Era para irmos de comboio, mas acabámos por ir de carro porque o Pedro queria levar a bagagem toda na bagageira.

Era para often means it was supposed to, the plan was to, or we were meant to.

So Era para irmos de comboio means something like:

• We were supposed to go by train
• The plan was for us to go by train

Here, era is the imperfect of ser, which gives a background idea: this was the original plan or expectation, not necessarily what actually happened.

Because Portuguese is using the personal infinitive.

• ir = the basic infinitive, to go
• irmos = for us to go

After expressions like era para, Portuguese often uses the personal infinitive to show who is supposed to do the action.

So:

• Era para ir = It was supposed to go / to be gone / to happen to go, more general or less clearly tied to a subject
• Era para irmos = It was for us to go / We were supposed to go

This is a very common structure in Portuguese and something English does not really have in the same way.

Yes, you could.

• Era para irmos de comboio
• Era para nós irmos de comboio

Both are correct. The version without nós is more natural unless you want emphasis or contrast.

For example, you might say Era para nós irmos, não para eles if you want to stress we, not they.

De comboio means by train.

In Portuguese, means of transport are often expressed with de + noun, without an article:

• de comboio = by train
• de carro = by car
• de avião = by plane
• de autocarro = by bus

This works much like English by train or by car.

Also, comboio is the word used in Portugal. In Brazil, people normally say trem.

Good question. They do not mean the same thing.

• de comboio = by train, focusing on the means of transport
• no comboio = on the train, focusing on location

So in this sentence:

• irmos de comboio = to go by train

But you could say:

• Estávamos no comboio = We were on the train

Acabámos por ir means something like:

• we ended up going
• we finally went
• in the end, we went

It adds the idea that this was not the original plan, or that another outcome had been expected.

Compare:

• Fomos de carro = We went by car
• Acabámos por ir de carro = We ended up going by car

So acabámos por gives a sense of a final result after some change, hesitation, or circumstance.

Because acabar por + infinitive and acabar de + infinitive mean different things.

• acabar por + infinitive = to end up doing something
• acabar de + infinitive = to have just done something

So:

• Acabámos por ir de carro = We ended up going by car
• Acabámos de ir de carro would not fit here; it would suggest something like we have just gone by car, which is a different idea

This is a very important distinction.

Because queria is the imperfect and fits the idea of an ongoing desire, intention, or background reason.

• queria = wanted / was wanting
• quis = wanted, in the sense of a completed, specific act of wanting

In this sentence, porque o Pedro queria... gives the reason in the background:

• because Pedro wanted to take all the luggage in the boot

It sounds natural because it describes his intention or preference at that time.

If you used quis, it would sound more like a single completed moment of wanting, which is less natural here.

Because Portuguese distinguishes between taking something away from the current point of reference and bringing something toward it.

• levar = to take
• trazer = to bring

In this sentence, Pedro wanted to take the luggage in the car, so levar is the natural choice.

English often uses bring more loosely, but Portuguese is usually stricter about this distinction.

A bagagem toda means all the luggage.

In Portuguese, todo/toda/todos/todas can appear after the noun to mean the whole / all the:

• a bagagem toda = all the luggage
• o dia todo = the whole day
• a noite toda = all night

Here, toda agrees with bagagem, which is feminine singular.

You may also see toda a bagagem, which also means all the luggage. In many contexts, both are possible, though the rhythm and emphasis can differ slightly.

They are related words, but they mean different things.

• bagagem = luggage
• bagageira = car boot / trunk

So in the sentence:

• levar a bagagem toda = take all the luggage
• na bagageira = in the boot

This pairing is useful to remember because the words look similar but refer to different things.

In Portugal, bagageira is the normal word for the car boot. In American English, that would be trunk; in British English, boot.

Because Portuguese usually contracts em + a into na.

• em + a = na
• em + o = no
• em + as = nas
• em + os = nos

So:

• na bagageira = in the boot

This kind of contraction is very common and usually mandatory in normal Portuguese.

Because here it means because, introducing a reason.

• porque = because

So:

• ... porque o Pedro queria levar... = ... because Pedro wanted to take...

Portuguese has several similar-looking forms:

• porque = because
• porquê = the reason / why, usually as a noun
• por que = why / for which, in certain structures
• por quê = used mainly at the end of a question

For this sentence, porque is the correct form.

Because era gives a background situation or expectation, while foi would sound more like a finished, specific event.

• Era para irmos de comboio = We were supposed to go by train
• Foi para irmos de comboio does not work naturally here for the same meaning

The imperfect era is the normal tense for talking about plans, expectations, instructions, or intentions that existed at the time.

Because each tense is doing a different job.

• era: sets the background plan or expectation

  • Era para irmos de comboio = that was the plan

• acabámos: gives the main completed event

  • acabámos por ir de carro = in the end, we went by car

• queria: gives the background reason or motivation

  • porque o Pedro queria... = because Pedro wanted...

This mix is very typical in Portuguese narrative style: imperfect for background, preterite for the main completed action.

Yes, that is closer to the structure, but it is not the most natural English translation.

A more natural English version is:

• We were supposed to go by train
• The plan was for us to go by train

Still, noticing the more literal structure can help you understand the Portuguese grammar:

• Era para = it was for / it was supposed to
• irmos = us to go

So the literal structure can be useful for learning, even if it is not the best final translation.

Yes, mainly because of comboio.

In Portugal:

• comboio = train
• carro = car
• bagageira = car boot

In Brazil, the most obvious difference would be:

• trem instead of comboio

The rest of the sentence is also understandable in Brazilian Portuguese, but comboio is a strong clue that this is European Portuguese.