Did my ME Night and instrument training on a Twin Com, (a PA39 CR version,) and then spent 12 months all over Europe with it, on business, and it was ideal for the type of trips I was doing, and a lot less expensive to run than things like Aztec, Seneca or similar, which I've flown more subsequently. We did a LOT more time that the CAA "minimums" for the ratings, as we also effectively did the entire PPL syllabus again on the twin, but as it was my aircraft, and I knew just how much I was learning about really flying the aircraft, it wasn't an issue.
The TC is very much aircraft that has to be flown accurately all the time, and if you let it get ahead of you, it has the potential to bite, hard.
It's slippery, and even forgetting to take off 1" of manifold pressure when descending can lead to an "interesting" join, doing a lot more speed than you expected. The VMCA of 105 makes for a hairy few moments if you operate in and out of short strips with no good escape plan if a donk fails, as it will unstick at less than 80 Kts, and it can't be kept on the deck because of the gear setup, so there's several seconds when there's no options if one fan quits. You also have to keep the speed up on the approach until you are at the point where if one fails you can glide it in with no power on, which makes for an "interesting" short final, as there's over 20 Kts of speed to get rid of, and if it's light, that can be a challenge, come over the fence fast and it will float for a long time.
The Seneca and later twins are more forgiving, but don't have the performance or the economy. I know what the comment about dump trucks means, I've flown TC & Seneca's, as well as Aztec and Apache, and for pure "wow" factor, the TC is in a different league, the handling is a LOT crisper and sharper, and altogether more satisfying. That said, you won't put 4, ( or more) and bags and full fuel in a TC, whereas the Seneca has a lot more flexibility in that area, but at the cost of a much higher fuel burn, and that is for sure an issue these days.
What could be VERY interesting would be a TC retro fitted with a couple of the new diesel engines that are now becoming available. 2 x 180's, running on JetA1 could make it a very hot ship indeed, as that would be an extra 20 Hp per side, so a probable speed and performance benefit. Not sure if they'd fit though, but it has to be worth a look at. Prop clearance could also be an issue, the TC is not a lover of rough grass strips, it's a lot more at home on tarmac.
Having said that, it's a fun aircaft to fly, the performance even on one is not at all bad.
The later TC's, with some of the american "go faster" mods make for a very nice airplane.
The CR (PA39) version has a lot going in it's favour compared to the standard PA30. Mine had the tip tanks as well, and wing and prop deice, as well as a full IFR fit with second glideslope, so it was well set for going to larger more complex airfields. With the tip tanks full, there was no problems with range, 2 up it was capable of over 10 Hours, that's a LONG way!
Don't even think of trying to fly it without a full IR, an IMC is an accident waiting to happen, you'll need the extra skill levels that come with training to IR standard, though to be honest, the same comment is probably applicable to most light twin operations.
Keep current, and be careful. Use the automation, especially if you're single crewed, it reduces the workload, but don't get suckered in to always using it, and forgetting how to hand fly it as well.
If you do go this route, you'll have a lot of fun, and probably get to most places that you want to in not much more time than is now required by the scheduled carriers.
Hope this helps
Steve