A traditional production layout is typically adopted in sublevel caving mines. However, as mining operations progress to deeper levels, increasing stresses necessitate exploring alternatives for production layouts. Other aspects of traditional production layouts that need to be improved are productivity, development distance, safety, and automation. Possible alternatives to the traditional layout are the fork and the heart layouts which might potentially be used in production areas. To evaluate and compare the production capacity of these layouts, this study analyzed the productivity and energy consumption of Load-Haul-Dump (LHD)vehicles using discrete event simulation (DES) method. Productivity of diesel-powered LHDs was analyzed in the traditional, the fork, and the heart layouts; productivity and energy consumption of battery-powered LHDs were analyzed in the traditional and the fork layouts. Findings showed productivity was 9-10% and 38% higher in the traditional layout than in the fork and the heart layouts, respectively, when diesel-powered LHD operations were simulated. Energy consumption per tonne of battery-powered LHDs was 10-11% lower in the traditional layout than in the fork layout, and the productivity of battery-powered LHDs was 9% higher in the traditional layout than the fork layout. Although the production capacities of these alternative layouts are lower than the capacity of the traditional layout, alternative layouts can be preferred if the perimeter drive or ore passes are positioned farther away from the production drifts to mitigate instability in the structures near the orebody boundary. When designing a production area layout, several aspects need to be considered in addition to productivity to balance the potential trade-offs between productivity and other factors such as safety and stability.