Am I missing something ? .................

The two parties to the disputes in WA and Queensland are both non-government commercial enterprises where Aurizon was the incumbent 'owner' of the traffic and the infrastructure and rolling stock.

During the due diligence phase and the tendering process Watco would/should have been aware of all the infrastructure ownership and access issues and have had clear and realistic plans surrounding them.

Are there elements of incompetence, negligence, arrogance, assumption and, perhaps even, bluff involved in both these WA and Queensland projects? Or did Watco not seriously expect to win the traffics?

Surely access to the cattle yards etc owned by 'others' (the opposition) is fairly fundamental to the successful takeover of 'their' traffic.

Is it now simply a commercial agreement between the two companies in which the government has little direct influence ie 'screw or be screwed'?

Yet another example of flawed privatisation?

Am I missing something ? .................

The two parties to the disputes in WA and Queensland are both non-government commercial enterprises where Aurizon was the incumbent 'owner' of the traffic and the infrastructure and rolling stock.

During the due diligence phase and the tendering process Watco would/should have been aware of all the infrastructure ownership and access issues and have had clear and realistic plans surrounding them.

Are there elements of incompetence, negligence, arrogance, assumption and, perhaps even, bluff involved in both these WA and Queensland projects? Or did Watco not seriously expect to win the traffics?

Surely access to the cattle yards etc owned by 'others' (the opposition) is fairly fundamental to the successful takeover of 'their' traffic.

Is it now simply a commercial agreement between the two companies in which the government has little direct influence ie 'screw or be screwed'?

Yet another example of flawed privatisation?

Long story short, it appears Watco undercut Aurizon's bid for the Northern cattle contract and Queensland Transport accepted Watco's lower bid with the knowledge almost all cattle handling facilities on the Mt Isa line were owned by Aurizon and that neither Watco or Queensland Transport had the power to oblige Aurizon to dispose of them.

Aside from the lack of facilities, Watco still has to demonstrate it has enough locomotives and crews to service this long haul contract. It is 2,131km from Cloncurry to Dinmore - one way. And 1,480km from Cloncurry to Rockhampton.

Am I missing something ? .................

The two parties to the disputes in WA and Queensland are both non-government commercial enterprises where Aurizon was the incumbent 'owner' of the traffic and the infrastructure and rolling stock.

During the due diligence phase and the tendering process Watco would/should have been aware of all the infrastructure ownership and access issues and have had clear and realistic plans surrounding them.

Are there elements of incompetence, negligence, arrogance, assumption and, perhaps even, bluff involved in both these WA and Queensland projects? Or did Watco not seriously expect to win the traffics?

Surely access to the cattle yards etc owned by 'others' (the opposition) is fairly fundamental to the successful takeover of 'their' traffic.

Is it now simply a commercial agreement between the two companies in which the government has little direct influence ie 'screw or be screwed'?

Yet another example of flawed privatisation?

Long story short, it appears Watco undercut Aurizon's bid for the Northern cattle contract and Queensland Transport accepted Watco's lower bid with the knowledge almost all cattle handling facilities on the Mt Isa line were owned by Aurizon and that neither Watco or Queensland Transport had the power to oblige Aurizon to dispose of them.

Aside from the lack of facilities, Watco still has to demonstrate it has enough locomotives and crews to service this long haul contract. It is 2,131km from Cloncurry to Dinmore - one way. And 1,480km from Cloncurry to Rockhampton.

Thanks S1.
Informative as always.

Watco would not expect Aurizon to provide them with any facilities.

When they obtained the WA grain contract, they based their locomotives and wagons in Avon Yard.
Aurizon had dual gauge locomotive facilities there that they were not using (although they later stored L class locomotives near the locomotive sheds.)

Aurizon actually disconnected the narrow gauge leads to the locomotive sheds in Avon Yard.

So Watco arranged to service their locomotives in the open air on suitable sidings, and carried out wagon maintenance the same way.

I assume that Aurizon have arranged for the narrow gauge tracks to be reconnected to the locomotive shed now they have the grain contract...

Peter

A friend who lives adjacent to the line at Charters Towers sent me a photo of a Watco cattle train passing and a video of a QUBE train passing this morning.