Skip to main content

Reply to "Odyssey motor rebirth"

I see a lot of problems bringing this back.

#1 Lionel has consolidated their electronics platform for BOTH Legacy and Lionchief Plus 2.0 to the single LCP2 and LCP3 DC can motor driver board. It has a single PWM H-bridge motor control channel. Again, key here is a major switch to a single platform for programming the firmware is what decides the difference VS making and stocking multiple different boards.

#2 We are talking a multi-phase brushless motor design and if you do that with sensor (mostly to start motor from a dead stop) or sensorless and hope the impact of a first pulse possibly being backwards to intended rotation, but you are not doing that with a simple single channel H-bridge motor controller. Again, basically we are talking a purpose built brushless motor control driver that conforms to the existing modular 4 pin PWM signal for conventional and serial data commands for command operation. So at that time, this was a motor and matching motor driver in place of the common DCDS can motor Odyssey driver. It's not unconceivable that they could design and build a similar form factor to the DCDS, same mounting and wiring connections. But the kicker is, Lionel has completely walked away from modular. This first happened in the move to the RCMC series of control board, and then even further down the all in one path with the current LCP2 and LCP3 boards across multiple models and platforms.

#3 So bringing us to today, where again, what is being proposed is yet another board design and matching motor- specific to the Brushless design. And then, does that make any sense to go through that and split the lineup between can motor designs in Lionchief Plus 2.0 engines and now new Legacy and most likely specifically steam currently using Canon brand motors in place of the Pittman?

Again, what this would imply is yet another specific branch of all in one boards, or say they did go back to a separate modular motor driver- is the cost of the physical motor+ motor driver cost effective to the current Canon solution. On so many levels I just think where they are at with the current platform, it is so new, to jump ship again to another platform I think would be risky and costly.

Last edited by Vernon Barry

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
×