Just a question to the folks out there.

Like DNA cloning can bring back animals from extinction, does anyone have any views that a class of locomotive can be brought back from blueprints?

Just wondered what it might take and cost for a locomotive like the D58 or C34 to be rebuilt from scratch and up and running again. Not that there is a need for such a project but its still interesting.
Obviously this is a distance from reality but still interesting to see what other more informed members here might think>
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

Just a question to the folks out there.

Like DNA cloning can bring back animals from extinction, does anyone have any views that a class of locomotive can be brought back from blueprints?

Just wondered what it might take and cost for a locomotive like the D58 or C34 to be rebuilt from scratch and up and running again. Not that there is a need for such a project but its still interesting.
Obviously this is a distance from reality but still interesting to see what other more informed members here might think>
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

Could i suggest that you pay a visit to the Privately Owner Rail Museum at Dorrigo.But you can only look at it , over the fence and from a distance.But you would be very surprised what you would find in classes of stored rusting Locomotives.If you park you car and show a bit of interest Mr Jones might come across the road, and strike up a conversation with you.Then he might invite you into his 'Museum'.
torana.

I can't really imagine why you would want either a 34 or a 58 class. The 34 was a lost cause early on and the 58 was so bad they only built half the class.

A 34 could be built, just as generally similar locomotives are being built new in the UK.

A 58 class is an entirely different matter. I don't believe that the cast frame could be reproduced at any cost today because the technology has effectively been lost. A welded replica of the frame could be produced if you really wanted one. But the cost would be substantial for a locomotive that didn't work as desired the first time around.

M636C

The 58s are controversial to this day. They do have their defenders. Craig Mackey has done a very good book on the 57s & 58s.
As for building either, I agree that a cast frame wouldn't be possible today. Similarly a lot of ancillary equipment was in the form of castings which might not be possible to replicate.
But they'd be nice to see... Perhaps that jolly Mr Palmer chappie could be turned into a railfan?

Interesting comments.
That was the intended question whether such a replica could ever be produced - not that it is at all necessary.
I'd expect with the original parts long gone that making each and every part would be quite costly.

Well into the millions ....

Personally I think there are other extinct classes more worthy and more practical.  For example none of the early Baldwin classes survive.  Of those a 23 class would be the most useful to build for modern operating conditions.  That is, I think, the most replica worthy NSWGR engine.

I guess anything's possible with enough money behind it.  The A1 Peppercorn loco (LNER type) of the UK had vanished from the planet.  Lo and behold a new one was created, called Tornado.   Some technology changes were necessary from the original designs, probably most significant was a welded boiler.  The project was a long and expensive one and not without teething problems, and like with 3801 the boiler had to be returned to Germany for modifications.  That said, I can't see why you would want to recreate a 34 class or 58 class loco.  The 34 class were not renowned for being a great design.  The 57 and 58 class were heavy and slow locos designed for freight, and consequently you'd have much difficulty in scheduling them these days on main lines between other traffic.  Not a practicable proposition for a working loco in the 21 st century.

From my time on the job & working with the many big engine drivers, also some who worked the 34cl, the 58cl had mixed views whilst the 34cl was dismissed & none who talked of them had anything decent to say about them.

The 58cl however was by the time of their demise a different kettle of fish, with many of the drivers & firemen adjusting to them regarding them being quite different to a 57cl, the need to work them harder, with the smaller cylinders meant also they did not like to drop in steam, if they got below the 80% steam margin or 180Psi they could turn it up fairly quickly but also would pick quick when steam pressure got back above the 180.

I think it was in Craigs book that mentioned by the time of their withdrawal the 58cl actually had the least failure rate of all locomotive types, at least it could have been for goods engines.

Given the size of the driving wheels there is no reason why they could not work at speeds of 50mph/89km/h especially on the track standards we have today, so not so much lumbering classes.

When looking at the loads they hauled, which was the same as the 57cl, & garratts (with large bunkers) & with the 57cl they were preferred over the mountains over the garratts which at the time were all light types, & took 60 ton less than the big engines on the mountains.

I am amazed that the railways sent around 6 heavy  garratts to Bathurst to work the Oge section, whereas had the 58cl gone there instead, they could have released the garratts into other areas, but that's all hyperthetical.

As for the cast frames, I am not sure but I believe there is one place in China that has the ability to produce cast frames, but whether they can do them for 3 cylinder engines is unknown.

Outside of that I could not see any value, rhyme or reason why the 34 or 58cl could be built again, as there would be far better examples of steam that could do better jobs, besides steam has had its day.

Just a question to the folks out there.

Like DNA cloning can bring back animals from extinction, does anyone have any views that a class of locomotive can be brought back from blueprints?

Just wondered what it might take and cost for a locomotive like the D58 or C34 to be rebuilt from scratch and up and running again. Not that there is a need for such a project but its still interesting.
Obviously this is a distance from reality but still interesting to see what other more informed members here might think>
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

Always good to kick the ideas tin.

If you have the coin in the bank to do this, a better idea would be to restore 5711 to trafficable.

A 58 class is an entirely different matter. I don't believe that the cast frame could be reproduced at any cost today because the technology has effectively been lost.

M636C

The casting technology hasn't been lost, it just hasn't been utilized for locomotives as none are built.
Any casting plant around the world that has the experience to cast tank turrets and tank bodies can cast a locomotive bed frame.
Agreed, it would be expensive to do - thats why its not done.

The 57 and 58 class were heavy and slow locos designed for freight, and consequently you'd have much difficulty in scheduling them these days on main lines between other traffic.  Not a practicable proposition for a working loco in the 21 st century.

Agree, If you are going to recreate and operate a loco you want to be able to run them on mainlines between traffic (80Km/h) and not too heavy that you can run them on branch lines.

Agree, If you are going to recreate and operate a loco you want to be able to run them on mainlines between traffic (80Km/h) and not too heavy that you can run them on branch lines.

The 57 & 58 had the same axle load as a 38cl although conjecture has it that either the pony truck under the cab, or the tender bogies were slightly above that weight.

The worst part of a 58cl was the ill fated rack & pinion 3rd cylinder motion as against the Gresely type on the 57cl.  Given that some US roads as well as English passenger locomotives had 3 cylinders & worked with the Gresely arm, there is no reason why 5711 as an example if it returned to traffic could not run at 80Km/h, officially.

When doing comparisons, look at the rail that is now laid on the main lines, as well as the sleepers, then compare them to the rail & sleepers when the 57c was put into service.  At least 94lb rail & timber sleepers, were there in the main, but I wonder how much of the main south & western line may have had rail weights in the 80lb region.  The other aspect also was the rails were all short lengths then compared to the continual welded rail of today.

The casting technology hasn't been lost, it just hasn't been utilized for locomotives as none are built.
Any casting plant around the world that has the experience to cast tank turrets and tank bodies can cast a locomotive bed frame.
Agreed, it would be expensive to do - thats why its not done.

All the cast locomotive beds ever made were cast in one foundry in the USA. This is long gone. No other foundry anywhere in the world tried to cast one piece locomotive beds, with or without cylinders at any time as far as I know.

The largest cast locomotive bed ever made was cast for Pennsylvania Railroad 6-4-4-6 class S-1 no 6100, completed in 1939. This locomotive with tender was the same size as a Union Pacific "Big Boy" with tender, and was probably the longest rigid steam locomotive ever built. There is speculation that that bed was the longest one piece casting ever made.

The NSWGR was the only user in Australia of cast engine beds, used on the 57, 38, 58, 60 and 59 classes. It is understood that one of the first five 38 class beds was rejected as defective and replaced.

I didn't know that any recent Tanks used cast hulls and turrets - could you quote which ones?

I have seen many failed castings made in Australia. Some of these were from Garden Island Dockyard in Sydney, where in the late 1960s I saw them try to cast, in three sections, the funnel of a Ton class minesweeper which had presumably been lost in a fire. These were an intricate aluminium casting composed of a series of thin aerofoil sections linked by slender struts. I never saw one that was accepted. In the early 1980s, Vickers Ruwolt in Melbourne tried to cast the bronze propeller blades for the current HMAS Sydney, long curved scimitar like devices designed to reduce water borne noise. I think they cast seven attempts for the five blades and at one stage offered to cut and braze two failed attempts together so they could say they'd finished at least one. That offer was refused, but the failed attempt cost the Commonwealth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I cannot imagine anyone being able to produce the complex sand moulds needed for a locomotive bed, let alone successfully cast such a large, long and slender casting.

And I wouldn't want to pay for anyone to see if they could cast one for the first time.

M636C

The 58s are controversial to this day. They do have their defenders. Craig Mackey has done a very good book on the 57s & 58s.

I made my comment on the 34 and 58 classes about the same time as I made arguably more controversial comments on the 30T in an adjacent thread. It took much longer for any responses to appear on that thread.

I have Craig Mackey's book and I have many of the original documents he quotes from.

I came to a different conclusion.
I believe that the 58 class was a mistake from the beginning based on a misunderstanding of what could be achieved with modifications to the 57 class design to fit a smaller loading gauge.

Right or wrong the 58 came too late. There was nothing a 58 could do that a pair of 40 class couldn't do better and the 58 class had only three years before the 40 class arrived. Despite having all the cast frames and most other components to hand, the last twelve 58 class were abandoned as not worth finishing.

5711 was tried on the Melbourne Express in 1942, but the experiment was not repeated. The results of the 1929 instrumented trials (also on 5711) suggest that the centre cylinder was badly affected by expansion of the outside valve rods and was developing significantly more power than the outside cylinders at the highest tested speed of 45 mph. It might have had trouble if run for long periods at 50 mph on passenger trains.

M636C

I made my comment on the 34 and 58 classes about the same time as I made arguably more controversial comments on the 30T in an adjacent thread. It took much longer for any responses to appear on that thread.

I have Craig Mackey's book and I have many of the original documents he quotes from.

I came to a different conclusion.
I believe that the 58 class was a mistake from the beginning based on a misunderstanding of what could be achieved with modifications to the 57 class design to fit a smaller loading gauge.

Right or wrong the 58 came too late. There was nothing a 58 could do that a pair of 40 class couldn't do better and the 58 class had only three years before the 40 class arrived. Despite having all the cast frames and most other components to hand, the last twelve 58 class were abandoned as not worth finishing.

5711 was tried on the Melbourne Express in 1942, but the experiment was not repeated. The results of the 1929 instrumented trials (also on 5711) suggest that the centre cylinder was badly affected by expansion of the outside valve rods and was developing significantly more power than the outside cylinders at the highest tested speed of 45 mph. It might have had trouble if run for long periods at 50 mph on passenger trains.

M636C

I don't think that 5711 was the engine that did the Melbourne Exp tests, rather another one of the class.

Certainly the late arrival of the 58cl & success of the 40cl killed off any chance of its survival, a sorry state really that was not a good sign for the abilities of the two workshops that constructed them.

From reports in Craigs books as well as other stories 5711 had quite a poor history especially from the fitting staff, as it had a fair amount of continual inside cylinder problems over the years.

Certainly the biggest problem came from the rack & pinion 3rd cylinder set up, also the smaller cylinders,  for experienced big engine drivers to be told by inspectors to drive them like a 38cl, when most of them never set foot on a 38cl or were qualified for them did not help them either.

for experienced big engine drivers to be told by inspectors to drive them like a 38cl, when most of them never set foot on a 38cl or were qualified for them did not help them either.

Off topic but that remark interests me as it suggests crews at Lithgow who drove 58 class also did not drive 38 class? I realise 38 was Eveleigh depot and 58 was Enfield depot but clearly I wrongly assumed Lithgow crews could be rostered on either class since both classes worked into Lithgow and thus I assumed Lithgow crews needed loco and route qualifications on all locos and routes for trains departing Lithgow.  

Maybe a different thread is needed as it comes to the topic about if all crews at same depots eg Lithgow, were usually qualified for the same routes and classes, apart from junior drivers who might not be qualified for all classes.

Off topic but that remark interests me as it suggests crews at Lithgow who drove 58 class also did not drive 38 class? I realise 38 was Eveleigh depot and 58 was Enfield depot but clearly I wrongly assumed Lithgow crews could be rostered on either class since both classes worked into Lithgow and thus I assumed Lithgow crews needed loco and route qualifications on all locos and routes for trains departing Lithgow.  

Maybe a different thread is needed as it comes to the topic about if all crews at same depots eg Lithgow, were usually qualified for the same routes and classes, apart from junior drivers who might not be qualified for all classes.

Petan

What needed to be understood with the working of locomotives, trains & crew rostering was that not all crews, that at times applied to both drivers & firemen while at times one or the other.

