Posted in

Which way to go for the Brussels to Eindhoven direct train link? 

Two recent analyses, one by independent rail commentator Jon Worth, the other by Nico Callens on the website Duurzaam Mobiel (Sustainably Mobile) have debated the future of rail connections between Belgium and the Netherlands, and in particular the feasibility of a new passenger train between Brussels and Eindhoven in North Brabant.

While both authors welcome renewed political attention for cross-border rail, they differ sharply on which routes are realistic, desirable and economically sound.

A renewed political mood

According to Jon Worth, the political climate surrounding Belgian–Dutch rail cooperation is the most positive it has been in years. Following a meeting between the transport ministers of Belgium and the Netherlands in Antwerp, both sides agreed to investigate improving passenger rail links between the two countries.

Worth sees this as part of a broader shift in rail policy thinking in The Hague, where the incoming D66-led coalition appears more willing to invest in both domestic and international rail services. With Brussels also open to discussions, Worth describes the atmosphere as cautiously optimistic.

A short-term option: Eindhoven via Antwerp

One proposal discussed by the ministers involves a direct Eindhoven – Antwerp – Brussels service using existing infrastructure. The train would run from Eindhoven via Antwerp-Central Railway Station to Brussels-South (Midi, Zuid).

Worth argues this would be relatively easy to implement. The infrastructure already exists, and Dutch NS ICNG trains, currently used on the Amsterdam–Rotterdam–Antwerp–Brussels route, could potentially operate the service. The main operational challenge would be securing suitable train paths between Antwerp and Mechelen (Malines, Mechlin).

At present, travelling from Eindhoven to Brussels requires changing in Breda and using a slower NMBS / SNCB service between Breda and Brussels. A limited number of direct services via Antwerp, even just a few times per day, would represent a clear improvement and could realistically be launched within one or two years.

The medium-term discussion: Hamont-Weert

More complex is the question of reopening the 7 km cross-border railway between Hamont and Weert, part of the historic Iron Rhine freight corridor between Antwerp and Germany’s Ruhr region.

Worth explains that although electrification ends at Hamont on the Belgian side (3 kV DC) and resumes at Weert on the Dutch side (1.5 kV DC), the missing section remains legally intact. Electrifying this short stretch and constructing an additional platform at Weert station would make a direct Eindhoven–Brussels service via Weert possible. While slower than the Antwerp route, it could significantly benefit cross-border commuters, especially those living in North-East Belgium and working in Eindhoven.

The bulk of required works would be on Dutch territory.

However, Nico Callens of Duurzaam Mobiel takes a more critical stance.

Confusion caused by outgoing Dutch state secretary

In an opinion piece dated 23 February 2026, Callens argues that then outgoing Dutch State Secretary Thierry Aartsen created unnecessary confusion by publicly promoting the Weert route for a Brussels–Eindhoven connection.

The day the new Dutch government under Prime Minister Rob Jetten (D66) was sworn in by King Willem-Alexander, Aartsen, formerly responsible for Public Transport and Environment,  defended a cooperation agreement with his Belgian counterpart, Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés).

Callens notes that much of the agreement concerns longstanding freight issues, such as the Ghent–Terneuzen connection, for which funding had already been reserved. The reactivation of Hamont–Weert has likewise been discussed for years, with The Hague acknowledging its usefulness but hesitating due to what Callens describes as artificially inflated cost estimates.

The real controversy, according to Callens, lies in the suggestion that a Brussels–Eindhoven passenger train should run via Weert.

Breda and the high-speed line: 30 minutes faster

Callens strongly disputes the logic of routing a Brussels–Eindhoven train via Weert. The route via the high-speed line (HSL) and Breda, he argues, is at least half an hour faster and requires no additional infrastructure.

In principle, such a service could be introduced almost immediately.

By contrast, routing via Weert presents operational disadvantages. Trains arriving from Belgium would need to reverse direction at Weert in order to continue to Eindhoven. 

Whereas older locomotives could perform such manoeuvres quickly, modern rolling stock with complex onboard systems can require 15 to 20 minutes to restart and complete safety procedures. This would significantly increase total travel time.

Furthermore, the Hamont–Weert section in its current state is unsuitable for robust passenger operations. Freight services towards Germany would in any case require electrification.

Cost inflation and ‘linked projects’

Callens also accuses Dutch infrastructure manager ProRail of artificially inflating project costs by attaching unrelated infrastructure upgrades to the Hamont–Weert reopening.

One example is a bottleneck beneath the railway bridge over the Zuid-Willemsvaart canal. According to Callens, removing this constraint is necessary for general upgrades on the Weert–Eindhoven line and should not be charged to the Hamont–Weert project.

Similarly, desired improvements at Weert station — including a long-planned pedestrian underpass extension — are presented as necessary preconditions for reopening the line to Belgium, even though they are not directly required for a limited passenger service.

The construction of an additional platform at Weert is often described as a major obstacle, yet Callens argues that a side platform or extension of an existing platform could be realised at relatively modest cost.

He further notes that battery trains could operate the cross-border section, making electrification less urgent and reducing financial barriers.

Another missing discussion: Maastricht–Hasselt

Callens also criticises what he sees as a glaring omission in the Dutch–Belgian agreement: the future of the rail link between Maastricht and Hasselt.

He highlights controversy surrounding the planned demolition of the railway bridge over the River Meuse at Maastricht, arguing that an outgoing state secretary should have shown more restraint instead of presenting the next government with a fait accompli.

Longer-term possibilities

Beyond Hamont–Weert, Worth identifies additional medium- and long-term cross-border opportunities.

The Bilzen–Lanaken–Maastricht line, largely unused since the 1980s but still physically preserved, could be revived as a regional railway rather than a tramway, as once proposed. This would allow Brussels–Hasselt InterCity trains to be extended to Maastricht, offering an alternative to the existing route via Liège.

Other historic routes, such as Eindhoven–Neerpelt and Tilburg–Turnhout, face more serious spatial and urban development obstacles, making reopening complex and expensive.

A completely new high-speed line between Eindhoven and Amsterdam is theoretically possible, but Worth considers this politically unrealistic given ongoing debates about other Dutch rail megaprojects such as the Lelylijn.

Optimism versus scepticism

In conclusion, Jon Worth sees real grounds for optimism. A Brussels–Eindhoven train, especially via Antwerp and Breda, appears technically feasible and politically attainable in the near term.

Nico Callens, while supportive of improved cross-border rail, warns against what he considers political grandstanding and misdirection. In his view, promoting the slower Weert route for a Brussels–Eindhoven service risks undermining a project that could otherwise be implemented quickly via existing high-speed infrastructure.

Both analyses underscore one key point: the political will for better Belgian–Dutch rail connections is stronger than it has been in years. The remaining question is not whether a Brussels–Eindhoven link is desirable, but which route, and which political narrative, will ultimately prevail.

More on night trains and transcontinental train travel

Channel Tunnel updates

🇧🇪 Blogger, keen vexillologist, train conductor NMBS/SNCB, traveller, F1 follower, friend of Dorothy.

Leave a Reply

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)

Discover more from Sidetrack

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading