I am assuming that you have access to all 4 sides.

You added a double main to operate more traffic.  Where will the "more traffic" come from or go to?  You will probably need to add staging and they need to be double ended tracks.  The problem is you have so much other track on the layout it could look more like a major city than a rural area.  If you have access to the top end I would put the staging under a hill or mountain and then have access panels in the fascia to allow access to those staging tracks.

The hidden staging tracks under a mountain on the branch with switches in them is a bad idea.  I would put a low backdrop in front of the tracks and have them open above so you can't see the tracks from normal view, but if you stand on a short step you can see over the backdrop to the tracks.

There is only one set of crossovers on the mains.  If you are operating right hand running  and have a train on both tracks, if you want to get a counterclockwise train into the yard (outside main) you will have to yard the inside main train to clear the inside main to run the outside main train into the yard.  Draw a clockwise train anywhere on the inside loop and then try to get a train in the opposite direction into the yard without backing up.  Very unhandy.  You can solve this by moving the connection to the yard to the left side of the crossovers. 

An outside main train leaving the yard will require the inside main train to stop short of the crossovers and hold until the train going to the outside main departs the yard and runs around the layout to the crossovers.

Assuming there will be a grade on the branch, when the mine job switches Mine 1 it will be on the down grade when switching.  Assuming the runaround is on the flat, if you flipped the direction of Mine 1, the mine job would be switching it on the flat portion of the branch.  In that case I would move the branch tunnel portal closer to the main to avoid 3 bridges in a row over the branch.

Is there a reason you want a free standing layout, instead of one around the walls?  Using the same overall space you could get a lot more railroad, or a lot more scenery (depending on your preference) for not much more investment.  You will also find, I suspect, that it will get old having to walk around the layout to follow a train.  You'll have to use wireless throttles, or unplug, or switch throttles, in order to follow the train.

With that said, on to specifics of the plan as drawn:

I do not see the need for the branch line staging yard.  The mines should generate enough traffic on their own.  Also, staging yards are generally used to hold entire trains, in order to represent some number of miles and towns and operations further down the line.  Most of the mine branches in the region you are modeling do not have tons of operation - there might be a couple mines, but that's about it.  I don't see the need for three additional trains coming back down the branch.

As Dave said, you have no way of getting traffic on and off the layout.  You have a decent sized yard (which would prototypically handle coal almost exclusively) and a source of coal, but no destination or connection to the outside world.  Also, aside from the mines, you have no other operation - assuming that you use the "possible trackside industry" as a connection to the rest of the world.

My take on the plan as drawn is that it will let a couple trains go round and round, and maybe a third go back and forth.  If that's what you want, go for it, but I don't think you can keep two operators entertained for long.  It would be helpful to know what you expect to get out of this layout, what you enjoy, and what you like about the App. Central plan.

Fantastic comments and ideas.. and well noted.. I will make some changes,, Maybe the double main is overkill but I wanted east and west traffic.. maybe even a train on a slow loop during the times when I am the only operator. 

The grade on the banch will end at the tunnel..should be at a height of 2.5 inches... and the mine turns will only be about 12 hoppers or so,, 

I will definitely rearrange the crossovers.. very good points,,

I would to have around the walls.. but I live in an apartment,, I was thinking of making it modular in 3 parts,, just in case I wanted to convert in into an around the walls (with monor mod to track at the ends)

this is why this is the best forum.. other forums.. I havent even got a single reply,, so thanks again..!

Ken has a very valid point about having to walk around the layout  to follow the train. Get's old very quickly.  I don't think I'll ever do another plan with a backdrop down the middle.  BTW, just because a plan is "around the walls" doesn't mean it has to be attached to the walls.  The benchwork can be built free standing.  My current layout is sort of around the walls yet the benchwork is not attached to the walls.  For inspiration and some great track planning ideas and concepts  I suggest Byron Henderson's site. He is a pro track planner and people pay for his designs but he has some good plans posted up for free on his site. That's where I got my latest plan.  In my mind the Appalachian Central looks better on paper than it actually turns out, at least that was my experience. Here is the link to Byron's site if you're interested....

http://www.layoutvision.com/index.html

Michael

The problem with building this layout as an around the walls version is that you won't be able to reach the back at the corner, and perhaps not elsewhere.  The limit of a comfortable reach is probably about 2 feet to 30 inches.

The problem with building this layout as an around the walls version is that you won't be able to reach the back at the corner, and perhaps not elsewhere.

It would take a little careful planning to make sure that things like this don't happen, but I don't see anything that would absolutely preclude it from working.  Of course, with a larger around the room layout, I would also look seriously at changing the plan somewhat to make better use of the space and better achieve the builder's goals.

The OP mentioned being in an apartment.  I would suggest a series of tables or modules, no larger than 2' wide, all joined together to provide the space for the layout.  It will be easier to remove (and possibly reuse, though I don't like reusing layouts) and provide plenty of room for creative track planning.

the walls.

I don't know how long the O.P. has been on these forums, but here is an interesting blog by Scarpia doing a sectional layout 22 stories up in the U.A.E. while working overseas.  He is using a set of Ikea book cases as the base to support his bench work.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/5988

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/4159

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/4645

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/5197

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/7251

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/7996

Please give this a look... and feedback...

I don't have much advice  to offer but I believe it is useful to use #7 turnouts in a yard instead of #4.  The yard is where most of the pushing happens and pushing a string through a  #7 will be more reliable than #4.  I think if you remove the track between your caboose track and the yard ladder the difference will not cost  much in yard capacity.

Art

After just a quick look I would ask if it's possible to have your stub end staging tracks connected to the right side outer main as you do on the left and move the left side forward some and then connect to outer main. 

See ya

Switchman AKA:Ron