• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

High Passengers Baggage Allotments

I really don't see the problem with having to give a high passenger 1 dT of baggage space. It's essentially the same problem as having full up with middle passengers and having to put one out of the ship. Assuming your cargo hold is full up and your passenger actually want to avail himself of his full baggage allowance, you juist have to unload a dT of freight.


Hans

Because it ups the effective cost of the stateroom for break-even calcs by Cr1000 more.

Given the 1:8 Steward:passenger rate, and KCr2/mo for a steward, a high passenger costs (on a 2-week cycle)
1/480th of MCr0.4 (the stateroom's addition to payments) =Cr833
1/8 of 1/480 of MCr0.4 for the steward's stateroom =Cr104
1/8th of KCr1 salary per 2 weeks =Cr125
1 ton of lost cargo for baggage =Cr1000
4 tons of lost cargo for Pass stateroom =Cr4000
0.5 tons of lost cargo for the steward =Cr500
KCr2 for LS for passenger =Cr2000
KCr0.5 for LS for Steward =Cr250
Total = 8812 per jump expenses
1/10 Td cargo loss: 7912 per jump
No cargo loss: 7812 per jump expenses

It makes a massive difference in profitability.
Tha
 
I really don't see the problem with having to give a high passenger 1 dT of baggage space. It's essentially the same problem as having full up with middle passengers and having to put one out of the ship. Assuming your cargo hold is full up and your passenger actually want to avail himself of his full baggage allowance, you just have to unload a dT of freight.

Hans

Do you have a cite that says starship owners are allowed to unload cargo that they've agreed to take? Who says passengers are more important?

Assuming it is allowed, then what happens when another High Passenger comes up to the ship while you are unloading it and wants passage? Do you have to unload another ton of freight? While you're unloading it what happens when a third High Passenger comes up? Will your ship ever get to take off?

What happens when your hull is completely full of speculative cargo you've bought? If I have to dump a ton of radioactives with a base price of a million credits a ton just to take the High Passenger why am I carrying passengers in the first place? What happens when my ship goes broke without the profits from that extra ton of radioactives? Am I even allowed to dump a ton of radioactives, or is that felony polluting?
 
Do you have a cite that says starship owners are allowed to unload cargo that they've agreed to take?
Nope. I'm just saying that "it's essentially the same problem as having full up with middle passengers and having to put one out of the ship". If you can legally do the one, there's no reason to believe you can't legally do the other too. (Note that I'm not saying that it HAS to be so; just that it COULD be so).

Assuming it is allowed, then what happens when another High Passenger comes up to the ship while you are unloading it and wants passage? Do you have to unload another ton of freight? While you're unloading it what happens when a third High Passenger comes up? Will your ship ever get to take off?
Eventually you're going to run out of passenger cabins. We've all heard stories about people who get caught up in absurd situations due to unusual legal circumstances. The situations you posit are not going to crop up in real life, and if they do, that's the price the merchant pays for living under the benevolent protection of the Imperium.

Bottom line here is really if it is plausible that the Imperium would think that getting its bureaucrats back and forth as expeditiously as possible was important enough to incommode the odd passenger line. I think it is.
What happens when your hull is completely full of speculative cargo you've bought? If I have to dump a ton of radioactives with a base price of a million credits a ton just to take the High Passenger why am I carrying passengers in the first place?
Because you almost never have high passengers showing up with a dT of baggage while your cargo hold is brim full of a speculative cargo of radioactives.

What happens when my ship goes broke without the profits from that extra ton of radioactives?
If you have a cargo of 82T of radioactives, warehousing one of them is scarcely going to drive you out of business. But really, such a situation would never occur, since a free trader is extremely unlikely to have enough money to invest in a full load of radioactives, nor is he likely to stumble across a load of 82T radioactives to buy.

Am I even allowed to dump a ton of radioactives, or is that felony polluting?
Sounds to me like you have the makings of an adventure there.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Because it ups the effective cost of the stateroom for break-even calcs by Cr1000 more.

[...]

