The A2

[infojunky]

Flipping through my vast collection of Traveller, a rough census of ships in adventures are relatively small freighters of the A variety.

With that in mind it seems to me that the most common ships off of the main trade routes are going to be smallish with either a J1 to J2 capability. We often get caught up in conversations about the other end of capabilities surrounding the big navel units we tend to ignore the bottom end of the scale.

So, when y'all are thinking about ships consider the comparison. The Patrol Cruiser and the Marc Cruiser are hugely effective with three to four times the acceleration of the more commonly available ships. The scout boat is a speedy little devil as well.

Consider this, a J1 vessel with one jumps worth of collapsable fuel tanks might be as common as a J2 vessel. especially on ships that trade around the various Mains.

Another side note, the 77' edition of power and maneuver looks mighty attractive in this line of thought as well.

 

[tjoneslo]

The J2 variant hit the sweet spot between having a large cargo bay for the ship size and having enough worlds within range to make them profitable. The J3 variant is just on the other side of that curve, more overall profitable than the J-1 freighters. My concern about the J1+1 variants would be deep space jumping can be (depending on the rule set) difficult. Largely this would fall under the resolution of the dice mechanics, but still large enough that "everyone" considers it dangerous.

 

[Spinward Flow]

My concern about the J1+1 variants would be deep space jumping can be (depending on the rule set) difficult. Largely this would fall under the resolution of the dice mechanics, but still large enough that "everyone" considers it dangerous.

There's actually two concerns with jumping into deep space.



The big one is astrogation.
Get your position coordinates wrong and ... well ... it was nice knowing you (past tense) ...

However, if you're using the (routine 16 hours of maintenance for jump drives after a jump, as per LBB5.80, p17) operational tempo, then that 16 hours is plenty of time for the navigator (or equivalent) to take accurate sensor readings (and have them double checked for accuracy!) in time for when the ship jumps again.

In other words, it's only a "difficult task" if you're in an extreme hurry (break out of jump, want to jump again within the hour "just because you can") ... but if you take the 16 hours of downtime between jumps it's a "routine/easy task" (just like with your first jump), so there's that context.



The second big concern is economic.
By jumping into deep space like that you're impacting your operational tempo and therefore your revenue generation potential.
Additionally, if you're using collapsible fuel tanks, you're also reducing your cargo capacity ... which also impacts your bottom line.

Instead of turning around transport services for revenue every 2 weeks (jump week+business week), you've instead slowed down to turning around transport services for revenue every 3 weeks (jump week+jump week+business week). Basically, your profits are slowed down, but your expenses still rack up at the same pace as before ... and you don't have as much manifest space as previously (due to increased fuel capacity demand) in order to make ends meet.

If you can barely break even on J1 AND DONE on a full manifest 6 times per 12 weeks ... how are you going to still break even on J1+1 on a not quite as full manifest 4 times per 12 weeks?



The stock A1 Free Trader has:

• 82 tons of cargo capacity (Cr82,000 net revenue if fully loaded)
• 4 crew (pilot, engineer, medic, steward = Cr15,000 per month salaries cost plus Cr8000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 6 high passengers (Cr48,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 20 low passengers (Cr18,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 25 tons of fuel purchase (Cr12,500 refined or Cr2500 unrefined per destination)

So on a J1 tempo (jump week+business week), delivering to 6 destinations in 12 weeks ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 6x Cr82,000 freight revenue
• 6x Cr60,000 high passenger revenue
• 6x Cr20,000 low passenger revenue

= 492,000 + 360,000 + 120,000 = Cr972,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr15,000 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support
• 6x Cr100 berthing fees
• 6x Cr12,500 refined fuel or Cr2500 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr37,080 annual overhaul cost

= 45,000 + 132,000 + 600 + (75,000 or 15,000) + 9270 = Cr261,870 (refined fuel) or Cr201,870 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A1 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr769,680 (unrefined fuel) to Cr709,680 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr37.08 (LBB2.81, p19) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr154,500 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr154,500 mortgage

= Cr463,500 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So as stock A1 Free Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr725,370 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr972,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net profit gain of Cr246,630 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 74.7% full manifests (average) ... (972,000-246,630)/972,000=0.7463.

In other words ... even at only 75% manifest capacity, a stock (unarmed) A1 Free Trader ought to be making a slight profit on operations purely as a J1 internal only cargo and passenger transport ... with no speculation and operating with mortgage payments.


If you modify that stock A1 Free Trader by putting a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank in its cargo hold ... what happens?

