Carryfast:
you’re going to tell me that a quick knock on the door of the TM’s office there would have resulted in an instant job offer driving their wagon and drag aero engine transporter all over Europe.
With persistence and patientce eventually one of those knocks on the door or ringing of the phone does result in that job offer and when it happens your on top of the world. I’ve no idea how many companies I rang up in pursuit of my dream job but all those calls, 19 jobs and nearly 10 years after my driving career began it happened, I got that call and was offered my dream job. And thinking back to that day always puts a big smile on my face. And I’m still here I I love it as much as I ever did.
So the moral of the story- never ever give up on your dreams. A decade of trying was hard going sometimes but worth every second for the end result. As I imagine many of you chaps in Canada will agree.
remy:
I think anyone could get a driving job here in the states in the early 80’s after deregulation,as they say, everyone and their brother was starting up a haulage firm.
But the problem was though,for British drivers at the time and probably still today,the US immigration authorities weren’t/aren’t in the habit of chucking work permits/green cards around which would allow British drivers to live and work in the states driving US based trucks.
This is true CF, i sometimes forget it was easier for me being married to a USC, that certainly helped.
kr79:
Blah blah blah. Same as this driver shortage when I decided owner driving wasnt for me a few months back I left the house at 11 am and had a job sorted to start the next day by 3pm and had three or four calls over the next few weeks where something had come up.
Yeah I know in your eyes it’s only crap local work and I’ve hit a fair bit of experince now at tipping work and living in a big city probally helps job wise but in life if you don’t expect anything on a plate you will work that bit harder to get it.
Anyway two trailers no thanks ones bad enough.
I think that says it all.Scared of driving a ‘proper’ wagon’ .All depends on your idea of hard work.But it wouldn’t be much use if you went to a guvnor who (rightly) wants to use the option of running doubles outfits and tell him that you’re a hard worker but you only want to drive a single trailer outfit.
Not scared in the slightest I’ve driven some truely dodgy equipment in dodgy places. I do low loader work in central London when it is required and if I was scared of a big truck I wouldn’t do that. If I was working for a company that run them and they was paying enough extra to compensate for the agg I’d be out in one straight away not because I’m looking to say I’ve got a bigger truck than someone else it would be purely financial.
flat to the mat:
An interesting read guys,but going back to my first post I have some very worrying news for drivers in Canada.Heading into Winnipeg yesterday evening I passed my worst nightmare heading West,deep breath,stay calm,don’t panic Mr Manwearing,yes it was one of our wrap around stetson brothers driving (at the wheel of) a pike !!!
Is this the end of the world as we know it ?
remy:
I think anyone could get a driving job here in the states in the early 80’s after deregulation,as they say, everyone and their brother was starting up a haulage firm.
But the problem was though,for British drivers at the time and probably still today,the US immigration authorities weren’t/aren’t in the habit of chucking work permits/green cards around which would allow British drivers to live and work in the states driving US based trucks.
This is true CF, i sometimes forget it was easier for me being married to a USC, that certainly helped.
kr79:
Blah blah blah. Same as this driver shortage when I decided owner driving wasnt for me a few months back I left the house at 11 am and had a job sorted to start the next day by 3pm and had three or four calls over the next few weeks where something had come up.
Yeah I know in your eyes it’s only crap local work and I’ve hit a fair bit of experince now at tipping work and living in a big city probally helps job wise but in life if you don’t expect anything on a plate you will work that bit harder to get it.
Anyway two trailers no thanks ones bad enough.
I think that says it all.Scared of driving a ‘proper’ wagon’ .All depends on your idea of hard work.But it wouldn’t be much use if you went to a guvnor who (rightly) wants to use the option of running doubles outfits and tell him that you’re a hard worker but you only want to drive a single trailer outfit.
Not scared in the slightest I’ve driven some truely dodgy equipment in dodgy places. I do low loader work in central London when it is required and if I was scared of a big truck I wouldn’t do that. If I was working for a company that run them and they was paying enough extra to compensate for the agg I’d be out in one straight away not because I’m looking to say I’ve got a bigger truck than someone else it would be purely financial.
I think the only reason why anyone runs train type outfits is for financial reasons,or in this case,the ability to at least stand a chance of competing with intermodal rail operations.It’s got nothing to do with ‘looking to say whoever is driving a bigger truck than anyone else’.
