melbourne to Perth services, and it takes some time to utilize those. They are the three things in FY 2026. When you look at the biggest step we have got to take now from an earnings perspective in 2027, you have got the contracted CEVA volumes, you have got cost efficiencies, and then you have got the broader market growth. That third one, we do not contract for volume. We do not have capacity charge in containerized freight. It will depend on how the broader macro economy goes in Australia. But we have seen volumes in July up about 10% on the prior corresponding period. So we are getting there, but hopefully that gives you some color. Thanks, George. GDP growth, is that the right way to think about volumes for that business? Obviously, July trending better than that. I am just trying to draw the link between volume and the earnings, the balance probably being rate. How do we think about that with utilization? Yeah, rate is pretty consistent. It will be volume growth. I mentioned about 10% growth versus the prior corresponding period. We need to see about 20%-25% volume growth to hit that break-even earnings number. What you tend to see in containerized freight is a strong October-November. It is called peak period leading into Christmas, and then you see another mini peak coming into Easter. So October to November are kind of our grand final quarter, put it that way. Understood. Thanks for the color, George. Just one for Ed. It has been a while since we have seen the take-or-pay mix across the business generally, particularly for coal. But can you just give us a sense where that stands, from a portfolio perspective, just taking into account the recontracting, please? Yeah. Thanks for the question. At a portfolio level, it's not changed material, and we're still sitting between 50% and 60%. Thanks, Ed. Thank you. Your next question comes from Justin Barratt from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks very much for the opportunity today. Maybe a question for Andrew. Just coming back to your, I guess, holistic response to Matt's question on, I guess, coal shipments out of Australia. I guess given the context of everything that you said there, to me, it sort of reads like it may be difficult to get yield growth in that coal business for a couple of years or the next few years without meaningful volume growth. Is that fair to say, or have I guess, misread some of your comments there? I was talking about the potential for volume growth specifically, when I was answering the question. At the end of the day, when you are talking about any other factors that come into play, it will depend on the competitive environment that you are in at that moment in time, the decisions that the customer is trying to make and when they are trying to make those decisions. I was making comments about volume. Okay, understood. Just with the Hunter Valley contracted volumes that you lost, I guess based on slide 18, which is super helpful. I guess I sort of read that there was a fair bit of take-or-pay that will help increase that utilization into FY 2027 with those lost volumes. With the BMA recontracting that you announced today, how should we think about utilization potentially into FY 2028? Do we think it would step up again? Is there a reduction in take-or-pay as part of that recontracting that should drive that utilization potentially higher again into 2028? Ed, do you want to talk about your contracting? Yeah, sure. Thanks for the question. I cannot get into the specifics of the nomination in relation to, well, any particular customer, including the cessation of that previously announced contract loss. What I can say is our customers value some nomination flexibility, so ups and downs as their end user demand for their product changes. At a macro level, as Andrew and Ian have outlined, whilst the headline contracted volume number has come down by 20 million tons, we actually expect hauled volumes to be broadly flat. That will mean that contract utilization will rise from the low 80s to closer to 90%. It will move the same volume, but the revenue mix will shift toward a lower yielding usage charge. Okay, great. Thanks for that. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Koh from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good morning. I just wanted to make sure I understood some of your transformation and efficiency initiatives. In coal, you have called out a AUD 30 million, three-year target. I wonder if you could give us any color on the timing of that and the cost to achieve. Is that cost to achieve included in the AUD 25 million CapEx guidance this year for transformation? Then I guess there is also AUD 50 million transformation project costs scheduled for this year. I wonder if you could just help me understand which buckets I should be putting those numbers in, please. Okay. Do you want that, I think. Ed, do you want to talk through the coal transformation program that we are launching? Yes. Thank you, Andrew. I can certainly talk to the capital for our program. Maybe just at a high level. I'll just reiterate what Ian said that we are really focused on what we can control. We have a track record for disciplined cost management. Starting with that, I wanted to make the point that we intend to hold cost flat again in nominal terms, which will be the third consecutive year. We should also keep in mind we are working hard to secure the contract pipeline and maximize those volumes. There are value levers in addition to the coal transformation program. We have already right-sized the workforce and locomotive fleet after the contract cessation in New South Wales, having retained some capacity for spot volumes, which we are trying to pick up at the moment. In terms of the three-year coal transformation program, which you have rightly articulated as AUD 30 million over three years, to give you a bit of color, we are looking at opportunities in the deployment, really the planning, scheduling, and deployment of our assets. So a focus on productivity, on maintenance efficiency, on overheads, and general operating model improvements. In relation to the capital, the capital is phased over the three years, so we have to approach it in a digestible way, and some improvement initiatives follow on from others. The first thing we are going to look at is some technology integration in our deployment center during the course of this year to enable us to make better decisions on the day of operations and make better use of the capacity deployed. Rob, you made reference to a AUD 50 million transformation program. There was the SSR program that was implemented and is flowing from previous year. I am not sure what the question is. Well, the only thing I can think of, Rob, is are you reflecting on the ERP technology upgrade and migration, which is a- Yeah. Yeah, that's- It's on slide 13. You said you- Yeah. Okay. So that is the replacement of the ERP program that occurs over a number of years, and which I think we announced 12 months ago. So that in itself is not a transformation program, Rob. We have SAP, we are replacing it with a better SAP with AI tools in it, and changing some of the ways that the business processes interact with the ERP program to get more efficient operations. So we will get some benefits from that point of view. But I do not want to be selling to you that the ERP upgrade is a transformation project by itself. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Just looking at the slide, Rob, what it is the second part of transformation goes back to the SSR. There is some redundancy costs associated with that which we have called out, which pretty much will not be happening going forward. Yeah. Okay. The ERP project is AUD 50 million, and then there is a separate AUD 25 million transformation, and then it sounded like Mr. McKeiver's efficiency gains is actually pretty small and phased over the three years. You got it. Yeah. Correct. That's all operational, the stuff that Ed was talking about. Lovely. If I can ask your shiny brand new CFO a question about debt. Just looking at slide 19, there's a reasonable debt tower coming up in FY 2028. You've got plenty of time. Just wondering if you can give us a steer on how you're thinking about that refi and versus what it's hedged at now, would current market rates be higher or lower? Just any thoughts there, please. Yep. We'll approach that maturity concentration in advance, as you would have expected in the past, and we'll look at the various markets. But I guess the big point that we've called out is that 70% of it is bank debt. We've got great relationships with our banks. So, it's always better when it's done, but nonetheless, high confidence in relation to that. In terms of the current interest rates, I guess naturally you would expect them to be higher because of a higher interest rate environment. But we are at a good credit rating, so therefore, we'll look to reduce the cost as best we can. But then I'd also note that at the same time, we are heading into UT5 territory and the regulatory reset on that and the WACC associated with the revenue that we earn on the network. All of these things are happening at the same time. So we've got, I guess, the natural hedge associated with current refinancing, as well as hedging that we'll do during that regulatory measurement period. So, confident on the refi. Yes, interest costs are going up, but remember, a fundamental premise of our business is our protections, particularly under the regulatory regime. Okay, cool. We could probably find it in the network accounts, but of the AUD 1.69 billion, how much of that is network? About 70%, I think. Probably consistent with the bank that I- Yeah. The guys are confirming, yeah, 70%. Yeah. Okay. That's where you've got the natural hedge in the revenue. That's all good. All right. Maybe just a final question. If I look at your coal volumes, I think for the second year in a row, you are including a bit of grain volumes in the coal volumes. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the wider exposure to agri this year in what is potentially an El Niño year, please. George, I think that is a question for you. Sure. Rob, we do a little bit of grain in New South Wales in Ed's business. Our main grain exposure is Western Australia and South Australia. If you look at those two markets, Western Australia, depending on the year, is about 40% of Australian grain exports. South Australia, around 20%. But those two states are also where they get winter rain, so they tend to experience a lot less volatility than the East Coast. If you look at South Australia's grain outlook, I think there has been, GIWA is a good report to look at. South Australia looks like being at average or slightly above average for this next harvest. I think WA looks like being about on average for this next harvest, which of course is down from the record year last year. One of the things we will benefit though from in FY 2027 is we have volume that we are still moving from the last harvest. So our July grain volumes in WA were much stronger than the corresponding period. August is looking the same, and that is why Andrew and Ian made the comments that we expect to move more grain in FY 2027 than FY 2026. Cool. All right. Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thank you. Your next question comes from Sam Seow from Citi. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Thanks for letting me ask the question. I just wanted to ask, I guess, post right-sizing some of your contract book, that coal guide implies low 90% utilization. I just want to understand how reflective that number is across the whole book or how we should think about where those contractual volume ceilings are and maybe where those spot opportunities may exist. Thanks. Ed, do you want to see if you can help? Yeah. Sure. Thanks for the question, Sam. I think you are asking me about the right sizing and whether or not we will think it will be stable for the outlook. If not, please let me know. I think what I would say about the right sizing is we have seen. We see this as an isolated event for now, as some customers in Queensland have looked at that profile that Ian showed and have decided that to match their production pipeline, their production output with their rail contracts. We see the right sizing driven, as Andrew said, by three factors. One is their cost focus, two is that some mines have changed ownership, and the new owners are reviewing the production plans, cost structures, and other priorities that they inherited from the previous owners, and also the broader investment environment that Andrew spoke about. At 90%, with the trimming then of those contracts to more align with their production, we really will see contract utilization lift to 90%. 90% then now is sustainable and we think that the risk of future right-sizing is reduced as whole tons will now be within 10% of contract tons. I guess on the other side, could I ask, that 90%, is it particularly thin anywhere or expanded anywhere? I just want to try to understand, if you do have opportunities to spot tons or the market does turn, where they are probably most likely to appear. Thanks. Yeah, it is difficult to say in advance, Sam. That is the nature of spot volume. It is very localized and time dependent. I made the comment on an earlier question around investing in the deployment center. That is exactly the type of thing we are looking at to be able to take advantage of perishable capacity on the day of operation by taking advantage of emergent spot business. As the largest coal hauler in the country, we have assets deployed delivering to nine coal seaports. We have 25, well, 50 odd load points we collect from. We are about 50% of the market share. It is very dynamic, difficult to predict in advance. Got it. That's helpful. Then maybe just on the impairment, can we maybe just talk at a high level to some of the underlying assumptions? I think obviously it's quite small versus the asset base, but is that just the contract or is there anything, other changes in forward assumptions that you'd like to call out? Thanks. Ian, do you want to talk through the impairment? Yeah, sure. Quite simply, the trigger for an assessment is losing a major contract, which is what occurred. So you do a DCF, you look at your expectations for recontracting, and you look at your DCF relative to the asset base. As you say, the result is an AUD 50 million write-off, which is non-cash, and it's written off against hard assets. So it's as simple as that. Got it. Thanks a lot, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tom Peyton from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Andrew, Ian, hope you are all settling well. Thanks for the question. FY 2027, if I look at slide 20, this is just me trying to interpret a chart that is clearly a draft. When we look at buybacks and dividends in FY 2027, the dotted line on the angle, am I to interpret that as FY 2027, we are just seeing dividends, so that dividend figure is growing to the full amount? How should I think about that FY 2027 split between dividends and buybacks? Think about it as the proportion of shareholder returns, and that is going up to show the proportion of dividends will be higher, because it does not reflect a buyback because we have not done a buyback in 2027, have not announced a buyback in 2027. That is what the chart is meant to be showing. All right. Awesome. Thank you. Just on the CapEx distribution, if I am correct, you are moving away from coal and into freight, but keeping the headline CapEx figure consistent across periods. Is that a trend that we can expect to continue moving forward? Well, George went through the capital program, particularly for finished vehicles. We have spent some money on that in 2026. We are going to have some more in 2027. The balance will be in 2028. That growth element is probably, I do not know, round numbers maybe going to be consistent in 2028. Not that we are guiding 2028 for the moment. The discussion on the existing business, that is not going to change particularly depending on the cycle that we are through and that lumpy capital is probably further out than in the medium term. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lara Tufegdzic from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Thank you for taking my question. With locomotive capacity becoming available from coal, does that provide additional flexibility to accelerate growth opportunities in bulk? How does it balance between the additional locomotive capacity that will be redeployed versus a new customer growth that bulk is seeing? Will this additional capacity be used up straight away or will there potentially be some softer utilization? Yeah, good question, Lara. I'll get George to talk through what he's doing with some of the extra capacity that has been sent his way from the coal business. Thanks, Andrew. Thanks, Lara. It's a combination of both. Some are deployed straight away. We've seen that in the early part of FY 2027. Some will be deployed over time. To give you a sense of those deployments, we've leased a couple of locomotives to SCT as part of our hook and pull arrangement. We've also deployed a handful of locomotives into our CF business, containerized freight, and handed back some locomotives that we had leased as part of the startup exercise. Then there's a few locomotives that we expect to deploy in calendar year 2027 as we're seeing growth projects, particularly in the Northern Territory. Some higher-grade iron ore, some phosphate rock projects that are coming on there. So it's a combination of deployed straight away and deployed over time. Great. That was so helpful. Thank you. Just one more, if I may. Yeah. To what extent in containerized freight is there a benefit from the existing terminal locomotive capacity already within the group versus as volumes grow, how capital efficient do you think this business can become relative to bulk and coal? You want me to answer that one, Andrew? Yes, please. I think when you are talking about containerized freight, you are moving volumes over thousands of kilometers, so you will not ever get the same type of productivity or say tonnage moved, per train set as you do in coal, where the average haul length is about 250 km. What I would say is we are making incremental improvements each year. In FY 2027, we are bringing on Kewdale, which will be a big step change in our Perth terminal. To remind you, we have got eight services a week that run from the East Coast into Perth, so it is a really important end destination for us. Then in FY 2028, we have got auto wagons coming online, which Andrew mentioned. We called out AUD 100 million of capital that we are spending on those auto wagons backed by the CEVA and NYK contracts. The great thing about that capital is that is just the auto wagons. You actually put those auto wagons on the back of our existing containerized freight services. You are just lengthening the train sets. You do not need extra locos, you do not need extra train crew. We are seeing incremental improvements each year and we have got other targets for FY 2029 and FY 2030. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from Ian Myles from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Just on the last point, firstly, can you just tell me the length of the contracts with CEVA and NYK for AUD 100 million spend? Ian, I cannot tell you that because it is commercial in confidence. What I would say is one is a very long-term contract, not dissimilar to our coal and bulk contracts. The other one is a broader partnership. So we do not just look at the haulage contract itself. We have also looking at landside logistics with NYK. And so we have got a broader partnership with NYK, and we are looking to grow their volumes in our auto wagons, supported not just by the haulage, but also landside logistics. One of the things that makes me excited about that is what NYK have committed to Aurizon, and we have called it out in Andrew's slide at 7,000 vehicles per annum, is less than 4% of the volume they bring into Australia today. So there is lots of room to grow for us and NYK to change that supply chain going forward. Does that mean you have to buy some land and actually set up a, for want of a better word, service center in each of the individual capital cities? Keep going, George. All right. We will have different terminals because we will need car parks in each capital city. I have mentioned Forrestfield and Kewdale a few times in Perth. Forrestfield will become our car park in Perth, so our containers will move to Kewdale and Forrestfield will become the finished vehicles logistics center in Perth. The other thing we have done is already bought significant landside, land in South Australia. So we have about 800 hectares of land in South Australia that with NYK, we are looking to turn into a vehicle logistics precinct. Before you ask, Ian, yes, that has been included in our growth CapEx, but given where the land is located, it was a fraction of the price that you would get in a capital city. I can imagine. But does that mean you have got another above and beyond AUD 100 million, you have got to spend another, I am going to make up a number, AUD 50 million to get all these sites up to speed? What I would say is when we started up containerized freight, we said that startup would be about AUD 425 million of capital. We've spent already, if you include FY 2026, about AUD 350 million of that AUD 425 million. What we're saying is add AUD 100 million to that AUD 425 million, and that should be sufficient to move the volume we've announced for NYK Line and CEVA. Obviously, if their volumes grow, and we hope