In the case of 38cl when they worked through from Sydney they were only generally found on the CWE, which if I understand correctly back in those days was worked by Eveleigh enginemen, thus through running Lithgow. The other aspect to look at is that in depots such as Lithgow, there were different rosters for enginemen, with senior men working passenger trains only, then the next roster, which again from my understanding was like Enfield which was called the top link roster or similar, Enfields top roster in those days was called the big link, a deference to the big engines.  

At that time the men on that roster were all qualified for big engines as well as working on the Blue Mountains, these men were in general not qualified for 38cl, the only thing that was close was the a6et BV fitted to the 58 & 38cl likewise to the garratts. The 57cl only had the older #4 brake valve as well as a "straight air" brake valve as fitted to the 36cl which operated only on the locomotive & tenders.

As for Enfield men, the 38c was something that flew past them as they rotted away in sidings, which is likely the same with the Lithgow men. Spreading out, Goulburn was similar with their crews also but likely their diagram crews were both qualified to drive big engines & 38cl as they progressed upward on the rosters.

The aspect related to the "drive them like a 38cl" was in those cases foreign to the majority of big engine drivers, as they were used to working the 57cl, & as they got on a 58cl from what several told me was almost a totally different engine as in most cases they had a large adjustment in driving them, given how few of them were in service compared to the 57cl they could go months without setting foot on one, again a fair adjustment needed.

During the times of problems with the 58cl inspectors were rostered on particular trains to travel with particular crews who were having problems with them, that is where they were given that instruction as these crews, & more especially the driver worked the 58cl like the 57cl, when things started to not work out, he was told to change the driving style. Every driver soon learnt the truth in the saying of the exhaust beat was the engine talking to you, & little subtle changes in the exhaust would be picked up, the ear of the big engine driver was much attuned to the 57c more so than the 58c.

Every class of engine had to be driven & in a different manner, as well in many cases fired differently which depended on load & especially coal types.  The 58cl, from what I was told about had to worked at a greater cutoff of the screw, meaning they were heavier on coal & water this was totally foreign to the way the 57cl was worked, which was often up to1/2 a turn back in the screw which was significant, again compared to the 57cl.

There were apparently sections on the mountains, one called the long 33 which taxed the engines but with years of experience on the 57cl the crew knew where they could "fudge or bludge" on steam or water or both" which was not possible to do with the 58cl, a reason why they would lay down with steam pressure dropping under the 180Psi, to cut the injectors off on that grade to get steam back could cause problems with low water.

They type of coal also was a big factor in the trip.

At Enfield in the 60's, the roster system was similar but then called 46cl for the senior roster, 41cl for secondary roster, & a junior roster at the bottom of the 41cl.  The rosters were based on line qualification as well as locomotive types & goods type working.

Hope that helps to understand the saying.

Thanks a6et for all that as it explained things

While not going into the engineering aspects as much as Craig Mackey, Ken Groves' book on the 57s & 58s gives a lot of enginemens' accounts of the locos. Ken's not a 58 class fan. Personally, I have days where I think the 58s look better, can't explain why but that valancing puts me in mind of later Pennsylvania RR engines, but unless we want to talk about more failures we'd better not go there...

While not going into the engineering aspects as much as Craig Mackey, Ken Groves' book on the 57s & 58s gives a lot of enginemens' accounts of the locos. Ken's not a 58 class fan. Personally, I have days where I think the 58s look better, can't explain why but that valancing puts me in mind of later Pennsylvania RR engines, but unless we want to talk about more failures we'd better not go there...

You better believe that Ken was not a 58cl fan as I fired for him for some months, & he rarely if ever had a good word for them, although go to the 57cl & it was the ants pants of all engines, preferred them over garratts, & near stuffed me up when trying to set a garratt up like a 57cl, would have gotten a few miles only.

Most other drivers I worked with that were big engine men, & in the 60's there were still a lot remaining on the job, working with them & talking to them, taking in what they said, as well as sifting through the meal & sign on room talking often brought out a lot more regarding working these & other classes of locomotives, than is found in books.

The 58c when you read the design aspects regarding them, it was said they were a modern heavy goods locomotive that was to take in the modern & proven aspects learned from the 38cl, also to improve on the 57cl using the modern technology of the day. Sadly that did not come to fruition until late in the piece, like some loco's in the US, what worked well hauling passenger trains did not readily transfer to goods engines & visa versa.

