Other travelling arrangements

[Hal]

Hi Folks,
GURPS TRAVELLER's rules for ships is an offshoot of its GURPS VEHICLES design system for (you guessed it), vehicles.

One thing that GURPS TRAVELLER introduced, was the concept of "bunk rooms" in lieu of ordinary staterooms for crew members (akin to the concept of bunks in modern naval vessels).

My question for those who might be interested...

What do you think would have been the going rate for passengers using alternative stateroom concepts? For example, there had been introduced the concept of "half-staterooms" that makes me wonder if smaller staterooms designed with the idea of "railroad" sleepers style beds might have been worth considering for use with Traveller.

Imagine if you will, half staterooms, all using a common area for entertainment purposes or eating purposes - but requiring a very small area for sleeping passengers.

The fun thing about GURPS TRAVELLER is, that a 16 person bunkroom (exceedingly uncomfortable and/or crowded) holds more people per cubic volume of area, than low berths (but on par with emergency low berths). A less crowded version might be only 8 people per bunk - which is on par with low berths as far as density per cubic volume goes.

Now, here's the fun part if you will.

If you slept 8 people per stateroom, but charged them 1,500 credits per bunk - it would be much more economical than low berths, safer than low berths, and would allow a family to become "tourists" - walking on another world that they'd otherwise not be able to afford at 8,000 credits per jump per person.

Just thinking outside the box as it were...

 

[Vladika]

Hi Folks,
GURPS TRAVELLER's rules for ships is an offshoot of its GURPS VEHICLES design system for (you guessed it), vehicles.

One thing that GURPS TRAVELLER introduced, was the concept of "bunk rooms" in lieu of ordinary staterooms for crew members (akin to the concept of bunks in modern naval vessels).

My question for those who might be interested...

What do you think would have been the going rate for passengers using alternative stateroom concepts? For example, there had been introduced the concept of "half-staterooms" that makes me wonder if smaller staterooms designed with the idea of "railroad" sleepers style beds might have been worth considering for use with Traveller.

Imagine if you will, half staterooms, all using a common area for entertainment purposes or eating purposes - but requiring a very small area for sleeping passengers.

The fun thing about GURPS TRAVELLER is, that a 16 person bunkroom (exceedingly uncomfortable and/or crowded) holds more people per cubic volume of area, than low berths (but on par with emergency low berths). A less crowded version might be only 8 people per bunk - which is on par with low berths as far as density per cubic volume goes.

Now, here's the fun part if you will.

If you slept 8 people per stateroom, but charged them 1,500 credits per bunk - it would be much more economical than low berths, safer than low berths, and would allow a family to become "tourists" - walking on another world that they'd otherwise not be able to afford at 8,000 credits per jump per person.

Just thinking outside the box as it were...

6,000-8,000 Cr for a half SR

The railroad sleeper car concept is a great one and I use it for crew on lower TL ships.

The European Sleeper Cars are called "couchette".

http://http://www.seat61.com/sleepers.htm#.Up05n-JGaRI[/URL]http://www.seat61.com/sleepers.htm#.Up05n-JGaRI

 

[BlackBat242]

However, with your bunk rooms you also need working life support (food, water, air, etc) for all the people you are cramming in, while none of that is needed for low-berth occupants.

Then there is the psychological factor... part of the reason for individual staterooms in the ability to be able to isolate passengers that become disruptive or dangerous to the others. Remember, not everyone can tolerate closed-in and crowded quarters for a week or more... and many of those who can't don't know that they can't until they actually are in the situation (which is a bit late).

This is also another reason why stewards are required... and why I require at least a med-1 skill for all licensed stewards, so they are qualified to diagnose such conditions and to appropriately medicate the dysfunctional passengers.



"Bunk rooms" are more appropriate for military vessels, where everyone has had in-depth psych screening/testing and received training on dealing with others in such settings during their initial training.

 

[rancke]

GURPS TRAVELLER's rules for ships is an offshoot of its GURPS VEHICLES design system for (you guessed it), vehicles.

A source of several mistakes where GT adapted the setting to match the rules instead of the rules to match the setting.

One thing that GURPS TRAVELLER introduced, was the concept of "bunk rooms" in lieu of ordinary staterooms for crew members (akin to the concept of bunks in modern naval vessels).

It also introduced the low berths are perfectly safe as long as you have a competent medical technician attending.

What do you think would have been the going rate for passengers using alternative stateroom concepts? For example, there had been introduced the concept of "half-staterooms" that makes me wonder if smaller staterooms designed with the idea of "railroad" sleepers style beds might have been worth considering for use with Traveller.

That depends on the life support costs you use. LS plus something to pay for the other expenses would be the minimum.