they will, or we attract new customers, then we will need to expand those terminals. Yes, there'll be more CapEx attached to it, but we'll tie that to future contracts. One more on that issue. The amount of wagons you've ordered, how many cars would that facilitate the movement of per annum? I would say, think about it as if we can move about 1,000 vehicles a week with the wagons that we have bought. Of course, it depends on the origin and destination pair. If you're moving from Darwin to Melbourne, it's fewer. If you're moving from Melbourne to Adelaide or Sydney to Adelaide because you're relocating, Ian, then it would be more. Okay. That's great. No plans to go to South Australia just yet. In terms of the BHP contract renewal, one of the comments you always made was it had a very high take-or-pay relative to the rest of the contracts. Has that renewal seen a normalization, that take-or-pay, to what would be typically seen in your other contracts? Thanks for the question, Ian. As you would expect, I cannot talk about the specific terms within that contract. Thank you. Okay. Can you clarify, I did not quite understand at the beginning, that 65 million tons would have been 43 still with BMA, and you said that the 37 is the same amount. I was just a bit confused on how that maths worked. Yeah. When the contract was last tendered back in 2012, actually, it started in 2016 or 2015. It was contracted prior to the commencement of BMA Rail. So you have got to also factor in the BMA Rail volume as well. Broadly, Aurizon's contract was a 65-million-ton headline contract. There has been changes in nominations over the years, ups and downs. If you add back in the divestment of the Blackwater Daunia assets and also the BMC South Walker Creek port rail assets, you get back to something in the vicinity of the original volume. Okay. In terms of cost reductions, you are going to driverless operations. Have you been able to retain that within your recontracting, or has that been passed back through to your customers to go into a single driver operation? I'm sorry. Could you restate the question, please, Ian? You've been moving to a single driver operation up in the Goonyella and the Blackwater corridors, and you've gone through recontracting. Have you been able to retain that productivity benefit, or are you passing that back through to your customers? A little bit of both. It's a competitive market, and we have to—firstly, what I'll say is that the TrainGuard investment we've made stands alone on its own business case, and we've seen obviously the productivity and the safety benefits associated with that. When you get into a competitive process, as you'd appreciate, we've really reset our structured cost base. I will say, as I said earlier in the call, that more broadly based on the basket of contracts we've renegotiated since July 25, we've not seen a material change in our haulage rate. Okay. We're coming into this FY 2028. I presume we should be seeing most of those contracts get rolled this year. Where I'm coming from is when you look at the broader market, is it really just ACG which carries spare loco capacity, or is there still spare capacity across the industry? It's difficult to say. I can't speak about our customers' capacity. We are always focused on keeping our capacity utilized. Up until the cessation of the previously announced contract in the Hunter Valley, it was finely balanced, our capacity. We are looking, as we've talked about earlier in that regard, to deploy to bulk and also retain for growth because we've got some customers, including MACH Energy, they got their Mod 8 application through on Friday, looking to actually increase volume. There's some spot, there's some growth, and there's some redeployment. Rather than talk about more broadly the industry, there's not been a material change in the fleet deployed in coal haulage. In relation to the stack, the FY 2027, 2028 stack on the slide that Andrew spoke to, what I can say is we're in live tenders or late-stage negotiations for all of that remaining contract volume expiring over that period. I obviously can't get into customer-specific details. We're also, though, just to remind you, we're competing for contestable competitive volume that isn't actually shown in that current pipeline at the moment as well. The difference between the near-term recontracting and the contracting we've just announced is that it's around 10 smaller volume contracts rather than another large base load recontract like the one announced today. Okay. That's great. Then one final question on the CapEx side. The drop in the CapEx spend for coal for the sustainable side in FY 2026, is that a reflection that you just didn't need to do the maintenance on a whole heap of wagons and locos because the contract's coming to an end and you're going to park them in sheds and the equivalent, and so it's just a permanent step down? Not at all, Ian. It's partly cyclical in timing and also, I may suggest, the result of good planning over the last decade. To give you some color, we have done the midlife overhauls for our entire 105-strong electric loco fleet in Queensland over the last 10 years. We also built our own Jilalan wheel overhaul facility in Jilalan, and we're now halfway through our 5,500 wagon midlife overhauls. We've invested in Southeast Queensland or the West Moreton corridor to grow with our customers there. Our fleet has been renewed there as