>I'm not sure abandoning the rule of law, protection of private property, labour protections
All 100% unnecessary in order to build a lot of high speed rail.
Except possibly the protection of private property (it would require eminent domain). But, since most British homeowners have been subject to one of the largest handouts in history (in the form of house price appreciation directed by the state), I think the a little leeway on that one is affordable
Plus, like the Chinese (who don't completely ignore property rights), there's nothing stopping us from building railways on stilts.
They don't use stilts because of property ownership, but because of terrain and traffic. There are hardly any stilts between Beijing and GZ, for example, because it is easier to just tunnel under hills rather than do both.
I assume the U.K. is rather flat and you wouldn't use stilts at all.
I've seen a lot of stilts being built along the Yangtze River, but that is hardly flat at all, they have to stilt or go low enough to build a really long tunnel, which isn't viable; it definitely wasn't because they were cutting through a farmer's field! The new freeways follow the same pattern. BJ-GZ is a really long line that goes through a big chunk of china, but it is mostly rural, whereas BJ-TJ is a short jaunt between two abutting cities.
I've never seen stilts in flat terrain before, outside of SH/GZ elevated ring roads. I'm very surprised BJ-TJ is elevated when almost nothing else in urban Beijing is.
All 100% unnecessary in order to build a lot of high speed rail.
Except possibly the protection of private property (it would require eminent domain). But, since most British homeowners have been subject to one of the largest handouts in history (in the form of house price appreciation directed by the state), I think the a little leeway on that one is affordable
Plus, like the Chinese (who don't completely ignore property rights), there's nothing stopping us from building railways on stilts.