• 62 tons of cargo capacity (Cr62,000 net revenue if fully loaded)
• 4 crew (pilot, engineer, medic, steward = Cr15,000 per month salaries cost plus Cr8000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 6 high passengers (Cr48,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 20 low passengers (Cr18,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 48 tons of fuel purchase (Cr24,000 refined or Cr4800 unrefined per destination)

So on a J1+1 tempo (jump week+jump week+business week), delivering to 4 destinations in 12 weeks ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 4x Cr62,000 freight revenue
• 4x Cr60,000 high passenger revenue
• 4x Cr20,000 low passenger revenue

= 248,000 + 240,000 + 80,000 = Cr568,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr15,000 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support
• 4x Cr100 berthing fees
• 4x Cr24,000 refined fuel or Cr4,800 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr37,090 annual overhaul cost

= 45,000 + 132,000 + 400 + (96,000 or 19,200) + 9273 = Cr282,673 (refined fuel) or Cr205,873 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A1 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr362,127 (unrefined fuel) to Cr285,327 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr37.09 (LBB2.81, p19 plus Cr10,000 for 20 ton collapsible fuel tank) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr154,542 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr154,542 mortgage

= Cr463,626 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So as modified A1 Free Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract as a J1+1 would have expenses of up to Cr748,953 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr568,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net *LOSS* of Cr180,953 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 132% full manifests (average) ... (568,000+180,953)/568,000=1.319.



In other words ... TL;DR ...
While it's certainly POSSIBLE to operate an A1 Free Trader as a J1+1 transport if you have a "valuable speculative cargo" in the hold that you know you're going to be able to sell at a tidy arbitrage profit margin ... you WON'T be able to operate that same A1 Free Trader as a J1+1 transport purely on freight and passenger revenue services alone.

J1 = Cr246,630 net PROFIT over 12 weeks on 100% full manifests buying refined fuel
J1+1 = Cr180,953 net LOSS over 12 weeks on 100% full manifests buying refined fuel

Even switching to unrefined fuel will not "save" the J1+1 operational business case.
It will limit the losses ... but it won't eliminate them.

You can't take a business case where profits depend on shipping at 80% capacity every 2 weeks in order to make steady (if small) profit margins and then turn around and reduce your operational tempo from 2 weeks per delivery to 3 weeks (while reducing revenue and increasing expenses!) and expect the same return on investment ... because "all things otherwise being equal" has just been defenstrated out the airlock.

So the A1 Free Trader "makes sense" as a mortgage buy starship at J1.
Attempting to expand into the J1+1 market with such a starship entails ... RISK ... of the balance sheet variety, not necessarily the navigation skill variety.

 

[whartung]

Keen analysis SF. Informative, well paced, detailed enough.

 

[Drew]

There's actually two concerns with jumping into deep space.



The big one is astrogation.
Get your position coordinates wrong and ... well ... it was nice knowing you (past tense) ...

However, if you're using the (routine 16 hours of maintenance for jump drives after a jump, as per LBB5.80, p17) operational tempo, then that 16 hours is plenty of time for the navigator (or equivalent) to take accurate sensor readings (and have them double checked for accuracy!) in time for when the ship jumps again.

In other words, it's only a "difficult task" if you're in an extreme hurry (break out of jump, want to jump again within the hour "just because you can") ... but if you take the 16 hours of downtime between jumps it's a "routine/easy task" (just like with your first jump), so there's that context.



The second big concern is economic.
By jumping into deep space like that you're impacting your operational tempo and therefore your revenue generation potential.
Additionally, if you're using collapsible fuel tanks, you're also reducing your cargo capacity ... which also impacts your bottom line.

Instead of turning around transport services for revenue every 2 weeks (jump week+business week), you've instead slowed down to turning around transport services for revenue every 3 weeks (jump week+jump week+business week). Basically, your profits are slowed down, but your expenses still rack up at the same pace as before ... and you don't have as much manifest space as previously (due to increased fuel capacity demand) in order to make ends meet.

If you can barely break even on J1 AND DONE on a full manifest 6 times per 12 weeks ... how are you going to still break even on J1+1 on a not quite as full manifest 4 times per 12 weeks?



The stock A1 Free Trader has:

• 82 tons of cargo capacity (Cr82,000 net revenue if fully loaded)
• 4 crew (pilot, engineer, medic, steward = Cr15,000 per month salaries cost plus Cr8000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 6 high passengers (Cr48,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 20 low passengers (Cr18,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 25 tons of fuel purchase (Cr12,500 refined or Cr2500 unrefined per destination)

So on a J1 tempo (jump week+business week), delivering to 6 destinations in 12 weeks ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 6x Cr82,000 freight revenue
• 6x Cr60,000 high passenger revenue
• 6x Cr20,000 low passenger revenue

= 492,000 + 360,000 + 120,000 = Cr972,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr15,000 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support
• 6x Cr100 berthing fees
• 6x Cr12,500 refined fuel or Cr2500 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr37,080 annual overhaul cost

= 45,000 + 132,000 + 600 + (75,000 or 15,000) + 9270 = Cr261,870 (refined fuel) or Cr201,870 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A1 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr769,680 (unrefined fuel) to Cr709,680 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr37.08 (LBB2.81, p19) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr154,500 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr154,500 mortgage

= Cr463,500 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So as stock A1 Free Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr725,370 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr972,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net profit gain of Cr246,630 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 74.7% full manifests (average) ... (972,000-246,630)/972,000=0.7463.

In other words ... even at only 75% manifest capacity, a stock (unarmed) A1 Free Trader ought to be making a slight profit on operations purely as a J1 internal only cargo and passenger transport ... with no speculation and operating with mortgage payments.


If you modify that stock A1 Free Trader by putting a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank in its cargo hold ... what happens?

• 62 tons of cargo capacity (Cr62,000 net revenue if fully loaded)
• 4 crew (pilot, engineer, medic, steward = Cr15,000 per month salaries cost plus Cr8000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 6 high passengers (Cr48,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 20 low passengers (Cr18,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 48 tons of fuel purchase (Cr24,000 refined or Cr4800 unrefined per destination)

So on a J1+1 tempo (jump week+jump week+business week), delivering to 4 destinations in 12 weeks ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 4x Cr62,000 freight revenue
• 4x Cr60,000 high passenger revenue
• 4x Cr20,000 low passenger revenue

= 248,000 + 240,000 + 80,000 = Cr568,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr15,000 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support
• 4x Cr100 berthing fees
• 4x Cr24,000 refined fuel or Cr4,800 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr37,090 annual overhaul cost

= 45,000 + 132,000 + 400 + (96,000 or 19,200) + 9273 = Cr282,673 (refined fuel) or Cr205,873 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A1 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr362,127 (unrefined fuel) to Cr285,327 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr37.09 (LBB2.81, p19 plus Cr10,000 for 20 ton collapsible fuel tank) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr154,542 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr154,542 mortgage

= Cr463,626 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So as modified A1 Free Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract as a J1+1 would have expenses of up to Cr748,953 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr568,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net *LOSS* of Cr180,953 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 132% full manifests (average) ... (568,000+180,953)/568,000=1.319.



In other words ... TL;DR ...
While it's certainly POSSIBLE to operate an A1 Free Trader as a J1+1 transport if you have a "valuable speculative cargo" in the hold that you know you're going to be able to sell at a tidy arbitrage profit margin ... you WON'T be able to operate that same A1 Free Trader as a J1+1 transport purely on freight and passenger revenue services alone.

J1 = Cr246,630 net PROFIT over 12 weeks on 100% full manifests buying refined fuel
J1+1 = Cr180,953 net LOSS over 12 weeks on 100% full manifests buying refined fuel

Even switching to unrefined fuel will not "save" the J1+1 operational business case.
It will limit the losses ... but it won't eliminate them.

You can't take a business case where profits depend on shipping at 80% capacity every 2 weeks in order to make steady (if small) profit margins and then turn around and reduce your operational tempo from 2 weeks per delivery to 3 weeks (while reducing revenue and increasing expenses!) and expect the same return on investment ... because "all things otherwise being equal" has just been defenstrated out the airlock.

So the A1 Free Trader "makes sense" as a mortgage buy starship at J1.
Attempting to expand into the J1+1 market with such a starship entails ... RISK ... of the balance sheet variety, not necessarily the navigation skill variety.

Would there ever be a time when a "micro jump" within a system would be used to position a ship closer to its port of call?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Sidebar to the above ... the J1+1 business case is being argued from the position of "buying a non-stop ticket" to the destination.
2 parsecs = 1 ticket

But what if that's NOT the correct interpretation of the RAW?

What if ... instead ... the better assumption to be making on the revenue side is not one of Cr/parsec but instead one of Cr/jump?
Granted, with a J1 starship Cr/parsec equals Cr/per jump ... but with J2+ starships it doesn't necessarily equate 1:1 like that.



So ...
If we alter the underlying assumptions (*see what I did there?*) for how the pricing for tickets is meant to operate and be billed ... what happens if you operate the (otherwise stock but still unarmed) A1 Free Trader in a J1+1 market where tickets to destinations 2 parsecs away require the purchase of 2 tickets (for 2 jumps)?

