A couple of issues...

...I can see (just your uploaded plan is hard to read, maybe reload it without the big green square).

Do you really think it is needed to have double track around the blob? Double track tends to make layouts look smaller. I would think a loop on the top side of the blob and another at the end of the bottom aisle would be sufficient. You might even consider leaving the loop on top of the blob out so that that industry can only be served by the returning train, makes operations a bit more challenging therefore more interesting.

In the top station do you really need the 2 angled tracks. Yes it is a runaround but there is already one in the station, removing one of these tracks would open up the area a bit more and make the switching of these industries a bit more challenging again.

I see from another post you made that you are an Aussie, I am from Melbourne originally but been in the USA now for 16 years. Where are you from?

What is the operation?

I am having a little bit of a hard time seeing how this will be operated.

It looks like a train come out of the hidden return loop, goes to the junction, maybe does some switch, runs around itself and then goes out on the blob, does some switching in the lower town, runs around itself, runs back to the junction, runs around itself and then goes back down to staging.

You have way too many runarounds in the top half of the layout, most of that could be simplified.  You have a lot of switchbacks to get to industries with industries on the tails or really short tails.  That will become tiresome.  The tail on the runaround near the door looks so short as to be virtually unuseable.

The bottom town will be very difficult to switch if you have spotted cars at the industry on the tail near the door.  To move those you will have to go almost a third of the way around the layout to dump them on one of the runarounds on the blob, then get the spot cars and go work the industries near the door one at a time.  Its going to require a lot of long shoves to work.

"My main concern is I have to

    I'd also be concerned about the narrow isles and general lack of working space in the room. Perhaps the track plan could be simplified so the around the walls benchwork could be made a bit narrower, or maybe eliminate the blob and just stay around the walls for the whole layout. The staging could alternatively be on a stub end yard replacing the blob with a wye accessing it from the left wall, this would narrow down the room protrusion while still providing a place for trains to enter and leave......DaveB

Nice plan. Now simplify.

As others have noted, the second run-around in front of the station  is not really needed. Operations will be more interesting without it and fewer double-slip switches make it more reliable.

Hmm - the industries at the top right need the engine to foul industry tracks on the top left.  Consider feeding the top-right industries from a switch to the left of the station.  A crossing would be needed to service the industries on both sides.

Hidden staging - it would be simpler and more reliable to run lower tracks straight along the left wall rather than have them follow the loop.

Industry section on the right - you want more open space - I think no operations would be lost if you eliminated two tracks, the 3rd and 4th from the right. They are not directly serving any industry.  More room for scenery.

Esthetics -  I prefer to have buildings at an angle, not aligned with the backdrop. Visitors can look into the bays more easily and it adds more interest.  My preference.

A view break down the center of the blob would strongly separate the two industrial areas.  The low mountain you described could lead to a high range painted on the view break.

I agree the bottom town is difficult to switch.  Try turning all the switches around.

Aisles and Tracks

Warren,

This new plan certainly is ambitous, especially in that space.  Way more switches, including double slip switches, for not a lot of gain.  In common with many layout designers (until building and operating experience sets in), your aisles are very tight.  You might get yourself and one other into that space (perhaps your intent), but you will not be comfortable over the long haul.  

A couple of suggestions:

1. Start from an industry-centric approach.  Select a handful (not more than six) potential industries.  Research them enough to understand what their rail service needs are.  Then down-select to half or less and try to fit the track into serving those industries.  This is what short lines do very well--serving the retail transportation needs of their industry customers.

2. Consider carefully noted layout designer Byron Henderson's planning "rules"--a. Prototype Inspiration, b. staging, c. major industries, and d. interchange.  These are explained very well in Byron's chapter on layout design for operation in the new Operations Specil Interest Group (OpSIG) book:  "A Compendium of Model Railroad Operations, From Design to Implementation."  This book, available through the OPSIG, is a wonderful resource.

3. Look closely at "The One Module Approach" (TOMA) currently being touted here in Model Railroad hobbyist and on Trainmasters TV.  You seem to be an ideal candidate for this approach, especially if this is your first layout or certainly one of your very first such attempts.

Do not expect to "get it right the first time."  You will learn much as you build and attempt to operate layouts.  Along the way, you will gain knowledge and experience, refining your vision of what is important.  The beauty of the TOMA approach is that you can have the larger vision, but start with managable construction pieces.

Bill Decker