That's my personal yardstick, although the newer rules sets tend to make that... iffy...
Cargo in Traveller
- Thread starter Timerover51
- Start date
That's my personal yardstick, although the newer rules sets tend to make that... iffy...
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Where is that specifically spelled out? That would explain some of the pricing. Not all of it by any means.
it isn't. It's alluded to in the example of figuring out how much a ton of cargo contains.
Right, which is why IMTU there are standard attachments in both the floor and ceiling to lock them in place.
I figure a more standard 1-ton form factor would be something like Silent Running's cargo modules, or just a 1.5x3 meter box.
Star Citizen's Hull series freighters use a collapsible frame, something like our distributed hull design, with externally mounted containers.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/hull/Hull-C
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/hull/Hull-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrQ0kLFGl7c
I have been doing this IMTU for 20+ years, for pretty much these exact reasons.
This also constrains the size of the standard cargo hatch IMTU, inasmuch as the 5dt and 10dt cargo boxes should be able to (carefully) fit through it when the vessel is docked via that hatch.
OK, let's see how this alludes to deck plans, then...
In CT The Traveller Adventure, pp134 shows the lower deck plan (cargo deck) of a 400-ton subsidised merchant, the "March Harrier", with an inset of the standard cargo container used in CT, this being a 6-metre long by three-metre wide by three metre tall module (four by two squares on the plan), massing an unspecified amount. If we take the CT rule of thumb that every two squares on a single deck equates to one (1) ton, then those cargo modules have a gross capacity of four tons.
MgT 2nd Edition High Guard, pp82.
This, then, confirms that original CT ruling, and I see no reason to muck about with it.
So, the question is therefore: Where the hell did 5dT modules become the norm, instead of 4dT ones?! And what do I plan for in deck plans as the basic cargo footprint size, 4-ton (4x2) or 5-ton (5x2) cargo containers?
o:
In CT The Traveller Adventure, pp134 shows the lower deck plan (cargo deck) of a 400-ton subsidised merchant, the "March Harrier", with an inset of the standard cargo container used in CT, this being a 6-metre long by three-metre wide by three metre tall module (four by two squares on the plan), massing an unspecified amount. If we take the CT rule of thumb that every two squares on a single deck equates to one (1) ton, then those cargo modules have a gross capacity of four tons.
MgT 2nd Edition High Guard, pp82.
This, then, confirms that original CT ruling, and I see no reason to muck about with it.
So, the question is therefore: Where the hell did 5dT modules become the norm, instead of 4dT ones?! And what do I plan for in deck plans as the basic cargo footprint size, 4-ton (4x2) or 5-ton (5x2) cargo containers?
o:AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
CT Supplement 7, p19.
This may only be one of several standards, so you can do as you like?
5 dT containers fits the system better, I have generally used 2.5 dT containers (roughly a TEU).
I figure a "Minor" cargoes base 5dt Box is 7.5m by 3m by 3m, which makes them slide nicely into a cargo hold with only a 3m ceiling, while taking up a 5 by 2 rectangle of 1.5m by 1.5m deck plan squares.
Then the "Major" cargoes base 10dt Box is either twice as tall or twice as wide at 7.5m by 6m by 3m (depending on how you load it), and requires either a double-height deck and the same floor space, or twice as much floor space on a regular-height deck.
(I also posit a 1dt Box at 1.5m by 3m by 3m, five of which stack into the same space as a single 5dt Box, but I would expect that much of "Incidental" cargo may in fact be loose goods -- hopefully strapped to a pallet or something, at least).
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry, I meant to mention that the fat trader cargo deck is two decks in height. My bad
From your reference:
So, round up, they're effectively 4dT. OK, there's the original standard, then; cool, thanks.
So, where did the 5dT figure that's being bandied about come from?
Last edited:
Deck-plan-wise, that makes sense; each ton of load increase in a container adds a pair of squares on the end.
I'd say in-game that we've got 'legacy' containers and current high-capacity jobs, but as they all have to fit into existing cargo holds, the height and width have to remain the same, so length is the changeable feature. Let's forget about temperature-controlled, chilled, and refrigerated ones for the moment...
This leaves the following, at a rough guess, for fully-enclosed containerised loads:
2dT = 3m (l) x 3m (h) x 3m (w) (2x2 squares, one deck tall)
4dT = 6m (l) x 3m (h) x 3m (w) (4x2 squares, one deck tall)
5dT = 7.5m (l) x 3m (h) x 3m (w) (5x2 squares, one deck tall)
8dT = 12m (l) x 3m (h) x 3m (w) (8x2 squares, one deck tall)
I suppose you could have longer ones, but I'm thinking they'd be a bit weak, structurally.
