Size of the merchant fleet IYTU?

[rancke]

Unless the yard is heavily automated using robots and such. That is an alternate possibility.

Sure, if there's a reason why anyone would build such a place on a world where the required logistical support would make construction more expensive. An explanation that introduces a new mystery is not an explanation, it's a handwave.

Either that, or there is another species of sophont there, not included in the pop.

In which case it's not a low-population world. And you have the same problem here as with any explanation that drastically increases the true population from the official figure. The impact on all economic calculations would be off by the difference.

There can be a thousand reasons.

Not really.


Hans

 

[warwizard]

Well I'd just build a few external cargo modules using grapples, custom designed to grapple onto the J4 ship. Keep them at the jump point station they would have to speed the ship into it's next jump. Time to attach is measured in hours, not weeks.

3000 dt ship at J4 has 5% of the hull for the jump drive, adding the external cargo modules derate it to J-1 but increase the ship size to 7500 Dt, losing 150 Dt to the grapples you are still adding some 4300 Dt of bulk cargo volume . The ship's internal fuel tankage is bigger than that needed for jump 1 at 7,500 tons, so no additional fuel tankage is needed, ship uses 750 Dt of fuel of it's 1200 Dt of carried Jump fuel

Grapples and cargo module is very cheap compared to the extra 4.3 MCr the ship will make on the J1 leg, and neatly removes most of the economic disadvantage the ship suffers when jumping at less than it's maximum jump.
Granted a custom built 7500 ton J-1 ship will outperform the 3000 ton J4 ship + 4500 ton external cargo module, delivering a lower cost per ton, but lacks the ability to quickly cross that J-4 to the next market, and the cost per ton is not that much lower.

Using T4 FF&S II rules.

 

[Dragoner]

In which case it's not a low-population world. And you have the same problem here as with any explanation that drastically increases the true population from the official figure. The impact on all economic calculations would be off by the difference.

Every world has to be looked at on a case by case basis, otherwise it is an oversimplification.

 

[rancke]

Every world has to be looked at on a case by case basis, otherwise it is an oversimplification.

That's very true. But fixing a low-population world with a Class A starport by increasing the population and saying the Scouts got it wrong is no different from fixing it by changing the classification and saying the Scouts got it wrong.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

That's very true. But fixing a low-population world with a Class A starport by increasing the population and saying the Scouts got it wrong is no different from fixing it by changing the classification and saying the Scouts got it wrong.


Hans

It's not clear how local sophonts are figured into the pop calc, nor may they participate in the economy in a meaningful way; but changing the starport classification is fairly extreme, imo. One would think the PTB have that much right.

 

[rancke]

It's not clear how local sophonts are figured into the pop calc, nor may they participate in the economy in a meaningful way; but changing the starport classification is fairly extreme, imo. One would think the PTB have that much right.

Introducing a new minor non-human race is fairly extreme too.


EDIT: BTW, I may be giving the wrong impression here. I have no objection per se to explaining a Class A starport by a higher population or some plausible economic sleight of hand. As long as the ramifications (planetary and Imperial defenses, trade routes, etc.) are acknowledged. Dropping a few starport classifications is just another way to go. Maybe accompanied by retconning some high-tech, high-population worlds with Class D starports into being able to refine fuel and build their own space infrastructure...


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Introducing a new minor non-human race is fairly extreme too.


EDIT: BTW, I may be giving the wrong impression here. I have no objection per se to explaining a Class A starport by a higher population or some plausible economic sleight of hand. As long as the ramifications (planetary and Imperial defenses, trade routes, etc.) are acknowledged. Dropping a few starport classifications is just another way to go. Maybe accompanied by retconning some high-tech, high-population worlds with Class D starports into being able to refine fuel and build their own space infrastructure...


Hans

It is easier to try to explain what is there than to go and change everything, including maps, etc.; the non-human race could be amorphous silicon blobs that live in volcanic lava, they don't use human consumer goods, but can cast bonded superdense like a champion. Thus consumption is low for pop standards, with greater production, a sci-fi explanation for example.

If one wants to explain J-4 freighters it is much easier, the Fleet is J-4, so do the economics of the freighters and any shortfall is made up with a hefty military subsidy. Supp 9 does not list freighters, but we know that they must exist.

 

[rancke]

It is easier to try to explain what is there than to go and change everything, including maps, etc.; the non-human race could be amorphous silicon blobs that live in volcanic lava, they don't use human consumer goods, but can cast bonded superdense like a champion. Thus consumption is low for pop standards, with greater production, a sci-fi explanation for example.

