Silverhawk
SOC-12
I wonder what some of the designs that have been posted would show if put through Ken Pick's Commercial Efficiency Analysis formula http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/shipyard/analysis.html
MGT Only: 300-ton stretched refitted Free Trader
- Thread starter Redcap
- Start date
The final version of the TL 12 Subsidised 300-ton frontier trader type AP Mk 1(ARP) comes out as having a CER of 3.6. It's on the low end of the profitability scale, but it's in there, as a subsidised merchant 
Gross Tonnage: 300 tons
Net Tonnage: 135 tons net
Purchase Cost: MCr 74.61
Gross Tonnage: 300 tons
Net Tonnage: 135 tons net
Purchase Cost: MCr 74.61
Silverhawk
SOC-12
Good to see you got the same number I did from your earlier post.
It would be interesting to see just how 'off' the 1000 cr per ton figure is for baseline on freight.
My job has me work with the freight railroads on certain issues. In that business there are 100 car trains that the first fifteen or so cars cover the cost and the rest are profit.
But that is a discussion for another thread and another time.
It would be interesting to see just how 'off' the 1000 cr per ton figure is for baseline on freight.
My job has me work with the freight railroads on certain issues. In that business there are 100 car trains that the first fifteen or so cars cover the cost and the rest are profit.
But that is a discussion for another thread and another time.
Good to see you got the same number I did from your earlier post.
It would be interesting to see just how 'off' the 1000 cr per ton figure is for baseline on freight.
My job has me work with the freight railroads on certain issues. In that business there are 100 car trains that the first fifteen or so cars cover the cost and the rest are profit.
But that is a discussion for another thread and another time.
Must admit I was a little surprised at the Cr 1,000 freight cost figure, given that MgT give these figures:
Code:
Passage and Freight Costs
Parsecs High Middle Basic Low Freight
=================================================================
1 ... Cr8500 ... Cr6200 ... Cr2200 ... Cr700 ... Cr1000
2 ... Cr12000 ... Cr9000 ... Cr2900 ... Cr1300 ... Cr1600
3 ... Cr20000 ... Cr15000 ... Cr4400 ... Cr2200 ... Cr3000
4 ... Cr41000 ... Cr31000 ... Cr8600 ... Cr4300 ... Cr7000
5 ... Cr45000 ... Cr34000 ... Cr9400 ... Cr13000 ... Cr7700
6 ... Cr470000 ... Cr350000 ... Cr93000 ... Cr96000 ... Cr86000Granted, the minimum is a one-parsec carriage for cargo, and that's Cr1k, but given that the (gotta find a class name for this damn ship) is aimed at providing a minimum of J-2, then the average minimum fee that they'll be looking for is a J-2 freight fee of Cr1k6. Kinda skews the figures a bit, I think.
Still. Handy to know, than not
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I think the CER assumes a freight price of kCr1 per parsec, otherwise only J-1 ships would be profitable.
That is not canonical in any edition I'm familiar with.
A CER modified for your campaign would use the freight price for your jump range instead of the jump range in the formula, so for your ship it would be CERm = Net payload × 1.6 / Price = 135 × 1.6 / 74.61 ≈ 2.9.
That is a bit low, the ship is certainly profitable if it is reasonably full. The formula probably assumes a lower capacity usage.
That is not canonical in any edition I'm familiar with.
A CER modified for your campaign would use the freight price for your jump range instead of the jump range in the formula, so for your ship it would be CERm = Net payload × 1.6 / Price = 135 × 1.6 / 74.61 ≈ 2.9.
That is a bit low, the ship is certainly profitable if it is reasonably full. The formula probably assumes a lower capacity usage.
MGT & GT have price by distance.
Many people over the years have read CT-77 and CT-81 as per parsec.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
MgT have much higher prices for longer jumps, not just kCr1/Pc.
I'm not familiar with GT, what does the costs look like there?
After the recent thread I'm not touching that with a 10' pole...
