Road trains

discoman:

Carryfast:

discoman:
No the police doesn’t fit an applicable role unless it is on the skills occupation list… please do not pretend to know about the immigration process for Australia because you will look like a proper mug … you can’t even realise a 175 is an unrestricted visa…

Ironically I’m not mug enough to not realise that a 175 visa is as bad as all the rest of the bs colonial immigration barriers put up against their own here.As for police like hairdresser no that was just a case of me being mug enough to actually believe you for once.Unless it’s a case of hairdresser was on it in which case think yourself lucky that you’re not in NZ because they would probably deport you retrospectively. :unamused:

Carryfast, the skilled occupational list changes as the states see fit … when the application was made in 2008 it was on the list … it is now removed … now, I don’t care what you believe as I know factually it was in 2008 … and I live here in Australia. You do realise that the list changes as seen fit.

You actually said that a 175 is a so called ‘unrestricted’ visa when there is no such thing as unrestricted entry to Australia for anyone who’s trade isn’t on their ‘list’.Truck driving having never been on their list of approved occupations for entry at least since the 1980’s and probably before.Hairdresser who knows.As I said think yourself lucky that you’re not in NZ in that case where removal of a trade from the list applies to existing entrants retrospectively meaning deportation.

discoman:
I will tell you one last time … if your wife was a teacher … she could obtain a visa, I don’t even know if it’s a 175 anymore … once it’s granted she can enter and do any job she pleased you can be a applicant on her application and so could of any child under 18 only the main applicant has their skills assessed. And all over 18 have police checks and medicals. As long as you meet the requirements at the time of the visa grant you are fine.

Where did I say that being on the approved occupations list doesn’t entitle close relatives and spouses in on the same visa.

That’s not the same thing as being a single Brit hoping to go there to work as a truck driver and asking them,if having a great aunt and second cousins there that he’s never known,would help with the application,when they say sorry no visa. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

But obviously wouldn’t have needed one if I’d been old enough to go when the film The Cattle Carters was made/set. :frowning:

Carryfast:

discoman:
I will tell you one last time … if your wife was a teacher … she could obtain a visa, I don’t even know if it’s a 175 anymore … once it’s granted she can enter and do any job she pleased you can be a applicant on her application and so could of any child under 18 only the main applicant has their skills assessed. And all over 18 have police checks and medicals. As long as you meet the requirements at the time of the visa grant you are fine.

Where did I say that being on the approved occupations list doesn’t entitle close relatives and spouses in on the same visa.

That’s not the same thing as being a single Brit hoping to go there to work as a truck driver and asking them,if having a great aunt and second cousins there that he’s never known,would help with the application,when they say sorry no visa. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

But obviously wouldn’t have needed one if I’d been old enough to go when the film The Cattle Carters was made/set. :frowning:

I never claimed to be a single Brit, coming over to drive a truck … I really do not know how you could consider a truck driver as a skilled profession … NZ yeah they might and did… and for your info … my relative lives in NZ, and when I wanted to visit for over 3 months he said he would employ me to bypass the visa rules … if you want proof I will put a copy of the work permit on line …

On a 175 visa you can’t have close relatives it’s partner and children … family would be a different visa… my point stands and no offence to the decent drivers but trucking isn’t exactly rocket science , no job is unless trained … well bar being a rocket scientist… now if you want the proof I can post the visa permit for NZ.

discoman:

Carryfast:

discoman:
I will tell you one last time … if your wife was a teacher … she could obtain a visa, I don’t even know if it’s a 175 anymore … once it’s granted she can enter and do any job she pleased you can be a applicant on her application and so could of any child under 18 only the main applicant has their skills assessed. And all over 18 have police checks and medicals. As long as you meet the requirements at the time of the visa grant you are fine.

Where did I say that being on the approved occupations list doesn’t entitle close relatives and spouses in on the same visa.