If one wants to explain J-4 freighters it is much easier, the Fleet is J-4, so do the economics of the freighters and any shortfall is made up with a hefty military subsidy. Supp 9 does not list freighters, but we know that they must exist.

Whatever works for you. I prefer my game settings to make a little more sense.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Whatever works for you. I prefer my game settings to make a little more sense.

What doesn't make sense?

 

[McPerth]

The thing about that is, even if the ship is owned outright, you still need to amortize its replacement cost. And there we get into various unknowables... so the safest assumption is to presume it's not surviving more than double the financing period - that's generally the expectation for vehicles and other durable non-residences. Not to say that many don't outlive that - but you want the average lifespan, including the whole of σ-1 through σ+∞, past the finance lifespan, and preferably the everything from σ-2 upwards past the end of financing. We don't know the σ value, nor the overall lifespan... but TNE tends to support a σ=10-15 years assessment with a mean of 60-70 for duration baring violence...

If the lifespan expected form a ship is double its financing period, we are talking about not needing replacement in 80 years. If so, by buying half a ship per year, Al-Morai could mantain its fleet without many problems.

If the fleet is paid for and each ship is paid in full at the buying moment, you also forfeit the interests, so I think it could be a large saving, and may well be the difference between a profitable business or bankrupcy.

Also, collapsible/foldable tanks can't be used for jump under CT (and I don't think so under MGT, either). Demountable hard tanks could... but then you need to leave the tanks behind

Ok, my mistake, forget about this point them.

All rules are simplifications of reality and some times do not match reality well when yuo get out in the extremes. IMO a low-population world with a shipyard is a contradiction in terms.

According to TCS (yes, I know it has been decanonized for economical matters, not sure about the shipyard capacity, but AFAIK nothing has replaced it) those shipyards would have negligible capability, so they would be of little use.

The main simplification is that any world with refined fuel available (let's say an automated 'fuel station' on an asteroid served by a dozen people) it's automatically a B starport, so it's assumed to have space (but not star) capable shipyard. Similarly, a world able to build small jump merchants is rated as A starport, so with shipyards (it truly has, but only for small starships), not different from Moras'.

 

[aramis]

Well I'd just build a few external cargo modules using grapples, custom designed to grapple onto the J4 ship. Keep them at the jump point station they would have to speed the ship into it's next jump. Time to attach is measured in hours, not weeks.

3000 dt ship at J4 has 5% of the hull for the jump drive,

Note that Bk2 and MGT J4 ships below about drive V have 5t+10% jump drive volume.

There is no single "drive truth" pervasive to all traveller other than "Jump takes about a week."

The price point ratios under FF&S (1 or 2) are different, but not too different from HG from what I've seen. And you should be able to get close to J2 performance - but don't forget those grappled modules have to have a grapple on the main ship, and have to be space rated themselves, and have to go both directions. Adds more logistical complexity, and more hardware to pay for, and can't be done under Bk2, Bk5, T20, nor MT under RAW; if one breaks out G:V it can be done under GT.

 

[aramis]

If the lifespan expected form a ship is double its financing period, we are talking about not needing replacement in 80 years. If so, by buying half a ship per year, Al-Morai could mantain its fleet without many problems.

If the fleet is paid for and each ship is paid in full at the buying moment, you also forfeit the interests, so I think it could be a large saving, and may well be the difference between a profitable business or bankrupcy.

You need to make a decision for YTU about it... keeping in mind, however, that

(1) if it routinely can be done in house, it will, and will drive prices down to the point that financing ships becomes nigh-impossible

(2) the utility for commerce of an item with an 80 year lifespan is usually about 40 years - past that point, malfunctions usually start pushing operational expenses upwards.

(3) other factors (including Mortgage insurance or guarantors) often make mortgages better for the bottom line than setting aside one's own cash for replacement

(4) non-finance businesses almost never retain significant capital in liquid forms on hand (bank accounts, cash)...

(4a) merchants before faster-than-travel-communications usually had most of their cash tied up in goods purchased for resale elsewhere... and most likely do so in the Traveller universes.

(5) financing a couple ships in the first place (to get the multi-ship discount) isn't cheap... you're paying 20% down cash up front on financed vessels.

(6) there is no return on investment on a ship for 12-48 months (size dependent) while under construction... but loan payments typically aren't due until operations begin, while cash purchase usually (IRL) means putting the a majority of the price (if not the whole price) into escrow at start of construction... an unhappy situation for a business which needs liquid assets to operate.

