L.E.K. · consulting-deck
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
170 pages · 5 arc beats · 2 loops
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
L.E.K. arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 2 LOOPS
1102030405060708090100110120130140150160170
Deck intelligence map
5 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 80 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Situation & Context 5 slides 100% 5/5 slides 100% 5/5 slides · 20 hits — 0/5 slides
80% 4/5 slides · 5 hits 20% 1/5 slides 100% 5/5 slides — 0/5 slides
Problem & Complication 15 slides 100% 15/15 slides 100% 15/15 slides · 91 hits — 0/15 slides
66.7% 10/15 slides · 11 hits 26.7% 4/15 slides 100% 15/15 slides — 0/15 slides
Solution & Approach 20 slides 100% 20/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides · 106 hits — 0/20 slides
25% 5/20 slides 25% 5/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides 15% 3/20 slides Evidence & Proof 20 slides 100% 20/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides · 126 hits — 0/20 slides
55% 11/20 slides · 12 hits 15% 3/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides 20% 4/20 slides Impact & Next Steps 20 slides 100% 20/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides · 122 hits — 0/20 slides
45% 9/20 slides 15% 3/20 slides 100% 20/20 slides — 0/20 slides
Slide inventory
170 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
03
The slide outlines the mandate from ORR, ATOC, and Network Rail, and clarifies the relationship with the McNulty Rail VfM review.establish_context
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
04
The table acts as a decision matrix for the four selected options.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
05
The slide presents a structured comparison of four policy options for financial risk/reward sharing in the rail industry.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
06
The slide continues a list of options, starting from number 5.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
07
The slide lists specific criteria and the corresponding key questions used for evaluation.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
08
The slide serves as a methodological disclosure for an executive summary section.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
09
The table uses a qualitative scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate options.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
11
The slide uses a traffic light system (green check, red X, question mark) to indicate implementation status for 8 options.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
12
The slide outlines why train operators are generally unsupportive of cost/revenue sharing unless they have direct control/influence (Option 8).summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
13
The slide is part of a series (2 of 2) and references a previous L.E.K. report on Alternative Railway Structures.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
14
The table uses a qualitative scoring system (+, 0, -) to compare the 'Now' state against the 'After implementing HS with multiple owners' state.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
15
The slide outlines a specific implementation strategy involving CP5 and CP6 periods.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
16
L.E.K. consulting slide regarding rail industry cost and revenue sharing.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
17
L.E.K. consulting slide discussing rail industry cost and revenue sharing mechanisms.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
18
The slide uses a central arrow to represent the 'Cultural change' required to bridge the two approaches.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
20
The slide uses a 'carrot vs stick' metaphor to describe the strategic approach to industry partnerships.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
21
The slide uses a Gantt chart format to map specific policy milestones against a calendar timeline.plan_implementation
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
23
The slide outlines the mandate from ORR, ATOC, and Network Rail, and references a related study for the McNulty Rail VfM review.establish_context
24
The slide clarifies that the study assumes no radical changes to the roles of train operators or Network Rail.establish_context
25
The slide lists specific dates, workshop types, and participating organizations in the rail industry.establish_context
26
The table uses a color-coded matrix to show which components (NR costs/revenue, TOC revenue, TOC costs) are included or excluded for four specific options.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
27
The slide details four specific regulatory or contractual mechanisms for cost/revenue sharing in the rail industry.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
28
The slide is a continuation of a previous list, focusing on options 5-8.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
31
The slide uses a numbered list format to categorize ten distinct areas of consideration for a sharing mechanism.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
32
The chart uses a waterfall-style stacked bar approach to show the composition of TOC, Expenditure, and Revenue requirement.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
33