The appearance of the 58cl except for the tender, really gave an appearance of goods version of the 38cl, had they been fitted with a belpair boiler that would have almost been a perfect match except for pump location & the gear covering.

If you are patient, very patient, you will be able to have your own 57 and/or 58 class in miniature - HO scale.   One of our well-known manufacturers, well-known for late deliveries, has it on the drawing board.    Still, I reckon these will be out and running before any full-size replicas!

If you are patient, very patient, you will be able to have your own 57 and/or 58 class in miniature - HO scale.   One of our well-known manufacturers, well-known for late deliveries, has it on the drawing board.    Still, I reckon these will be out and running before any full-size replicas!

yes I know eureka has them on the drawing board.
I'm very fortunate that I have Bergs brass D57 and D58 in my fleet and love them both.
Beautiful engines in this scale and run lovely.
I missed seeing these engines by quite a few decades and really love the lines and the size of them in comparison to the majority smaller types of steam engines that were also around.
I guess my original post really longed for seeing one in the flesh and alive but alas no.

Shame really as I also have a passion for civil airliners and love classic airliners and the recent trend of reviving old airframes to either flying or just static preservation really gives the younger and older folk a chance to witness some classic aircraft.
Shame that a few locomotives did not quite make it either.....

You better believe that Ken was not a 58cl fan as I fired for him for some months, & he rarely if ever had a good word for them, although go to the 57cl & it was the ants pants of all engines, preferred them over garratts, & near stuffed me up when trying to set a garratt up like a 57cl, would have gotten a few miles only.

Most other drivers I worked with that were big engine men, & in the 60's there were still a lot remaining on the job, working with them & talking to them, taking in what they said, as well as sifting through the meal & sign on room talking often brought out a lot more regarding working these & other classes of locomotives, than is found in books.

The 58c when you read the design aspects regarding them, it was said they were a modern heavy goods locomotive that was to take in the modern & proven aspects learned from the 38cl, also to improve on the 57cl using the modern technology of the day. Sadly that did not come to fruition until late in the piece, like some loco's in the US, what worked well hauling passenger trains did not readily transfer to goods engines & visa versa.

The appearance of the 58cl except for the tender, really gave an appearance of goods version of the 38cl, had they been fitted with a belpair boiler that would have almost been a perfect match except for pump location & the gear covering.

I had forgotten where my poor impression of the 58 class came from...

I met Ken Groves on my trip to China in 1980, and later read his book "The Big Engines". Since we were effectively discovering a whole new fleet of steam locomotives, we discussed a lot about NSWGR steam, not least because  many of the Chinese locomotives sounded just like the 38 class. While Ken's book lacks much of the design detail of Mackey's later book, it provides a lot of operational detail not included in Mackey's book.

The NSWGR did everything they could to give the 58 class the same power as the 57 given the smaller cylinders except the one thing that would have worked, increasing the boiler pressure.
The 57 class diagram shows the design weights which were exceeded by eight tons, three of which were on the trailing truck. Since this was known, those weights were reflected on the 58 class diagram but at some stage someone decided that the weight of the 58 should appear to be the same as the 57 diagram weight so someone cleverly reduced the tender weight by the eight tons so the total was the same.

Except of course, the tenders were the same and always weighed the same.

Another aspect recorded in Ken Groves' book was a significant deterioration in 57 class performance in the 1950s for which no clear explanation was recorded. There are a number of possible reasons but inaccurate valve setting and fouling of steam passages seem possible.

M636C

I had forgotten where my poor impression of the 58 class came from...

I met Ken Groves on my trip to China in 1980, and later read his book "The Big Engines". Since we were effectively discovering a whole new fleet of steam locomotives, we discussed a lot about NSWGR steam, not least because  many of the Chinese locomotives sounded just like the 38 class. While Ken's book lacks much of the design detail of Mackey's later book, it provides a lot of operational detail not included in Mackey's book.

The NSWGR did everything they could to give the 58 class the same power as the 57 given the smaller cylinders except the one thing that would have worked, increasing the boiler pressure.
The 57 class diagram shows the design weights which were exceeded by eight tons, three of which were on the trailing truck. Since this was known, those weights were reflected on the 58 class diagram but at some stage someone decided that the weight of the 58 should appear to be the same as the 57 diagram weight so someone cleverly reduced the tender weight by the eight tons so the total was the same.