Origin --(ticket)--> Destination 1: Deep Space --(ticket)--> Destination 2: Final Destination

Let's look at how that changes things ...



If you modify that stock A1 Free Trader by putting a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank in its cargo hold ... what happens?

• 62 tons of cargo capacity (Cr62,000 net revenue if fully loaded)
• 4 crew (pilot, engineer, medic, steward = Cr15,000 per month salaries cost plus Cr8000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 6 high passengers (Cr48,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 20 low passengers (Cr18,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 48 tons of fuel purchase (Cr24,000 refined or Cr4800 unrefined per destination)

So on a J1+1 tempo (jump week+jump week+business week), delivering to 8 destinations in 12 weeks (4 in deep space followed by 4 actual starports) ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 8x Cr62,000 freight revenue
• 8x Cr60,000 high passenger revenue
• 8x Cr20,000 low passenger revenue

= 496,000 + 480,000 + 160,000 = Cr1,136,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr15,000 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support
• 4x Cr100 berthing fees
• 4x Cr24,000 refined fuel or Cr4,800 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr37,090 annual overhaul cost

= 45,000 + 132,000 + 400 + (96,000 or 19,200) + 9273 = Cr282,673 (refined fuel) or Cr205,873 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A1 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr930,127 (unrefined fuel) to Cr853,327 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr37.09 (LBB2.81, p19 plus Cr10,000 for 20 ton collapsible fuel tank) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr154,542 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr154,542 mortgage

= Cr463,626 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So as modified A1 Free Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract as a J1+1 (selling 2 tickets for the transit) would have expenses of up to Cr746,299 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr1,136,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net profit of Cr389,701 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 66% full manifests (average) ... (1,136,000-389,701)/1,136,000=0.657.

How did this happen?
By requiring 8 tickets per 12 weeks instead of just 4 tickets per 12 weeks in the J1+1 transport services case ... as a result of a slightly different "spin" on the interpretation of the trade rules as written (emphasis added for clarity).



I want to be EXCESSIVELY CLEAR that this latter analysis is *NOT* a "per parsec" pricing model.
It is a PER JUMP pricing model ... regardless of the number of parsecs traveled each jump.

In this particular instance, since we're talking about a J1 capable starship, there isn't any difference between "per parsec" vs "per jump" pricing ... but the distinction becomes EXTREMELY IMPORTANT as soon as we to get into the J2 (and J2+2!) regimes of business modeling and starship design.

Also note that such a modeling of cargo and passenger flows would mean that J2 starships (such as the A2 Far Trader) would be quite capable of undercutting the cost to consumers of transport services offered by J1+1 starships (such as the above modified stock A1 Free Trader).

• J1+1 (modified) Free Trader = 2 tickets and 2 weeks in jump to transit 2 parsecs
• J2 Far Trader = 1 ticket and 1 week in jump to transit 2 parsecs

Note that such an interpretation is actually founded in the text as written in LBB2.81, p9:

A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

Emphasis added for clarity of the point being made.

If you consider "deep space" to be an "intermediate destination" ... then transport services purchased at the point of origin to the ultimate destination (for final delivery) need to purchase tickets to any and all intermediate destinations along the way to the ultimate destination for final delivery.

The business model is Cr/Jump ... NOT Cr/Parsec.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Would there ever be a time when a "micro jump" within a system would be used to position a ship closer to its port of call?

Yes, of course ... but the destination needs to be more than 8 days away at maximum maneuver G (and the ship needs to have sufficient fuel to make the jump). Anything less than 8 days of maneuver is faster to reach and will typically require less fuel to reach via normal space maneuvering rather than micro-jumping.

Note that I included an 8 day cutoff time for my Interplanetary Travel Distance by Time and Acceleration chart found in the Reference forum.

I would honestly argue that there must be a "thriving micro-jump courier local market" for J1M5-6 starships to shuttle goods, passengers and services to outer worlds in star systems ... particularly those with Far stellar companions that also have planets around them (which have populations on them). If you want to play a "Firefly"-esque campaign where "everything is local" to a single star system and all of its worlds and moons ... this would be the way to go ... J1 and as much maneuver drive as you can cram onto the design for a "hot rod" in-system courier ship.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I figure that this little exercise in "game economics theory" is kind of fun to play.
Let's take the above A1 Free Trader scenarios and port them over into the A2 Far Trader, shall we?



The stock A2 Far Trader (LBB S7, p23-27, p46) has:

• 46 tons of cargo capacity (Cr46,000 net revenue if fully loaded) (LBB S7, p24 exclusively and CT Errata, p21)
• 3 crew (pilot, engineer, medic/steward = Cr14,125 per month salaries cost plus Cr6000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 10 staterooms
  • 7 high passengers (Cr56,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
  • 4 low passengers (Cr3600 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 50 tons of fuel purchase (Cr25,000 refined or Cr5000 unrefined per destination)

So on a J2 tempo (jump week+business week), delivering to 6 destinations in 12 weeks ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 6x Cr46,000 freight revenue
• 6x Cr70,000 high passenger revenue
• 6x Cr4000 low passenger revenue

= 276,000 + 420,000 + 24,000 = Cr720,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr14,125 crew salaries
• 6x Cr20,400 life support (10 staterooms, 4 low berths per 2 weeks)
• 6x Cr100 berthing fees
• 6x Cr25,000 refined fuel or Cr5000 unrefined fuel cost
• 1/4x Cr69,300 annual overhaul cost

= 42,375 + 122,400 + 600 + (150,000 or 30,000) + 17,325 = Cr332,700 (refined fuel) or Cr212,700 (unrefined fuel) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A2 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr451,980 (unrefined fuel) to Cr331,980 (refined fuel) every 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr69.3 (CT Errata, p21) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr288,750 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr288,750 mortgage

= Cr866,250 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So a stock A2 Far Trader (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr1,198,950 per 12 weeks (refined fuel only) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr720,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net LOSS of Cr478,950 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 140% full manifests (average) ... (1,198,950+478,950)/1,198,950=1.3994.



That's ... not looking economical (once you fix the cargo hold errata factor!) in pure transport services terms.
Even "fudging" things a little give the ship back its 61 ton cargo hold (erroneous, but I'm just playing it out here) would only add Cr90,000 onto the revenue side of things ... hardly enough to wipe out a ~MCr0.48 operating loss every 3 months under a mortgage with an A2 Far Trader.

However, an A2 Far Trader subsidized by a government COULD (barely...) turn a profit for the operator in a J2 business model.

• (720,000 / 2) revenue gain - 332,700 operating expenses with refined fuel purchase = Cr27,300 profit per 12 weeks

Mind you, an extremely substantial portion of those operating expenses (almost half!) is refined fuel costs!
If you "traded" 9 tons of cargo capacity for a 9 ton TL=9 fuel purification plant so as to wilderness skim for fuel (for free!), things start looking rather different:

• 6x Cr37,000 freight revenue
• 6x Cr70,000 high passenger revenue
• 6x Cr4000 low passenger revenue

= 222,000 + 420,000 + 24,000 = Cr666,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr14,125 crew salaries
• 6x Cr20,400 life support (10 staterooms, 4 low berths per 2 weeks)
• 6x Cr100 berthing fees
• 6x Cr0 fuel cost (wilderness refueling)
• 1/4x Cr69,338 annual overhaul cost

= 42,375 + 122,400 + 600 + (0) + 17,335 = Cr182,710 (wilderness refueling) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) stock A2 modified with a TL=9 fuel purification plant running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of Cr483,290 (wilderness refueling) 12 weeks.

With a purchase price of MCr69.338 (CT Errata, p21 plus 9 ton TL=9 fuel purification plant) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr288,750 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr288,909 mortgage

= Cr866,727 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So a stock A2 Far Trader (with no turrets and no gunners, but adding a TL=9 fuel purification plant) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr1,049,437 per 12 weeks (wilderness refueling) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr666,000 per 12 weeks ... for a net LOSS of Cr383,437 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 137% full manifests (average) ... (1,049,437+383,437)/1,049,437=1.3654.

So ... better than before ... but not by enough to put a serious enough dent into making mortgage payments without falling behind all the time.

Ah, but the subsidized case! How is that faring, I wonder?

• (666,000 / 2) revenue gain - 182,710 operating expenses with wilderness refueling = Cr150,290 profit per 12 weeks

150,290 / 27,300 = 5.5051

In other words, a subsidized A2 Far Trader would generate 5.5x the profit margin every 12 weeks/3 months for its operators on transport services just through the expediency of sacrificing 9 tons of cargo space for a TL=9 fuel purification plant ... even though doing so reduces the ship's cargo capacity from 46 tons down to 37 tons. The savings in fuel costs alone are well worth the loss in revenue tonnage capacity, because the fuel purification plant "basically pays for itself" in fuel costs avoided. Key point here being that at J2+ purchasing necessary fuel from starports becomes "ruinously expensive" to the balance sheet bottom line.



A2 Far Traders can be profitable ships ... if already paid off(!) or operating under subsidy ... but would not be profitable (unless speculating) on purely transport revenues alone.

 

[mike wightman]

The cargo capacity is wrong in the capsule description of the A2.

Far Trader (Type A2): Using the type 200 hull, the far trader is capable of 1-G
acceleration and jump-2. Fuel tankage is 50 tons, and the ship incorporates fuel
scoops for gas giant skimming. The bridge is standard and has a computer Model 1bis
installed. Two tons of fire control support the ship's two turrets. The ship has
ten staterooms (three for the crew; seven for the passengers) and four low berths. A
single air/raft is carried for various ship duties. The ship itself is streamlined for
atmospheric landings. Cargo capacity is 61 tons.
The far trader costs MCr66.175 to construct. The price includes architect's
fees and design plan costs, but does not include weaponry to be added later.

And the reason the CT errata is wrong is that S7 predates the 81 revision and yet the errata uses the 81 rules. Someone at the time should have pointed this out.

Build it with LBB2 77 and you get the values in the text I quoted, build it as 81 and you end up with the m2, and extra 10t of fuel required and thus a lower cargo capacity.

So take your pick - RAW A2 j2, m1 61t cargo
or revisedRAW A2 j2 m2 46t cargo.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Okay ... that's the J2 (only) business model case ... but what about the J2+2 option?
Well ... there's a ... problem ... with that.

An LBB2.81 Power Plant-2 requires 20 tons of fuel per 4 weeks ... or basically 5 tons per week.
J2+2 in a 200 ton form factor requires 80 tons of jump fuel, plus 3 weeks of power plant fuel (for maneuvering before/after jumping) for a total of 95 tons of fuel. The A2 Far Trader has 60 tons of internal fuel capacity (40 for jump, 20 for power, as per CT Errata, p21) ... so to achieve a J2+2 performance it would need an extra +35 tons for fuel. Purchasing that 95 tons of fuel is going to cost Cr47,500 (refined) or Cr9500 (unrefined) at a starport, which is going to add up "in a hurry" over 12 weeks (Cr190,000 or Cr38,000, respectively for refined and unrefined fuels). When a 9 ton TL=9 fuel purification plant costs only Cr38,000 to install, you're looking at a one time cost to get "free refined fuel" from wilderness refueling for the lifetime of the starship ... a bargain really.

However, that +35 tons of collapsible fuel tank (costing Cr17,500) would then come at the expense of reducing the J2+2 A2 Far Far Trader's cargo capacity for the trip from 37 tons (with fuel purification plant) all the way down to ... 2 tons of cargo capacity remaining.

At that point, as a business owner I would honestly order up some further modifications to the ship.
I would remove the 4 low berths (+2 tons recovered) and reallocate the surviving 2 ton capacity from the cargo bay towards ... an 11th stateroom (and therefore an 8th high passenger capacity).

What you would wind up with would be something akin to what I'm immediately thinking of calling an A2.2 Far Liner since such a design would be more oriented towards passenger services than towards freight services. It would still be an A2 Far Trader (custom) hull, the only differences would be in the internal arrangement of internal spaces.

How would such an A2.2 Far Liner perform economically when charging 2 the price of 2 tickets for a J2+2?
Let's find out!



An A2.2 Far Liner operating in a J2+2 capacity on all internal fuel has:

• 0 tons of cargo capacity remaining (occupied by a 35 ton collapsible fuel tank)
• 3 crew (pilot, engineer, medic/steward = Cr14,125 per month salaries cost plus Cr6000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 11 staterooms
  • 8 high passengers (Cr64,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 95 tons of fuel (Cr0 wilderness refueling and TL=9 fuel purification plant)

So on a J2+2 tempo (jump week+jump week+business week), delivering to 8 destinations in 12 weeks (4 intermediate deep space, 4 final) ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 8x Cr0 freight revenue
• 8x Cr80,000 high passenger revenue

= 0 + 640,000 = Cr640,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr14,125 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support (11 staterooms per 2 weeks)
• 4x Cr100 berthing fees
• 4x Cr0 wilderness refueling cost
• 1/4x Cr69,356 annual overhaul cost

= 42,375 + 132,000 + 400 + (0) + 17,339 = Cr192,114 (wilderness refueling) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) modified A2.2 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of up to Cr447,886 (wilderness refueling) every 12 weeks just from running high passenger services exclusively (think "business class starship).

With a purchase price of MCr69.3555 (CT Errata, p21 plus Cr38,000 fuel purification plant plus Cr17,500 for 35 ton collapsible fuel tank) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr288,982 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr288,982 mortgage

= Cr866,946 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So a (modified) A2.2 Far Liner (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr1,059,060 per 12 weeks (wilderness refueling) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr640,000 per 12 weeks in a J2+2 configuration ... for a net LOSS of Cr419,060 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 140% full manifests (average) ... (1,059,060+419,060)/1,059,060=1.3957.

Still better than the J2 stock A2 Far Trader "base case" ... but not by much.

Ah, but what about J2+2 operations with subsidies?

• (640,000 / 2) - 192,114 = Cr127,886 net profit gain per 12 weeks

Not QUITE as good as the subsidized J2 A2 scenario (Cr150,290 profit per 12 weeks) ... but that's the inherent beauty of the flexibility of the J2+2 A2.2 Far Liner option ... you don't HAVE to operate in a J2+2 "mode" every single time. You would have the OPTION to flip back and forth between the two modes whenever you wanted to!



An A2.2 Far Liner operating in a J2 (only) capacity on all internal fuel has:

• 34 tons of cargo capacity (Cr34,000 revenue per destination) (0.35 tons consumed by deflated collapsible fuel tank)
• 3 crew (pilot, engineer, medic/steward = Cr14,125 per month salaries cost plus Cr6000 life support cost per 2 weeks)
• 11 staterooms
  • 8 high passengers (Cr64,000 net revenue per destination after life support is paid for)
• Berthing Fees (Cr100 per destination)
• 95 tons of fuel (Cr0 wilderness refueling and TL=9 fuel purification plant)

So on a J2+2 tempo (jump week+jump week+business week), delivering to 8 destinations in 12 weeks (4 intermediate deep space, 4 final) ... assuming full manifests (and before mortgage expenses) ... in the absence of speculative cargoes, you're looking at:

• 6x Cr34,000 freight revenue
• 6x Cr80,000 high passenger revenue

= 204,000 + 480,000 = Cr684,000 revenue per 12 weeks of operations

• 3x Cr14,125 crew salaries
• 6x Cr22,000 life support (11 staterooms per 2 weeks)
• 4x Cr100 berthing fees
• 4x Cr0 wilderness refueling cost
• 1/4x Cr69,356 annual overhaul cost

= 42,375 + 132,000 + 400 + (0) + 17,339 = Cr192,114 (wilderness refueling) operating expenses per 12 weeks

This means that a privately owned, paid off (no mortgage) modified A2.2 running a full manifest every time (unlikely, but work with me here) has the potential to earn a net profit of up to Cr491,886 (wilderness refueling) every 12 weeks just from running high passenger services exclusively (think "business class starship).

With a purchase price of MCr69.3555 (CT Errata, p21 plus Cr38,000 fuel purification plant plus Cr17,500 for 35 ton collapsible fuel tank) ... 1/240th of that price is Cr288,982 per 4 weeks for a mortgage.

• 3x Cr288,982 mortgage

= Cr866,946 mortgage payments per 12 weeks

So a (modified) A2.2 Far Liner (with no turrets and no gunners) operating under a mortgage contract would have expenses of up to Cr1,059,060 per 12 weeks (wilderness refueling) and a maximum revenue generation capacity of Cr684,000 per 12 weeks in a J2 (only) configuration ... for a net LOSS of Cr375,060 per 12 weeks on 100% full manifests. Note that this puts the "break even" revenue point at 136% full manifests (average) ... (1,059,060+375,060)/1,059,060=1.3541.

Still better than the J2 stock A2 Far Trader "base case" ... but not by much.

Ah, but what about J2 (only) operations with subsidies?

• (684,000 / 2) - 192,114 = Cr149,886 net profit gain per 12 weeks

Interesting ... that's only Cr404 less than than the subsidized A2 Far Trader with fuel purification plant (Cr150,290 profit per 12 weeks)! That's a fairly negligible sacrifice, given the gain in flexibility made available.
A2 Far Trader = 37 tons cargo, 7 high passengers, 4 low passengers, J2 only
A2.2 Far Liner = 35 tons cargo, 8 high passengers, 0 low passengers, J2+2 available



Basically, what you wind up with, is that the A2.2 Far Liner can have:
J2 w/35 tons of cargo capacity and 8 high passengers
J2+1 w/20 tons of cargo capacity and 8 high passengers
J2+2 w/no cargo capacity and 8 high passengers

So that A2.2 Far Liner is "mainly" a passenger ship (hence the Liner, rather than merchant designation) that can "flex" its cargo space for fuel as needed in order to make longer transits (up to 4 parsecs!) ... but which really needs to be subsidized (or fully paid off) for its owners to make a profit on operations (mortgages are too expensive for the class to sustain without speculative cargo profits, and you need cargo capacity in order to speculate!).

 

[Grav_Moped]

If you can charge twice for the passengers, why can't you charge twice for the freight?

 

[infojunky]

The J2 variant hit the sweet spot between having a large cargo bay for the ship size and having enough worlds within range to make them profitable.

Which kinda looks like areas bordering and on the known Mains. Or J2 voids are a lot rarer than it would seem.

The J3 variant is just on the other side of that curve, more overall profitable than the J-1 freighters.

But they are on different routes, I have played a lot with J3 routes, they tend to be your main routes between Subsectors and not in local service.

My concern about the J1+1 variants would be deep space jumping can be (depending on the rule set) difficult. Largely this would fall under the resolution of the dice mechanics, but still large enough that "everyone" considers it dangerous.

This lat bit I will have to go with the Traveller Adventure on this, in that empty hex jumps are no different from regular jumps.

 

[infojunky]

Okay ... that's the J2 (only) business model case ... but what about the J2+2 option?
Well ... there's a ... problem ... with that.

Ok, I did predicate this using the mains as the shipping core shipping model. Thus the J1 or 2 M1 vessel is the performance model.

Not saying there isn't a model for ships with longer legs, but they exist in different routes. Though there is a case for express service within the mains using longer legged ships.

Mostly I am looking at this as exercise in geography dictating ship ship choice rather than the converse.

 

[Grav_Moped]

This lat bit I will have to go with the Traveller Adventure on this, in that empty hex jumps are no different from regular jumps.

Position fixes are likely based on known pulsars or extragalactic objects, rather than adjacent stars and planets. Longer baseline, better precision.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Not saying there isn't a model for ships with longer legs, but they exist in different routes. Though there is a case for express service within the mains using longer legged ships.

Mostly I am looking at this as exercise in geography dictating ship ship choice rather than the converse.

The Vilis subsector in the Spinward Marches, along with the part of the Lanth subsector that is NOT on the Spinward Main comes to mind as one of the more obvious examples where being limited to only 1 parsec of range could easily be "too limiting" when it comes to market access.

However, a J1+1 equipped Free Trader could very likely "clean up" on profits, even under a mortgage if based out of Vilis, simply through rendering of Tramp Trader services (go wherever the "fullest manifests" are available) while always casting about for speculative cargo opportunities that can be sold for windfall profits.

If you can charge twice for the passengers, why can't you charge twice for the freight?

Well ... if the cargo bay is occupied by a (full of fuel) collapsible fuel tank, it can't ALSO be loaded with cargo for the same trip ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Well ... if the cargo bay is occupied by a (full of fuel) collapsible fuel tank, it can't ALSO be loaded with cargo for the same trip ...

What's left over can be. Still not a lot, but it's something.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What's left over can be. Still not a lot, but it's something.

At this point, you're going to need to be more specific.
Which ship are you talking about?

• J1 Free Trader
• J1+1 Free Trader
• J2 Far Trader
• J2+2 Far Trader

"What's left over" CHANGES depending on the type of ship you're referring to.
A J2+2 modified Far Trader has no leftover cargo space in an LBB2.81 context after filling the collapsible fuel tank with 35 tons of fuel.
35 - 35 = 0 cargo capacity for freight revenue remaining

 

[Grav_Moped]

At this point, you're going to need to be more specific.
Which ship are you talking about?

The stock A2 has 62Td cargo space, not counting the 1Td for the second turret.
Fuel for a second J2 is 40Td. The design of the LBB2 Type Y suggests that no additional power plant fuel is needed for sequential jumps unless the total flight time is more than 30 days.

22Td cargo space free.

Your version adds a few staterooms in that cargo space, doesn't it (that's kind of the point)?

 

[infojunky]

The Vilis subsector in the Spinward Marches, along with the part of the Lanth subsector that is NOT on the Spinward Main comes to mind as one of the more obvious examples where being limited to only 1 parsec of range could easily be "too limiting" when it comes to market access.

Exactly, I am talking about local conditions driving what the ships look like in the area.

 

[tjoneslo]

At this point, you're going to need to be more specific.
Which ship are you talking about?

• J1 Free Trader
• J1+1 Free Trader
• J2 Far Trader
• J2+2 Far Trader

I'd like to add two more combinations to this list: J2+1 and J1+2. This gets us into the 3 parsec range at the cost of extra time in jump space. Aramis did a similar analysis but using the book 7 trade system which can be more profitable, especially with a larger number of available market worlds.