I have been studying the most terrible accident at Quintinshill signal box and for the life of me cannot see why Mr., Meakin could not be held totally to blame, but this could be because of my ignorance. My conjecture lies about why when Meakin placed the Branch Line Local by crossing it to the Main Up from the main down without setting his distant to on. On completion surely he only had to, partially at least, safeguard his movement by placing his distant signal to on. Now I appreciate that a distant can't be cleared until its home and starter are pulled off but I cannot find nor can I see the slightest reason to deny a signalman placing a distant to on all given he has given line clear to the box in rear and cleared his home and starter. Setting his distant to on would have given the driver of all trains from the North the indication that all might be called upon to stop at the ensuing home signal. If I am right then MR., Meakin was surely the principal wrong doer with Mr., Tinsley partially to blame for not recognising that his 'Taxi' train was in a cleared section and the fact that the distant signal was in fact set to clear. As I have been unable to find any comment in any book or report of the accident about setting on the Quintinshill or any distant when line clear is present I am unable to settle my own argument. Advice sought, Chris S. Cheshire, UK. MMRS Member.