Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[Anonymous]

TomDiehl sayeth:

"At first, I couldn't figure out why a Steam vs Diesel post would go 16 pages. This post is roll-on-the-floor-laughing hilarious.

"Blaming the railroad's downturn on the steam to diesel transition. So when does that Kalmbach book "Diesel Victory" come out?

"Michael, you should be writing comedy. Especially the way you're leading these people down the garden path.

"You're not getting a piece of the action for selling that book, are you Michael?"

At last. Somebody else who gets it.

Thanks, Tom.

Old Timer

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

Why would oil-fired steamers be easier to retrofit with a Diesel Synchronous Controller (DSC?) than coal fired locomotives? Are you refering to stoker-fired engines or hand fired engines, or is there no difference when comteplating DSC for coal-fired vs oil-fired steamers?

Well, that's a good question. My perception is that stoker-fired coal engines would be slower reacting than pressure-fired oil engines, but I've never seen them work. Don't know.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

Why would oil-fired steamers be easier to retrofit with a Diesel Synchronous Controller (DSC?) than coal fired locomotives? Are you refering to stoker-fired engines or hand fired engines, or is there no difference when comteplating DSC for coal-fired vs oil-fired steamers?

[MichaelSol]

Regarding Anthony's prior estimation of cost per revenue ton of freight, as the result of dieselization, based upon "constant dollars" as I mentioned, "constant dollar" analysis of commodity interactions with inflation is problematic, particularly where petroleum costs are involved as petroleum based products rarely track inflation: they either act as a brake or a driver.

It turns out that this is particularly true during this era. So, the 1962 general costs being 1.75% of the 1944 costs is not useful, because 1962 diesel fuel costs were only approximately 1.07% of 1944 prices. Further, financing charges can't really be assessed on a constant dollar basis because in this particular instance, they didn't exist for the most part in 1944. That is to say, in 1962, since these dollars didn't exist as a drag on earnings in 1944, to include them as discounted in 1945 dollars discounts the effect of financing on the cost of dieselization entirely, as though it didn't exist at all.

However, Anthony's figures for cost per net ton, 1944-1948 are valid: They average about $0.44 per net ton. This is $0.0012 per net ton-mile.

The problem for "constant dollar" analysis is trying to figure out really what the 1962 dollar equivalents would be, for comparison purposes. Using the revised "inflation" figures, and counting existing financing charges that existed in 1944, but existing financing charges as they existed in 1962, without "correction" since for the most part there was not much to correct, we can see the following:

In constant dollars as best we can estimate:
Cost per net- ton, 1945 $0.44
Cost per net-ton, 1962 $0.46

Actual 1962 cost: $0.75 per net ton.

The cost of Dieselization added to the cost of operations.

Similarly, applying the adjustments to put everythng in terms of 1945 dollars as best we can, revising Anthony's figures in particular to account for the different rate of cost incease for diesel fuel:

1945 costs per net ton-mile: $0.0012
1962 costs per net ton-mile $0.0013

Actual 1962 costs per net ton-mile, $0.0021

In constant dollars, Milwaukee saved $8,769,401.68 in combined fuel and locomotive maintenance costs, about 40% of its 1945 costs. When the drop in tonnage carried is factored in, the real savings were about $6,622,043.72, or 30%.

However, the financing charges incurred added $9,698,001in annual charges over the financing existing in 1945.

The financing charges clearly exceeded the savings.

The Milwaukee may not be representative. Despite its losses connected with Dieselization, its Freight Operating Ratio improved by 2.1% over the period 1945 to 1962, a significant improvement. Other railroads directly suffered during this period. Great Northern, for instance, suffered a 2% decline in its Operating Ratio over the same period.

The argument that Dieselization benefitted the American railroad industry, notwithstanding strong beliefs to the contrary, is difficult to support by reference to the statistical record.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

I know BN was intrigued and was exploring ways to use coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to fuel its locomotive fleet. Too bad it never worked out.