It makes a massive difference in profitability.
Not a problem for me. I don't belive in the fixed prices[*]. I believe in market forces making starship passages cost what the actual expenses warrant.
[*] Or rather, I believe they're a game artifact that has been misinterpreted to have an actual existence in the setting.​



Hans
 
KCr0.5 for LS for Steward =Cr250

I believe that you meant Cr 500, not Cr 250.

Therefore your total expenses per jump should be Cr 9,062

Your math also assumes that the ship in question has at at least eight passenger staterooms and that if it has more than eight it has an exact multiple of eight. A design with only six staterooms is going to have to spread the Steward costs over the gain from six High Passengers not eight, and a ship with twelve passenger staterooms will have to spread the cost of its two Stewards over the gain from only twelve High Passengers.

Your math also assumes the Steward is Steward-1. If they are more skilled, and draw a higher salary you'll make even less profit. (The best profit would probably be from a crewman filling two jobs, since they'd not require any extra room or life support, and the added salary would be only Cr 750/month or 9,000 a year).

You are also not accounting for the capital cost of the downpayment. If you have to put 20% down, than you had to come up with an extra Cr 80,000 to have that stateroom in the first place. What if you'd invested it elsewhere instead? Assuming a 2% real annual rate of return on that 80,000 that's costing you Cr 800 a year. At 25 jumps per year that's an extra Cr 32 per jump in expenses, pushing your costs to Cr 9,094. Than you'll have to add on the capital cost of an eight of the Stewards stateroom, for another Cr 4 per jump, or Cr 9,098 per jump.

Assuming a non standard design, (since you didn't account for the standard discount to the cost of the stateroom) you should also add on the extra 1% for the architects fee to both staterooms. That will be about another Cr 9 per jump, and your costs are now more like Cr 9,107

While the rules do not seem to reflect this it also seems to me that the odds of highjacking ought to be less if you carry no passengers, so that's an additional cost of carrying them if you chose to be that realistic. The rules should encourage taking passengers because of the story potential they provide, but if you run the math than an all cargo ship might be better.

We also need to account for the cost of the Medic and her stateroom, since Medics aren't required if you don't have passengers in a CT book 2 design [CT Bk 2 p 23].
Since one medic is required per 120 passengers and a medic is paid twice what a Steward is than the Medic will be about Cr 24 per passenger (if you actually have 120 passengers) and your costs will be more like Cr 9,131 per jump.

You are also not accounting for annual maintenance. If you have to pay crew salaries during the time that the ship is undergoing annual maintenance than we will have to spread those salary costs over all the other jumps that the ship makes during the year.
Annual maintenance takes two weeks (14 days) out of a 365 day year, or about 3.8356% of a year. Adding 3.8356% on to the crew costs we've already calculated thats another Cr 5 per jump and our costs are up to Cr 9,136.

Next we'll need to add on the extra expenses for routine maintenance. If each high Passenger requires one stateroom of their own + 1/8 stateroom for their Steward and 1/120th stateroom for their medic than thats 1.1333 staterooms per passenger. At Cr 400,000 per stateroom thats Cr 453,3333 extra in ship costs, which means that our annual maintenance will cost an extra Cr 4,533 per year. At 25 jumps per year that is an extra Cr 182 per jump, and our expenses are now up to Cr 9,318 per jump.

We might now consider the extra capitol costs for the 1/120th of the medics stateroom, but I'm ignoring it since it's less than Cr 1 per jump. Note that medics are required per passenger, not per High Passenger so we really need to spread the cost of the Medics salary over the Low Passengers too, but thats a whole other complication.

Thus our perfectly designed, always full CT book 2 starship, is going to average less than 7% per year return on High Passengers.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line here is really if it is plausible that the Imperium would think that getting its bureaucrats back and forth as expeditiously as possible was important enough to incommode the odd passenger line. I think it is.

I think it's plausible that the Imperium has a method of granting it's representivies fast and speedy travel, i just don't think conventional High Passage tickets are the method it uses. I would simply see it coercing the ship in question, via hook or crook.

i.e. "you will take this man with you when you go to planet X, or you ship it going to be so tied up in red tape it ain't leaving this pad for a month."

but that's just me.
 
