Just to clarify, do you mean tone down the overall adjustments i made or a certain area, like the fog?
You are doing really well, IMHO, but not quite
there. What you need to do now is back off on the luminance of the mist layer, which is too high now (I know I did say it could be quite bright, but I didn't mean quite that bright), and bring up the brightness level of the rest of the image just
a touch. Particularly in the foreground, if this were lighter then the leading lines could be darker and hence more effective. But less is more, remember. Your sky is greatly improved, I had a feeling that there was more to come in the clouds. But why have you lost the two lighter clouds just above the horizon line? They were crucial to your original print. All of this is a matter of personal taste and opinion, of course. There is no absolute right and wrong in this game, just choices.
Something that I find very helpful is that at the end of my evening editing session I will print out a little workprint of the stage which I have reached (say 6x4 ins or A6). I take this downstairs, and just leave it propped up on the kitchen table. Then during the course of the next day I can just consider it while having a cup of coffee, eating lunch etc. It is surprising how many faults I see when I am not welded to the computer screen.
If you enjoy this sort of landscape work you cannot do better than to read (or re-read) Ansel Adam's "The Print". Of course this is all about wet darkroom work, but the basic principles of of good B/W printing have not changed, and his insights and advice regarding tonal values are just as valid now as they ever were.
While I'm here, perhaps I could mention another point or two. Firstly, stay in LR if you can unless you absolutely have
to do something in PS. Then, as you know, you can alter any of these edits without affecting the rest of your work, so you can always go back and change your mind. This is the huge benefit of parametric editing. Secondly, you are obviously skilled and comfortable with the use of the editing functions in the software, so that is not your problem. I suspect that the reason for your difficulty with this image is that you had no clear concept at the start of your editing of how you wanted the picture to look. This is what Ansel called "pre-visualisation". This is something which you have to develop, and that only comes with time, but is really essential. It begins before the moment of exposure, when you see the light, the subject, and the composition. And it is something which you have to carry all the way through the process, so that the final print does indeed represent what you "saw and felt".
Well, I didn't really mean to come on like some aged guru with a long white beard. It is all too easy for me to pontificate about the weaknesses in other people's work, and be completely blind to the crap that I myself turn out all too often. I would not like to count the long hours I have spent in the darkroom or in front of a PC doing yet another dodge or burn in the hope that something would come out great, when all I was doing was polishing a turd. Your picture is certainly not
a turd, it is a lovely shot, so take heart and you will get there.