I thought I had read somewhere that PRB coal was not the best type for a steam locomotive?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Techguy raises an interesting point that may not have been a factor 50+ years ago but is a real issue now: environmental concerns and EPA regulations. When you consider that the Green Goat and various other low-emission designs have been developed to lower emissions compared to existing diesel locomotives, it would be difficult to see how steam locomotives could have their emissions lowered to Tier 0 or Tier 1 levels in a similar fashion. It would probably take a lot more than a skilled fireman and overfire jets to cut smoke and emissions to that level.

I have wondered about that too. It is my feeling that if a coal fired power plant can meet regs, a coal fired locomotive can also. Where I believe power plants and locomotives would differ is that new power plants will have to go the gasification or CFB route to be compliant in the future, while locomotives will have to go coal liquification, coal/water slurry, or synthetic coal.

Liquified coal products can be used in compression ignition engines, so diesel-electrics would continue to rule for this coal product. The coal water slurry and synthetic coal are better suited for steam boilers, so any locomotives using coal/water slurry and syncoal would be the classis reciprocating steam locomotives, direct drive steam turbines, and/or steam turbine-electric locomotives aka Jawn Henry knockoffs. The latter could also fit into the Green Goat mold of locomotive, further reducing emissions per unit of energy output.

It all comes down to price per mmBtu's and the comparitive price in relation to petroleum. The coal/water slurry proponents claim they are competitive with oil prices at $14 a barrel and above. The ACCP syncoal proponents claimed that synthetic coal (which has had most of it's ash, metals, and moisture removed) can be had for under $2.50/mmBtu's. If I remember correctly, synthetic diesel derived from coal can be competitive with petroleum at $30 a barrel. Compare that to oil prices that look now like they'll stay above $40 a barrel over the long term, and the comparative cost of diesel fuel at $15.00/mmBtu, and it's easy to see why interest in coal for vehicle/locomotive propulsion is being sparked.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

One posting said that the FT's were worn out in ten years and thus needed replacement. WRONG! The reason they were replaced was that two GP-9's could do the work of three FT units, saving fuel and maintenance. In many cases if not most, the new units were actually remanufactured units with trucks and many other parts taken off the old locomotives. The Boston and Maine for one, did not consider its FT's worn out but rather that the greater efficiency of the new units made replacement economically sound. With proper maintenance, plus operation within the rules (no running continuously with the amp meter in the red), first and second generation EMD units could last indefinitely. I won't guarantee this about today's locomotives or those of other builders. There are GP-7's and GP-9's running in good condition today. They were not replaced because the added hauling capacity for unit reduction of later units was not an advantage in their particular present application.

Dave,

Click on the Western Pacific dieselization link a page or two back. The verbetum statement is that WP's FT's were in need of replacement in a very short period of time. Note that it is "need" of replacement, not a trading up to GP's.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
It was the service personal the railroads cut because of steam.

Wouldn't there have been a substantial cut because of the significant drop in carloadings?

This is the problem, while there may be some credit to dieselization, there is a tendency, almost an effort, to take all the credit for all personnel reductions during this period without recognizing that it could not possibly be true. And that still does not explain why roundhouse employment -- machinists boilermakers, electricians, etc. -- fell by the second smallest amount of all railroad employment categories.

The statistical fact is that, had railroads achieved employment "efficiencies" in general that paralleled those associated with the Dieselization process, all American railroads would have been bankrupt .

That is, fortunately American railroads were able to achieve employment reductions in other areas far in excess of what they were able to achieve through Dieselization. It was that effort, not Dieselization, which saved American railroads from near certain bankruptcy as the result of the decline in carloadings.

The puzzler is, despite the clearly developed statistical record, Dieselization gets credit, and nothing else that railroads did, far more efffectively, gets any credit at all for what was by and large a successful retrenchment of the industry in the face of daunting challenges.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

At first, I couldn't figure out why a Steam vs Diesel post would go 16 pages. This post is roll-on-the-floor-laughing hilarious.