As far as your analysis goes, you are corrrect. The analysis stops short of one thing. Your assumptions are that you are always at full capacity.

There might not be enough high/middle passengers on offer. In which case, if there are low passengers on offer, better to be full, at a lower rate, than running partially empty.

It's better not to install low berths in the first place, and you would never want to put low passangers in staterooms because you would lose even more money; the low ticket costs Cr1,000 and life support for a breathing and eating person is Cr2,000. So instead of losing Cr100 per ton in a low berth (ignoring capital costs) you are losing Cr1,250 a ton if you are set-up for Middle Passangers, or Cr1,400 at ton if you are set-up for High passanger.

There is an argument to be had to take on Middle passangers if you indeed are set-up for high passangers and are not full because you don't want to fly empty. If you do this you would have to take into consideration the costs of the steward you would be employing for the potential high passangers, because you couldn't go about highering and fireing all the time.

But when it comes to low passangers, there is aboslutly _no_ economic reason to take them at all unless you got all your capital assets for nothing i.e. you were given your ship with low berths in it already.

If on the other hand you need to pay for your Jump 2 mortguage, I would sugget either not specifying lowberths in the first place. If you can't do that negotiating a discount on the purchase price for at least the capital cost of the low berths. And if you can't do that rip out the low berths, sell them on the second hand market to offset your morguage, and then ship freight.

Best regards,

Ewan
 
I understand exactly what yourself and ED have said.

I am merely pointing out that one of the underlying assumptions, 100% filled capacity as the basis of making the value calculations, is false. Your insistance on this has made me look at the numbers.

If you are allocating tonnage to generate revenue, you need to be always as full as possible. Staterooms that are empty wont pay your ship mortgage. Stuffing a bit of cargo on top of the bunk wont pay your ship off. I posit that cargo modules won't fit into the space allocated to a stateroom. You are placing yourself at the mercy of the GM if you are breaking things open or relying on loose baggage.

Agree.

For 1 stateroom you allocate 4 dTons. If you have many staterooms and the last one is sometimes full and sometimes empty, then you are in the place where it is economically detrimental to not have Low Berths.

For those same 4 dTons you get 8 low berth passengers. When they are full, which if you look at the availability tables, is almost always, you make 7200cr per jump. If you somethimes have the stateroom full and somethimes empty, then you make a fraction of 8000cr every jump. The fraction is much less if you sometimes have no high and have to have middle. Middle maxes out at 6000cr.

Huh? If you didn't have low berths in the first place you would have 8 tons to ship fright. Income of Cr8,000 per jump. So by having low berths you are losing Cr800 per jump.

The capital costs, per dTon for Low Berths are 80% of the costs of staterooms. If they are consistently full Low Berths repay themselves in 55.6 jumps. 64.5 jumps if you assumme that you could have been carrying freight in the same space.

Completly incorect. The capital costs of a low berth are %infiinty more than the capital cost for freight. Low berths cost Cr50,000 and freight costs nothing. Revinue generating makes this worse because lows are Cr900 per ton, while freight is Cr1000 per ton, or -Cr100 per ton. This means you never ... I repeat never pay off the capital investment, you just keep throwing good money after bad.

The analysis of 8 high to 8 mid to 8 low is not appropriate when it puts in all the cargo space into the low berth calc. By doing that all it shows is that passengers pay more than cargo. If that is all you are saying then, it is true. A fully loaded ship with passengers will always earn more than a fully loaded ship with cargo.

Again incorect. A ship loaded with High or Middle passanger will earn more than a ship loaded with freight. A ship loaded with low passangers will earn less than a ship loaded with freight, and cost considerably more (higher mortguage payments), and cost more to run (without even taking into acount the higher moutguage payments).

But that is part of what the thread is about. It is showing that if the high passengers get cargo allocations, their value is degraded. I am not saying that you should be allocating much of your space to low berths. I am just saying that allocate the space to whatever will assure you of being full.

Agree. Merchants would want to maximise their earning potential, while allowing as much flexability as posible.

Unfortunatly low berths just don't really come into that equasion

Best regards,

Ewan
 
I think it's plausible that the Imperium has a method of granting it's representivies fast and speedy travel, i just don't think conventional High Passage tickets are the method it uses. I would simply see it coercing the ship in question, via hook or crook.
Oh, I'm not saying that Priority Passage Vouchers are particularily plausible. But there's a difference between 'not particularily plausible' and 'no way in h**l'. PPVs are my attempt to handwave the gaming features of High Passage in a way that explains it in setting terms. PPVs reproduce the salient features of High Passage while avoiding the same-price-regardless-of-distance silliness.

As I said in my description of them, PPVs started out as being meant for high-ranking Imperial officials travelling on official business. Over the centuries they've evolved to become what they are in the Classic Era.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Huh? If you didn't have low berths in the first place you would have 8 tons to ship fright. Income of Cr8,000 per jump. So by having low berths you are losing Cr800 per jump.
Always provided you could have found the freight. If you're servicing a world with lots of potential low passengers and little trade, you want low berths rather than cargo space.

But you should be allowed to charge enough for a low passage to cover your expenses and make a reasonable profit.

Of course, you could always fill your staterooms with bunk beds, dose the passengers with fast drug, and let them sleep it off at the destination ;-).


Hans
 
Huh? If you didn't have low berths in the first place you would have 8 tons to ship fright. Income of Cr8,000 per jump. So by having low berths you are losing Cr800 per jump.

Completly incorect. The capital costs of a low berth are %infiinty more than the capital cost for freight. Low berths cost Cr50,000 and freight costs nothing. Revinue generating makes this worse because lows are Cr900 per ton, while freight is Cr1000 per ton, or -Cr100 per ton. This means you never ... I repeat never pay off the capital investment, you just keep throwing good money after bad.

I am not too sure what version of the rules you are looking at. If you look on page 14 of the LBB2 in the 1981 edititon, you will see that each low berth displaces half a dTon. You seem to be under the impression that a low berth displaces 1 dton. Given that the life support costs of a low berth are 100cr and the revenue is 1000 cr the profit per filled low berth is 900 cr per jump. Given that the freight rates are 1000 cr per dTon, the filled low berths are more profitable than freight by 800 cr per dTon. Filled low berths net 1800 cr per dTon per jump. The 800 cr per ton offsets the capital outlay 100,000cr in 125 full jumps when compared to cargo space with zero outlay. I was wrong in my previous calculation.

Which aspects of my assessment are incorrect? Which page reference says that a single low berth displaces 1 dTon? I am not understanding the numbers behind your reasoning. Do you have a spreadsheet where you can post the workings that lead to your conclusion?

I am saying that your assupmtions around low berths are false. 8 low berths displace 4 dTons not 8 as you assume. High and Mid passengers are not always available, low passengers are nearly always available. These two points undermine your conclusions. The first is fundamental in that you put low berths to be at a lower return per jump than freight, which is not true. The second stops you from simply putting all your eggs in one basket. The one basket simply being what ever one element earns the most. The passenger and availability tables do not support this kind of set up.

I would be happy to be proved wrong. I would like for you to cite page numbers, because frankly, I can not reproduce the maths behind your argument.
 
Last edited:
I am not too sure what version of the rules you are looking at. If you look on page 14 of the LBB2 in the 1981 edititon, you will see that each low berth displaces half a dTon. You seem to be under the impression that a low berth displaces 1 dton. Given that the life support costs of a low berth are 100cr and the revenue is 1000 cr the profit per filled low berth is 900 cr per jump. Given that the freight rates are 1000 cr per dTon, the filled low berths are more profitable than freight by 800 cr per dTon. Filled low berths net 1800 cr per dTon per jump. The 800 cr per ton offsets the capital outlay 100,000cr in 125 full jumps when compared to cargo space with zero outlay. I was wrong in my previous calculation.

Yup different version. MT vs CT. In MT low berths are 13.5 kl in volume (or 1 ton).