10dT = 15m (l) x 3m (h) x 3m (w) (10x2 squares, one deck tall)
Any advance on these, and you're likely looking at a terminally structurally weak containers, unfit for shipping purposes.
Thoughts? Comments?
Last edited:
The old CT Cargo Table, which with its multiples of 1/5/10 dtons, does not really match up well to the later-developed 4dt standard shipping container.
Example:
You roll a 3 on 1d6 on the Minor Cargo column and end up with a 15dt shipment. How does that fit into 4dt containers? Four of them would come to 16dt total; will the shipper be paying for the excess displacement, or will the crew have to eat the lost revenue? Neither option is really satisfactory. If 4dt is supposed to be the standard, Minor cargoes should have been 1d6 times 4dt, not 5dt. Therefore, it reverse-engineers to a 5dt basic unit of shipping, not a 4dt one (CT:S7 and/or TTA notwithstanding). Similar reasoning for why Major cargoes are given in 10dt multiples, not 8dt ones. The base unit could easily be otherwise (since it is arbitrary to begin with) but 4dt containers in a 5dt pseudo-TEU OTU are less-elegant to the point of being kludgy.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
The size of containers wouldn't just depend on the size of cargo bays, but also the size of small boats, ground vehicles, and other local transportation that has to move them around. They'd have to be designed to accommodate a wide range of planetary conditions as well as space and a vacuum.
After all, what good is a container if you can't get a vehicle to move it from the starport to the far side of a planet using local transportation? So, you have to consider tech level too. If a world has nothing but steam engines or internal combustion locally, the size and weight of containers would have to be limited to what will fit local trailers, or even maybe some accommodation made to attach wheels or dollies to them.
After all, they're going to be in use for a long time and moved around from place to place continuously. In that vein, they would also need to be relatively cheap to manufacture as I'm sure they get lost or forgotten from time to time not to mention regularly damaged, etc.
After all, what good is a container if you can't get a vehicle to move it from the starport to the far side of a planet using local transportation? So, you have to consider tech level too. If a world has nothing but steam engines or internal combustion locally, the size and weight of containers would have to be limited to what will fit local trailers, or even maybe some accommodation made to attach wheels or dollies to them.
After all, they're going to be in use for a long time and moved around from place to place continuously. In that vein, they would also need to be relatively cheap to manufacture as I'm sure they get lost or forgotten from time to time not to mention regularly damaged, etc.
It's all basically playing with LEGOs and working from a 3m by 3m starting point, yeah.
I have some design notes around here somewhere that reflect the evolution of my thinking, if you would like to see 'em.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Just curious about something. Have any of you given any thought as to how material is loaded into your standard containers? And also, what are you using to move them?
There is a reason why I use the smaller containers, and do not overlook straight loading of pallets, properly secured to the cargo hold deck.
As stated early, One Traveller dTon of 13.5 cubic meters can easily hold 100 tons of steel. Wheat weights 48 pounds per cubic foot in bulk. A 13.5 cubic meter container can hold 10 metric tons. Bulk general ammunition is figured at 40 cubic feet per long ton of 2240 pounds. Eleven tons of ammunition at 440 cubic feet would be less than One (1) 13.5 cubic meter container load.
So my question is, why are you using these very large containers that are going to be virtually empty, but require complicated materials handling equipment?
There is a reason why I use the smaller containers, and do not overlook straight loading of pallets, properly secured to the cargo hold deck.
As stated early, One Traveller dTon of 13.5 cubic meters can easily hold 100 tons of steel. Wheat weights 48 pounds per cubic foot in bulk. A 13.5 cubic meter container can hold 10 metric tons. Bulk general ammunition is figured at 40 cubic feet per long ton of 2240 pounds. Eleven tons of ammunition at 440 cubic feet would be less than One (1) 13.5 cubic meter container load.
So my question is, why are you using these very large containers that are going to be virtually empty, but require complicated materials handling equipment?
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I tend to rely on gravitics and muscle (or robot) power for most of it. Without friction involved, one horsepower can easily move a weightless (but not massless, mind you) load of many, many tons as quickly as might be safe.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
You do also have to stop that moved mass. And as noted, the recipients might not want to receive a massive, immobile to them, shipping container. However, it is Your Universe.
"Free Alongside Ship" and all that.
It is up to the recipient to handle it afterwards. A wooden wagon and a team of draft animals, some clever applications of levers, and what have you... "courier is not responsible for local TL infrastructure" and so on.
