be claimed by prescription. Furthermore, Henry Street cannot tack any time before 1994 to meet the 21 years required for continuous and uninterrupted use to establish a prescriptive easement. So long as Conrail owned the Avis line, Henry Street and its predecessors could not claim prescriptive use of any crossing over the railroad. Therefore, Henry Street’s prescriptive easement claim fails. Henry Street’s “claims” of laches, waiver, and detrimental reliance are likewise unavailing for the same reason its claim for a prescriptive easement fails. These defenses rise no higher and are deserving of no greater protection than its claim based upon a prescriptive easement that would not permit one to take property from a government entity. See Williamstown Borough Authority, 591 A.2d at 715 (<HOLDING>); Glen Hope Borough v. Kitko, 424 Pa.Super. 67,
holding dismissal proper where complaint fails to allege an essential element of plaintiffs claim holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements holding the court cannot find intent where the consent judgment fails to mention the cause of action holding that estoppel like laches cannot succeed against a government entity where a claim of adverse possession would fail holding that the doctrine of laches cannot succeed where the analogous claim of adverse possession fails