I‘ve never seen ‘transponders’ at the London end if Radlett Jn*, and even if they were / are there it was nothing to do with the then proposed TM system. The TM would (and one day will) takes info from the Train Describers in the signalling centres. It doesn‘t need ant additional train identification.
* unless you mean the Auto Power Cutoffs for the OLE neutral section just south of Radkett Jn?
Never heard of transponders for TM, TM is not directly connected to the Signalling system. ETCS works through the GSM-R system, which uses the same masts as the GSM-R radio system. The proposed 'Traffic Management' for Thameslink was conceived as part of the Thameslink Programme. We were promised it year after year, then suddenly after millions had been spent on its development, it was scrapped. It was meant as a standalone system that was to use train schedules and live data from train movements, train crew diagrams, stock diagrams, to adjust schedules of trains to keep the service running with minimal delays. It could not talk with TRUST/TOPS. Its area did not cover the complete Thameslink Area, only Luton to Three Bridges I believe. So it could not know how trains were doing outside this area. It did not control signalling directly, only indirectly through train schedules which the Signalling systems proposed Immediate Route Signalling system read to regulate trains. This then led to Union isuses, because it was proposed that Train Running Controllers could alter the regulation of trains at junctions without talking to Signallers who signalled the areas concerned. ECTS ATO is limited to between London Bridge and Kentish Town. Designed to allow free flowing through the core section, ATO ensures each train is run as efficient as conditions allow, more effiecient that a Train Driver can. ETCS allows for 32 pathways an hour through the Core each direction, with only 24 scheduled trains an hour being the maximum. This allows 8 pathways each direction for perturbation, allowing the throughput of late trains using Traffic Management with out affecting right time trains, now left to the Signallers judgement at the time or Train Running Controllers decison made in advance.
I’m of the opinion that if the Woolwich line is going to be lumbered with Thameslink long term, then it should be rerouted at Charlton to run via Lewisham at least.
The Woolwich line is an oddity of the Dartford routes in that it’s 2tph and traditionally it’s the outer-suburban Gillingham route, the other lines (Greenwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup) can be brought up to 6tph and are ripe for a Overground takeover, while the Blackheath/Woolwich route is a far better fit for such a Thameslink service.
I’ve heard that once Blackheath tunnel is finished being refurbished that the 700s may start using that route whenever there are diversions on the Deptford-Charlton route, is this true?
Having spent seven years Signalling Greenwich Thameslinks at North Kent East Junction, I have proposed several times, that if the service ran as the old North Kent semi fast from Gillingham via Charlton & Blackheath to London Bridge then on to Luton, it would be a better service for passengers and would ease the regulation/ conflicting movements at North Kent East. It would even go through Lewisham on/off the slow lines at St johns with no conflicts at Lewisham. But it seems it is a DfT requirement to make up for loss of Charing Cross Greenwich services.