The way to get a ballpark figure would be to design a 1000T ship exclusively for the kind of passenger you're thinking of (e.g. a ship designed with nothing but bunkrooms for passengers and no cargo space), work out the operating costs for such a ship (including a reasonable rate of return on the owner's investment) and divide by the average number of passengers carried.

Imagine if you will, half staterooms, all using a common area for entertainment purposes or eating purposes - but requiring a very small area for sleeping passengers.

CT rules explicitly state that double occupancy is feasible (it's just not allowed, for some unfathomable reason). For greater density than that, it is possible that the common areas would have to be expanded.

If you slept 8 people per stateroom, but charged them 1,500 credits per bunk - it would be much more economical than low berths, safer than low berths, and would allow a family to become "tourists" - walking on another world that they'd otherwise not be able to afford at 8,000 credits per jump per person.

If life support costs are Cr2000 per passenger you'd be losing money. At 8 passengers per stateroom you'd need to charge Cr2750 to earn the same as for a lone mid passenger paying Cr8000.


Hans

 

[Timerover51]

In my Universe, ships crews are larger, and except for the Captain/Owner, Chief Engineer, and Cargomaster, the crew is bunked two per stateroom. If owner different from Captain, then a separate Owner's cabin might be included on a large ship.

I can see mass bunking on military ships and immigrant transports, with adjustments to ship's life support systems. Life support system cost in the game always has struck me as inflated, probably in order to soak up the player's cash and keep him/her speculating and adventuring.

 

[Timerover51]

However, with your bunk rooms you also need working life support (food, water, air, etc) for all the people you are cramming in, while none of that is needed for low-berth occupants.

Then there is the psychological factor... part of the reason for individual staterooms in the ability to be able to isolate passengers that become disruptive or dangerous to the others. Remember, not everyone can tolerate closed-in and crowded quarters for a week or more... and many of those who can't don't know that they can't until they actually are in the situation (which is a bit late).

This is also another reason why stewards are required... and why I require at least a med-1 skill for all licensed stewards, so they are qualified to diagnose such conditions and to appropriately medicate the dysfunctional passengers.

"Bunk rooms" are more appropriate for military vessels, where everyone has had in-depth psych screening/testing and received training on dealing with others in such settings during their initial training.

I picked up some interesting data from D. K. Brown's book The Grand Fleet, that covers the design and development of British warships from 1906-1922, on space per man for some of the pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, and cruisers operating in that period.

The Briston-class of scout/light cruiser had 12.5 square feet of space per enlisted man, including messing areas, galley, and wash rooms. Allowing for an effective deck height of 8 feet or so (which might be generous looking at photos), that would give 100 cubic feet of space per enlisted. A Traveller displacement ton is 13.5 cubic meters or 476.784 cubic feet. That equates to about 5 enlisted men per Traveller displacement ton. There were 359 enlisted crew on the Bristol. The officers of the ship had 138 square feet per officer, and again allowing for 8 foot deck heights, each officer had 1104 cubic feet of space, or about 2.13 Traveller displacement tons. There were 20 officers on the ship. Again, those are averages for both the enlisted men and officers, with no allowance for differences in rank. The roughly 10 to 1 difference in space between officers and enlisted holds true on all but one of the ships cited by Brown. While the line officers would have been mainly upper-middle class to upper-class, the engineers were viewed more as necessary mechanics, while the enlisted would have mainly been lower-middle class to poverty. None of them would have had the quoted training.

Edit Note I forgot to add that the Royal Navy was still using hammocks for the enlisted men for sleeping, and only part of the crew was assumed to be sleeping at any given time. On most coal-powered ships, only the engine room stokers had access to bathing facilities, for fairly obvious reasons.

"Bunk rooms" are more appropriate for military vessels, where everyone has had in-depth psych screening/testing and received training on dealing with others in such settings during their initial training.

With respect to passengers, you might want to look at conditions on the immigrant ships from Europe to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s, where the ships were at sea for a month or more at a time. Immigrants typically had to bring their own food with them, as the ship supplied only water, and not a lot of that. None for such mundane things as washing either clothes or bodies.

You might also want to visit, if possible, one of the US World War 2 submarine museums, and look at the berthing arrangements. While the sub crews were all volunteers, they had no special training. I have slept onboard the Cobia in Manitowoc, Wisconsin in the crew quarters, and the Silversides in Muskegon, Michigan, where I was accorded the privilege of sleeping in the captain's bunk. The captain's stateroom had room for the bunk, with storage lockers underneath, a small desk with a safe, a chair, and the captain did have the luxury of his own wash basin.

The amount of space allowed for personnel in Traveller is more than generous, even based on current cruise ship staterooms. I have been onboard several of those as a passenger.

Human beings are far more adaptable than the game gives them credit. The species that should need lots of room are the Aslan, Vargr, and most especially the K'Kree.

The Brown books on warship design are full of gems like that, and I will try to get the manning space up soon.