Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Highway Products Litigation We previously reported that on January 28, 2013, the United States filed a “Notice of Election to Decline Intervention” in a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint filed under seal on March 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (“District Court”) styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:12-cv-00089-JRG. Mr. Harman alleged the Company knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim, record or statement to purchasers of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET-Plus”), in order for such purchasers to obtain federal-aid reimbursement for payments made on such purchases. On October 20, 2014 a trial of this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC, “knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim," awarding $175 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award, to the extent it survives the Company's challenge in post-trial motions or on appeal, is automatically trebled under the Act to $525 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (which penalties are not automatically trebled). The District Court has the discretion to establish the civil penalty amount between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation. In this regard, the Relator contended during trial that certain invoices submitted to purchasers of the ET-Plus certified that the product was accepted by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and was therefore eligible for federal-aid reimbursement. Based on Relator’s damages model in this respect, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184 million (if the District Court determines that each invoice for the product was a violation). The District Court has not yet entered a final judgment or determined a civil penalty amount. While the Company believes the District Court does not have the evidence required under the law to quantify civil penalties, the range of loss in this case, based on the jury’s verdict and Mr. Harman's damage model for civil penalties, is $525 million to $709 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest. The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to challenge the damages award on the ground of insufficient evidence and to vigorously defend its positions in post-trial motions and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Such post-trial motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including costs associated with posting a supersedeas bond upon the District Court’s entry of a final judgment. The face amount of such bond could equal the amount of the final judgment entered plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such bond will be issued if, when, and to the extent required. Texas A&M Transportation Institute (“TTI”), a member of the Texas A&M University System, developed and designed the ET-Plus. The Texas A&M University System is the owner of ET-Plus patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office. Trinity Highway Products, LLC manufactures and markets the ET-Plus pursuant to an exclusive license granted by the Texas A&M University System of their intellectual property. According to the license agreement, the Texas A&M University System is responsible for the research, design, and development of the ET-Plus technology, and we rely on their engineering and design expertise. TTI conducts crash testing of the ET-Plus to demonstrate compliance with the required standards set out in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 (“Report 350”). In addition, TTI prepares the test reports on performance of the ET-Plus for review by the FHWA in their consideration for accepting the product for use on the national highway system and determining the product’s eligibility for federal-aid reimbursement. It is our belief that since its introduction in 2000, including all subsequent improvement modifications recommended by TTI, the ET-Plus system has been in compliance with Report 350 and has been accepted by the FHWA for federal-aid reimbursement eligibility. In a Memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed to its Division Administrators, Directors of Field Services, Federal Lands Division Engineers, that "The Trinity ET-Plus with 4-inch guide channels became eligible for Federal reimbursement under FHWA letter CC-94 on September 2, 2005. In addition, the device is eligible for reimbursement under FHWA letters CC-94A and CC-120.” In this memorandum, the FHWA further confirmed the reimbursement eligibility of the device at guardrail heights from 27 3/4 inches to 31 inches, stating that an “unbroken chain of eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement has existed since September 2, 2005 and the ET-Plus continues to be eligible today." A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. Preceding the second trial in this matter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Fifth Circuit based, in part, on the District Court’s failure to apply Fifth Circuit case law precedent as well as other precedential case law. In its per curiam order denying the Company’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Fifth Circuit expressed concern regarding the District Court’s failure to issue a reasoned ruling rejecting the Company’s prior motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit also stated that the FHWA authoritative memorandum dated June 17, 2014, on its face, appears to compel the conclusion that the FHWA, after due consideration of all the facts, found the ET-Plus sufficiently compliant with federal safety standards and therefore fully eligible, in the past, present and future, for federal reimbursement claims. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit noted that a strong argument could be made that the Company’s actions were neither material nor were any false claims based on false certifications presented to the government. Based on the Fifth Circuit’s remarks, the Company re-urged its motions with the District Court for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court denied during trial. On October 21, 2014, the FHWA advised the Company that in light of the jury’s finding the Company must perform additional crash testing of the ET-Plus to support the FHWA’s ongoing evaluation of ET-Plus performance. On October 24, 2014, the Company issued a press release stating that it will stop shipments of the ET-Plus until additional crash testing of the ET-Plus can be completed. Prior to the Company’s press release, certain states had either removed the ET-Plus from their respective qualified products list or suspended further purchases of the ET-Plus pending the outcome of the FHWA-requested crash tests. The state of Virginia is also evaluating a potential recall of all ET-Plus products installed on Virginia roadways. Other states could take similar or different actions. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material. The Company is working with the FHWA to develop a plan for performing the requested crash testing and analysis. Revenues from sales of the ET-Plus in the United States totaled approximately $33 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, or less than 1% of the Company’s total consolidated revenues. This revenue figure is approximately the same for the nine months ended September 30, 2013. Pending entry of a final judgment and completion of the Company’s post-trial and appellate activities in this matter, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable, therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At September 30, 2014, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $663.7 million. When combined with capacity under committed credit facilities, the Company had approximately $1.3 billion of available liquidity at the end of the third quarter. The Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in several different states that are alleged to involve the ET-Plus. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside devices such as an ET-Plus, or any other fixed object along the highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350 recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash worthiness of vehicles. While the Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits, the recent verdict in the Harman matter may affect the ultimate outcome in one or more of these cases. Moreover, the Company expects the recent verdict, coupled with the media attention the verdict has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out vehicle accident victims involved in collisions with an ET-Plus as potential clients, which may result in additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to mitigate the impact of adverse verdict exposures in these cases. The Company has received information that several law firms are investigating whether certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties relating to modifications made to the ET-Plus and/or violated federal securities laws. We believe these investigations will be concluded without substantive results. However, the Company may incur legal expenses and related costs in responding to these investigations. Train Derailment As previously reported, the Company has been named as a respondent in litigation filed July 15, 2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Saint-Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet vs. Rail World, Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. A partially-owned subsidiary of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of the railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named as a defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation. As of June 18, 2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have voluntarily desisted with their claims against the Company resulting in the dismissal of the Company without prejudice; however the partially-owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in the litigation. The litigation filed in Quebec is seeking “class” status which, if certified, could lead to multiple individuals and business entities becoming class members. The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The Company’s tank car manufacturing subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers. Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. The Company could be named in similar litigation involving other affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate number of claims and the jurisdiction in which such claims are filed, may vary. We do not believe at this time that a loss is probable nor can a range of losses be determined. Accordingly, no accrual or range of loss has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Other Matters The Company is involved in claims and lawsuits incidental to our business arising from various matters including product warranty, personal injury, environmental issues, workplace laws, and various governmental regulations. The Company evaluates its exposure to such claims and suits periodically and establishes accruals for these contingencies when a range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The range of reasonably possible losses for such matters, taking into consideration our rights in indemnity and recourse to third parties is $7.3 million to $32.4 million. This range excludes any amount related to the Harman matter, as described above. At September 30, 2014, total accruals of $19.1 million, including environmental and workplace matters described below, are included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company believes any additional liability would not be material to its financial position or results of operations. Trinity is subject to remedial orders and Federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment and the workplace. The Company has reserved $10.3 million to cover our probable and estimable liabilities with respect to the investigations, assessments, and remedial responses to such matters, taking into account currently available information and our contractual rights to indemnification and recourse to third parties. However, estimates of liability arising from future proceedings, assessments, or remediation are inherently imprecise. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will not become involved in future litigation or other proceedings involving the environment and the workplace or, if we are found to be responsible or liable in any such litigation or proceeding, that such costs would not be material to the Company. We believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with environmental and workplace laws and regulations.

Contingencies

Highway Products Litigation

We previously reported that on January 28, 2013, the United States filed a “Notice of Election to Decline Intervention” in a False Claims Act (“Act”) complaint filed under seal on March 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (“District Court”) styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:12-cv-00089-JRG. Mr. Harman alleged the Company knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim, record or statement to purchasers of the Company's ET-Plus® System, a highway guardrail end-terminal (“ET-Plus”), in order for such purchasers to obtain federal-aid reimbursement for payments made on such purchases. On October 20, 2014 a trial of this case concluded with a jury verdict stating that the Company and its subsidiary, Trinity Highway Products, LLC, “knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim," awarding $175 million in damages based on such finding. The jury's damages award, to the extent it survives the Company's challenge in post-trial motions or on appeal, is automatically trebled under the Act to $525 million. Additionally, the District Court is required to impose civil penalties for each violation of the Act (which penalties are not automatically trebled). The District Court has the discretion to establish the civil penalty amount between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation. In this regard, the Relator contended during trial that certain invoices submitted to purchasers of the ET-Plus certified that the product was accepted by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and was therefore eligible for federal-aid reimbursement. Based on Relator’s damages model in this respect, the range of possible civil penalties is $5,500 (if the District Court determines there has been a single violation) to $184 million (if the District Court determines that each invoice for the product was a violation).

The District Court has not yet entered a final judgment or determined a civil penalty amount. While the Company believes the District Court does not have the evidence required under the law to quantify civil penalties, the range of loss in this case, based on the jury’s verdict and Mr. Harman's damage model for civil penalties, is $525 million to $709 million, exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

The Company maintains that Mr. Harman’s allegations are without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to challenge the damages award on the ground of insufficient evidence and to vigorously defend its positions in post-trial motions and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”). Such post-trial motions and appellate review will result in certain legal expenses, including costs associated with posting a supersedeas bond upon the District Court’s entry of a final judgment. The face amount of such bond could equal the amount of the final judgment entered plus twenty (20) percent. The Company has confidence that such bond will be issued if, when, and to the extent required.

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (“TTI”), a member of the Texas A&M University System, developed and designed the ET-Plus. The Texas A&M University System is the owner of ET-Plus patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office. Trinity Highway Products, LLC manufactures and markets the ET-Plus pursuant to an exclusive license granted by the Texas A&M University System of their intellectual property. According to the license agreement, the Texas A&M University System is responsible for the research, design, and development of the ET-Plus technology, and we rely on their engineering and design expertise. TTI conducts crash testing of the ET-Plus to demonstrate compliance with the required standards set out in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 (“Report 350”). In addition, TTI prepares the test reports on performance of the ET-Plus for review by the FHWA in their consideration for accepting the product for use on the national highway system and determining the product’s eligibility for federal-aid reimbursement. It is our belief that since its introduction in 2000, including all subsequent improvement modifications recommended by TTI, the ET-Plus system has been in compliance with Report 350 and has been accepted by the FHWA for federal-aid reimbursement eligibility. In a Memorandum dated June 17, 2014, the FHWA confirmed to its Division Administrators, Directors of Field Services, Federal Lands Division Engineers, that "The Trinity ET-Plus with 4-inch guide channels became eligible for Federal reimbursement under FHWA letter CC-94 on September 2, 2005. In addition, the device is eligible for reimbursement under FHWA letters CC-94A and CC-120.” In this memorandum, the FHWA further confirmed the reimbursement eligibility of the device at guardrail heights from 27 3/4 inches to 31 inches, stating that an “unbroken chain of eligibility for Federal-aid reimbursement has existed since September 2, 2005 and the ET-Plus continues to be eligible today."

A trial in this matter commenced in July 2014, but ended in a mistrial declared by the District Court on its own volition. Preceding the second trial in this matter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Fifth Circuit based, in part, on the District Court’s failure to apply Fifth Circuit case law precedent as well as other precedential case law. In its per curiam order denying the Company’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Fifth Circuit expressed concern regarding the District Court’s failure to issue a reasoned ruling rejecting the Company’s prior motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit also stated that the FHWA authoritative memorandum dated June 17, 2014, on its face, appears to compel the conclusion that the FHWA, after due consideration of all the facts, found the ET-Plus sufficiently compliant with federal safety standards and therefore fully eligible, in the past, present and future, for federal reimbursement claims. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit noted that a strong argument could be made that the Company’s actions were neither material nor were any false claims based on false certifications presented to the government. Based on the Fifth Circuit’s remarks, the Company re-urged its motions with the District Court for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court denied during trial.

On October 21, 2014, the FHWA advised the Company that in light of the jury’s finding the Company must perform additional crash testing of the ET-Plus to support the FHWA’s ongoing evaluation of ET-Plus performance. On October 24, 2014, the Company issued a press release stating that it will stop shipments of the ET-Plus until additional crash testing of the ET-Plus can be completed. Prior to the Company’s press release, certain states had either removed the ET-Plus from their respective qualified products list or suspended further purchases of the ET-Plus pending the outcome of the FHWA-requested crash tests. The state of Virginia is also evaluating a potential recall of all ET-Plus products installed on Virginia roadways. Other states could take similar or different actions. While the financial impacts of such actions are currently unknown, they could be material. The Company is working with the FHWA to develop a plan for performing the requested crash testing and analysis.

Revenues from sales of the ET-Plus in the United States totaled approximately $33 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, or less than 1% of the Company’s total consolidated revenues. This revenue figure is approximately the same for the nine months ended September 30, 2013.

Pending entry of a final judgment and completion of the Company’s post-trial and appellate activities in this matter, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable, therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

At September 30, 2014, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $663.7 million. When combined with capacity under committed credit facilities, the Company had approximately $1.3 billion of available liquidity at the end of the third quarter.

The Company is currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in several different states that are alleged to involve the ET-Plus. These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside devices such as an ET-Plus, or any other fixed object along the highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350 recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash worthiness of vehicles. While the Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits, the recent verdict in the Harman matter may affect the ultimate outcome in one or more of these cases. Moreover, the Company expects the recent verdict, coupled with the media attention the verdict has generated, will prompt the plaintiff’s bar to seek out vehicle accident victims involved in collisions with an ET-Plus as potential clients, which may result in additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to mitigate the impact of adverse verdict exposures in these cases.

The Company has received information that several law firms are investigating whether certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties relating to modifications made to the ET-Plus and/or violated federal securities laws. We believe these investigations will be concluded without substantive results. However, the Company may incur legal expenses and related costs in responding to these investigations.

Train Derailment

As previously reported, the Company has been named as a respondent in litigation filed July 15, 2013 in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Saint-Francois, styled Yannick Gagne and Guy Ouellet vs. Rail World, Inc., et al related to the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. A partially-owned subsidiary of the Company owned and leased to a third party 13 of the railcars involved in the incident, which lessee is also named as a defendant in the Province of Quebec litigation. As of June 18, 2014, the petitioners in the Quebec litigation have voluntarily desisted with their claims against the Company resulting in the dismissal of the Company without prejudice; however the partially-owned subsidiary remains as a respondent in the litigation. The litigation filed in Quebec is seeking “class” status which, if certified, could lead to multiple individuals and business entities becoming class members.

The Company was also named as a defendant in multiple cases filed by the estates of decedents in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois seeking damages for alleged wrongful death and property damage arising from the July 2013 crude oil unit train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The Company’s tank car manufacturing subsidiary manufactured 35 of the 72 tank railcars involved in the derailment. However the Illinois cases have since been ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This transfer prompted plaintiffs to seek dismissal of these actions. Nonetheless, the Maine court has not indicated those dismissals were effectuated and the cases were transferred to federal court in Maine and have been assigned new case numbers. Certain of the plaintiffs in these transferred cases have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking to overturn the decision to transfer. This appeal has resulted in a stay of all proceedings in the transferred cases pending resolution of the appeal. The Company could be named in similar litigation involving other affected plaintiffs, but the ultimate number of claims and the jurisdiction in which such claims are filed, may vary. We do not believe at this time that a loss is probable nor can a range of losses be determined. Accordingly, no accrual or range of loss has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Other Matters

The Company is involved in claims and lawsuits incidental to our business arising from various matters including product warranty, personal injury, environmental issues, workplace laws, and various governmental regulations. The Company evaluates its exposure to such claims and suits periodically and establishes accruals for these contingencies when a range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The range of reasonably possible losses for such matters, taking into consideration our rights in indemnity and recourse to third parties is $7.3 million to $32.4 million. This range excludes any amount related to the Harman matter, as described above. At September 30, 2014, total accruals of $19.1 million, including environmental and workplace matters described below, are included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company believes any additional liability would not be material to its financial position or results of operations.

Trinity is subject to remedial orders and Federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations relating to the environment and the workplace. The Company has reserved $10.3 million to cover our probable and estimable liabilities with respect to the investigations, assessments, and remedial responses to such matters, taking into account currently available information and our contractual rights to indemnification and recourse to third parties. However, estimates of liability arising from future proceedings, assessments, or remediation are inherently imprecise. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will not become involved in future litigation or other proceedings involving the environment and the workplace or, if we are found to be responsible or liable in any such litigation or proceeding, that such costs would not be material to the Company. We believe that we are currently in substantial compliance with environmental and workplace laws and regulations.