I know you are used to faster glass in photography being synonymous with better glass. That is not the case with telescopes, though. With a camera, since your “eyepiece” is fixed, faster glass gives you a brighter view. But with astronomy, you get the extra degree of freedom of adding an appropriate focal length eyepiece for the framing that you want. End result? Faster telescopes do not yield brighter views visually. They also usually yield slight lower quality views for a given aperture, though with a well made and well corrected refractor the differences are often slight. Basically, the only advantages for visual use to a faster telescope are a shorter, lighter tube and the possibility of getting wider fields of view. The trade offs are higher levels of chromatic aberration, more spherochromatism, the need for better figured glass for a given level of correction, and the need for very short focal length eyepieces that may have uncomfortable eye relief for planetary and double star viewing.
You may know all this already given your history in astronomy, but I thought I would mention it just in case. It can be hard to get over the photographer’s bias towards fast glass.
Neither of the two scopes you are looking at will remind you of your Traveler in terms of size and weight. For their aperture, they are both relatively bulky and heavy. Both are optically superb. The 92mm that was recommended earlier is the closest current equivalent to your Traveler, though it does give up a few millimeters of aperture—enough to be noticeable.
If you don’t think you will get into astrophotography, the TMB is a great choice. It’s heavy, but the optics are really good. If you think you might get into astrophotography, the FSQ is the obvious choice. It’s perhaps the best 4” class astrograph ever made. If you just want something small, light, optically excellent, easy to transport, and reminiscent of your Traveler for not too much money, the AT92 is probably the best choice. It’s an updated version of a TMB design.
First off faster photo lenses do not automatically give you better images, the opposite really. Also faster telescopes up to a point, do not automatically doom the user to less than perfect views, that is dependent on the execution of the lenses and mirrors not a limitation of instrument speed or focal ratio.
The only reason we associate faster camera lenses with better quality is the proliferation of the pro-class Canon and Nikon lenses. The same rules for optics apply to camera lenses just as they do for astronomy lenses. There is no magic in a fast camera lens, just more complex design and a lot more use of Fluorite and ED lenses.
Faster focal ratio lenses are much more demanding of than slower focal ratio lenses if you want to maintain the highest image quality. Telescopes even the highest quality apos typically use very simple lens designs with 2-3 lens elements. A fast camera lens like a Canon EF300 2.8L IS or larger EF400 2.8L IS depending on model version can have 2-3 ED and Fluorite lenses in an 8-16 element lens. These pro class Canon lenses are where the optical design knowledge for the Takahashi TOA series telescopes came from.
One of the common misunderstandings about camera lenses vs telescope lenses is the nomenclature used to describe a camera lens vs a telescope. Camera lenses use focal length and maximum aperture to notate a lens. For example 300mm f/2.8 tells us the two most important things needed for photography about a lens.
In this example a 300mm focal length lens with a fastest aperture of f/2.8. A photographer wants to know the field of view of the lens which is based of the 300mm focal length and the size of the media or sensor. The speed of the lens is useful so the photographer knows how much light he has to work with to set exposure time for a given media sensitivity and for creative use apparent depth of field. As a photographer I have no real use for how large the objective lens is. As a photographer all I care about is the FOV and exposure, I have no use for how large the object lens is.
For telescopes the commonly used nomenclature is objective size and focal ratio though on many European websites you are seeing the very useful - objective size/focal length f/ratio - specified. To a telescope user light gathering power is key for nighttime observing and the focal ratios is used to calculate focal length. As astronomers it's all about light gathering power, how deep we can see and what a useful maximum magnification we can expect with a given telescope. Also objective size gives the user one of the numbers needed to calculate telescope resolution and for visual users the very important exit pupil of an eyepiece.
So the way we specify these different use lenses is different because of the way different users apply the information. The reason people are mixed up about telescope speed, visual and photographic has to do with not understanding the meaning of the basics. Namely that a bigger objective lens or mirror can collect and focus more light energy than a smaller objective and that f/ratio just tells you the relationship between the size of the objective and how long the light cone is to the point of focus. Simple.