However the extra 10 c per mile wages probably reflects the fact that over there,unlike in those parts of Oz that use ‘proper’ road trains (not B doubles/triples),a Canadian doubles A train outfit doesn’t reflect an actual doubling of the payload and GTW over the payload and GCW of a single trailer artic because their regs won’t allow it.Which is probably explains why the Canadians are going down the route of a B triples outfit rather than bothering with an underweight A train both of which,seems to me,to defeat the object of making the thing as cost effective and fuel efficient as possible on a tonne/mile basis.
However from most drivers’ point of view,at least the one I always had,it’s the biggest is best idea,combined with long distance runs,that creates the interest in driving trucks to start with.If not then surely every drivers’ ambition in life would be either driving a van or a tipper on local work.
kr79:
Can we not find carryfast a hillbilly bride so he can live the dream. Surely there must be a darlene or Ellie may for him somewhere.
Can you imagine the headlines.Middle aged retired British truck driver comes out of retirement and takes best looking teenaged girl in the county to get work permit and he’s now got permission to run an Australian road train on US haulage in competition with our own.That would be justice though.
Carryfast:
However the extra 10 c per mile wages probably reflects the fact that over there,unlike in those parts of Oz that use ‘proper’ road trains (not B doubles/triples),a Canadian doubles A train outfit doesn’t reflect an actual doubling of the payload and GTW over the payload and GCW of a single trailer artic because their regs won’t allow it.Which is probably explains why the Canadians are going down the route of a B triples outfit rather than bothering with an underweight A train both of which,seems to me,to defeat the object of making the thing as cost effective and fuel efficient as possible on a tonne/mile basis.
No CF that’s not the case at all as NMM explained in an earlier post. You’re assuming that just because the 2 trailers aren’t maximum weight that they aren’t paying full rate Tag a cube out load on the back of a gross out load and that’s 2 loads on one unit. Being piloted by one driver for 1.3 times the wage, despite having reduced costings of only using one unit.
If you want to start comparing B trains remember how much load capacity you lose in this configuration making them only marginally more profitable on the heaviest of loads. Also B’s have a bigger cut in than A’s do
Only in very few areas of Oz can roadtrains run with all top weight trailers BTW.
Carryfast:
However the extra 10 c per mile wages probably reflects the fact that over there,unlike in those parts of Oz that use ‘proper’ road trains (not B doubles/triples),a Canadian doubles A train outfit doesn’t reflect an actual doubling of the payload and GTW over the payload and GCW of a single trailer artic because their regs won’t allow it.Which is probably explains why the Canadians are going down the route of a B triples outfit rather than bothering with an underweight A train both of which,seems to me,to defeat the object of making the thing as cost effective and fuel efficient as possible on a tonne/mile basis.
No CF that’s not the case at all as NMM explained in an earlier post. You’re assuming that just because the 2 trailers aren’t maximum weight that they aren’t paying full rate Tag a cube out load on the back of a gross out load and that’s 2 loads on one unit. Being piloted by one driver for 1.3 times the wage, despite having reduced costings of only using one unit.
If you want to start comparing B trains remember how much load capacity you lose in this configuration making them only marginally more profitable on the heaviest of loads. Also B’s have a bigger cut in than A’s do
Only in very few areas of Oz can roadtrains run with all top weight trailers BTW.
Billy have you not mearnt anything from this thread?? Even if you are right you are still wrong because in CF world he is always right eve if you are talking through experience
Carryfast:
However the extra 10 c per mile wages probably reflects the fact that over there,unlike in those parts of Oz that use ‘proper’ road trains (not B doubles/triples),a Canadian doubles A train outfit doesn’t reflect an actual doubling of the payload and GTW over the payload and GCW of a single trailer artic because their regs won’t allow it.Which is probably explains why the Canadians are going down the route of a B triples outfit rather than bothering with an underweight A train both of which,seems to me,to defeat the object of making the thing as cost effective and fuel efficient as possible on a tonne/mile basis.
No CF that’s not the case at all as NMM explained in an earlier post. You’re assuming that just because the 2 trailers aren’t maximum weight that they aren’t paying full rate Tag a cube out load on the back of a gross out load and that’s 2 loads on one unit. Being piloted by one driver for 1.3 times the wage, despite having reduced costings of only using one unit.
If you want to start comparing B trains remember how much load capacity you lose in this configuration making them only marginally more profitable on the heaviest of loads. Also B’s have a bigger cut in than A’s do
Only in very few areas of Oz can roadtrains run with all top weight trailers BTW.
