2A clutch hose

[Bridger]

I've bought a replacement flexible hose for my 2A clutch, but on offering it up, it's clearly too short. The replacement is RTC3386, with an overall length (including unions) of 390mm, but the original is around 50mm longer. Everywhere I look, it seems that's the part that's recommended for both brakes and 2Aclutch, so I'm a bit stumped.
It makes me wonder if my pipe bracket is in the wrong place, it's currently facing forwards adjacent to the accelerator pivot, can anyone verify if that's the problem, please?

[the landy man]

Here's mine,early series 3.

IMG_20220428_20580.jpg (157.88 KiB) Viewed 1532 times

[the landy man]

Same on my later '79' lightweight.

IMG_20220428_762.jpg (134.46 KiB) Viewed 1531 times

[Bridger]

Very interesting, and I'm very grateful for the trouble you've taken to share your photos. Trouble is, the series 3 brackets you show appear to be where the fuel changeover valve is located on the 2A (although sadly missing on mine). However, my bulkhead does have the three holes for the fuel changeover valve, but I can't see any other holes in the locality that might serve to mount the clutch hose bracket.
Might I ask anyone with an early 2A to enlighten me with their pipe routing please?
Many thanks, Bob.

[chipbury]

Good Morning Bob,

On my 2A the clutch hose route/length is the same as yours.
When I rebuilt the truck I got a full package from Rocky Mountain UK for the suspension/brake pipes etc. this included a new stainless braided clutch hose. I have no documents to show the length unfortunately, hopefully someone else with a 2A can confirm a part number.

Cheers,

Chris

[will howlett]

Hello, I have a 2a military 109 and the bracket and position are the same and I have ordered the pipe 3386 (same as front brakes) and they have fitted fine.
I can't see a lot of difference between my 109 and a lightweight.
Perhaps you have been sent the wrong part.

[Bridger]

Cracked it! I'm very grateful to Rod, Chris and Will for your help. So I decided to have a go at it to see how it might turn out...
Once all dismantled, the old hose was indeed 50mm longer than the new one, but it occurred to me that the slave cylinder could be turned through 180deg to put the bleed nipple at the back. This meant the new hose fitted nicely, at the cost of the nipple now being at the back, so bleeding might be a little more awkward with the tunnel in place. Maybe the nipple is supposed to be at the back?
The end result is that everything works nicely now. My clutch action had been sluggish, which made double-declutching rather hit-and-miss. The old hose was clearly almost blocked. A bit of googling reveals that this is a well-known symptom of degrading hoses.
Thanks again, Bob.

[diffwhine]

That is the correct orientation for the slave cylinder. Bleed nipple to rear and hose to the front. That way you can access the bleed nipple by removing the grommet in the forward transmission tunnel section and you have direct view on the bleed nipple.

[Bridger]

Nice to have one more item that's restored to how it's supposed to be. I fell into the trap of expecting to access for bleeding from within the engine bay, and assuming that what was there was correct.
Thanks for everyone's help.
Cheers, Bob.