anlak storytelling
All kinds
Document kinds
Loading document kinds...

Primary corpus lens for browsing and insights. Selection lives in the URL.

All formats
Orientation
Loading formats...

Landscape, portrait, square, or unknown document geometry.

Unlock
slides · global inventory

Callout

Component collection for the active corpus filters, with each row opening the slide detail view.

Search Insights JSON Unlock
Matching slides 96,741
Current window 26,461-26,490
Pages 3,225
Rows per page 30
Component: Calloutclear collectionreset all
18 30 60

Component

26,461-26,490 of 96,741

filter-aware
31
The slide uses a numbered list format to categorize ten distinct areas of consideration for a sharing mechanism.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
33
The slide uses a stacked bar chart to visualize the composition of TOC revenue and a list to justify inclusion/exclusion criteria.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
34
The table evaluates four scenarios: No sharing, Full sharing, TOC pax and sch 8 revenue shared only, and TOC pax revenue shared only.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
35
The slide uses a categorization framework to justify a policy recommendation regarding Network Rail (NR) and Train Operating Companies (TOCs).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
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.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
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.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
38
Includes a quote from a stakeholder regarding the risk of gaming the system.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
39
The slide is part of a series (1 of 6) regarding Network Rail costs.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit
46
The slide discusses 'option value' in the context of rail franchise bidding and Value for Money (VfM).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
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.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
49
The slide discusses structural changes to rail network management regions.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
50
The chart uses bubble size to represent total train kms. A vertical line at 70% highlights the threshold mentioned in the title.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
51
The slide argues that the underlying data requirements and mapping challenges remain largely the same regardless of the chosen geographic entity.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
53
The slide uses quotes from the PR08 Determination and Network Rail's CEO to substantiate the claim of uncertainty.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Cost Of Inaction1 hit
54
The slide discusses the potential impact of the McNulty Rail VfM review on TOC business models.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Cost Of Inaction1 hit
55
The slide uses quotes from stakeholders to emphasize the difficulty of pricing regulatory risk into bids.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Cost Of Inaction1 hit
56
Discusses RPI-X regulation, capex/opex reclassification risks, and ORR/NR/TOC incentive alignment.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & ProofLoop · Cost Of Inaction1 hit
57
L.E.K. consulting slide, page 56.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
58
The slide highlights the trade-off between administrative simplicity (including all causes) and risk management (excluding specific, clearly defined causes).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
59
The slide presents a framework for incentive alignment in cost/revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
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.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
62
Contains two data tables showing profit impact in £m and PPT.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
63
The slide discusses risk mitigation strategies (caps, re-openers) in the context of UK rail industry financial structures.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
64
The slide uses a bulleted list to build a logical argument from problem (uncertainty/risk) to solution (soft caps).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
66
The slide uses a comparison table structure to evaluate policy options for secondary users.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
67
The slide uses direct quotes from stakeholders to illustrate the sensitivity around information sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
69
The slide discusses the practicalities of a cost and revenue sharing mechanism in the UK rail industry.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
70
The slide uses a hierarchical list structure to define roles and responsibilities within the proposed governance framework.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
72
The slide uses a bulleted list to detail stakeholder feedback and specific concerns regarding regional cost/revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit
73
The slide references a previous L.E.K. report from 28 January on Alternative Railway Structures.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next Steps1 hit