The only station I can think of that meets that criteria is Hereford - FGW^▸ (First Great Western) terminus but through station for ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))).  Hold on, it's also a terminus for LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) isn't it?

So 21 would be Marylebone (from the Monopoly board)

13 is on the approaches to St Ives, I think...

Is 67 the stub of the old Midland route into Bristol, near Yate / Westerleigh Junction?

I find the Train Search app, which has a Cross Country badge but shows all UK^▸ (United Kingdom) trains, pretty useful.

And it's free!

I think their badges said Mouchel

I had business today in Trowbridge and tomorrow in Tewkesbury.  Add in a stop for the night at my sister's in Stroud and it's my first trip through Melksham by rail for about 25 years!  At Trowbridge there were people with clipboards counting passenger numbers. When the 19.38 to Cheltenham via Swindon arrived one got on and asked all passengers to fill in a questionnaire.  Does this bode well for service improvements, I wonder?

Here is First Capital Connect Land (Great Northern territory), we usually get the number of carriages on the screens and audible announcements.  The printed timetable also shows the number of carriages, at least in the peaks.

I think the prime candidates for being selfish and short-sighted are those people who insist on driving everywhere and then complain about the amount of traffic that there is.

For rail passengers, in many cases, their objectives will be aligned.  If you double the frequency of trains on a particular route, that improves things for everyone.  Where there may be conflict is in relation to stopping patterns and connections.  If a connection is held for a delayed train, that is good for the passengers on the delayed train but then delays the others, and possibly those on the return journey.  If a journey is speeded up by removing stops, that is good for end-to-end passengers but bad for those wishing to go to/from the intermediate stations.  In my view, most passengers will accept changes in timetables if they are benefiting the majority, even if they are adversely affected - they can often choose another mode.

Yes, but it's not direct is it.  My point is that it takes more than an hour to get from Swindon to Cheltenham, calling at all stations and reversing at Gloucester.  The distance by road is only 30 miles so the timing is uncompetitive.  With the present timetable, the units are standing at Swindon for over an hour and at Cheltenham for about 45 minutes so they are not being used very intensively.  If one unit runs Swindon, all stations to Gloucester and the other Swindon to Cheltenham non-stop, both could be accomplished in about 50 minutes so you would not need any more units and have reduced the journey time to Cheltenham by about 15 minutes.

The main flaw with my idea is that, because Gloucester has lost all of its long-distance Cross Country services, it would make connections more difficult from Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse and Gloucester to the North.  There would probably also be pathing difficulties between Standish Junction and Cheltenham.  I just think Cheltenham should have a quicker service than the equivalent of 25 mph from Swindon.

It was less than 10 passengers a day a few years ago so things are improving!  For relatively short journeys at low frequency, rail probably completes poorly with bus journeys, which can go right into the city centre, for which Temple Meads is not particularly well located.  The solution?  I think we're back to the still-born and still lamented Avon Metro.

I don't have a regular commute on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) - I actually use bus + walking, or occasionally the car.  I use FGW mainly for business travel to clients in the west.  I will use First Capital Connect + Underground to get to Paddington at this end.  At the other end, it depends on the location of the client office.  If it's within a mile or so of the station, I am happy to walk.  Otherwise it might be a bus (if convenient) or a taxi.  So I'm probably a floating voter as far as the poll is concerned.

It seems that they had problems at Gloucester this afternoon with both the 16.31 Cheltenham to Paddington and the 14.51 Great Malvern to Weymouth being delayed by 20 to 30 minutes.  As a result of this both are missing stops, with the former running fast from Swindon to Paddington and the latter ran non-stop from Temple Meads to Westbury.  Is this a sensible decision to minimise disruption to other services or a cynical ploy to reach the destination within 10 minutes of booked time and thereby avoid financial penalties?

Can you imagine the disruption to services on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) etc if we start adding another pair of tracks.  Remember the effect on weekend services of the 4-tracking of the Trent Valley and other aspects of the upgrade.  Hardly a recipe for a 7-day railway.  We would also achieve little reduction in journey times when it was finished.

Yes, we do desperately need some more stock in the short term but we are talking 7 years before the start of construction here.

Perhaps the signaller forgot to follow this protocol and set the route through the station so the driver got a green aspect.  The story mentions braking after the station but not before.