When I first read the CT adventure 'Twilight's Peak', I initially wondered why the adventurers were saddled w/ a FarTrader whose J2 drive was only capable of J1.
Didn't take long to realize that the intent was to restrict the team's ability to generate profitable income.

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6/14/17, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Dumb Q about Passages
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 11:24 AM

 On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at
 10:45 AM, Christopher Sean Hilton <xxxxxx@vindaloo.com>
 wrote:
 A J3 ship running J1 can't
 make money so

 the passenger cohort includes only people who can afford to
 and are

 willing to pay for a J-3 trip rather than 3xJ-1s going to
 the same

 place.
 You can
 make *some* money running a J2+ ship on J1 jumps.
  
 But
 you're at an income disadvantage compared to a J1 ship
 on the same hop, because you have an extra 26% of your ship
 filled with drives and fuel, compared to the J1 ship, which
 is presumably using that 26% of their hull as cargo space
 and staterooms which are generating income.
 I suspect the only way a
 J2+ ship can be profitable in the long run is to run routes
 at it's full jump capacity, and charge extra for the
 direct service.
 What makes the pokey little
 J1 ships attractive is the relatively high percentage of
 hull that generates income (as opposed to drives and fuel
 tankage, which do NOT generate income.) That, and if you are
 licensed as crew, the ability to hitch a ride as a working
 passage, which I suspect the higher jump number ships are a
 little more stringent about.
 (J1 ships may be willing to
 offer a discount on long haul freight and passengers, less
 than the standard J1 rates, because it is guaranteed
 income.  Just a guess.)

 CSH:>If you are a high jump ship in a
 backwater port, E.g. the>Millennium Falcon, Mos Eisley,
 you're there by accident or there's
 >some other economic
 draw.
 Even in a backwater, there
 is an economic incentive for the direct jump, as opposed to
 the long/slow route.  OTOH, there is likely to be less
 cargo going *back*, which means there is a risk of
 getting"stuck" while waiting for enough
 cargo/passengers to make the leg back profitable.

 --

 "Any sufficiently advanced parody is
 indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan
 Morgan

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please go to
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a