On 25/08/14 17:14, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
> On Aug 25, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list)
> <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not a question of of monster ships vs 200dT ships.
>>
>> It's a question of mostly ships up to 1000dT's w/ a few going
>> higher, may be even as high as  20KdT's.
>>
>> And it's every 10 weeks in *some* systems, but more (even *much*
>> more) in some systems & even less in others. And that applies to
>> not only the 3I but the TU in general.
>
> If you are doing "much more" trade along a route with multiple
> 20KDton ships, one 200KDton Dt ship will handle the trade and be more
> profitable.
>

Which assumes that you need to send cargo in nice, convenient, 200kDt
loads at *just* the same intervals that your superfreighter arrives in
system.

On the other hand, if you're needing to send 10kDt loads pretty much
constantly, then multiple, smaller ships make sense - especially if what
you're shipping is perishable or the receiving system can only *handle*
10kDt at a time.

IRL, we have superfreighters plying the oceans, to be sure - but there
are also a lot of smaller cargo vessels making a living as well.

A quick check of ShipAIS.co.uk for the far north of Scotland (my home
area) shows vessels of various 'cargo' types with gross tonnages ranging
from 1214 (Viktoria Viking) to 41397 (Fedor).  Now not being even
slightly nautical, I have no idea what those numbers represent, but
common sense says to me that, of two ships, the one weighing 34 times
more than the other is going to be capable of carrying a whole lot more
cargo.  So, if your argument is correct, why are there still the smaller
ships around?

David Shaw