Billy have you not mearnt anything from this thread?? Even if you are right you are still wrong because in CF world he is always right eve if you are talking through experience
I can see and understand how he’s drawing his conclusions though. I’m just addressing them and correcting them
For what it’s worth I actually believe there is a time and place for multiple trailer operation, even in this country
i think they are fine if they go from depot A side of Motorway junction to depot B at the side of motorway junction its once they start to wonder to far into towns as the roads we have over here are just about big enough for a normal unit and trailer. Wasnt there a firm up North somewhere who tried it but the police were waiting for them by time they got close to the Motorway
remy:
But the problem was though,for British drivers at the time and probably still today,the US immigration authorities weren’t/aren’t in the habit of chucking work permits/green cards around which would allow British drivers to live and work in the states driving US based trucks.
This is true CF, i sometimes forget it was easier for me being married to a USC, that certainly helped.
Charles
[/quote]
In the late 80’s and early 90’s there were ad’s run in British truck mags for drivers to work in the US for large companies the like o MS Carriers (Swifts) and some guys I know applied but the fact remains that NO company can give any British driver a job unless they hold a green card and being a truck driver does not entitle anyone to a green card.
I am (just like Charley boy) married to a USC.
remy:
But the problem was though,for British drivers at the time and probably still today,the US immigration authorities weren’t/aren’t in the habit of chucking work permits/green cards around which would allow British drivers to live and work in the states driving US based trucks.
This is true CF, i sometimes forget it was easier for me being married to a USC, that certainly helped.
Charles
In the late 80’s and early 90’s there were ad’s run in British truck mags for drivers to work in the US for large companies the like o MS Carriers (Swifts) and some guys I know applied but the fact remains that NO company can give any British driver a job unless they hold a green card and being a truck driver does not entitle anyone to a green card.
I am (just like Charley boy) married to a USC.
[/quote]
As a general rule of course Pat as it’s not a recognised profession with skills shortage. There are ways and means though
Most ads were scams run by rotten INS lawyers, they charged a few hundred quid to do INS checks and see if you qualified, left hopefulls waiting for a while then let them down and retained the money.
For the umpteenth time … NO US TRUCKING COMPANY CAN EMPLOY ANY BRITISH DRIVER WITHOUT A WORK PERMIT OR GREEN CARD
Truck driving is not a skill worthy of either.
There is NO way round it ! for one thing you need a US CDL A licence which will not be given without the afore mentioned permit. Trying to get a job here without it will just result in deportation for a minimum of 10 years. Thats after a few years in the nick of course.
Carryfast:
However the extra 10 c per mile wages probably reflects the fact that over there,unlike in those parts of Oz that use ‘proper’ road trains (not B doubles/triples),a Canadian doubles A train outfit doesn’t reflect an actual doubling of the payload and GTW over the payload and GCW of a single trailer artic because their regs won’t allow it.Which is probably explains why the Canadians are going down the route of a B triples outfit rather than bothering with an underweight A train both of which,seems to me,to defeat the object of making the thing as cost effective and fuel efficient as possible on a tonne/mile basis.
No CF that’s not the case at all as NMM explained in an earlier post. You’re assuming that just because the 2 trailers aren’t maximum weight that they aren’t paying full rate Tag a cube out load on the back of a gross out load and that’s 2 loads on one unit. Being piloted by one driver for 1.3 times the wage, despite having reduced costings of only using one unit.
If you want to start comparing B trains remember how much load capacity you lose in this configuration making them only marginally more profitable on the heaviest of loads. Also B’s have a bigger cut in than A’s do
Only in very few areas of Oz can roadtrains run with all top weight trailers BTW.
Billy have you not mearnt anything from this thread?? Even if you are right you are still wrong because in CF world he is always right eve if you are talking through experience
I can see and understand how he’s drawing his conclusions though. I’m just addressing them and correcting them
For what it’s worth I actually believe there is a time and place for multiple trailer operation, even in this country
That’s an interesting explanation.The fact is though that it’s the flexibilty in being able to load up a doubles,or even triples, A train,to double or three times the payload of a single trailer,in weight,not just cube,that would be the key to their really taking off and being able to do their job of really competing on equal terms with intermodal rail freight services .
It’s surely defeating the object of the excercise if it’s just an outfit made to provide more capacity for high cube loads v the ability to mix the max cube potential ‘and’ the weight capacity which only the A train configuration can provide.Fuel efficiency in transport is (rightly) based on tonne/mile per gallon of freight carried not cubic feet/mile per gallon and it would be surprising if customers are prepared to be charged on the basis of trailer loads rather than the actual weight of freight being shipped .
I’d certainly expect to be able to charge more for hauling a doubles A train,loaded to max potential weight, than I would a lead trailer loaded to max weight and the second only limited to light weight high cube loads .It’s the A train configuration that’s better in every way than the idea of B trains as I’ve been saying.
It’s just that the idea isn’t being given the chance to perform to it’s full potential as it is in those parts of Oz where they do allow it and there’s no real reasons as to why North America can’t follow that lead in doing the job properly,if they’re going to do it,considering that it’s already been proved that a max weight dolly connected outfit can run straight and true on single carriageway roads,let alone US and Canadian Interstates,and go round corners too in or out of town.
Pat Hasler:
Most ads were scams run by rotten INS lawyers, they charged a few hundred quid to do INS checks and see if you qualified, left hopefulls waiting for a while then let them down and retained the money.
For the umpteenth time … NO US TRUCKING COMPANY CAN EMPLOY ANY BRITISH DRIVER WITHOUT A WORK PERMIT OR GREEN CARD
Truck driving is not a skill worthy of either.
There is NO way round it ! for one thing you need a US CDL A licence which will not be given without the afore mentioned permit. Trying to get a job here without it will just result in deportation for a minimum of 10 years. Thats after a few years in the nick of course.
^ + 1
Most of that applied more or less the same in Canada too,at least during the 1980’s before the relatively recent relaxation of the rules there.As I’ve said,what I was told,at that time,was at best the job had to stay advertised and given to an indigenous driver if they wanted it and then the immigrant driver would have to return home with no rights to search for another job.
Carryfast:
That’s an interesting explanation.The fact is though that it’s the flexibilty in being able to load up a doubles,or even triples, A train,to double or three times the payload of a single trailer,in weight,not just cube,that would be the key to their really taking off and being able to do their job of really competing on equal terms with intermodal rail freight services
It’s surely defeating the object of the excercise if it’s just an outfit made to provide more capacity for high cube loads v the ability to mix the max cube potential ‘and’ the weight capacity which only the A train configuration can provide.Fuel efficiency in transport is (rightly) based on tonne/mile per gallon of freight carried not cubic feet/mile per gallon and it would be surprising if customers are prepared to be charged on the basis of trailer loads rather than the actual weight of freight being shipped .
I’d certainly expect to be able to charge more for hauling a doubles A train,loaded to max potential weight, than I would a lead trailer loaded to max weight and the second only limited to light weight high cube loads .It’s the A train configuration that’s better in every way than the idea of B trains as I’ve been saying.
It’s just that the idea isn’t being given the chance to perform to it’s full potential as it is in those parts of Oz where they do allow it and there’s no real reasons as to why North America can’t follow that lead in doing the job properly,if they’re going to do it,considering that it’s already been proved that a max weight dolly connected outfit can run straight and true on single carriageway roads,let alone US and Canadian Interstates,and go round corners too in or out of town.
Carryfast:
That’s an interesting explanation.The fact is though that it’s the flexibilty in being able to load up a doubles,or even triples, A train,to double or three times the payload of a single trailer,in weight,not just cube,that would be the key to their really taking off and being able to do their job of really competing on equal terms with intermodal rail freight services
It’s surely defeating the object of the excercise if it’s just an outfit made to provide more capacity for high cube loads v the ability to mix the max cube potential ‘and’ the weight capacity which only the A train configuration can provide.Fuel efficiency in transport is (rightly) based on tonne/mile per gallon of freight carried not cubic feet/mile per gallon and it would be surprising if customers are prepared to be charged on the basis of trailer loads rather than the actual weight of freight being shipped .
I’d certainly expect to be able to charge more for hauling a doubles A train,loaded to max potential weight, than I would a lead trailer loaded to max weight and the second only limited to light weight high cube loads .It’s the A train configuration that’s better in every way than the idea of B trains as I’ve been saying.
It’s just that the idea isn’t being given the chance to perform to it’s full potential as it is in those parts of Oz where they do allow it and there’s no real reasons as to why North America can’t follow that lead in doing the job properly,if they’re going to do it,considering that it’s already been proved that a max weight dolly connected outfit can run straight and true on single carriageway roads,let alone US and Canadian Interstates,and go round corners too in or out of town.
Jesus H, I don’t even know where to start correcting that
CF just take all your “expectations” and “ideas” as being wrong. It just doesn’t work like that
Obviously they didn’t seem to think so when they went to all the trouble of putting that 84 tonner Stan Robinson outfit together and it’s only typical rail freight protective regs that stopped it going on the road.
.All depends on your idea of hard work.But it wouldn’t be much use if you went to a guvnor who (rightly) wants to use the option of running doubles outfits and tell him that you’re a hard worker but you only want to drive a single trailer outfit. 
.It’s the A train configuration that’s better in every way than the idea of B trains as I’ve been saying.