100-dTon TL 12 Prison Transport

[spank]

They aren't passengers, though. They never come on board as people, just as iceblocks.

Besides, the regs say that there must be a medic, they don't say that there must be a sick bay or the like. So if the prisoners are lucky the 'medic' checks their low berth one or two times a day. If any fail - well the crew hope they don't, because the paperwork is a pain.

For those who felt cells made no sense and the ship should have only used low berths. Here you are. Imperial Corrections didn't bother with a monitoring console. Too expensive for criminals.

Enjoy

View attachment 7519

Well, they aren't exactly passengers, so maybe they would qualify to be shipped in Emergency Low Berths.....

 

[whartung]

For those who felt cells made no sense and the ship should have only used low berths.

Oh, good, low berths.

They're not locked in a large, communal latrine for the duration.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Regulations stipulate that if there are passengers aboard (and low passengers "count" for this), then a medical crew member is required as part of the crew.

So, no ... you can't drop the onboard medic just because you're transporting "prisoners as cargo" ...

1977 rules
Medic: Each starship of greater than 100 tons hull mass displacement requires a medic aboard. Starships carrying more than 120 passengers require one medic for each 120 passengers or fraction thereof.

Also, in other rules do they just pertain to Commercial ships? Would military/police ships not be bound by Commercial rules?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Medic: Each starship of greater than 100 tons hull mass displacement requires a medic aboard. Starships carrying more than 120 passengers require one medic for each 120 passengers or fraction thereof.

Also, in other rules do they just pertain to Commercial ships? Would military/police ships not be bound by Commercial rules?

Allow me to re-frame the citation you're making (which appears in LBB2.77, p16).

Medics are required as part of the crew ... IF ...

• 101+ tons
• Passengers 1+

LBB2.81, p16 modifies this to, medics are required as part of the crew ... IF ...

• 200+ tons
• Passengers 1+

LBB5.80 isn't exactly focused on commercial craft ... but CT Errata, p14:

Page 33, Crew, Medical Section (omission): The paragraph about the Medical Section was dropped:
Medical Section: The ship should have one medical person for every 240 crew persons (including ship‘s troops) aboard. The medical section should have 30% officers, and 30% petty officers. Personnel are drawn from the medical branch.

I'll have to leave it to others to speak about later editions of Traveller (which always tweak the rules around this question).



My personal understanding is that the reason why a medical crew is required for craft of {tonnage threshold} and/or which carry passengers which jump is to deal with "medical emergencies" that may arise while incommunicado outside the craft (because jump isolates craft while in jump). So craft that are "small enough" and aren't carrying passengers do not require a medic on staff, enabling the proverbial "one man scout" craft in RAW.

But if you are carrying passengers (either live, high/mid, or in stasis, low), medical staff onboard are required ... regardless of whether the craft is commercial, paramilitary or military.

 

[Enoki]

Hi all,

I worked with Robert Pearce (of Yet Another Traveller Blog) on a location called the Underground Prison Facility (available here):

[https://travellerrpgblog.blogspot.com/2025/07/underground-prison-facility.html]

The upper level of the prison included a starship for moving prisoners between facilities. I have written a description and specs to go with Robert's ship.

Please enjoy

- Kerry

Robert is great at drawing these ships! Met him several time RL too.

Anyway, some comments--don't take these wrong, it's just my observations on this.

1. The cell block shouldn't separate the engineering section and crew / control position of the ship in two like that. If you have an issue with the prisoners, the two areas become isolated and it's easier to lose control of the ship.

2. There should be two doors between the prisoners and any other area of the ship. That is, if a prisoner were to escape from their cell, there's a second door just to get off the cell block before they can access any other area. That makes it far more difficult to escape.

3. If these prisoners are really dangerous, there should be an armored station at one end of the cell block corridor, accessible only from outside the cell block, where a crewman or guard can deploy a weapon and sweep the corridor clear of inmates in a very violent and permanent fashion.

4. The bulkheads between the cell block and the rest of the ship should be armored with the least number of penetrations possible.

5. The cell block control station should be at one end of the corridor and isolated by a locked door from the cell block on top of other doors in the block. This means the guard on duty can see the whole block and has control over movement in it.

6. The cells could be triple occupancy. No need for comfortable quarters. Single occupancy would only be for the worst of the worst who have to be isolated from even other prisoners.

7. Feeding prisoners would occur in their cells so you need a means to insert trays or whatever to them.

8. The airlock for loading and unloading prisoners should not go through the crew portions of the ship, or it this passage has to there should be no hatches / doors to any other part of the ship along it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

1. The cell block shouldn't separate the engineering section and crew / control position of the ship in two like that. If you have an issue with the prisoners, the two areas become isolated and it's easier to lose control of the ship.

Have to say that I agree with this.
Having a corridor that runs fore/aft from bridge to engineering with compartments to port/starboard that are not a part of that fore/aft access would make sense to me (and would be how I would arrange things on deck plans). The reason is pretty simple ... security and lines of fire in the event of a mutiny/hijack scenario.

The original image had "open hallway" space fore/aft ... so if the prisoners escaped their cells (and overpowered the "guard station" they would effectively be in control of the entire midship volume between the crew area forward and the engineering area aft.
That's not good™ from a security perspective, I'm thinking.

The follow up image does the exact same thing, although with low berths the "security measures are better" because prisoners being transported (ought to be) in stasis and unable to exit their berths (absent collaborator assistance).

So this latter design is "better" of the two from a security perspective, but I personally would have preferred to have bulkhead walls bounding the walkway from the forward crew lounge (forward) into the engineering compartment (aft) along with iris valves to port/starboard so the low berth section(s) are each their own pressure compartment, rather than being a single big pressure compartment that runs amidship.

 

[mike wightman]

Engineering...crew area and bridge...cells.

There is no reason the bridge has to be up front...

 

[Enoki]

Engineering...crew area and bridge...cells.

There is no reason the bridge has to be up front...

The easiest way to fix this is put the engines amidships and the cell block at the rear of the ship with two hatches--like an airlock--between it and the rest of the ship. The block is laid out so control is behind several doors, there's a remote-control airlock for entry and exit of prisoners from the ship, and in the event of a riot or breakout, the guards simply open that airlock and problem solved permanently. Reposition the fuel tanks so they form the bulkhead between the rest of the ship and the cell block. If the prisoners try to cut through that bulkhead...

Design the airlock such that it mates to one at the prison the prisoners are transferring from-to. That way they go straight from the ship into a secure area of the prison with no means of escaping during the transfer.