Hvis vi havde set køreplanen, ville vi have taget det andet tog.

It is a past unreal or counterfactual conditional.

The speaker is talking about something that did not happen in the past:

• we did not see the timetable
• so we did not take the other train

Danish builds this very similarly to English:

• Hvis vi havde set køreplanen = If we had seen the timetable
• ville vi have taget det andet tog = we would have taken the other train

Havde set is the past perfect of se.

It is formed with:

• havde = had
• set = seen

So:

• vi havde set = we had seen

In this kind of conditional, Danish normally uses the past perfect in the if-clause, just like English does:

• If we had seen...
• Hvis vi havde set...

Because Danish uses ville + have + past participle to express the result that would have happened in the past.

So:

• ville = would
• have = have
• taget = taken

Together:

• ville have taget = would have taken

This is the normal way to express the unreal result of a past condition.

After a modal verb like ville, Danish uses the infinitive, not a finite past form.

So the pattern is:

• ville have taget not
• ville havde taget

This is exactly like English:

• would have taken not
• would had taken

So havde is used when it is the main finite verb of the clause, but after ville, you need the infinitive have.

No. In this sentence, ville does not mean simple future.

It is being used in a conditional sense, like English would. So it helps express:

• not a future fact
• but a hypothetical result

Compare:

• Vi vil tage toget = We will take the train
• Vi ville have taget toget = We would have taken the train

So here ville is part of a hypothetical past result, not a future statement.

Because Danish main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb usually comes in second position.

Here, the whole if-clause comes first:

• Hvis vi havde set køreplanen

That entire clause takes the first slot. Then the main clause must begin with the finite verb:

• ville vi have taget det andet tog

So the order becomes:

• first position: Hvis vi havde set køreplanen
• second position: ville
• then subject: vi

This is why you get ville vi, not vi ville.

Because hvis introduces a subordinate clause, and subordinate clauses in Danish normally have subject + finite verb order.

So the normal pattern is:

• Hvis vi havde set...

not:

• Hvis havde vi set...

This is different from main clauses, where Danish often has verb-second word order. In subordinate clauses introduced by words like hvis, at, fordi, når, and so on, the subject usually comes before the finite verb.

Køreplan means timetable or schedule.

The ending -en makes it definite singular:

• en køreplan = a timetable
• køreplanen = the timetable

So set køreplanen means seen the timetable.

Danish often adds definiteness directly to the noun with an ending like -en, -et, or -ene.

There are two things going on here.

First, tog is a neuter noun:

• et tog = a train

Because it is neuter singular, the definite article before an adjective is det:

• det ... tog

Second, anden/andet must agree with the gender of the noun:

• anden for common gender singular
• andet for neuter singular
• andre for plural

Since tog is neuter, you need:

• det andet tog = the other train

Also, when Danish uses an adjective before a definite noun, it usually uses double definiteness:

• article + adjective + noun

So you say:

• det andet tog

not:

• andet toget

Because when a definite noun has a preceding adjective, Danish normally uses a separate definite article and leaves the noun without the usual definite suffix.

Compare:

• toget = the train
• det andet tog = the other train

So although the train by itself is toget, once you add an adjective like andet, Danish switches to the pattern:

• det + adjective + noun

This is completely normal.

Because så is optional in many Danish conditional sentences.

You can say:

• Hvis vi havde set køreplanen, ville vi have taget det andet tog.

You can also say:

• Hvis vi havde set køreplanen, så ville vi have taget det andet tog.

Adding så can make the structure feel a bit more explicit, like then in English, but it is not required.

Yes. The verb is:

• infinitive: se = to see
• past participle: set = seen

So:

• har set = have seen
• havde set = had seen

This form does not change for person or number, so Danish keeps the same set whether the subject is jeg, vi, de, and so on.

Yes, in standard written Danish, the comma is normal here because the sentence begins with a subordinate clause:

• Hvis vi havde set køreplanen, ville vi have taget det andet tog.

The comma marks the boundary between:

• the if-clause
• the main clause

So this punctuation is standard and helpful.

Yes, depending on nuance.

• set køreplanen can mean seen the timetable
• kigget på køreplanen means more literally looked at the timetable

In many contexts, both would be understandable. Set køreplanen is perfectly natural, but kigget på køreplanen may sound slightly more explicit if you want to stress the act of checking it.