The slide uses a stacked bar chart to visualize the composition of TOC revenue and a list to justify inclusion/exclusion criteria.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
34
The table evaluates four scenarios: No sharing, Full sharing, TOC pax and sch 8 revenue shared only, and TOC pax revenue shared only.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
35
The slide uses a categorization framework to justify a policy recommendation regarding Network Rail (NR) and Train Operating Companies (TOCs).diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
36
The slide uses a stacked bar chart to visualize the total cost base and a list to justify inclusion/exclusion decisions for specific cost categories.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
37
The table compares 'No sharing', 'Full sharing', 'TOC and NR cost sharing', and 'NR cost sharing only' across P&L items (revenue/cost) for TOC and NR.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
38
Includes a quote from a stakeholder regarding the risk of gaming the system.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
39
The slide is part of a series (1 of 6) regarding Network Rail costs.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
40
The table includes adjustments for non-PR08 funded enhancements and deferred expenditure.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Solution & Approach
41
Source: NR, Delivery Plan Update, March 2010. Note: * Including CIRAS fee.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
42
The slide evaluates the appropriateness of cost/revenue sharing mechanisms for each of the three identified influence mechanisms.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
43
The slide uses a standard comparison matrix format to evaluate strategic options.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
44
The slide compares Vertical Integration (VI) against cost/revenue sharing mechanisms in the context of UK railway structures.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
45
Part of a series of slides analyzing sharing mechanism practicalities.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
46
The slide discusses 'option value' in the context of rail franchise bidding and Value for Money (VfM).diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
47
The slide highlights the discrepancy between functional organization and geographical reporting, showing maps for both operating and strategic routes.establish_context
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
48
The slide critiques the PR08 EBS mechanism as ineffective due to its national scope, which weakens the link between operator actions and financial results.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
49
The slide discusses structural changes to rail network management regions.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
50
The chart uses bubble size to represent total train kms. A vertical line at 70% highlights the threshold mentioned in the title.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
51
The slide argues that the underlying data requirements and mapping challenges remain largely the same regardless of the chosen geographic entity.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
53
The slide uses quotes from the PR08 Determination and Network Rail's CEO to substantiate the claim of uncertainty.frame_problem
54
The slide discusses the potential impact of the McNulty Rail VfM review on TOC business models.diagnose
55
The slide uses quotes from stakeholders to emphasize the difficulty of pricing regulatory risk into bids.frame_problem
56
Discusses RPI-X regulation, capex/opex reclassification risks, and ORR/NR/TOC incentive alignment.diagnose
58
The slide highlights the trade-off between administrative simplicity (including all causes) and risk management (excluding specific, clearly defined causes).summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
59
The slide presents a framework for incentive alignment in cost/revenue sharing.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
60
The slide uses a two-row table-like structure to contrast two specific cost categories (Freight access charges and EC4T) and the resulting operator engagement.cite_precedent
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
61
The slide presents two side-by-side tables comparing TOC and Network Rail financial data for CP4.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
62
Contains two data tables showing profit impact in £m and PPT.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
63
The slide discusses risk mitigation strategies (caps, re-openers) in the context of UK rail industry financial structures.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
64
The slide uses a bulleted list to build a logical argument from problem (uncertainty/risk) to solution (soft caps).recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
65
The slide uses a bulleted list structure to categorize secondary users, existing protections, and specific concerns regarding new sharing arrangements.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
66
The slide uses a comparison table structure to evaluate policy options for secondary users.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
67
The slide uses direct quotes from stakeholders to illustrate the sensitivity around information sharing.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
68