Except of course, the tenders were the same and always weighed the same.

Another aspect recorded in Ken Groves' book was a significant deterioration in 57 class performance in the 1950s for which no clear explanation was recorded. There are a number of possible reasons but inaccurate valve setting and fouling of steam passages seem possible.

M636C

During the time I was regular mates with Ken, & in no way do I disrespect him, as he was a very pleasant & nice person overall. During the more than 6 months I was with him, the only conversation that came from him was primarily his love of the "big engine" note that is singular rather than plural to take in the 58cl, he also had a degree of liking for the garratts, but could not stand the Hadley steam reversor & much preferred the air assist as found on the 38, 57 & 58cl, while a bit more niggly to control the garratt reversor did work well owing to it short turning cycle.

I never heard anything though about the working of big engines on the south, & only a couple of instances that he spoke about them on the Illawarra, all the talk was about them on the mountains, in fact it seemed as if nothing else worked up there.  If one notes the accounts of other drivers in his big engine book, with the exception of John (Jack) Matson, each of those mentioned were of the older school again, & some of them I heard of both from Ken & others.

Jack Matson was another top person & driver, just as many others were, & while the 57cl were generally favoured by most of the drivers, as they became more experienced in their operations, they also warmed to the 58cl as well, especially the better braking system on them.

One of the things relating to the working of any engine & then when a new one comes into an operating theatre that were being "passed down" into goods working, some of the older hands still tried to work them like they did engines they were used to. Over my time as a fireman, as well as tripping around NSW especially on the west in the later days of steam, I got to know a reasonable number of crews out that way. Several told me how adapting to working 36cl on goods trains was a challenge especially to stop them from slipping & pulling the fire. Most adapted well to it but others not so.  When I worked with some Goulburn Drivers & my first regular mate was an ex Goulburn driver, it was quite an enlightening experience to discover their difference in driving them over some Enfield drivers.

As I recollect, many meal rooms, sign on rooms, as well as the shed crews humpies especially at Enfield & Delec, there was always a heck of a lot of reminiscing of the good old days, some of the older drivers, & the younger ones who only fired them on the south & Illawarra, while the older ones drove on all the roads would give conflicting stories relating to them showing up some very hard held preferences, but as more than one of them said better than a shovel any day, or sitting on a rock chopper at Katoomba's brakes board with a SW or Westerly howling up the valley freezing you, at least on the big engines you could shut the windows to cut it back.

For me, I can recount many drivers & how they were to work with, much of which is remembered based very much on their levels of driving steam, be it as a firemans' driver or that of a theorist or even somewhere in between, likewise how much I learnt from them regarding the operation & functions of a steam locomotive.  Several stand out in various ways, & one of them was the driver from GLBN, who confronted me after the first week & said, are you here for the long haul & want to learn? for an 18 year old it was a bit daunting & I said I intended staying, he nodded his head & said ok.  The next week my training started which was in all areas of a steam locomotive. The first lesson was with him pulling a # 4 brake valve to pieces of the 50cl on break in Enfield yard, where he explained each part, how they worked, & how to clean & grease it.

I can remember more from him & I was taken off the roster with him to go with Ken Groves, what I learnt from the two was chaulk & cheese.

The big issues for the D58 was not having enough adhesive weight for a tractive effort of 55,008lbs, and retaining three cylinders, a concept abandoned by US builders by 1930 due to the much higher cost of maintenance. At a time when cheaper diesels were becoming available, the D58 design needed to be cheap and practical to run, and it wasn't. The way I see it the designers should have adopted one of two choices...

1. If the tractive effort was more important, then the adhesive weight should have been increased to at least 223,850lbs. A two cylinder D58 built to that standard would have had cylinders 23.5x28, boiler pressure of 255psi and a tractive effort of 55,860lbs.

2. If the adhesive weight could not be increased (most likely) tractive effort should not have exceeded 52,455lbs for the 212,000lbs on the drivers. This design could use a pair of cylinders 23x28 with a boiler pressure of 250psi.

Hard choices needed to be made during the design phase, and ultimately the compromises made were the cause of the D58 debacle.