well, and now we're starting on our overhauls in New South Wales as well. We've changed. On previous call, one of the ways we're able to get more capital efficiency is by, we move from monolithic overhauls of our locomotives to component-level change out of components. We are not replacing things early that do not need to be replaced. The other thing we have done, we are doing a lot better in recent years and certainly still a focus for us, is making making sure the periodicity of our maintenance intervals are optimized, and that is by fleet, also by the corridor where those particular assets are deployed. If I could add in, optimize means longer periods. Yes. Between interventions. Can I extrapolate? Because that was a lot of information, and it is a bit dim. Can I extrapolate that you are actually having, in coal, a CapEx number which is sustainably lower than what it has been for, say, the average of the last five years? I think the short answer is yes. I would not depart too far from the- There is a timing impact associated with it, and it will be dependent, again, on recontracting and customer nominations. It will remain in the zone. But Ian, possibly the heart of your question is that there have been deliberate changes to the way maintenance is done in coal and in bulk that takes better, drops the level of planning down to a component level from a unit level. And in doing that, and application of the right technology, information technology, you can actually make really good decisions to push out the inspection and replacement intervals and can move to more condition-based for your fleet. And in doing that, to something that Ed was trying to point to, you see an immediate impact because you are just pushing the timeframes out. But over the longer term, because you have pushed those timeframes out, you will also see some benefit in the future. But the key benefit you see is in the first couple of years that you actually do that work. Ian, I would say if you take a five-year view, we are probably spending AUD 100 million a year. This is AUD 82 million or something last year. So that is the cycle. So it is going to be a bit more in the future to cover that off, but not a material change. So do not assume it is a steps change. We are still shipping 192 million tons. So in theory, you should be spending the same amount of money, plus you have probably got inflationary pressures as well. So it is not a material drop. Okay. Look, that is great. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Cool. Thank you. Your next question comes from Cameron McDonald from E&P. Please go ahead. Just on the coal transformation of the AUD 30 million benefit. Is that the right number to be thinking about the earnings headwind that you are then trying to offset because of the recontracting and the yield pressure that you are seeing come through in 2027? Do you want to talk to that, Ian? Yes. Yes. Short answer is yes, Cameron. Yep. Okay, so it is going to take you three years to get back to FY 2026 earnings effectively, all other things being equal. No. No. So maybe, Ed, I can help with that. So, we have told you about the recontracting and, so what are you going to do about it? So this transformation is about improving the underlying costs and productivity to get back. The plan is AUD 30 million per annum is what we are targeting. Therefore, that run rate, you take that forward. Yes. But if that is an earnings headwind in 2027 and it takes you three years to get to that run rate, all other things being equal, you are saying coal earnings will be lower for the next three years than they were in 2026. No. We are saying that the transformation benefits, we are putting them in to protect earnings going forward. Yeah. From the 2027 level. We do not give guidance by business unit, Cameron, as you know. As Andrew has noted, earnings will be lower in FY 2027 because of the lower contract volume and lower yield. We have got more recontracting to do. It will depend. We are very focused on, I am very focused personally on rebuilding earnings and recovering earnings. That is why we are announcing the transformation plan today. Okay, great. Then just on the network. This year, FY 2027 is the final year of getting some previous period revenue cap adjustments coming through. What is that number expected to be in 2027, please? Because on the slides you have got something between AUD 60 million and AUD 101 million. Yeah, the number in 2027 is 60. Six, zero. Yep. We expect about 60% of that to drop to EBITDA. Okay, so 60 in 2027. It- Yeah, 60% EBITDA. Yep. Cool. Thank you. Just in terms of where you are in terms of the building, and this is the BHP South Australia contract. You are building a depot at Pimba to facilitate all that. Where are you in that process and how much more is to spend in FY 2027? So just to go back a little bit into when we started the contract. We started with a temporary terminal. We talked about as the volumes build, we would have to exit the temporary terminal and move into the permanent terminal. George, do you want to just talk about where we are in that process? Yeah. Thanks, Andrew. The team did a fantastic job getting that temporary terminal up and running in what was three months, Cameron, for the first train to run on 1st of October. We are now going through the approval process with the South Australian Government and also an Indigenous Land Use Agreement to then build the permanent