A simple kCr1/Pc makes medium jump ships too profitable, something like Cr500 + Cr500/Pc works better for jump 2 - 3 ships, IMVHO.
I've run the numbers for CT before. Under HG, the costs for a J6 are more than 30x the costs for J1.
Costs under CTHG, for J1 pure cargo: 634/Tdc @TL15 & 1000Td.
J6 pure cargo, TL 15, is 11267 at 2000Td. A factor of x17. Filling it is going to be an issue.
Bk2-77 is minimum 579/Tdc for J1 @5000Td and TL15
Bk2-77 is J6 min at 4149/Tdj for J6, @2000Td and TL 15, a factor of about x7.17;
J1@5000 TL15 579/Tdc
J2@5000 TL15 753/Tdc Factor 1.11
J3@4000 TL15 1079.9/Tdc Factor 1.86
J4@3000 TL15 1578.7/Tdc Factor 2.73
J5@2000 TL15 2641.8/Tdc factor 4.56
J6@2000 TL15 4149/Tdc factor 7.17
going the max without "underrating" a drive,
J1@200Td TL 9 726/Tdc
J2@100Td TL 9 2741/Tdc, a factor of 3.7
J3@200Td TL9 2673/Tdc, a factor of 3.68
J4@200Td TL10 5780.4/Tdc factor 7.96
J5@200Td TL13 20644.7/Tdc Factor of 28.3
J6@400Td TL14 23110.5/Tdc, a factor of 31
THose are the COSTS, not the price charged.
Linear is wrong at some point...
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Probably what is missing is speed as a cost.
If one goes from ship to train to truck to flight, and especially guaranteed delivery from X cargo arrives at port time to Y cargo arrives at destination point, there is a corresponding greater cost.
Try this formula on for size-
Parsecs travelled x Jn x 1000= Cr per ton.
6 parsecs at J1 each, Cr6000.
6 parsecs at J3 each, Cr18000.
6 parsecs at J6 each, Cr36000.
The beauty is that the odd lots available mechanic would still be reasonable since there would be a market for those that would pay for speed, and others that want economy.
If one goes from ship to train to truck to flight, and especially guaranteed delivery from X cargo arrives at port time to Y cargo arrives at destination point, there is a corresponding greater cost.
Try this formula on for size-
Parsecs travelled x Jn x 1000= Cr per ton.
6 parsecs at J1 each, Cr6000.
6 parsecs at J3 each, Cr18000.
6 parsecs at J6 each, Cr36000.
The beauty is that the odd lots available mechanic would still be reasonable since there would be a market for those that would pay for speed, and others that want economy.
I'm reading those quoted prices as the total cost, not per-jump cost; it's a weird price structure, personally speaking; it'd be a damn sight cheaper to send your cargo by two different freighters using two consecutive J-3 trips to get six parsecs, than taking a single J-6 - you'd lose a fortnight, but save a whopping EIGHTY THOUSAND credits.
yes, time is money to some organisations and/or people, but Cr80k-worth?!
Ye gods, and other less-polite epithets!
I'm one of them.
The way I'm seeing this, is as akin to transport methods by price, modern day equivalent:
Code:
Freight costs by distance and method
Parsecs Freight Comparitive modern method
================================================================
1 ... Cr 1000 Regular Ground mail (eg USPS)
2 ... Cr 1600 Express ground post (eg USPS)
3 ... Cr 3000 Specialist ground courier (eg FedEx)
4 ... Cr 7000 Regular Airmail (eg USPS)
5 ... Cr 7700 Regular Courier airmail (eg FedEx)
6 ... Cr 86000 Express courier airmail (eg FedEx Overnight)So, the difference in costs is akin to both distance, method, and how much the customer really wants their fright to get there fast or not - and what the customer can afford (and justify!).
No kidding!
Yep, that's about the size of it as I see it too. That list makes sense, and I may well wind up nicking it and using it IMTU
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Which is why most major trade lanes are around J-3, it's the cheapest way to transport cargo longer distances.