Blaming the railroad's downturn on the steam to diesel transition. So when does that Kalmbach book "Diesel Victory" come out?

Michael, you should be writing comedy. Especially the way you're leading these people down the garden path.

You're not getting a piece of the action for selling that book, are you Michael?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

Ross Roland apparently couldn't generate enough interest to latch on to enough capital to build a prototype.

I attended one of Ross's presentations way back when. It was an interesting, inovative idea, but, a the end of the day, it essentially was a 100+ ft long, 300+ ton GP40 with a fairly small fuel savings. The guys I worked for who were there for the steam/diesel transition shuddered at the idea of steam returning. I remember one guy saying, "The only good steam locomotive is one with 3 feet of concrete in the boiler."

[daveklepper]

One posting said that the FT's were worn out in ten years and thus needed replacement. WRONG! The reason they were replaced was that two GP-9's could do the work of three FT units, saving fuel and maintenance. In many cases if not most, the new units were actually remanufactured units with trucks and many other parts taken off the old locomotives. The Boston and Maine for one, did not consider its FT's worn out but rather that the greater efficiency of the new units made replacement economically sound. With proper maintenance, plus operation within the rules (no running continuously with the amp meter in the red), first and second generation EMD units could last indefinitely. I won't guarantee this about today's locomotives or those of other builders. There are GP-7's and GP-9's running in good condition today. They were not replaced because the added hauling capacity for unit reduction of later units was not an advantage in their particular present application.

[Tharmeni]

I know BN was intrigued and was exploring ways to use coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to fuel its locomotive fleet. Too bad it never worked out.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

It was never built. They did some testing with the C&O 614.
I think Babcock and Wilcox were the first to pull out, and possibly thats why BN and CSX got cold feet.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Train crew employment Class I railroads decreased 1944-1972 by only 43% (and rail traffic was back up from 1962 levels) the worst improvement in all classes of railroad employment during that time frame. Best regards, Michael Sol

I believe several States still had "Full Crew Laws" in 1972, forcing railroads to operate with 5 and 6 man crews. It was the service personal the railroads cut because of steam.

[Tharmeni]

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Valleyline

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan
[Profit was the biggest motivator for switching to Deisels, it was cheaper in manhours and that's it. if companies were more worried about pulling power and abilities, then steam would still be the rulling choice, but alas it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer, and that equates to more money for the company, which then equates to more money for the execs.

It also equates to saving the railroads from extinction.

Dramatic statements, except that the statement "it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer" is false. If you can just make stuff up, I guess anything saved railroads from extinction.

We know the numbers and we're not speculating like this comment obviously does. Nothing like that productivity increase occured. That's the problem, isn' it?

I have no reason to assume Milwaukee was much different than most railroads, its locomotive fleet during the period 1944-1962 decreased by 41%. Train crew employment Class I railroads decreased 1944-1972 by only 43% (and rail traffic was back up from 1962 levels) the worst improvement in all classes of railroad employment during that time frame.

Notwithstanding romantic visions of crew savings by early dieselization advocates, perpetuated today by railfans, where are the economic results that support these contentions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Valleyline]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan
[Profit was the biggest motivator for switching to Deisels, it was cheaper in manhours and that's it. if companies were more worried about pulling power and abilities, then steam would still be the rulling choice, but alas it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer, and that equates to more money for the company, which then equates to more money for the execs.

It also equates to saving the railroads from extinction.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr
As for operation, if I understand correctly, the little lever on the special controller was simply hard-connected to the main throttle level by a link and pin - Is that right? If so, that's a nice simple solution.

Basically, yes. On the outside it seemed like a remarkably elegant solution to the problem. The same idea was adapted to the Boxcabs a few years later, and so the entire Electric road fleet could operate in conjunction with diesels.

That may indeed be a coffee cup in the photo. The engineer, Larry (whose last name escapes me momentarily), was quite a coffee drinker. He was retiring soon after I took this photo, and somehow it came out on this trip that in his 45 years with the railroad, he had never ridden in a Company Business Car. So, arrangements were made that he could go back and have a coffee break in Chairman Quinn's Business Car "Milwaukee" which was on this train, while the Traveling Engineer took the train on. I went back with him and we had a retirement coffee. He was "grading" the Traveling Engineer as he took the slack out: "He'd better not spill a drop," as he held his coffee cup.

An old passenger engine engineer grading a younger Traveling Engineer who likely had never operated passenger service.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

Anthony,

One problem with the constant dollar approach is that it assumes inflation operates equally on all costs. As I mentioned above, this can lead to wildly erroneous conclusions, and it has done so here where your figures suggest that the overall direct costs associated with motive power were about the same after dieselization was completed as before it started. Fuel being one of the primary components of the cost calculation, the constant dollar approach assumes that the 1962 fuel cost figure includes an inflation rate of that was 175% of the 1944 figure, because of the general rate of inflation.

However, diesel fuel for railroad purposes in 1962 was only approximately 107% of the cost per gallon as in 1944, an extremely tiny inflation in cost, about .04% per year. This is why our figures diverge. The constant dollar estimation grossly understimates the actual fuel cost used in your cost per net ton calculation.

So, for instance, when Milwaukee's real-time operating costs show that net Tons decreased by 24.49%, 1945-1962, and that fuel costs declined by 24.88%, we can't change that correlation by using a constant dollar estimation based on the general inflation rate. Rather, what we see is that if we take into account that constant dollar costs relating to diesel fuel costs alone, Net Tons decreased by 24.49% and fuel costs, adjusted, decreased 26.6%..

Using this sampling, this suggests that Dieselization accounted for virtually no savings in fuel costs whatsoever, and that claimed savings were based instead on an entirely different consideration: less tonnage carried.

Now, when the figures for costs/net ton are revised to show the true impact of fuel costs, you will see a considerable increase, in real dollar terms, in the direct costs of motive power, over the period 1944-1962. I will look at this more when I get home this evening.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Techguy raises an interesting point that may not have been a factor 50+ years ago but is a real issue now: environmental concerns and EPA regulations. When you consider that the Green Goat and various other low-emission designs have been developed to lower emissions compared to existing diesel locomotives, it would be difficult to see how steam locomotives could have their emissions lowered to Tier 0 or Tier 1 levels in a similar fashion. It would probably take a lot more than a skilled fireman and overfire jets to cut smoke and emissions to that level.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The Clinchfield was the only railroad I know of to put diesel controls in a steamer (its excursion 4-6-0) which regularly ran with an F-7B(?) controlled from the steamer in excursion and Sante Claus service.

Thanks for the tip, Dave. Do you know what year(s) this co-operation occured, and any details as to operational problems?

Here's the point I'm trying to make: Since one of the major selling points of diesel over steam was the ability to add horsepower at will e.g. MU'ing, all controlled by a single engine crew, what if diesels had been added soley to supplement the horsepower of the still new modern steamers by adding diesel controls to the steamers, rather than diesels being bought en masse to replace the steamers? Now you can run those longer heavier consists while still using the steamers, simpy add a few "B" units as needed. You're continuing to utilize the depreciable lifespan of the steamers (so no wasted investment there), and you're purchasing diesels incrementally as cash flow allows rather than going into debt for large lot purchases of diesels.

One of the cost savings of diesel/electric(DE) vs. steam (ST) is that ST's are very thirsty. Depending on the territory and if you had no track pans for water pichup you had to stop and water your Iron Horse. If you did have water pans you still needed coal alot more often than a diesel needs fuel oil. When switched from ST to DE they eliminated all the water towers, all the coaling and or the many oiling stations and related personel. The first FT's proved they could operate 24/7 with only crew change. ST on a good day was available 12 of 24. Many roads replace steam 2 to1.Without the inherant cost savings of diesilization the books would have looked much worse. [2c] I'll get off my [soapbox] now ..Thank you for this disscusion. as always ENJOY

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
The throttle is in the lower center of the photograph, a squarish box with the auxiliary throttle handle on top.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Not sure I see it. Just below he corner of the windshield I see two cylinders. The one of the left looks like a coffee mug. To left of that is a square valley in the control stand. Lots of stuff going on in that valley (looks like some small handles of some type?). Is the special controller in there?

As for operation, if I understand correctly, the little lever on the special controller was simply hard-connected to the main throttle level by a link and pin - Is that right? If so, that's a nice simple solution.

[techguy57]

I got to admit that while Vic is right that this thread is 6 pages of the same argument there have been some interesting points made and I've learned more than I suspected I would by reading this. Of course, some of it is information overload to my brain, but overall I've still enjoyed reading it.

Michael,
While, I readily admit I'm no expert on the subject it would seem to me that railroad management went with dieselfication based on the assumption that it would pan out to be profitable in the long run. I'm guessing that they saw dollar signs in the fact that diesels meant less crews and presumably easier maintenance (on paper it would seem easier to change out a mass produced traction motor or generator than custom rebuilding a boiler) and that greed led them to believe that diesels were the future. It left them nearsighted to the shifting trend of passenger travels which the interstate highway system as well as the transition to jet airliners drastically changed the revenues of passenger trains. During the change to diesel, its only natural that the railroads presumed their passenger revenues would remain steady during much of he process. Of course they did not. Please know that I'm very intrigued by your points so far and frankly I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Beside being a large capital investment, would restictions on locomotive emissions from federal and state agencies, like the EPA, make it difficult for steam to be profitable in current times?

Thanks,

Mike

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by germanium

re futuremodals comment on Daveklepper's report on MU'ing steam and diesel n the same consist -
I would be dubious about this sort of MU'ing in regular operation. How would the tractive forces of the two forms of power be synchronised ? It might bring a whole new meaning to "jerk" !! I'm fully open to rebuttal of my point.

MU is probably the wrong term. It's really remote operation of the diesel from the steam engine. You have a control stand for the diesel in the steam engine which only operates the trailing diesels. The steam loco controls remain independent. You could tailor the operation of each to operate the train smoothly.

A "Diesel Synchronous Controller" was devised to coordinate operations between Milwaukee's electrics and diesels. It worked extraordinarily well, despite a considerable difference in driver size, horsepower, GE vs EMD designs, even adhesion, between the power types. I have one sitting here, from Little Joe E-79. Everything hard-wired to take into account power differences at all throttle settings. In electrified territory, the diesels were designated "helpers" while the electrics were the primary motive power. When diesels were needed, a pin engaged the throttle and the MU system for complete synchronization (normal), or even operating them separately, otherwise the diesels idled through the territory until needed. Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

The attached photograph shows the Diesel Synchronous Controller in the cab of Little Joe E-21, one of the "Passenger Joes" assigned to Olympian Hiawatha after the diesels designed for that service were found to be unable to keep the schedule times in mountain territories. The throttle is in the lower center of the photograph, a squarish box with the auxiliary throttle handle on top.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The really interesting question here that is at the center of this discussion is whether the revenue decline that occurred in the 1950s was understood and/or anticipated by 1950?

If it WASN'T, and mgt dieselized for a traffic base that greatly eroded over the decade, then, or course, unit costs are going to look really lousy. Management can be rightfully blamed for not understanding their business.

If it WAS, then either mgt was stupid OR dieselization was part of a move to suck money from a sinking ship - reducing real operating costs THIS YEAR, in lieu of some future loan payment in some future year after the RR has already been sucked dry, abandoned or sold off.

In either case, the problem is the eroding revenue base and the root causes of this eroding traffic base are what need to be determined. I'd have to agree with others that deiselization was not one of the primary causes of the eroding revenue base - but more likely a reaction to it - for one reason or another.

Additional considerations at the time may have been the availablility of low interest reconstruction loans to convert industry back to peacetime production and get the economy going again. Also labor gained a great deal of strength under FDR and many business leaders may have felt things would go back to 'normal' under Ike. War and the immediate post war period cause significant economic disruptions and make forecasting very difficult. This is a little like saying stealth technology was responsible for the decline in earnings of defense contractors during the 90s.

A much better approach would be to compare 2 similar railroads over the same time period, one which dieselized very quickly with one that didn't. If the data is available it might even be possible to compare divisions on the same railroad.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by germanium

re futuremodals comment on Daveklepper's report on MU'ing steam and diesel n the same consist -
I would be dubious about this sort of MU'ing in regular operation. How would the tractive forces of the two forms of power be synchronised ? It might bring a whole new meaning to "jerk" !! I'm fully open to rebuttal of my point.

MU is probably the wrong term. It's really remote operation of the diesel from the steam engine. You have a control stand for the diesel in the steam engine which only operates the trailing diesels. The steam loco controls remain independent. You could tailor the operation of each to operate the train smoothly.

[germanium]

re futuremodals comment on Daveklepper's report on MU'ing steam and diesel n the same consist -
I would be dubious about this sort of MU'ing in regular operation. How would the tractive forces of the two forms of power be synchronised ? It might bring a whole new meaning to "jerk" !! I'm fully open to rebuttal of my point.

[AnthonyV]

Michael:

On P&L issue, I agree completely.

My comment regarding the size of the additional expenditures relative to revenues was intended to show how small the CALCULATED increase in locomotive costs is relative to ACTUAL revenue and revenue loss data. Built in to this analysis is a 18-year growth projection of annual fuel, maintenance, and finance cost for steam, which was optimistically assumed to be zero.

If I was a railroad executive, would a 9 percent increase in calculated locomotive costs over 18 years make me uncomfortable? Definitely. But I would feel even more uncomfortable drawing firm conclusions about 18 year projections without seeing all the data and without performing sensitivity studies to determine the robustness of the results. I would also analyze all the productivity increases over the 18 year period and determine which, if any, can be attributed to Dieselization.

This is why I definitely have to get a copy of Brown's report.

Thanks

Anthony V.

[bobwilcox]

The pettifogs have struck. Like humor? See http://www.lawyer-jokes.us/. Google shows 1,650,000 hits under "lawyer jokes" but zip for "bnsf jokes". Obviously Montana's railroad is slipping behind in another area!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The Clinchfield was the only railroad I know of to put diesel controls in a steamer (its excursion 4-6-0) which regularly ran with an F-7B(?) controlled from the steamer in excursion and Sante Claus service.

Thanks for the tip, Dave. Do you know what year(s) this co-operation occured, and any details as to operational problems?

Here's the point I'm trying to make: Since one of the major selling points of diesel over steam was the ability to add horsepower at will e.g. MU'ing, all controlled by a single engine crew, what if diesels had been added soley to supplement the horsepower of the still new modern steamers by adding diesel controls to the steamers, rather than diesels being bought en masse to replace the steamers? Now you can run those longer heavier consists while still using the steamers, simpy add a few "B" units as needed. You're continuing to utilize the depreciable lifespan of the steamers (so no wasted investment there), and you're purchasing diesels incrementally as cash flow allows rather than going into debt for large lot purchases of diesels.

[vsmith]

Wow 15 pages of basically the same arguments being restated. ..kinda like watching 2 Bucks head-butt each other over and over and over again...[banghead]

I'm getting a headache just reading it, where's my Tylenol?

Tastes Great - Less Filling[;)]