COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is subject to a variety of environmental laws and regulations governing discharges to air and water, the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous or solid waste materials and the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances. The Company believes its operations currently comply in all material respects with all of the various environmental laws and regulations applicable to our business; however, there can be no assurance that environmental requirements will not change in the future or that we will not incur significant costs to comply with such requirements. Under terms of the purchase agreement and related documents for the 1990 Acquisition, Ingersoll Rand, the successor-in-interest to American Standard, Inc. (“Ingersoll”), has indemnified the Company for certain items including, among other things, certain environmental claims the Company asserted prior to 2000. If Ingersoll was unable to honor or meet these indemnifications, the Company would be responsible for such items. In the opinion of Management, Ingersoll currently has the ability to meet its indemnification obligations. 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. Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (“RFPC”), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. It is management’s belief that the potential range of loss for asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although the results of the Company’s operations and cash flows for any given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the Company’s asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company’s overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec’s and RFPC’s history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos-related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC’s product; and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any identifiable injury or compensable loss. More specifically, as to RFPC, management’s belief that any losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC’s insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions, Management’s belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of Wabtec’s assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which confirmed Wabtec’s position that it did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets. Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have not been material, and the Company has no information that would suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable future. 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 related to Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. On November 2, 2016, Siemens amended its complaint to add six additional patents they also claim are infringed by the Company’s PTC Products or End of Train (EOT) Products (Siemen Patent Case). The Company has filed Answers, and asserted counterclaims, in response to Siemens’ complaints. Additionally, after filings by the Company, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB) has granted Inter-Parties Review (IPR) proceedings on ten (10) of the patents asserted by Siemens to contest their validity. Following pre-trial rulings that greatly reduced Siemens’ alleged damages, a jury trial was held in federal district court in Delaware in January 2019 on eight patents, two of which were still subject to an IPR decision on validity from the PTAB. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Siemens damages of $5.6 million related to PTC patents and $1.1 million related to EOT patents; as of February 25, 2019, a final verdict has not yet been entered by the Court. Since the jury’s verdict was issued, one of the PTC patents found to be infringed was held to be invalid by the PTAB, and a ruling on another of the PTC patents is still pending. Once a verdict is entered, the parties will file post-trial motions which could also potentially affect the verdict, and potential appeals could follow. Wabtec’s initial counterclaims in the Siemens Patent Case alleging that Siemens has violated three (3) of Wabtec’s patents were severed from the Siemens Patent case and were re-filed by Wabtec in a separate case now pending in the federal district court in Delaware (Wabtec Patent Case); a trial date of April 13, 2020 has been set in this case. On July 19, 2018, Siemens amended its pleadings in the Wabtec Patent Case to add new counterclaims alleging violations of federal antitrust and state trade practices laws related to Wabtec’s PTC sales. On January 29, 2019, Wabtec’s motion to sever the antitrust claims was granted; it is expected that Siemens will re-file the antitrust claims as a separate action (Siemens Antitrust Case). Xorail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Xorail”), has received notices from Denver Transit Constructors (“DTC”) 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, DTC 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. DTC 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 DTC's assertions, stating that its system satisfied the contractual requirements. Xorail has worked with DTC to modify its system an implement the FRA's and PUC's previously undefined approval requirements; the FRA and PUC have both approved modified wireless crossing system, and as of August 2018, DTC completed the process of certifying the crossings and eliminating the use of flaggers. On September 21, 2018, DTC filed a complaint against RTD in Colorado state court for breach of contract related to non-payments and the costs for the flaggers, asserting a change-in-law arising from the FRA/PUC’s new certification requirements. The complaint generally supports Xorail’s position and does not name or implicate Xorail. DTC has not updated its notices against Xorail nor has any formal claim been filed against Xorail by DTC. 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 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. Putative class action lawsuits were 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. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel decided to consolidate the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs, three of whom were Company employees. The litigation is in its very early stages and the Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending From time to time the Company is involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. As of the date hereof, the Company is involved in no litigation that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to a variety of environmental laws and regulations governing discharges to air and water, the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous or solid waste materials and the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances. The Company believes its operations currently comply in all material respects with all of the various environmental laws and regulations applicable to our business; however, there can be no assurance that environmental requirements will not change in the future or that we will not incur significant costs to comply with such requirements.