That’s not the same thing as being a single Brit hoping to go there to work as a truck driver and asking them,if having a great aunt and second cousins there that he’s never known,would help with the application,when they say sorry no visa. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

But obviously wouldn’t have needed one if I’d been old enough to go when the film The Cattle Carters was made/set. :frowning:

I never claimed to be a single Brit, coming over to drive a truck … I really do not know how you could consider a truck driver as a skilled profession … NZ yeah they might and did… and for your info … my relative lives in NZ, and when I wanted to visit for over 3 months he said he would employ me to bypass the visa rules … if you want proof I will put a copy of the work permit on line …

On a 175 visa you can’t have close relatives it’s partner and children … family would be a different visa… my point stands and no offence to the decent drivers but trucking isn’t exactly rocket science , no job is unless trained … well bar being a rocket scientist… now if you want the proof I can post the visa permit for NZ.

Yes exactly ‘who’ fits the definition of being able to enter with and/or based on someone else who is on the recognised jobs list is obviously a matter of detail.But ‘close relatives’ seems to cover most of the applicable bases.But what is certain is that a 175 visa is anything but ‘unrestricted’ being subject to all the same bs ‘recognised’ trades and points requirements.With it being fair to say that working there as an immigrant truck driver is effectively impossible,with a few exceptions,as I said.

As for NZ,the fact that you can work there because you’ve got a ‘close relative’ there seems consistent with all that,just as in the case of getting into Oz based on a partner with recognised trade status.Although I’m betting that it isn’t a second cousin there fitting that definition ?.As for the rest of us as I said sometimes truck driving gets on their list of recognised occupations and just as easily gets removed.At which point as I said that applies retrospectively which means deportation for existing immigrant workers.The whole situation,of free movement between here and the slavic world,but not with our old English speaking colonies,is a sick joke. :imp: :frowning:

None of which changes the fact that you would rightly be sacked from any truck driving job there or get nicked if you tried to load up a B double outfit to 90t gcw.That’s even if there was room to fit it all on its compromised load deck space. :wink:

Carryfast:

discoman:

Carryfast:

discoman:
I will tell you one last time … if your wife was a teacher … she could obtain a visa, I don’t even know if it’s a 175 anymore … once it’s granted she can enter and do any job she pleased you can be a applicant on her application and so could of any child under 18 only the main applicant has their skills assessed. And all over 18 have police checks and medicals. As long as you meet the requirements at the time of the visa grant you are fine.

Where did I say that being on the approved occupations list doesn’t entitle close relatives and spouses in on the same visa.

That’s not the same thing as being a single Brit hoping to go there to work as a truck driver and asking them,if having a great aunt and second cousins there that he’s never known,would help with the application,when they say sorry no visa. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

But obviously wouldn’t have needed one if I’d been old enough to go when the film The Cattle Carters was made/set. :frowning:

I never claimed to be a single Brit, coming over to drive a truck … I really do not know how you could consider a truck driver as a skilled profession … NZ yeah they might and did… and for your info … my relative lives in NZ, and when I wanted to visit for over 3 months he said he would employ me to bypass the visa rules … if you want proof I will put a copy of the work permit on line …

On a 175 visa you can’t have close relatives it’s partner and children … family would be a different visa… my point stands and no offence to the decent drivers but trucking isn’t exactly rocket science , no job is unless trained … well bar being a rocket scientist… now if you want the proof I can post the visa permit for NZ.

Yes exactly ‘who’ fits the definition of being able to enter with and/or based on someone else who is on the recognised jobs list is obviously a matter of detail.But ‘close relatives’ seems to cover most of the applicable bases.But what is certain is that a 175 visa is anything but ‘unrestricted’ being subject to all the same bs ‘recognised’ trades and points requirements.With it being fair to say that working there as an immigrant truck driver is effectively impossible,with a few exceptions,as I said.

