Talk:N4 road (Ireland)

McNead's Bridge (Kinnegad-Mullingar)

"High quality motorway standard"????? Unless there's been a secret upgrade to the route since I last travelled it (admittadly a couple of months back), you must be joking! There's no hard shoulder for a while and at least one if not more at-grade median crossings (with no traffic lights, making them doubly-dangerous). Anyone any objection to an edit???? --Rdd (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The poor section you refer to (past The Downes) was opened about 8 years ago. And it contains at least five dangerous median crossings which have had several fatal accidents already. The new section between McNead's Bridge/Mary Lynch's and Kinnegad is 5 km long and of motorway standard; which is what the article says. In fact most of it is included in the M4 PPP. Sarah777 (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact the article didn't say that! It does now, in a convoluted sort of way...Sarah777 (talk)

Thanks! Doesn't the alternative route disappear after J12 anyway? That might be why it is not motorway.--Rdd (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't marked on the maps but it is still there as far as McNead's Bridge; I'd say it isn't motorway past J12 because it would end in just 5 km anyway; and they'd have to remove those "rest-areas". Sarah777 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Road Standard

Road Standard doesn't mention the 2+1 segments of the road, which operate for quite a distance, both beyond Mullingar and across the curlew mountains. Not sure what that tech is officially called (head Swing lane used for it before), but it should be mentioned. --62.77.181.1 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure - some concrete details are needed. I was aware there was 2+1 road out that way, but I don't know the exact details. zoney ♣ talk 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No 2+1 on the N4 yet; I travelled it only last week! I think the Rooskey/Drumsna by-pass (currently under construction in part) is going to be a 2+1. (Sarah777)

No, there definitely about 4 miles of 2+1 on the route, has been for quite some time. In fact, if you look at the pictures of the road through the Curlews: [1], its quite obvious. --85.134.141.187 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could drive past 4k of 2+1 without noticing!! What you see there is a climbing lane on the Curlew by-pass. (Sarah777 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Can I ask, what's the difference between a climbing lane and a 2+1 road? If I understand what a 2+1 road is i.e., two lanes in one direction (say west), and 1 in the opposite (east), sometimes swapping to 2 east and one west, then I can say for definite that there defenitely is a length of 2+1 on the N4 over the Curlews. I travel it very regularly (at least once a week for the forseeable future). I'll be going on that road tomorrow, so I'll take a few photos, post them on Commons, and link to them here. --The.Q | Talk to me 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the National Roads Authority website, and found in the (PDF) document, NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2004 AND PROGRAMME FOR 2005 that the Curlews bypass is classified (on page 92) as a SC road (I presume that means single-carriageway), but at the time of this report, was due for a retro-fit to 2+1 (page 48). I guess that answers that. --The.Q | Talk to me 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A 2+1 has a wire barrier in the middle of the road and the two-lane sections are not simply restricted to uphill sections. I guess they haven't got around to the retro-fitting yet; the road IS wide enough. I saw the Piltown bypass 2+1 recently and was struck by the amount of impact damage to the wire median plus some fresh roadside "headstones" - suggesting this type of road isn't near as safe as proper grade separated DC. (Sarah777 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

The Curlew road is slightly more than just traditional climbing lanes, it is basically 2+1 minus the wire barrier - it far predates the construction of 2+1 as we know now anywhere else. The sections with two lanes are lengthy and swap half way through rather than just being short lanes on hills (like the N8 has). I would predict the 'retro fitting' will involve slinging a barrier along and painting out more space where the changeover is.

Whats described above as 2+1 beyond Mullingar is probably the differential acceleration zone beyond the bypass where the local road from Mullingar joins the single lane off the bypass as an inner lane and runs as such for about 2km - this isn't meant to be 2+1, doens't swap directions at any time, but I think actually does have a separation barrier. --85.134.188.52 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose move

To N4 road (Ireland).

This article refers to a road in just one country (Ireland). There are many N4 roads in other countries (f.ex Belgium and France). Why should Irlend be unique? Just my opinion.

Triwbe 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any articles about the other N4's. Either way, this was the first - no reason to add "Ireland". (Sarah777 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

I see someone has created N4 road (Belgium); still no p[roblem. If any more N4s pop up might need a dab page - still wouldn't require a change of article name. (Sarah777 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

I agree with you, Sarah. No need to change/move the article. --The.Q^(t)(c) 10:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Curlews Bypass image?

What the fuck is pictured in that image?

That would be a Gaelic Chieftain. On a horse. On a hill. Can't you tell? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Template for these pages...

If you have a look at the motorway-specific pages (M6,M7,M8 and M9) you will see that they all have a clear-cut, easy-to-read template. Many users have helped to perfect it over the last month and as a result the pages now look excellent, and are congruous with each other.

I think the other pages (particuarly the N1,N2,N3,N4 pages) would benefit from a similar template being applied. At the moment, going from one article for another presents you with a completely different layout and it gets a tad confusing. I am in no means suggesting that articles are not well-presented, or full of irrelevant information, because that certainly is not the case. I just feel that if they shared a common layout, it would be a lot of easiar for users to read between the articles.

Anyway, I'd like to hear other users' thoughts on this proposal. Trans5999 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

M6/M4 junction

Do we have a more up-to-date picture of the M6/M4 junction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.154.162 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much has changed - the gantry sign has been replaced by one in the new format and the ADS and gore signs have been patched with "M6". One anomoly is that the gantry uses the junction number for the M6 - J1 - however as this sign is on the M4 its junction number - J11 - should be used. The same mistake was made at the M11/M50 junction on the gantries there. Rdd (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Twelve years later...this is really out of date! Can we use a Google Maps clip to replace it? Albeit it won't have the perspective and digital clarity of this current outdated photo! Sarah777 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

J11; M6/M4 junction (prior to redesignation of the N6 → M6).

File:G Maps M4M6 divide.png

Roadsign

Got one - the amount of wiki-hoops I had to learn/go through to get this here is dispiriting! Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly Wikipedia can't use Google Street View screenshots to get photos of places. Street View images are all copyrighted to Google. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Looks like I'll have to get the camera out - for the second time in 14 years... Sarah777 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Mind you, I've come across dozens of Google Maps photos in various Irish village and road articles. My mistake was not to stay in hiding! Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)