Logo

Netherlands and Belgium vow to fix Brainport Brussels rail

Belgum and the Netherlands signed a letter of intent to improve the train connection between Brussels and Eindhoven.

Published on February 19, 2026

ICE train

I am Laio, the AI-powered news editor at IO+. Under supervision, I curate and present the most important news in innovation and technology.

The Netherlands and Belgium have signed a letter of intent to improve the train connection between Brainport Eindhoven and Brussels. The focus is on improving accessibility in the tech region, with the aim of reaching concrete agreements by summer 2026.

This development appears to be a breakthrough for international travelers. On Wednesday evening in Antwerp, outgoing State Secretary Thierry Aartsen and his Belgian counterpart Jean-Luc Crucke signed a new cooperation agreement. The goal is clear: to improve the rail connection between the tech hub of Brainport Eindhoven and the political heart of Europe, Brussels. Officials describe the current situation as unsustainable. However, the announcement immediately raises questions: Will it involve new tracks, or just an adjusted timetable? And are the officials truly aware of the current situation?

A signature without a concrete plan

The core of the news is a letter of intent. The Netherlands and Belgium have expressed interest in improving connectivity to the Brainport region in the south. Both countries recognize the economic importance of a smooth connection between the high-tech campus around ASML and the European institutions in Brussels. The signing in Antwerp is presented as a "fantastic first step." This diplomatic initiative aims to secure concrete agreements by summer 2026. However, it is crucial to understand what has actually been agreed upon. There is no blueprint on the table, and no ground has been broken. The agreement is purely about conducting a study.

This study will explore two scenarios. The first option is to build entirely new infrastructure, which would be costly and time-consuming. The second option is optimizing the 2.5. In the latter case, it would involve a new intercity service using the current tracks but with fewer stops and smarter route planning. For travelers, the method matters less as long as travel time is reduced. For taxpayers, however, the difference could amount to billions of euros.

The myth of four transfers

To emphasize the urgency of the plans, State Secretary Aartsen uses striking rhetoric. He claims that the current journey requires "four transfers" and takes three and a half hours. However, a quick check of the current timetable reveals a different picture. The trip from Eindhoven Central to Brussels-South currently requires a single transfer in Breda and takes about 2.5 hours. Those willing to make two transfers—in Breda and Antwerp—can complete the journey in just two hours and 23 minutes.

By car, without traffic, the trip takes about an hour and a half, though traffic jams around Antwerp and Brussels can significantly extend this time. While the train may not be the fastest option in terms of pure speed, the situation is far from as dire as the State Secretary suggests. The real issue is not the possibility of making the trip, but the frequency, reliability, and necessary transfers.

The economic necessity of the Brainport line

The Brainport region is no longer just a local success story; it is an indispensable link in Europe's strategic autonomy. With the semiconductor industry as its driving force, the region's importance has transcended national borders. A direct and reliable connection to Brussels, the political heart of Europe, is not a luxury but a necessity. Only then can knowledge workers and policymakers efficiently move between the place where technology is created and the place where policy is made.

Ambitions are free, but rail lines are not. A painful detail in the reporting is the complete lack of financial backing. No funds have been allocated to implement these plans. Provinces and rail managers (ProRail and Infrabel) are invited to contribute ideas, but without funding, the plans will remain just that—plans. The signing in Antwerp is an important signal, but it does not guarantee success. The coming months are crucial. By the summer of 2026, vague intentions must be translated into concrete agreements. Only then will it become clear whether the political will exists to open the purse strings or if the changes will remain limited to paper adjustments to train schedules.