The slide highlights the misalignment between current management structures and the proposed geographic reporting requirements.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
69
The slide discusses the practicalities of a cost and revenue sharing mechanism in the UK rail industry.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
70
The slide uses a hierarchical list structure to define roles and responsibilities within the proposed governance framework.recommend
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
71
The slide uses a two-part structure to address two distinct governance concerns raised by the ORR.present_solution
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
72
The slide uses a bulleted list to detail stakeholder feedback and specific concerns regarding regional cost/revenue sharing.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
73
The slide references a previous L.E.K. report from 28 January on Alternative Railway Structures.plan_implementation
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
74
The slide evaluates 'Gradual roll-out', 'Big bang introduction', and 'Combined' approaches.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
75
The chart illustrates a cumulative growth curve of re-franchising activity.plan_implementation
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
76
The table provides a clear mapping of contractual vs. assumed timelines for rail franchises, highlighting specific regulatory or operational reasons for deviatianalyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
78
The table acts as a decision matrix for the 4 selected options.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
79
The slide details specific assumptions for each of the four options, with Option 1 being the most detailed.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
80
The slide is a continuation of a previous list, focusing on options 5 through 8.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
81
The slide serves as a methodology disclosure for the evaluation framework.present_framework
83
The slide uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria.compare_options
84
The slide uses a color-coded table to map categories and criteria to scores and mitigation actions.diagnose
85
The slide outlines a specific implementation strategy (phased approach) to mitigate risks associated with a proposed policy option.recommend
86
The table uses a qualitative scoring system (+, 0, -, --) to assess criteria across two states.compare_options
89
The slide discusses the asymmetry of risk in an outperformance-only incentive scheme compared to a symmetrical one.diagnose
90
The slide details how L.E.K. applied Oxera's findings on cost expenditure standard deviations to estimate EBS payment impacts.analyze_data
91
The slide uses a normal distribution curve to quantify financial risk/volatility.analyze_data
92
The chart illustrates the breakeven points (1.8% and 3.7%) for two scenarios of train operator contribution to NR performance.quantify_impact
93
The slide explains the statistical basis for cost volatility aggregation using standard deviation and covariance formulas.analyze_data
94
The slide compares two scenarios based on regional vs national level mechanisms. The data shows how volatility and correlation affect financial outcomes.analyze_data
95
L.E.K. consulting slide discussing rail industry cost and revenue sharing mechanisms.compare_options
96
The table uses a color-coded qualitative scale (+, 0, --, -) to compare Option 1 (symmetrical) and Option 2 (upside only).compare_options
97
The slide uses a structured table to map specific criteria (A-F) to their performance scores and proposed mitigation actions.recommend
99
The slide outlines a specific strategic option for industry cost/revenue sharing, highlighting the trade-off between revenue exposure and fixed cost reduction.compare_options
101
The slide uses a table to compare four scenarios (No sharing, Full sharing, TOC pax and sch 8 revenue shared only, TOC pax revenue shared only) across 'Before',compare_options
102
The slide details specific feedback from TOC representatives and mentions Network Rail's stance.illustrate_case
103
The slide uses a qualitative scoring system (+, ++, 0, -) to evaluate specific criteria for a proposed revenue-sharing mechanism.compare_options
105
The slide discusses the implications of including TOC performance in a sharing mechanism, specifically noting risks of gaming and the need for open-book accountdiagnose
106
The slide uses qualitative feedback from industry stakeholders to argue against a specific policy option.diagnose
107
The table uses a scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate specific criteria.compare_options
109
The slide discusses the mechanism of Clause 18.1 and provides a quantitative rationale for a 25% exposure model.compare_options
110
The slide discusses specific issues related to Network Rail (NR) cost base, FTAC allocation methodology, and the potential for adversarial relationships betweendiagnose
111
L.E.K. consulting slide regarding rail industry cost and revenue sharing.compare_options
112
The table uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria.compare_options
113
The table uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria across categories A-F.compare_options
114
The slide uses a scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate criteria across categories A-F.diagnose
116
The slide discusses the financial and operational disincentives for Network Rail to add capacity and suggests adjusting VTAC as a solution.recommend
117
VTAC stands for Variable Usage Charge (implied context). NR stands for Network Rail.compare_options
118
The table uses a scoring system of ++, +, 0, -, -- to evaluate criteria.compare_options
120
The slide presents a specific strategic option (Option 8) derived from stakeholder feedback.present_solution
121
Includes a testimonial/quote from a European train operator and a specific case example regarding South West Trains.present_solution
122
The slide uses a vertical arrow diagram to represent increasing depth of commercial agreement.compare_options
123
The slide highlights that these deals are currently focused on daily operations rather than long-term maintenance or capital expenditure.illustrate_case
124
Focuses on the friction between train operators/Network Rail and regulators (DfT/ORR) regarding contractual flexibility.diagnose
125
The slide uses a central arrow labeled 'Cultural change' to bridge the two approaches.compare_options
127
The slide uses a 'carrot vs stick' metaphor to describe the incentive structure for stakeholder collaboration.recommend
128
The table uses a scoring system (++, +, 0) to evaluate specific criteria within each category.compare_options
130
The table uses a color-coded scoring system (red for negative, grey for neutral, green for positive) to evaluate options.compare_options
132
The table uses a traffic light system (green for checkmark, red for X) to indicate implementation status.recommend
133
The slide uses a Gantt chart format to map specific policy and operational milestones across four strategic options.plan_implementation
135
The slide uses a complex flow diagram to map the relationships between government bodies, regulators, service providers, and customers.establish_context
136
The diagram maps the flow of funds including subsidies, grants, and operational costs.establish_context
138
The slide provides a comprehensive overview of the UK rail market structure at the time of the document.establish_context
139
The slide uses a chronological timeline structure to explain policy shifts.establish_context
140
The slide outlines the regulatory and economic framework for rail freight operators in the UK.establish_context
141
Includes quotes from KPMG (2008), Committee of Public Accounts (2010), and Tom Winsor (2004) to support the diagnosis of governance issues.establish_context
142
The slide details the regulatory framework established by the Railways Act 2005 and the specific findings of the PR08 review regarding efficiency gaps.establish_context
143
The slide uses a flow diagram to illustrate how expenditure categories feed into the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) and subsequently into the revenue requirement canalyze_data
144
The table provides a financial breakdown of the allowed return components for CP4.analyze_data
145
The slide outlines the structure of the Management Incentive Plan (MIP) for various executive roles, including performance measures and bonus potential.analyze_data
146
The slide defines the incentive calculation formula and the performance achievement curve.present_framework
147
The slide uses a process flow diagram to explain the incentive distribution mechanism.establish_context
148
The slide details efficiency savings targets across four main programme areas: Asset Management, Efficient Infrastructure Delivery, Access Management, and Netwoquantify_impact
150
The slide uses a three-column layout to categorize industry stakeholders, specific incentive mechanisms, and operational processes.establish_context
151
Includes a direct quote from a stakeholder regarding the lack of confidence in influencing the national-level mechanism.diagnose
153
The slide provides a structural overview of the rail industry's operational and governance framework.establish_context
155
The slide uses a bulleted list format to present qualitative findings from stakeholder workshops.diagnose
156
The slide details the incremental nature of timetable development and the incentive structures (or lack thereof) for Network Rail to accommodate additional servestablish_context
157
Part of a two-slide series on capacity and timetabling. Mentions specific industry entities: DfT, ORR, and East Coast Mainline.diagnose
159
The slide uses quotes from stakeholders to illustrate specific pain points in the planning process.diagnose
160
The slide outlines the operational scope and regulatory framework (ORR, PR08) governing Network Rail's activities.establish_context
162
The slide outlines the division of labor between Network Rail and third-party operators regarding maintenance and commercial incentives.establish_context
164
The slide highlights the interface between train operators and Network Rail regarding rolling stock.establish_context
165
The slide uses a bulleted list format to present qualitative findings regarding the alignment between train operators and Network Rail (NR).establish_context
167
Uses a 2x2-style matrix layout to categorize partnership types.present_framework
168
The slide uses a color-coded vertical block to categorize the success factors into 'Essential', 'Important', and 'Worthwhile'.summarize
169
The slide uses a process flow diagram to map the lifecycle of an alliance.present_framework
170
The slide uses a comparison structure to contrast successful and unsuccessful partnership models.illustrate_case