Any suggestions would be gratefully received.
1) Drawing. I'd recommend redrawing the figure with square being 1 foot long instead of with squares being 6" long. Then draw in your planned buildings (can be done just as squares and circles).
That will make your track plan easier to evaluate for people who just look at the figure without making any calculations to evaluate how long spurs are, and to evaluate how much room you have for industries.
2) Room plan/access. You have a center viewblock across the layout. That means that you need access from both sides.
So your 2.5 x 6 foot layout will need to be placed in an available 6 1/2 foot x 8 foot area to be operated.
Your comment indicate that a 3 x 6 foot "space" is all you can get. Whether this 2.5 x 6 foot layout will work in your room depends on how you have defined "space".
I would strongly recommend making a drawing that shows how the layout will fit into the room where it is going to be, including any access aisles.
3) Rescaling. You have taken a 4 foot deep x 12 foot long H0 scale track plan and made it into a 2 1/2 foot deep x 6 foot long N scale track plan.
Good call on layout depth - the H0 scale plan calls for 18" radius, which is fairly tight for H0 scale, but the N scale plan has room for curve radius that is a little gentler (for N scale). So depthwise you now have what would be the equivalent of about 4 1/2 feet of depth in H0 scale.
Not so sure if it is an equally good call on layout length - the N scale equivalent of a 12 foot long H0 scale layout is a just under 7 foot long layout in N scale, not 6 feet.
So most of your spurs running along the long axis of the layout (ie most of your spurs) is a car length or more shorter than the corresponding spurs on the original Beer Line layout.
Might be a problem, might be fine - depends on what you are planning to run on those tracks - I would consider car lengths and engine lengths and look at whether you are losing spur lengths unnecessary.
4) You have already decided that you are not going to make the sections into modules.
Okay. So why do you let your track plan continue to be constrained by the limitations MRs modular concept imposed on the original track plan?
Why does e.g. the tracks on your plan have to cross over the section boundaries at an equal distance from the outer edge on all four section boundaries?
5) You have decided to use a viewblock to cut the layout into two visually distinct scenes.
That can be a good call. It does have consequences for access (see above), but it also allows you to do two (or more) different scenes.
You have also written that your layout will not be modular. So why does your viewblock need to follow (at least roughly) what was the module boundaries in the original MR plan?
Why not e.g. pull the viewblock at the lower right six inches further right, and the viewblock at upper left further to the left, gaining more room for the main scenes? Since you are doing a viewblock anyways, you might as well make the industry for the spur going into the lower right hand corner on your plan a flat or semi-flat.
Why do you need the river to be in both scenes, and for the river to be continuous through the viewblock?
If you want the river to run as you have it - why not make the viewblock sort of U-shaped - upper left corner down to center, then along center of table rightwards, then up along river towards upper right hand corner?
6) Really the most important question, but I'll do it last : what is your design goal? What do you want to be able to do on your layout?
Hope you don't feel I am slagging your plan. What I hope to do is to challenge you to describe why you want to do things this way, and to consider whether the constraints you have followed in your design are deliberate design decisions or just stuff left over from a very different type of design, with different design goals.
Because the MR design was made mainly to illustrate the concept of modular track plans. And that apparently is not one of your design goals.