The prices are related to cost, not usefulness.
I can imagine courier services maintaining J-6, or perhaps J-5, services between the major popA worlds, but only with small ships.
Silverhawk
SOC-12
The other thing missing is what is being shipped. The railroads charge different rates for a variety of commodities.
I wonder if the trade table modifiers could be used to simulate that variation?
I wonder if the trade table modifiers could be used to simulate that variation?
Yeah, trade between high-traffic worlds could justify that kind of shipping, I guess.
Gawd. I should imagine that the complexity of such a table would be mahoosive
Indeed. Just what is being shipped should be part of the equation if the equation wasn't deliberately simplified to ease game play. We need to keep that bold part firmly in mind during discussions of this type.
To illustrate just how a referee may finagle shipments to enhance game play, I'll rope in yet another of my real world experiences.
I did some consulting for Gillette in the '90s and pleasantly surprised to learn that they load their shipping containers with "value ceiling" in mind. Razor cartridges, which are roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes, can sell for $10, $15 or more. A small case of the same could be worth several hundred dollars. Add razor handles, the various other grooming machines, and the contents of a shipping container or tractor trailer box could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more. (I'll allow those of you with Whipsnadian proclivities to imagine the possibilities.)
Accordingly, Gillette ensured it's containers never contained over a certain dollar amount of product even if that meant the container was not completely filled.
We've already discussed in another thread, the mass limits suggested in CT mean that a 5 dTon container of steel needn't necessarily contain 70m3 of steel. Similarly, a 5 dTon container of Mach 5700 Superdense razors with Densitometer Chin Detection(tm) necessarily needn't container 70m3 of blades.
Makes perfect sense. Now, while shipping containers are designed for sea transport (in the main), where weight limit is dependant on what's carried, with a maximum all-up laden weight of the container depends on the capability of the container, not necessarily the carrier.
The containers we're seeing in Traveller are designed for flight, thus the mass of the container is the governing factor. As a result, containers can easily reach maximum mass without being completely full of goods.
Thus IMTU for safety of flight reasons, containers are limited to a total mass rating equating to one ton per 1.5x1.5x3m area of volume (handily, this also meets canon rules on container weights!). I'd imagine most startport freight terminals would have weighbridges to check this as a matter of course.
YMMV
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
You are making the mistake of equating Traveller starships with aircraft.
The are more akin to ocean ships than aircraft, and that includes cargo loading.
Traveller starships have artificial gravity fields and acceleration compensation fields; the mass of starships in tons is around 10x the displacement tonnage, so even a 200t trader has a mass of ~2000t; the maneuver drive is rated for the volume it shifts if you are using the reactionless/gravitic handwave rather than the mass of the vessel.
The are more akin to ocean ships than aircraft, and that includes cargo loading.
Traveller starships have artificial gravity fields and acceleration compensation fields; the mass of starships in tons is around 10x the displacement tonnage, so even a 200t trader has a mass of ~2000t; the maneuver drive is rated for the volume it shifts if you are using the reactionless/gravitic handwave rather than the mass of the vessel.
Last edited:
Yes, in part agreed, but they also have a maximum load to be able to achieve orbit from the ground, and in this way, they can easily be treated like aircraft until they reach space. Once in space, mass = inertial issues, which is a completely different problem
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Not quite. The mass of the ship has no effect in most Traveller versions on its maneuver rating.
You can fill the hold of a Beowulf with feathers or lead and it doesn't affect its ability to make orbit in most versions.
Mind you if you go back to LBB2 1 ton of cargo was a measurement of 1000kg rather than 14m^3
I don't recall seeing the mass of a ship discussed in MgT ship design.
You can fill the hold of a Beowulf with feathers or lead and it doesn't affect its ability to make orbit in most versions.
Mind you if you go back to LBB2 1 ton of cargo was a measurement of 1000kg rather than 14m^3
I don't recall seeing the mass of a ship discussed in MgT ship design.
Similar threads
