Compare
(A) "If Anna was here, she would've known what to do."
(B) "If Anna had been here, she would've known what to do."
In (A), the speakers are currently considering what to do and lamenting that Anna isn't with them right now, because she would have been able to help them.
In (B), the speakers are discussing a past situation (we don't know how recent) where Anna's absence left them with no solution. The opportunity to do the right thing has now passed.
I think if you see the difference between the two, that will go a long way to helping you with similar constructs.
"If you (wear) a beard all the time, they (not recognize) you without it."
All the below are possible:
(A) If you wore a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(B) If you had worn a beard all the time, they would not have recognized you without it.
(C) If you were to wear a beard all the time, they would not recognize you without it.
(A) Can be used in a past sense, in a kind of confirmatory way: Given that you always wore a beard, then of course they wouldn't recognise you without it. But it can also be a suggestion for the future: if>then.
(B) In the past period referred to, he wasn't in the habit of wearing a beard, and therefore had no chance to pass unrecognised by removing it.
(C) More specific than the second sense of (A). Making a hypothetical suggestion concerning a group of people currently unknown; implying that at the moment he doesn't wear a beard all the time (or at all).
I am not aware of any grammatical rule that would prohibit someone from using the word would twice in a single question. However, when I tried to think of a few examples, I kept noticing that the question would improve significantly if there was only one would.
If I would drop your favorite vase, would you still love me?
Better: If I dropped your favorite vase, would you still love me?
Would you file for divorce, if I would put poison in your soup?
Better: Would you file for divorce, if I put poison in your soup?
Would you stop nagging me, if I would change the oil?
Better: Would you stop nagging me, if I changed the oil?
However, in some situations, you can get away with would twice, if you include a word like just or even:
Would you stop nagging me, if I would just change the oil?
Back to your question; I'd phrase it like this:
Would you still travel 45 minutes to the railway station everyday, even if our office bus stopped near your home?
There is no need to for the second would (it doesn't accomplish anything, except to make the sentence more awkward). The word still informs the reader in that the person currently takes the train; I think it's a critical word in this context. The word even is not quite as vital, but I still think it helps express the hypothetical nature of the question.
Best Answer
The following sentence does not use "if only..." idiomatically, IMO.
If only he would sell me his car this week, I would give him $1000 more.
In an if-only statement, the independent (main) clause expresses something that becomes possible when the if-only condition is true. The thing made possible is something that is wished for.
In your example, "I would give him $1000 more" is not something that is made possible and wished for. It is a quid-pro-quo.
If he would sell me his car this week, I would give him $1000 more.
But this following sentence would be idiomatic if his selling you the car would allow you to drive to a gig where you could earn the additional money, for example; if you had a fleeting opportunity:
If only he would sell me his car this week, I could give him $1000 more.