Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Further information and detail on these claims is described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, in Note 19 therein, filed on February 26, 2018. During the first six months of 2018, there were no material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K. From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation related to claims arising out of the Company's operations in the ordinary course of business, including claims based on product liability, contracts, intellectual property, or other causes of action. Further information and detail on any potentially material litigation is as described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, in Note 19 therein, filed on February 26, 2018. Except as described below, there have been no material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K. On April 21, 2016, Siemens Industry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in federal district court in Delaware alleging that the Company has infringed seven patents owned by Siemens, all of which relate to Positive Train Control technology. On November 2, 2016, Siemens amended its complaint to add six additional patents they also claim are infringed by the Company’s Positive Train Control Products. The Company has filed Answers, and asserted counterclaims, in response to Siemens’ complaints. The US Patent & Trademark Office has granted Inter-Parties Review proceedings on ten (10) of the patents asserted by Siemens to assess their validity; the hearings began in April 2018 and continue through November 2018. On, July 19, 2018, Siemens moved to amend its pleadings to add claims alleging violations of federal antitrust and state trade practices laws. Additionally, Wabtec’s counterclaim alleging that Siemens has violated three (3) of Wabtec’s patents has been severed from the initial case and is now a separate case pending in federal district court in Delaware. Wabtec has filed a motion to obtain a preliminary injunction against Siemens in that case and a hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2018. Xorail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Xorail”), has received notices from Denver Transit Constructors (“Denver Transit”) alleging breach of contract related to the operating of constant warning wireless crossings, and late delivery of the Train Management & Dispatch System (“TMDS”) for the Denver Eagle P3 Project, which is owned by the Denver Regional Transit District ("RTD"). No damages have been asserted for the alleged late delivery of the TMDS, and no formal claim has been filed; Xorail is in the final stages of successfully implementing a recovery plan concerning the TMDS issues. With regard to the wireless crossing issue, as of September 8, 2017, Denver Transit alleged that total damages were $36.8 million through July 31, 2017, and are continuing to accumulate. The majority of the damages stems from a delay in approval of the wireless crossing system by the Federal Railway Administration ("FRA") and the Public Utility Commission ("PUC"), resulting in the use of flaggers at all of the crossings pending approval of the wireless crossing system and certification of the crossings. Denver Transit has alleged that the delay is due to Xorail's failure to achieve constant warning times for the crossings in accordance with the approval requirements imposed by the FRA and PUC; Xorail has denied Denver Transit's assertions. Denver Transit has also notified RTD that Denver Transit considers the constant warning approval requirements imposed by FRA and/or PUC to be a change in law, for which neither Denver Transit nor its subcontractors (including Xorail) would be liable. Xorail has worked with Denver Transit to modify its system to meet the FRA's and PUC's previously undefined approval requirements. On September 28, 2017, the FRA granted a 5 year approval of the modified wireless crossing system as currently implemented. On March 28, 2018, the PUC granted its approval of the modified wireless crossing system as currently implemented, consistent with the approval previously granted by the FRA. Denver Transit's process of certifying the crossings and eliminating the use of flaggers is proceeding and is expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2018. No formal claim has been filed against Xorail by Denver Transit. It is Xorail's understanding that Denver Transit and RTD have entered into a non-binding arbitration proceeding concerning, among other things, the flagger costs, and that proceeding is expected to be concluded by the end of 2018. On April 3, 2018 the United States Department of Justice entered into a proposed consent decree resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other’s employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport S.A. before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. The proposed consent decree is pending review and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No monetary fines or penalties have been imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. As of July 16, 2018, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the proposed consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants’ actions. The litigation is in its very early stages and is currently pending before a federal Multi-District Litigation panel to determine which federal district court will have jurisdiction over the matter. The Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Claims have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Further information and detail on these claims is described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, in Note 19 therein, filed on February 26, 2018. During the first six months of 2018, there were no material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K.

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation related to claims arising out of the Company's operations in the ordinary course of business, including claims based on product liability, contracts, intellectual property, or other causes of action. Further information and detail on any potentially material litigation is as described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, in Note 19 therein, filed on February 26, 2018. Except as described below, there have been no material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K.

On April 21, 2016, Siemens Industry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in federal district court in Delaware alleging that the Company has infringed seven patents owned by Siemens, all of which relate to Positive Train Control technology. On November 2, 2016, Siemens amended its complaint to add six additional patents they also claim are infringed by the Company’s Positive Train Control Products. The Company has filed Answers, and asserted counterclaims, in response to Siemens’ complaints. The US Patent & Trademark Office has granted Inter-Parties Review proceedings on ten (10) of the patents asserted by Siemens to assess their validity; the hearings began in April 2018 and continue through November 2018. On, July 19, 2018, Siemens moved to amend its pleadings to add claims alleging violations of federal antitrust and state trade practices laws. Additionally, Wabtec’s counterclaim alleging that Siemens has violated three (3) of Wabtec’s patents has been severed from the initial case and is now a separate case pending in federal district court in Delaware. Wabtec has filed a motion to obtain a preliminary injunction against Siemens in that case and a hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2018.

Xorail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Xorail”), has received notices from Denver Transit Constructors (“Denver Transit”) alleging breach of contract related to the operating of constant warning wireless crossings, and late delivery of the Train Management & Dispatch System (“TMDS”) for the Denver Eagle P3 Project, which is owned by the Denver Regional Transit District ("RTD"). No damages have been asserted for the alleged late delivery of the TMDS, and no formal claim has been filed; Xorail is in the final stages of successfully implementing a recovery plan concerning the TMDS issues. With regard to the wireless crossing issue, as of September 8, 2017, Denver Transit alleged that total damages were $36.8 million through July 31, 2017, and are continuing to accumulate. The majority of the damages stems from a delay in approval of the wireless crossing system by the Federal Railway Administration ("FRA") and the Public Utility Commission ("PUC"), resulting in the use of flaggers at all of the crossings pending approval of the wireless crossing system and certification of the crossings. Denver Transit has alleged that the delay is due to Xorail's failure to achieve constant warning times for the crossings in accordance with the approval requirements imposed by the FRA and PUC; Xorail has denied Denver Transit's assertions. Denver Transit has also notified RTD that Denver Transit considers the constant warning approval requirements imposed by FRA and/or PUC to be a change in law, for which neither Denver Transit nor its subcontractors (including Xorail) would be liable. Xorail has worked with Denver Transit to modify its system to meet the FRA's and PUC's previously undefined approval requirements. On September 28, 2017, the FRA granted a 5 year approval of the modified wireless crossing system as currently implemented. On March 28, 2018, the PUC granted its approval of the modified wireless crossing system as currently implemented, consistent with the approval previously granted by the FRA. Denver Transit's process of certifying the crossings and eliminating the use of flaggers is proceeding and is expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2018. No formal claim has been filed against Xorail by Denver Transit. It is Xorail's understanding that Denver Transit and RTD have entered into a non-binding arbitration proceeding concerning, among other things, the flagger costs, and that proceeding is expected to be concluded by the end of 2018.

On April 3, 2018 the United States Department of Justice entered into a proposed consent decree resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other’s employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport S.A. before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. The proposed consent decree is pending review and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No monetary fines or penalties have been imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. As of July 16, 2018, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the proposed consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants’ actions. The litigation is in its very early stages and is currently pending before a federal Multi-District Litigation panel to determine which federal district court will have jurisdiction over the matter. The Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously.