Hit 500 hours on a single boiler rebuild and it changed my mind about rushing jobs
Just wrapped up a full rebuild on a 1950s firetube boiler for a museum in Cleveland, and the log book showed 502 hours from start to finish. Everyone on the crew, even the foreman, kept saying we were moving too slow and that a job like this should take 350 max if we hustled. But here's the thing, when we got into the shell, we found corrosion patterns the initial inspection missed. If we had rushed, we would have just slapped in new tubes and called it a day. Instead, we took the time to properly cut out and replace three full sections of the lower shell course. That extra 150 hours wasn't wasted time, it was what made the repair actually last. I know the push is always to go faster, but sometimes the numbers tell you to slow down. Has anyone else had a job where going against the 'faster is better' grain actually saved a bigger headache later?