Which aspects of my assessment are incorrect? Which page reference says that a single low berth displaces 1 dTon? I am not understanding the numbers behind your reasoning. Do you have a spreadsheet where you can post the workings that lead to your conclusion?

You're not wrong, and I'm not wrong. We're just using different versions of Traveller.

I am saying that your assupmtions around low berths are false. 8 low berths displace 4 dTons not 8 as you assume. High and Mid passengers are not always available, low passengers are nearly always available. These two points undermine your conclusions. The first is fundamental in that you put low berths to be at a lower return per jump than freight, which is not true. The second stops you from simply putting all your eggs in one basket. The one basket simply being what ever one element earns the most. The passenger and availability tables do not support this kind of set up.

I would be happy to be proved wrong. I would like for you to cite page numbers, because frankly, I can not reproduce the maths behind your argument.

As you said. Different versions of Traveller.

MT Refs manual page 82 page 9 section 9.

I also checked High Guard, and on page 33:

"Low berths require one-half ton per berth, at a cost of Cr50,000 each."

The clarification in the Consolidated Errata talks about:

"The volume of all accommodations was doubled from the original volumes given in High Guard to allow for access—what good does it do to put in a bunk if you can’t get to it?"

So I'm going to suggest that it is changed to make low berth economic again, in line with what you have been arguing.

Many thanks and best regards,

Ewan
 
You're not wrong, and I'm not wrong. We're just using different versions of Traveller.
I'd say one of you is always going to be wrong. Which one it is depends on what version of Traveller is used, but that's a different matter.

Now, when you make a bald statement about what things are like in the Traveller Universe without specifying what version you're talking about, I submit that the rest of us are entitled to assume that it's either the model most versions agree on or possibly the current version (MGT). MT changed low berths to take up 1 dT (without changing the cost of a Low Passage -- what were they thinking?) and I can't find the relevant books for TNE and T4, but T20 uses ½ a dT and so does MGT. (GT, in accordance with the basic principle of changing the setting to fit the GURPS rules, lets you have 4 (or is it 8?) per dT, which is completely off the charts).

I'd say the preponderance of evidence shows that "in reality" low berths take up ½ a DT (including access space).


Hans
 
I'd say the preponderance of evidence shows that "in reality" low berths take up ½ a DT (including access space).

TNE and T4 both use 1 ton (14 kliters), probably taken from MT, but I agree that they should probably be 1/2 ton so it makes them worth having.

Best regards,

Ewan
 
Mongoose low berths are 1 ton units that hold 4 ppl each.

so 1/4 ton a person.

Really? That sounds like Emergency low berths in CT, which aren't for commercial use.

Not really :)

Those are Emergency Low Berths. MgT has the regular Low Berths of CT (1/2 ton and Cr50,000) in the first part of the description. And the ELBs in the second part clearly note "...they will not carry passengers, but can be used for survival."

I suspect Xerxeskingofking is misremembering or their ref has house-ruled something.
 
...The clarification in the Consolidated Errata talks about:

"The volume of all accommodations was doubled from the original volumes given in High Guard to allow for access—what good does it do to put in a bunk if you can’t get to it?"

Whaaat?! I must have missed that in the errata. I vaguely recall Low Berths being bigger in MT, maybe*. I do not recall Staterooms being 8tons in MT. I do not recall Acceleration Couches being 1ton in MT. In fact I recall seating getting smaller. I have never had a problem making the components fit into deckplans at the stated volumes and suggested split, WITHOUT resorting to the 20% slop. Unlike apparently just about every single canon deckplan that had to break the rules, sometimes by as much as 100% (or they just didn't understand the scale). < /rant >

* Didn't the charge also double to Cr2,000 per? And Cr4,000 for "warm" berths (a passenger carried in the Low Berth as a bunk, not frozen with very limited space and LS) rings a bell as well. Or were those house rules I've conflated as official? And doubling Low Berths would make them dead easy to make deckplans, I'd almost welcome it. There'd be room for a proper medical facility to be included if you had a few as most ships do.
 
Back
Top