TransInfo
Freight ForwardingTransportLogistics

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Austrian railways have established a direct freight link between Duisburg and Venice

You can read this article in 3 minutes
Artur Lysionok

Artur Lysionok

2.04.2019

The Austrian Railways, ÖBB, announced the opening of a regular rail link between the multimodal terminal complex in Duisburg, Germany, and the port of Venice on the Adriatic Sea. The operator of the three weekly services is the Rail Cargo Group (RCG), a subsidiary of ÖBB.

Adriatic ports such as Trieste in Italy, Koper in Slovenia and Rijeka in Croatia are currently the most attractive for RCG in terms of the company’s growth prospects and ability to cope with large cargo flows. In 2018 the port of Trieste served 3,300 trains, but recently there has been an increase in freight traffic to the port of Venice. The capacity of the Scalo Marghera railway station is 700,000 TEU per year, which ultimately influenced the decision of the Austrians to open a regular connection with Duisburg.

Delivery of containers also to Greece and Turkey

As part of the Duisburg – Venice freight link, ÖBB’s customers will receive additional opportunities to deliver containers by ferries from Grimaldi Lines to places such as Brindisi in Italy, Patras in Greece and Pendik in Turkey.

More than 3 million TEU are cross-docked annually in the Duisburg inland port. In 2017, the revenues of Duisburger Hafen AG amounted to EUR 250 million. The port is connected with China by the largest transport corridor of the “One Belt and One Road” initiative, which passes through Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Poland (through the border crossing in Małaszewicze).

Venice transport hub

Italy has long been interested in cooperation with China. In early 2018 the Italians proposed to build a maritime hub in Venice, which would link Venice, Ravenna, Trieste and Koper into a single port complex as part of the EU’s TEN-T (Trans-European Network – Transport) programme. The goods unloaded in these ports would go to Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Hungary and the Western Balkans. Beijing accepted this proposal and signed an agreement with Rome on 23rd March under which Italy will implement a plan to build a transport hub in Venice. In this way, Italy formally joined the initiative of the New Silk Road.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Tags:
Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Drivers receive high fines for ‘lack of GNSS signal’. What can be done to avoid themAcross Italy, hauliers re reporting a surge in fines reaching several thousand euros for alleged ‘malfunctions’ of second-generation smart tachographs. The problem is that – according to explanations from the Italian Ministry of the Interior and EU institutions – in many cases there is no malfunction at all, only a temporary anomaly in the GNSS signal. And that is a fundamental difference. In recent months, Italian drivers and carriers have reported an increasing number of cases involving expensive and severe penalties imposed for the alleged ‘missing GNSS transmission’ in second-generation smart tachographs (G2V2), as reported by the Italian transport press. Control protocols most often record the phrase: ‘lack of GNSS signal’. On this basis, the authorities apply Article 179 of the Italian Road Code – a regulation intended for vehicles with a manipulated or non-functioning tachograph. The sanctions are very severe: from 866 to 3,464 euros, the possible suspension of the driving licence for up to three months, 10 penalty points, and joint liability for the company. However, this is a misinterpretation by the authorities. It should be recalled that the Italian Ministry of the Interior indicated in a circular from February 2024 that errors ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ do not indicate a failure but a ‘simple software anomaly or temporary problem with satellite signal authentication’. Such an event does not render the tachograph faulty. The device continues to function, records data, and remains compliant with the law. EU regulations (including EU Regulation 799/2016) also clearly distinguish an anomaly from a failure, and classify the lack of GNSS signal in the former category. What is the problem with GNSS? It is often external interference The issue was highlighted by the Council of the European Union in a document dated 21 May 2025, which points to the growing number of GNSS signal disruptions (jamming and spoofing). Their main sources are Russia and Belarus, and the effects are felt not only by lorries but also by ships and aircraft. In such cases, the responsibility of the driver or carrier for a temporary loss of signal is obviously excluded. What should carriers do to avoid unjust fines? It is not about avoiding inspections, but about asserting your rights and preparing documentation properly. To avoid fines in cases of GNSS signal loss, you should: Immediately secure data from the tachograph and record the error code This is the key evidence. Codes ‘!1C’ and ‘!0F’ indicate an anomaly, not a malfunction, and may determine whether the fine is annulled. Demand that the authorities precisely indicate the legal basis The carrier or driver has the full right to ask inspectors to justify why they classify the anomaly as a ‘failure’. It often turns out that officers incorrectly apply Article 179. Request an assessment from a tachograph service centre An authorised service centre can confirm that the device is functioning correctly and that the issue concerned only the GNSS signal. Such a document is a very strong argument in an appeal. Attach EU documents and ministerial interpretations to the appeal Explanations from the Ministry of the Interior and provisions of EU Regulation 799/2016 clearly state that such anomalies are not failures. In practice, it is often enough simply to refer to these documents for the fine to be overturned. Implement a company procedure for handling GNSS signal loss This could be a short instruction for the driver: • record the time and place, • report the issue to the dispatcher, • take a screenshot of the error code, • report the incident upon return to the company. Such simple actions allow for an effective defence in the event of an inspection. Additionally, carriers should properly train drivers and explain the difference between an ‘anomaly’ and a ‘failure’. Many drivers unknowingly accept the fine, assuming that enforcement officers know the regulations better. It is important during an inspection to verify the technical and legal grounds for the fine.

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus

Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025

Daily over 1,000 kilometres: electric truck proves long-distance viability in Sweden

Daily over 1,000 kilometres: electric truck proves long-distance viability in Sweden

Sabina Koll

Sabina Koll Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025

EU driving-licence reforms explained: what hauliers and lorry drivers need to know

EU driving-licence reforms explained: what hauliers and lorry drivers need to know

Pölös Zsófia

Pölös Zsófia Journalist Trans.info | 17.11.2025