(6a) the escrow for a real world ship purchase usually pays the yard at specific milestones and planned expenses, rather than just upon delivery. Even if you decide to cancel or they forfeit, you're out much of the money.

 

[warwizard]

Note that Bk2 and MGT J4 ships below about drive V have 5t+10% jump drive volume.

There is no single "drive truth" pervasive to all traveller other than "Jump takes about a week."

The price point ratios under FF&S (1 or 2) are different, but not too different from HG from what I've seen. And you should be able to get close to J2 performance - but don't forget those grappled modules have to have a grapple on the main ship, and have to be space rated themselves, and have to go both directions. Adds more logistical complexity, and more hardware to pay for, and can't be done under Bk2, Bk5, T20, nor MT under RAW; if one breaks out G:V it can be done under GT.

That's why I specified the rule set I'm using.
I can place the grapples on the cargo module, it grapples the ship rather than the other way around ship is 3000 Dt cargo module is 4500 Dt so it takes 150 Dt for the module to grapple the ship, but 225 Dt for the ship to grapple the module, and that would be a lost revenue for every jump of Cr 225,000 plus the grapples are very massive, requiring extra m-drive capacity to meet design parameters.
Space rating... drop tanks are AV 5 (FF&S II PP 16), exteriour cargo pods AV 10 (FF&S II PP. 15 bottom right), and starships AV 20 minimum (FF & S II PP 64 Step 4A) So you could go cheap with the external cargo module. Note that these are dry connections for the grapples, no power, or air or fuel connections, I expect the cargo module to be tractored into a hanger and attatched to station power to activate the automated handling machenery to offload the conex sized cargo shipping containers... said containers provide sealed environment and environmental controls for the contents.

Cargo module waits till the ship comes back through on the return loop, and is loaded with cargo and is waiting to go when the ship comes in.

There are simular modules for the J2 and J3 links, though the gain is marginal for the J3 due to most of the additional space being taken up by the grapple. Have to do a cost to benefit analysis for the J3 link cargo module.

 

[rancke]

Cargo module waits till the ship comes back through on the return loop, and is loaded with cargo and is waiting to go when the ship comes in.

There are simular modules for the J2 and J3 links, though the gain is marginal for the J3 due to most of the additional space being taken up by the grapple. Have to do a cost to benefit analysis for the J3 link cargo module.

There are some extra expenses involved in your scheme, such as storage and moving of the cargo modules, but it does reduce the inefficiency of the system considerably. But it doesn't explain why anyone would find such a system desirable in the first place. As you yourself point out, the scheme is still less efficient than ships that fit the routes they service.

Subsidies are paid with specific purposes in mind. The Imperial Navy may want some J4 ships around that it can Imperialize in times of need, and a world that isn't getting enough visits from natural trade might want more visits (Though this assumes that the worlds in question isn't getting enough visits from natural trade, something that hasn't been shown to be the case). But the Imperium would spend less money subsidizing J4 ships on four-parsec routes than on one-parsec routes, and a world would spend less money subsidizing visits from J1 ships than from J4 ships.

And none of the explanations I've seen so far has addressed the peculiarity of having the ships visit all the worlds more or less equally regardless of the very disparate trade volumes of the different worlds.


Hans

 

[warwizard]

I look for a 25 jump closed circuit where I maximize the trade and speculation profits, this circuit will go through marginal systems that on their own would not merit being visited by this ship if it were not for the astrographical positioning that made them the shortest path through to more lucrative markets. Once I have a decent route specified, I look to see what the capacity need is based on the GNP of the worlds, establish a ship to handle that route, remove that capacity requirement from the worlds in the route and then repeat till I've covered 90% of the needed trade volumes. the remainder is then handled by free traders, assign enough free traders to handle 8 to 12 % of the needed trade volume.

Of course this is done using either a spreadsheet or a relational database. Every scheduled ship will appear in particular systems on a particular date, and the database can list out all the route ships in system when your player group arrives, and the ship's status as to inbound trading outbound or doing annual maintance. Some routes may be somewhat shorter IE AKI to Glisten and back 12 times

Using this system I can generally tell you where the true backwaters are, and which worlds would have more traffic than needed for their GWP. Pocket empires is useful for doing this analysys as it gives a method to generate the GWP and trade volumes given published data.

 

[McPerth]

You need to make a decision for YTU about it... keeping in mind, however, that

(1) if it routinely can be done in house, it will, and will drive prices down to the point that financing ships becomes nigh-impossible

Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean in this point

(2) the utility for commerce of an item with an 80 year lifespan is usually about 40 years - past that point, malfunctions usually start pushing operational expenses upwards.