terminal adjacent to the temporary terminal. How much of that permanent terminal we get built and how much CapEx we spend in FY 2027 will depend on how quickly those approvals and ILUAs get in place. I would be saying it could be AUD 10 million to AUD 20 million, and we will have a better idea when we come to the half year results. Happy to give an update then. That range I mentioned is reflected in our FY 2027 CapEx guidance. Okay, great. Andrew, just while you have got the floor. TGE has been in the press either looking for a new owner or looking for some capital support with a partner. Can you either confirm or rule out that Aurizon would be looking to inject capital of any description into TGE? It's not a particularly fair question, is it? Talking about one of my customers. But what I would say is when we started the contract and the business of containerized freight, which was based on the key customer of TGE, we said we'd learned a number of things from the past where we'd made mistakes and we weren't looking to repeat them. And amongst those decisions or those learnings, one of them was that we would not be a freight forwarder and compete with our customers. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Nathan Lead from Morgans. Please go ahead. Hi, gents. Thanks for your presentations. Just first one from me, the FY 2027 EBITDA guidance range. Just what are the factors that swing it from top to bottom? Do you want to talk through, Ian, any of the factors? I can do. I think you go through each of the business units, and they will have different reasons for, I guess, the risks and the opportunities, if you wanted to frame it that way. Network we know is consistent and predictable. Yep. In terms of coal, we have talked a lot about coal today. The pluses and minuses associated with that. Similarly, off the base of a predictable hauled tonnage. George has spoken about bulk as well. The key things there are probably mostly the things that we cannot control, which would be weather, track access, those types of things. CF is in largely the same boat, albeit we are in a much stronger position from the perspective this year than we were last year. So they are the pluses and minuses, and that is the balanced position. When we look at probably the balance is the corporate costs. You would expect corporate costs will be consistent. If not, we will be trying for lower, but nonetheless. So they are the things that we have put in place, probably nothing different than what you have heard in previous years. Yep. Okay, great. Second question is with the new coal haulage contracts. You have spoken about the mix of capacity revenue and volume-based revenue. You have also talked about the haulage rates, but just wanted to just get confidence that the escalation type formula for these long-dated contracts has not changed or if there is anything going on on that front. If you mean CPI escalation and fuel- Yep. and energy pass through, Nathan? Yeah. Yeah. No material change. Okay, great. I am just sort of thinking about that from the credit quality of the coal segment. A final one from me, just for you, Ian, I suppose. You have had a chance to look into the capital management of the business. How much debt capacity do you think the group overall has within its current credit ratings? Well, we've got roughly AUD 1 billion of available capacity. That is probably an area that I would look at that is available. That is, I suppose, the balance sheet, the extent to which the capacity we have, I guess, if you like. We generally use that capacity for refinancing, and we will use that as part of our refinancing as well. If you said what was the hard number of what we could raise within the credit rating boundaries, then it would be around that number. Around AUD 1 billion. I suppose the question then goes back to what is stopping you doing more buyback? Nathan, I deliberately said and went to the process that the board uses to make a decision. I did not say anything about stopping or starting a buyback. The board makes a decision on buybacks based on all the information it has at the time. If you look at the history, we have made decisions and only last year at the half and at the prior full year. Then not randomly, but different times through previous periods. The board will make a decision based on the information it has at the time. Nathan, I was really hoping you would ask me about the capital allocation framework. That would be a way more exciting discussion. The point being, what Andrew is saying is that we have got a very clear and disciplined capital allocation framework in which the objective is to maximize shareholder returns, and we will look at all of the opportunities to do that through that lens. Well, just on, I suppose, on capital allocation, Andrew, you previously said about how painful it had been to reduce the payout ratio. Can we assume that 90% is steady state at the moment, and franking, you can continue at that 90% or above? I think, the way I have answered that question before, Nathan, and there is no reason to change it, is that we want a payout ratio that is a good reflection of where the business is, which is we are a business that is not ex-growth. So we need to take that into account. But we are also a business that generates an awful lot of cash from our network and our coal businesses. The payout ratio at 90% reflects that judgment. When it comes to franking, I am