MG T-ABC

My chassis restoration is progressing to the point where I am looking at my copper brake lines.
All six were removed and marked by me.
I suspect two of them were not in the correct positions, may have been switched by unknown persons for unknown reasons. They are about the same in length and end fittings, but only one has a coil spring.
So the question for today is:
Which pipes should have a coil spring on them?
I presume this is intended as road hazard protection?

I think you are referring to the flexible rubber hoses which have coiled wire as a protection? I believe there should be three (two on the front and one on the back )with this type of safeguard... unless they are like mine, which are stainless steel braided. The stainless ones are expensive.

I don't know if TA is the same as TC, but I know the front lines have them, to protect from abrasion especially where they go through the frame. I don't remember if there are any on the rear but I will look through my notes. Maybe Roger will chime in here. He sells replacement coil in stainless.

Original TC put coils in back, as shown. Out to the wheel cylinders. Looks like they used the same length coil on either side of TC9866

Yes, Duncan has the idea of what I want to know, coil springs around the copper pipes. Now how about the front pipes? Also both? Is the left side coil full length or shorter than the pipe?

Rob-
Yes, the TC front circuits came with the coil shielding, entirely. After the rubber flex line, the driver side line goes to the MC and has the coils the whole way. On the passenger side after the rubber line it is entirely coiled down to the union (see pic) and then from union (across to other side of car) it is also entirely coiled to the MC. The pipe in pic with no coils is going to the back along the chassis.

What I was saying obout the coils in rear is that it looks like the coils on either side are probably the same length, and because the passenger side pipe is longer-- the coil stops somewhere after the bracket, and there is a short section of pipe that is not covered in coil, as in second pic above.

Ok thanks, I understand now. Mine had no spring coils to the left front, but they were on the crossover pipe under the trans, which didn't make sense to me, as there isn't much road hazard there. That's why I thought the pipes had been switched.
I've seen protection on hoses, as mentioned by Ray, but never on pipes before.
Maybe as this TA was the first model MG with hydraulics they were just being cautious.
But if you say there were coils in both places then that's what I'll do.
Thanks much!

Sorry Bob, we were at cross purposes; I thought you meant the hoses. When I renewed my brakes the pipes had stainless protection coils already fitted. I believe it was an original feature of these cars.

Along with physical protection from flying road debris, etc. I think the coils would also serve to defeat some vibrations to the copper pipes... Deadening of the type of vibrations that could lead to eventual cracking etc of the pipes. The coils pictured above are all factory original, and are probably zinc coated steel. No attempt was made to re-coat them or to apply any sort of finish when I rebuilt the brakes after 60 years or dry storage. The copper lines were all broken down, carefully inspected, and gently roto-rootered using solvent and rifle bore swab type technology.

Here are original coils, and replacements in stainless.

I was going to chime in here, but the subject seems to have been well covered already! I do indeed have the protection coils in stainless, to the exact pitch and wire gauge as the originals (unlike others I have seen). One car set is 25 Olde English Pounds.

Roger