(3) other factors (including Mortgage insurance or guarantors) often make mortgages better for the bottom line than setting aside one's own cash for replacement

If Al-Morai replaces one ship per year, its feet ship would range from brand new to 53 year old, with an average of about 26-27 year old ships. Assuming that 80 year lifespan, with problems raising from 40 years on, I still see it as a workable fleet.

About insurance and other similar costs, I guess such a company may well buy it as a packet for all its ships, so the raising of costs for older ships being offset by the lowering of it by newer ones (and probably being able to buy those services at a volume discount).

(4) non-finance businesses almost never retain significant capital in liquid forms on hand (bank accounts, cash)...

(4a) merchants before faster-than-travel-communications usually had most of their cash tied up in goods purchased for resale elsewhere... and most likely do so in the Traveller universes.

While its ships are moving along the Marches, I see no problem on that. As I said, I guess most Al-Morai offices also have brokers and storage capability and can wait a little for prices to raise (when selling) or profit from lower prices (when buying) and most of its holds are carring cargo, more than freight.

(5) financing a couple ships in the first place (to get the multi-ship discount) isn't cheap... you're paying 20% down cash up front on financed vessels.

(6) there is no return on investment on a ship for 12-48 months (size dependent) while under construction... but loan payments typically aren't due until operations begin, while cash purchase usually (IRL) means putting the a majority of the price (if not the whole price) into escrow at start of construction... an unhappy situation for a business which needs liquid assets to operate.

(6a) the escrow for a real world ship purchase usually pays the yard at specific milestones and planned expenses, rather than just upon delivery. Even if you decide to cancel or they forfeit, you're out much of the money.

Most of those problems are mainly for a starting business, but Al-Morai has long paid off its starting costs. I guess they didn't start with their custom built ships they're using in 1110 (after all, I have serious doubts they could be built when Al-Morai started business. Sadly I cannot find right now my SMC module and so I'm talking by memory, but IIRC when it started J4 was not as available as in 1110).

IIRC, Al-Morai owns some shipyards that could buy its own replacement ships, surely cutting the costs somewhat. And don't forget the older ones can be sold as supplus, a good deal for the buyer, but also some more money for the company.



Don't forget either that, being a large company working on a schedule, they could be able to sell more passges then a tramp freighter with irregular travel routes, so the rules of small commerce found in CT are not fully aplicable (I guess they can fill its passage capability with High Passengers when leaving a world with pop 7+, something not possible with rules as they are even form a pop A world. Same with its holds).

 

[aramis]

Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean in this point



If Al-Morai replaces one ship per year, its feet ship would range from brand new to 53 year old, with an average of about 26-27 year old ships. Assuming that 80 year lifespan, with problems raising from 40 years on, I still see it as a workable fleet.

About insurance and other similar costs, I guess such a company may well buy it as a packet for all its ships, so the raising of costs for older ships being offset by the lowering of it by newer ones (and probably being able to buy those services at a volume discount).



While its ships are moving along the Marches, I see no problem on that. As I said, I guess most Al-Morai offices also have brokers and storage capability and can wait a little for prices to raise (when selling) or profit from lower prices (when buying) and most of its holds are carring cargo, more than freight.



Most of those problems are mainly for a starting business, but Al-Morai has long paid off its starting costs. I guess they didn't start with their custom built ships they're using in 1110 (after all, I have serious doubts they could be built when Al-Morai started business. Sadly I cannot find right now my SMC module and so I'm talking by memory, but IIRC when it started J4 was not as available as in 1110).

IIRC, Al-Morai owns some shipyards that could buy its own replacement ships, surely cutting the costs somewhat. And don't forget the older ones can be sold as supplus, a good deal for the buyer, but also some more money for the company.



Don't forget either that, being a large company working on a schedule, they could be able to sell more passges then a tramp freighter with irregular travel routes, so the rules of small commerce found in CT are not fully aplicable (I guess they can fill its passage capability with High Passengers when leaving a world with pop 7+, something not possible with rules as they are even form a pop A world. Same with its holds).

The basic gist is, either all the megas are doing the buy-it-outright, and the prices per dton for cargo are below what any sane bank would ever finance, or the megas for some reason routinely don't buy them outright, and the costs per ton are somewhat more reasonable for independent shippers. Or, there's massive collusion to fix prices. Pick your reason.

