Cargo in Traveller

[Redcap]

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.

Ain't that the truth

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.

Good points!

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.

Very, very, VERY, V E R Y true, and well spotted!

My take on it would be the cargo crane fitting to get them on the ship, or perhaps some form of forklift/gravlifter machine.

Give the man some reputation points!!!!

Already have, it was an astoundingly brilliant observation!

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.

True, and see my note on forklift/gravlift machinery, above

So, several sizes of ISO container, from 2dT - hell, make it 0.25dT (one square of 1.5m³, stack two to get a 0.5dT load that's 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m tall), and a maximum size of say 12dT? Everything else, or odd-shaped loads, run 'em as loose cargo?

 

[Redcap]

""courier is not responsible for local TL infrastructure" and so on.

BWAhahahahahahaha :rofl: I am SO nicking that to inflict on my players at a suitably inopportune moment

 

[boomslang]

Wouldn't mind having a dekko, sure, tanks

Here is the gist of everything I have listed that seems to need taking into account in CT (often working backwards from stuff that appears later, especially in MT and T5)...

standardized Shipping Boxes
   1dt:  1.5m by 3m by 3m
   5dt:  7.5m by 3m by 3m
  10dt:  7.5m by 6m by 3m
   
large cargo holds (60dt+) often fit 6m (double-height) ceilings

Boxes often stacked on their short(est) side(s)

Boxes are generally vaccuum-rated
  but may have Special Handling requirements
    acceleration limits
      overall ("fragile")
      in one direction only ("this end up")
    temperature limits
    radiation limits
    external power supply
    life support
      ambient (not vaccuum-rated) or via umbilical to ship (vaccuum-rated)
    all of these may incur additional operational/handling costs
      time
        reduced acceleration as a safety precaution
          against drive, and therefore acceleration compensation, failure
          resulting in extended sublight travel time to/from Jump altitude
      money
      	extra life support supply consumption
      	extra fuel usage
      	  both possible from additional travel time, too
      	extra radiation shielding
      	  precautionary measures should drives fail
      	    and therefore radiation shielding fail, as well
      loading/unloading
      	special equipment may be required

cargo hatches and doorways generally need 6m by 3m openings
  to accomodate 10dt Boxes
    or 3m by 6m
  so, default hatch is perhaps at 6m by 6m [?]
    because square is better for structural integrity [?]
      3m by 6m hatches with extendable adapters are also common
    normal personnel hatch is 1m by 2m

cargo hold deckplans need to accomodate the maximum mathematically possible
number of 10dt Boxes first (x mod 10), then one 5dt Box in the remaining
required displacement volume if possible (y mod 5), and finally 4 or fewer 1dt
Boxes in whatever volume remains (z mod 1), to maximize capacity and flexibility

example: a Type A2 with 49dt of hold should accept four 10dt plus one 5dt plus
four 1dt modular Boxes and have at least one 6m by 6m [or 3m?] hatch/ramp
accessway

a Mail Vault is a 5dt armoured and secured Shipping Box
  carried in dedicated hold space

default Big/Small Craft, when carried as cargo (rather than in dedicated Bays),
take up 130% of their normal displacement
  if they will fit at all, even with folding
  better to carry them in designated Bays
  other ship's vehicles vary in requirements

luggage Trunks (for High Passengers) typically come in .125dt units 1.5m by 1.5m
by .75m
  a stateroom may accomodate up to 8 of these Trunks, but typically 4
  Middle and Low Passengers generally use conventional luggage and duffel bags
    or ship their baggage as Incidental Cargo
    
Portable Low Berths at .5dt are typically 3m by 1.5m by 1.5m

other options: External Cargo Pods, carried as per Drop Tanks (but on a
different type of mounting point), available in 100dt, 500dt, and 1000dt, plus
custom sizes, all at MCR0.1/dton (after Ken Pick's "Deck Cargoes")

 

[Condottiere]

Solomani Containment

While the Confederation tends towards conservatism and tradition, I'd lie to think that they'd be flexible enough to accommodate our spaceship deckplans in regard to a modified twenty foot container standard.

Dimensions
. External
.. length
... 599 centimetres
.. breadth
... 239 centimetres
.. height
... 259 centimetres
. Internal
.. length
... 580 centimetres
.. breadth
... 230 centimetres
.. height
... 239 centimetres

So three millenia with screwing around with the specifications, and we get something slightly shorter, slightly higher inside, slightly narrower. The length of two containers equals five breadths, which should allow some really tightly compacting.

It's just a tad above two and a quarter tonnes in volume.

 

[kilemall]

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.

Assuming a standard of 2-3m in width, not exactly a huge hatch form factor.

A limited side hatch would be a problem if one has to always swing the container around lengthwise.

 

[Redcap]

There's a thought I hadn't had, until you mentioned the Solomani - non Vilani Imperial container standards - I'd imagine the K'Kree ones are MAHOOSIVE

 

[Redcap]

Also, regards the mail, would a requirement of such a contract be to have the mail off-loadable first, and bolted in place with non-standard security bolts, to prevent unauthorised removal?