Under terms of the purchase agreement and related documents for the 1990 Acquisition, Ingersoll Rand, the successor-in-interest to American Standard, Inc. (“Ingersoll”), has indemnified the Company for certain items including, among other things, certain environmental claims the Company asserted prior to 2000. If Ingersoll was unable to honor or meet these indemnifications, the Company would be responsible for such items. In the opinion of Management, Ingersoll currently has the ability to meet its indemnification obligations.

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. Most of these claims have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (“RFPC”), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated.

It is management’s belief that the potential range of loss for asbestos-related bodily injury cases is not reasonably determinable at present due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the asbestos case settlement history of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, RFPC; (2) the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation in general; and (3) the uncertainty of asbestos litigation in particular. Despite this uncertainty, and although the results of the Company’s operations and cash flows for any given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, Management believes that the final resolution of the Company’s asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company’s overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. In general, this belief is based upon: (1) Wabtec’s and RFPC’s history of settlements and dismissals of asbestos-related cases to date; (2) the inability of many plaintiffs to establish any exposure or causal relationship to RFPC’s product; and (3) the inability of many plaintiffs to demonstrate any identifiable injury or compensable loss.

More specifically, as to RFPC, management’s belief that any losses due to asbestos-related cases would not be material is also based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC’s insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. The overall number of new claims being filed against RFPC has dropped significantly in recent years; however, these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve. As to Wabtec and its divisions, Management’s belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of Wabtec’s assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. To date, Wabtec has been able to successfully defend itself on this basis, including two arbitration decisions and a judicial opinion, all of which confirmed Wabtec’s position that it did not assume any asbestos liabilities from the former owners of certain Wabtec assets. Although Wabtec has incurred defense and administrative costs in connection with asbestos bodily injury actions, these costs have not been material, and the Company has no information that would suggest these costs would become material in the foreseeable future.

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 related to Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. On November 2, 2016, Siemens amended its complaint to add six additional patents they also claim are infringed by the Company’s PTC Products or End of Train (EOT) Products (Siemen Patent Case). The Company has filed Answers, and asserted counterclaims, in response to Siemens’ complaints. Additionally, after filings by the Company, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB) has granted Inter-Parties Review (IPR) proceedings on ten (10) of the patents asserted by Siemens to contest their validity. Following pre-trial rulings that greatly reduced Siemens’ alleged damages, a jury trial was held in federal district court in Delaware in January 2019 on eight patents, two of which were still subject to an IPR decision on validity from the PTAB. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Siemens damages of $5.6 million related to PTC patents and $1.1 million related to EOT patents; as of February 25, 2019, a final verdict has not yet been entered by the Court. Since the jury’s verdict was issued, one of the PTC patents found to be infringed was held to be invalid by the PTAB, and a ruling on another of the PTC patents is still pending. Once a verdict is entered, the parties will file post-trial motions which could also potentially affect the verdict, and potential appeals could follow.

Wabtec’s initial counterclaims in the Siemens Patent Case alleging that Siemens has violated three (3) of Wabtec’s patents were severed from the Siemens Patent case and were re-filed by Wabtec in a separate case now pending in the federal district court in Delaware (Wabtec Patent Case); a trial date of April 13, 2020 has been set in this case.

On July 19, 2018, Siemens amended its pleadings in the Wabtec Patent Case to add new counterclaims alleging violations of federal antitrust and state trade practices laws related to Wabtec’s PTC sales. On January 29, 2019, Wabtec’s motion to sever the antitrust claims was granted; it is expected that Siemens will re-file the antitrust claims as a separate action (Siemens Antitrust Case).

Xorail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Xorail”), has received notices from Denver Transit Constructors (“DTC”) 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, DTC 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. DTC 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 DTC's assertions, stating that its system satisfied the contractual requirements. Xorail has worked with DTC to modify its system an implement the FRA's and PUC's previously undefined approval requirements; the FRA and PUC have both approved modified wireless crossing system, and as of August 2018, DTC completed the process of certifying the crossings and eliminating the use of flaggers. On September 21, 2018, DTC filed a complaint against RTD in Colorado state court for breach of contract related to non-payments and the costs for the flaggers, asserting a change-in-law arising from the FRA/PUC’s new certification requirements. The complaint generally supports Xorail’s position and does not name or implicate Xorail. DTC has not updated its notices against Xorail nor has any formal claim been filed against Xorail by DTC.

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 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. Putative class action lawsuits were 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. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel decided to consolidate the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12, 2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs, three of whom were Company employees. The litigation is in its very early stages and the Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending

From time to time the Company is involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. As of the date hereof, the Company is involved in no litigation that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.