Just having your factors (brokers and ticket agents) having passengers ready to go on 24 hour notice gives you the ability to squeeze 3 jumps per month, and drop the cost to operate about 20%, which makes the J4 liners profitable if pricing is per ton.

Note that no sane business (which usually excludes government) will buy something outright if they can make more than the interest payments on the same money in the same time frame or less.

And buying outright still requires you to make back the price with comparable return or better than financing it and using the capital elsewhere would have...

And they won't build/replace ships one at a time. They will use that one design as if it's a standard - annotated and streamlined plans with collected wisdom, and keep at least 2 under construction at a time, probably 8 or so... figure a 30 year replacement schedule... it's a rough route area, and it makes the math easier.

They take at least 27 months to build (1000Td Standard hulls do); bk 5 says 36 months... and it's 20% off for multiples of a class at the same yard. Going with a 30 year replacement schedule means 2 a year, roughly. And they take 2.25-3 years to build, so they could have 5 or 6 in construction at any given point. If they use the same yard (or even two or three yards consistently), yes, they can get that steady flow at discount.

So the question is, where are they building them, and can they make more profit by financing them and using the money elsewhere. I suspect they can, because the spec ranges of price should be relatively true even tho the spec system isn't the amounts available. The prices have to reflect a market... and the ones I've spot checked pretty much are rounded off 1976 commodities prices per metric-ton in US dollars...

Yes, I've done that research (1976-1977 commodities prices). Not everything lines up, tho... but most of it does.

 

[MR TEK]

Bones to pick.

I have to argue with virtually all of the costs cited.

Prices used are all Absolute retail, single or small unit quantities. The absolutely most expensive way to buy anything.

Those are the prices for ships, components and supplies a PC will encounter.

Fuel cost is going to be a commodity, and Buying it in bulk might save 10% or so. More if you are the main shipper and you can strong arm the local suppliers into discounts.

Everything else will cost less to a regional carrier by at a bare minimum of 80-90% for bulk contracts, reciprocal for items that one side can produce cheaper, and sharp trading.

Anything built in house would be 50% of retail or more depending on the markup for retail, and then heavy discounts from there for bulk purchases of raw materials. Any raw materials the company gathers as part of their business of ship will be decreased by the markups avoided on them as well.

Financing is going to be the same. It would be nuts to think that a company with hundreds of years of operation, with ships that will spend their life on a carefully proscribed route would get terms that even marginally equate to Joe Blow who has little history and scraped enough to to buy his ship 'Space time' ship sales.

Construction, operations, maintenance and financing are all going to be much smaller for even the regional carriers, and even the smallest fleets would have much better rates than that single far trader could ever hope to see.

Combine all of this and the operating expenses for a sector wide WOULD be probably 40% of what the little gypsy pays per DT hauled.

Megas that span multiple sectors could well have that again.

Also life times. I would think some one that is familiar with the lifetimes of commercial and cargo aircraft could easily project atmospheric ships from aircraft.

Ships that never touch atmo and going to last several times that, as 95% or more of the stress a ship deals with would be traveling though atmosphere and the changing effects of gravity. ( if the only force applied is along the axis of thrust, it is MUCH less stress that if gravity can be applied at other angles.)

I am starting a separate thread to outline the ideas that I have been thinking about, related to ship design and operations.

Feel free if you think my guesstimate are wildly off, but outside of acknowledging there might be discunts for high volume purchases, none of these factors have been more than mentioned in passing, and there has been no discussion at all about possible numbers.

Again, I have not read any of the canon or rules sources that discuss large scale economics, but I gather from the discussion none of these factors are dealt with in any meaningful way if they are mentioned at all.

just my retail .02 credits, take them for what you think they are worth.

 

[aramis]

According to the sources I've seen (3 different programs on discovery channel), modern shipyards operate on about a 10-20% over expenses markup... and the reduction in costs for second and later ships in a given yard on a single order has more to do with autolathe programming and jig making, and ability to avoid certain issues of plan-translation discovered on the earlier members of the class. I genuinely don't expect that to be much different for starships - it's supposedly been pretty true of yards since the 1890's. They aren't high markup - not all businesses are.

 

[dean]

High markups are unnecessary when the individual orders will require months and bring in tens of millions of dollars. The biggest uncontrolled expense of businesses like shipyards is the need to continuously lay off and rehire workers and lease equipment. Getting a guaranteed contract that lasts into years means steady work and income for all the workers and the yard, and the ability to invest in equipment where the amortization makes the ROI doable.