 

[boomslang]

A limited side hatch would be a problem if one has to always swing the container around lengthwise.

It is quite tempting to put such hatches in the floor of the hold, raise the vessel up on its landing gear, and load/unload the cargo onto trucks/wagons/dollies rolled underneath it.

But yeah, the geometry can become non-trivial if the deck plans are not laid out with some thought as to how to wrangle the last bit of cargo into place so that it packs tightly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Deck-plan-wise, that makes sense; each ton of load increase in a container adds a pair of squares on the end.
...
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)

Current containers are ~2.5 m × ~2.5 m × ~6 m up to ~16 m.
More than 12 m should be workable.

The standard ship deck spacing is 3 m, that means that standard roof height is less than 3 m. You need some room to manoeuvre the containers, so I don't think the containers can be more than ~2.5 m in height.

 

[kilemall]

Since we are talking container rules, here are mine from my IMTU thread-

[FONT=arial,helvetica]While we are on the topic of certification, here are the classes of certification for cargo carrying for civilian vessels-

Requires Astronics-

B- Biohazard
C- Corrosive
F- Flammable
H- Hazardous
P-Passengers
P(CS)- Passengers (Cold Sleep)
P(HS)- Passengers (Hot Sleep)
R-Radioactives
XP- Pressurized

Requires Bulk Freighter/Merc-
F- Food (Bulk)
GC- General Cargo
G-Gas
L- Liquid
M- Mineral
P(AT)- Passengers (Animal Transport)
PO- Powder
T- Temperature Control

The average player merchant ship certifies in class GC, P, and P(CS).

Certification occurs during the annual maintenance cycle, no additional cost IMTU.

The benefits of certification are that higher profits are possible. The passenger ones are self-explanatory, the others require a bit of explanation.

Specialized cargo certification means the ship can be configured to handle the cargo in bulk with appropriate pumps, protective interior, environmental controls, safety equipment, etc. and the ship's crew is trained and competent in handling it.

Most cargo the players handle come in a GC configuration, where the shipper is responsible for loading the material in an absolutely safe container leased or owned by the shipper.

This allows for the cheapest rates and little to no preparation or handling on the part of the cargo ship. This suits both parties in many cases, but is an inefficient way of shipping per ton as a lot of wastage occurs as a result of the packaging and the container incurs a cost one way or another.

So a specialized hold allows for more effective product to be shipped per ton, without the loss of tare volume or container overhead.

For each specialized cargo type in the top category, an extra 2000Cr is charged per ton per parsec.

For each specialized cargo type in the second category, an extra 1000Cr is charged per ton per parsec.

So an FL load (say Corn Syrup) can be 3000Cr per ton, a BPO load (life support hyperalgae in dehydrated state) is 4000 Cr, and an HMR load (Plutonium) commands 6000Cr per ton.

Hazardous is a catchall for other hazardous terms not covered or indicates particularly hazardous material that is dangerous in an additional way then the main hazard (for instance Plutonium is highly poisonous so it merits the extra designation).

Costs per ton for preparing cargo space vary, but as a rule charge 20,000 per ton per hazardous cargo category and 5,000 per ton per category for the rest.

Other costs will obtain, most notably a cleanout cost of 500 Cr per ton. Dedicated cargo personnel that are part of the crew can perform this service, reducing the cost to 100 Cr for waste disposal/reclamation by the starport.

Common sense should rule, for instance biohazard and food categories should not be mixed in the same hold space.

Cargo holds in smaller ships are normally designed to be configurable, set aside 1 ton for every 10 tons converted back to GC to store the hold walls, equipment etc.

Setup is 8 hours per 10 tons, this can be divided up per person with mechanical or cargo handling skill, and requires a 1000Cr inspection per category after conversion is complete.

Specialized items like this are usually handled by larger shipping firms with dedicated ships and contracts, or subsidized merchants with a specific route servicing a consistent production facility or customer base. A wily aggressive trader captain however may be able to capture this profitable variant on cargo shipping via smart opportunity, 'sales negotiation' or persuasion.[/FONT]

 

[kilemall]

More...

[FONT=arial,helvetica]There are standard containers, 10 ton and 5 ton containers, each two tiles wide and 15+ tiles long for the 10 ton and two tiles wide and 7.5+ tiles long for the 5 ton containers, yielding dimensions of 3m x 3m x 15.55m and 3m x 3m x 7.77m respectively.

Containers are mounted on standard divots inside most GC holds, and may be stacked, locked on each other.

This standard form factor has been in place for at least 100 years so very few cargo ships are not set to handle it.

Containers come in two grades of construction, planetary and interstellar.

The interstellar version is built to starship hull standards, and can be strapped to the exterior mounts on a dispersed cargo ship or otherwise exposed to space in non-streamlined hulls. They cost 100,000Cr per ton to build, plus the above costs for unique cargo certification categories. Container specialization once done is permanent, they are not configurable.

The planetary versions are intended for less strenuous conditions, and when used for starship cargo, they require riding in a pressurized internal cargo bay. They cost 10,000Cr per ton to build plus specialization, and do not last nearly as long. They also are not as secure as the starship versions for hazardous cargo so do not qualify for the automatic GC rating, and may require a specialized bay to be safely transported.

Lease rates are typically half of the shipping and cargo specializations fee starships charge per ton.

Leasing containers can be a low cost way for players to gain entree to the interstellar cargo market, and a way for captains to maximize their earnings by providing containers at need.

There is a catch though- liability for a leaking or dangerous cargo that does damage or harms people rests largely with the container provider, ESPECIALLY if that container was rated GC safe. An aggressive captain may be setting his ship business up for a fall.[/FONT]

 

[Redcap]

Current containers are ~2.5 m × ~2.5 m × ~6 m up to ~16 m.
More than 12 m should be workable.

The standard ship deck spacing is 3 m, that means that standard roof height is less than 3 m. You need some room to manoeuvre the containers, so I don't think the containers can be more than ~2.5 m in height.

Plus, you have to raise 'em slightly to get 'em in and out (unless you like having deep scratches in the deck plating, of course), so yeah, no more than say, 2.7m high; 30cm is more than enough headroom to lift something a couple of centimetres off the deck to on-load and off-load them, if the lights and air vents are mounted flush within the false-ceiling-line, I would have thought.

If you want a little wiggle room, have the width and length a centimetre of so smaller than 3m, but not overly so; that reduces the capacity of the container, after all.

So, notionally they've got a footprint of 1.5x1.5x1.5m for the smallest container of a quarter ton capacity, and they move up in the following steps:

SIZE    L      W      H    Deck Plan Squares

0.5dT = 1.5m x 1.5m x 1.5m (1x1 squares, half deck height)
1dT   = 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m   (1x1 squares, one deck tall)
2dT   = 3m   x 3m   x 3m   (2x2 squares, one deck tall)
4dT   = 6m   x 3m   x 3m   (4x2 squares, one deck tall)
5dT   = 7.5m x 3m   x 3m   (5x2 squares, one deck tall)
8dT   = 12m  x 3m   x 3m   (8x2 squares, one deck tall)
10dT  = 15m  x 3m   x 3m   (10x2 squares, one deck tall)
12dT  = 18m  x 3m   x 3m   (12x2 squares, one deck tall)

This covers only containerised cargos, loose cargos are another matter entirely

Everyone happy with that?

 

[Redcap]

Since we are talking container rules, here are mine from my IMTU thread-

(MUCH snippage)

Interesting; I may well adopt this for non-convention useage In fact, yeah, I'm nicking it, thanks

 

[boomslang]

Since we are talking container rules, here are mine from my IMTU thread-

This is quite useful; thanks for posting it. The notion of small bulk cargoes in tramp shipping contexts is thought-provoking. Making it container-centric at that scale seems sensible.

 

[Redcap]

Now, while all the above is all well and good for non-con usage, can anyone shed light on why the standard contract mail container is 5dT, not 4?

 

[Redcap]

This is quite useful; thanks for posting it. The notion of small bulk cargoes in tramp shipping contexts is thought-provoking. Making it container-centric at that scale seems sensible.

And a damn sight easier to shift!

 

[boomslang]

If you want a little wiggle room, have the width and length a centimetre of so smaller than 3m, but not overly so; that reduces the capacity of the container, after all.

<snip>

Everyone happy with that?

Yeah, a centimeter or so on either side is more than ample room to maneuver the thing.

You simply need to use proper care and planning. See this historical example for comparison.

 

[Redcap]

Yeah, a centimeter or so on either side is more than ample room to maneuver the thing.

You simply need to use proper care and planning. See this historical example for comparison.

That's a right narrow squeak through, and no mistake

 

[boomslang]

Now, while all the above is all well and good for non-con usage, can anyone shed light on why the standard contract mail container is 5dT, not 4?

So that it fits in a corner of the hold that would otherwise host a 5dt standard box without the subsidizing government or the Mail office having to bring in a Naval Architect to twiddle the standard design plans to work it in there?

Again, the 4dt standard seems kind of weird and otherwise-inexplicable and does not fit elegantly into everything else going on with cargo in the early rules. But it is an easy fix to simply adjust either its size or the default cargo availabilities to harmonize the discrepancy into something consistent and better-working.

 

[Redcap]

So that it fits in a corner of the hold that would otherwise host a 5dt standard box without the subsidizing government or the Mail office having to bring in a Naval Architect to twiddle the standard design plans to work it in there?

Again, the 4dt standard seems kind of weird and otherwise-inexplicable and does not fit elegantly into everything else going on with cargo in the early rules. But it is an easy fix to simply adjust either its size or the default cargo availabilities to harmonize the discrepancy into something consistent and better-working.

For want of a better justification/explanation from Himself, that'll do nicely, thanks