not an expert in all of the stuff that goes into generating the franking calculation. But equally, you do not want to forecast franking too far into the future, but rather look at what we have done in the past. And we have been fairly well franked in the past, and I think that is some indication of where we could be in the future. Did you want to add anything to that, Ian? Yeah. I think it is important to note, if you have a look at our free cash flow to equity or bottom line free cash flow, and have a look, if you look at it either statutory or underlying, the two NPAT and free cash flow are quite aligned. That means reinvesting back into the business at or around depreciation, which we have discussed about today. Then we have probably got a pick-up on tax because we are currently paying less tax than earnings, so that is good news, but that also limits the franking. Two things. One is NPAT and free cash flow align, therefore a 90% payout of NPAT also means a 90% payout of free cash flow. That is important. The second part is franking is a function of accelerated depreciation, which is good because it means we pay less tax, which means we have more capital to allocate. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Your next question comes from Scott Ryall from Rimor Equity Research. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thank you. I have very quick questions, hopefully, so I'll just rattle through. On slide 16, George, this is probably for you. Could you just tell me, over a three to five year timeframe, of those business unit splits that you've put helpfully down on the bottom left-hand side, which is the ones that excite you most over a three to five year timeframe, please? Yeah. Scott, if I heard you right, it's the chart that shows revenue broken down by commodities. Is that right? Correct. Yes. Yeah. Got it. Okay. When I think about growth of the Bulk business, there's three broad categories we drive growth. The first one is in better operational performance. The second one is in relation to growing with our existing customers, and the third one is new customers. If I tackle it that way, then I'll circle back to your question. So we improved our cancellation performance in bulk quite significantly in FY 2027. Just in W.A. alone, we took 1,300 cancellations in FY 2025, and we dropped it down by 300. We want to do that again in FY 2027, and then further improvements across the business the next two years. The second lever I mentioned is grow with our existing customers. There are two that have public growth targets out there. The first one is CBH, that wants to increase its average harvest and also push more of that harvest out in the first six months of the year post-harvest. The second one is BHP Copper, who have public aspirations out there, of course, subject to investment decisions. The third one is growing with new customers. I mentioned earlier in the call, iron ore, I mentioned phosphate rock, and I mentioned rare earths. So if you step back to your question then, Scott, grain, I'm excited about the growth in grain, particularly in Western Australia and South Australia. The second one is copper. South Australia has two-thirds of Australia's copper reserves. That's the reason why we invested in the One Rail business a few years ago. The third one I'd mention is phosphate rock and rare earths. When we talk about rare earths, they are not big volumetrically in terms of exports, but much like copper projects, they need inputs into the mining process. Some of the rare earths projects, particularly in the center of Australia, but also Western Australia, we are excited to look to partner with long-term. If I was to project five years down the track, I would love to see a bigger percentage of grain, bigger percentage of copper, and a bigger percentage of rare earths in that diagram. I think containerized freight volumes will hopefully grow with GDP longer-term. Then if you were to combine it with containerized freight, I expect you will see a big wedge there called vehicles, post our investment in auto wagons, which as you can tell, I am pretty excited about. All right. Thank you. Ed, on coal on slide 17. I am a simple person and I love waterfall charts. Can I just summarize? You have given a number of answers to this over the course of the call. You talked about if I could look forward to fiscal 2027 and look at what has changed relative to 2026. You said volumes are about the same, tons hauled about the same. Operating costs, you have said a similar kind of expectation for 2027. I am thinking price indexation shouldn't change too much, but most of the yield change should be the red bar, the customer mix. Then I am not sure that net access and fuel actually having a gain year-on-year is achievable again. Can you just correct me on anything I have said there? I am trying to wrap it all into one package for my simple brain. Thank you. Thanks, Scott. I think you summarized it very well. Especially the bit about net access and fuel not repeating in FY 2027. All right. Fantastic. Thank you. Andrew, just last question for you. You mentioned the ERP earlier on the call. Can you just remind us when that goes live, please? That is June. June next year. Yes, 1st of July 2027. Okay, so a year away. Okay, thank you. That is all I had. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time, and that does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may dis-