As for NZ,the fact that you can work there because you’ve got a ‘close relative’ there seems consistent with all that,just as in the case of getting into Oz based on a partner with recognised trade status.Although I’m betting that it isn’t a second cousin there fitting that definition ?.As for the rest of us as I said sometimes truck driving gets on their list of recognised occupations and just as easily gets removed.At which point as I said that applies retrospectively which means deportation for existing immigrant workers.The whole situation,of free movement between here and the slavic world,but not with our old English speaking colonies,is a sick joke. :imp: :frowning:

None of which changes the fact that you would rightly be sacked from any truck driving job there or get nicked if you tried to load up a B double outfit to 90t gcw.That’s even if there was room to fit it all on its compromised load deck space. :wink:

Lol, 1, it’s not a second cousin … my wife was the main applicant… your taking away from the fact of the 175: the main applicant has to meet the set criteria at the time … other persons on the applications are not required to do so … as soon as you fly to Australia passport is stamped you are free to do whatever you want as a career or job…

Now, re in relation to loading the trucks in Australia. If it’s over the limit the companies get fined … it’s called a chain of responsibility… you are aware that the trailers are longer in Australia … ie 48 pallet spaces etc… the company who load are obliged to ensure all the weight that goes on is correctly audited and the driver is made aware l. So if the company state one and it’s factually incorrect then they get the fine …

Classic example, A truck gets pulled over or pulled into a RMS inspection area, same as the vosa ones… however these are compulsory and if it states open you drive through… and stop if directed.

If a truck gas a bald tyre it will been impounded until it’s changed …the driver gets no points on his/her licence … if the vehicle is sealed again the COR lies with the loaders not the drivers … all fines go to the companies.

Truck driving will never be on the skills list in Australia as it’s not a skill … you don’t even need to take a test here in Australia … you do a day’s training … wait at a said point , if the rms examiner doesn’t turn up you drive then the instructor gives you the paperwork … you do not couple uncouple etc … you might reverse in a straight line that’s about it … you need to understand the difference between a temp and perm visa a 175 is perm you don’t get deported when it runs out as it never runs out lol, you really are clueless on this issue … you obviously never did a 175 visa application but telling a person who has been through the process they are wrong You joker.

Hey carryfast, you should report this guy for false advertising to eBay

90t B double rated. Not road train B double. So all Australians are wrong. Are they?

NB12:
Seen this the other day about Denby’s proposed B double.
youtu.be/mM8KRz__DAc

Can’t really see a reason why a Aussie style road train couldn’t run in the U.K. under certain conditions. Say from 23:00 until 05:00 on motorways just with the big operators having hubs off the side of the motorways at each end?. Possibly with an ■■■■■■ vehicle like wide loads have to get it out into the middle lane passing junctions so Joe Public trying to join the Mway up a slip road in their clio billabong doesn’t have a heart attack finding themselves at the end of a slip road alongside a lorry with six trailers and not knowing what to do.

Think again, with all the sodding night closures, and impractical diversions…

discoman:
Lol, 1, it’s not a second cousin … my wife was the main applicant… your taking away from the fact of the 175: the main applicant has to meet the set criteria at the time … other persons on the applications are not required to do so … as soon as you fly to Australia passport is stamped you are free to do whatever you want as a career or job…

Now, re in relation to loading the trucks in Australia. If it’s over the limit the companies get fined … it’s called a chain of responsibility… you are aware that the trailers are longer in Australia … ie 48 pallet spaces etc… the company who load are obliged to ensure all the weight that goes on is correctly audited and the driver is made aware l. So if the company state one and it’s factually incorrect then they get the fine …

Classic example, A truck gets pulled over or pulled into a RMS inspection area, same as the vosa ones… however these are compulsory and if it states open you drive through… and stop if directed.

If a truck gas a bald tyre it will been impounded until it’s changed …the driver gets no points on his/her licence … if the vehicle is sealed again the COR lies with the loaders not the drivers … all fines go to the companies.

Truck driving will never be on the skills list in Australia as it’s not a skill … you don’t even need to take a test here in Australia … you do a day’s training … wait at a said point , if the rms examiner doesn’t turn up you drive then the instructor gives you the paperwork … you do not couple uncouple etc … you might reverse in a straight line that’s about it … you need to understand the difference between a temp and perm visa a 175 is perm you don’t get deported when it runs out as it never runs out lol, you really are clueless on this issue … you obviously never did a 175 visa application but telling a person who has been through the process they are wrong You joker.

Firstly I was referring to your comments concerning a ‘relative’ in NZ who could get you employment there ?.Not your entry to Oz.

Yes we know that you’ve been allowed entry to Oz on the basis of a partner meeting the conditions for entry.For anyone without that luxury,or possibly close relative status of someone there,then the usual terms apply in that they have to meet the recognised trades list.Truck driving doesn’t meet those conditions and never did.While in NZ it sometimes can and more often can’t on a fluctuating basis.But removal from the approved trades list applies retrospectively to existing entrants which means summary repatriation.

As for overloading trucks.Only the last trailer of a B train has a full length load deck.The lead trailer/s have shortened load deck/s to create the combination. That combined with the resulting need to share limited axle weight capacity between the trailers are the flaws in the configuration.Which is why you can’t have a 90t gcw B double.You have to add another trailer to get the required number of axles.As opposed to just using a tri axle dolly in the case of an A double made up of two tri axle trailers with the advantage of having two unbroken load decks for larger indivisible loads.The fact that all that goes over your head shows that driving a road rain is anything but an unskilled job.

discoman:
Hey carryfast, you should report this guy for false advertising to eBay

No like you just that someone in the advert chain has missed the finer points that if it’s a 90t B train then it’s a triple not a double.Unless somehow you can find a way fit 12 axles into a B double. :unamused:

Carryfast:

discoman:
Hey carryfast, you should report this guy for false advertising to eBay

No like you just that someone in the advert chain has missed the finer points that if it’s a 90t B train then it’s a triple not a double.Unless somehow you can find a way fit 12 axles into a B double. :unamused:

You really are clueless, everyone in Australia is wrong but a bloke who has never been knows all about state and federal laws all the immigration rules is right … your a joke … I pity you.

Your wrong, I can’t entertain know all’s … I bet u are a bundle of fun at your solo parties.

discoman:

Carryfast:
No like you just that someone in the advert chain has missed the finer points that if it’s a 90t B train then it’s a triple not a double.Unless somehow you can find a way fit 12 axles into a B double. :unamused:

You really are clueless, everyone in Australia is wrong but a bloke who has never been knows all about state and federal laws

Great so either tell DIG that he’s clueless too.Or provide some exact details how you’re going to configure a B double to handle 90t gcw without exceeding the legal axle weights.Here’s a clue they aren’t 16.5 t per axle. :unamused:

Also the load deck length of the lead trailer v the load deck length of the lead trailer of an A double.Such as two different customers both wanting a full semi trailer load delivered across the country,being another example of the load capacity flaws of the design.

Carryfast:

discoman:

Carryfast:
No like you just that someone in the advert chain has missed the finer points that if it’s a 90t B train then it’s a triple not a double.Unless somehow you can find a way fit 12 axles into a B double. :unamused:

You really are clueless, everyone in Australia is wrong but a bloke who has never been knows all about state and federal laws

Great so either tell DIG that he’s clueless too.Or provide some exact details how you’re going to configure a B double to handle 90t gcw without exceeding the legal axle weights.Here’s a clue they aren’t 16.5 t per axle. :unamused:

Also the load deck length of the lead trailer v the load deck length of the lead trailer of an A double.Such as two different customers both wanting a full semi trailer load delivered across the country,being another example of the load capacity flaws of the design.

The 90t is gross vehicle mass … not net… look simple maths 90/8 = 11.25t 90/9 = 10 … I don’t know why you keep going on about 90t of weight …

discoman:
The 90t is gross vehicle mass … not net… look simple maths 90/8 = 11.25t 90/9 = 10 … I don’t know why you keep going on about 90t of weight …

You do know what gcw means and that the axle weights we’re discussing are all max gross on the same basis ?.

The problem for your calculations being that HML,being the highest allowed gross,only provides 22.5 t gross on a triaxle set and 17 t gross on a tandem set.As opposed to 20 t gross and 16.5 t gross under GML.Also you do know that the steer stays at 6.0t gross regardless of GML or HML. :unamused:

nhvr.gov.au/road-access/mass … ■■■-limits

Carryfast:

discoman:
The 90t is gross vehicle mass … not net… look simple maths 90/8 = 11.25t 90/9 = 10 … I don’t know why you keep going on about 90t of weight …

You do know what gcw means and that the axle weights we’re discussing are all max gross on the same basis ?.

The problem for your calculations being that HML,being the highest allowed gross,only provides 22.5 t gross on a triaxle set and 17 t gross on a tandem set.As opposed to 20 t gross and 16.5 t gross under GML.Also you do know that the steer stays at 6.0t gross regardless of GML or HML. :unamused:

nhvr.gov.au/road-access/mass … ■■■-limits

You’re not a stupid man, and you clearly have a lot of free time…so why on earth do you spend so much of your life concerning yourself with stuff that will never ever be relevant to your life? Honest observation, not an insult, just seems a bit pointless to me

switchlogic:

Carryfast:

discoman:
The 90t is gross vehicle mass … not net… look simple maths 90/8 = 11.25t 90/9 = 10 … I don’t know why you keep going on about 90t of weight …

You do know what gcw means and that the axle weights we’re discussing are all max gross on the same basis ?.

The problem for your calculations being that HML,being the highest allowed gross,only provides 22.5 t gross on a triaxle set and 17 t gross on a tandem set.As opposed to 20 t gross and 16.5 t gross under GML.Also you do know that the steer stays at 6.0t gross regardless of GML or HML. :unamused:

nhvr.gov.au/road-access/mass … ■■■-limits

You’re not a stupid man, and you clearly have a lot of free time…so why on earth do you spend so much of your life concerning yourself with stuff that will never ever be relevant to your life? Honest observation, not an insult, just seems a bit pointless to me

There are loads of posters on here who are either retired or partly retired and/or who are no longer directly involved in the industry.But what we’ve all got in common is as much enthusiasm and interest in the job as we had when we started.On that note very few people did Middle East etc and most of those who did will now be retired or part retired.But whether we did it or not,retired or not,it’s an interesting subject to get involved with or to read about what others did and how the job was/is done.Among numerous other equally interesting topics on the old time forums.

On that note personally I still find the whole subject of LHV’s and the relative merits of the engineering involved in them one of the most interesting aspects of the job,whether I got the chance to actually work with them or sadly in my case not.

Which in this case comes down to the relative advantages of a design based on the advantages of Gross Train Weight v Gross Combination Weight and it’s why the Stan Robinson configuration or Scandinavian type Drawbar is superior to the Denby B double and it’s also why an Australian A double trumps a B double.Which was my point until discoman decided otherwise and tried to argue that 2 + 2 = 5 in the form of the silly imaginary axle weights needed to make the B double a credible contender. :bulb: :wink:

This is my Weighbridge Ticket,running Melbourne(Australia) Supermarkets Local,4th and 5th Trailer got a bit difficult at some CBD Shopping centres :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Hmmm. . . What is this “web ■■■■” the product line speaks of?
Is a the Aussie version of adblu perhaps :laughing:

190+T is quite a load of ■■■■ too lol, you must have quite the truck, mine strains to pull the 63.5t I’m stuck with :laughing:

discoman:

Carryfast:
B trains are compromised by the second trailer imposing a load on the axles of the first trailer so pointless for decent gross weigh capacity.While the Stan Robinson example shown was a proper A train type set up.While the double artic is probably excessive for general use here anyway with the Scandinavian type drawbar being the most practical LHV type set up.Which hopefully seems to be the way it might go if the pro rail lobby can be sorted out ( doubtful ).

youtube.com/watch?v=KCLS4diMklE

You do talk some crap, they have these in Australia , the A and B trailer A , both have tri axle trailers and GVM 90 tonne … there is no impact on the overall load capacity over the B trailers axle.

excuse me Carryfast does not talk crap :open_mouth:

boots:
This is my Weighbridge Ticket,running Melbourne(Australia) Supermarkets Local,4th and 5th Trailer got a bit difficult at some CBD Shopping centres :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

That’s pretty awesome to get all the axle weights almost exactly the same :astonished: