Topologically, the only

Topologically, the only difference between the two is that the siding to the feed mill attaches to main from within the runaround in the first plan, and before (north of) the runaround in the second. If you replaced the runaround entrance and exit switches with wyes, the two would be identical other than where the feed mill siding attaches.

EDIT: I didn't notice the one spur that turned around, so never mind what I said above.

Runaround length

I think which one is better depends on wether the 5 car runaround in the second one is adequate.  If the 5 car runaround is enough, it gives you a little more flexibility switching the blue feed mill.

So I think you need to decide if the 5 car runaround is enough.

Can you add a flip up or drop in tail track off the bottom end of the runaround during op sessions?  If you can, that makes runaround length less of an issue than if you can only fit the engine on that end of the runaround.

Not much difference

One has two trailing point and three facing point switches, the other has three trailing point and two facing point.  Either way you have to make a runaround.  Whether the track is off the main or the siding is pretty much a moot point since you aren't going to have any through trains.

the main difference?

The main thing I notice is one has 3 industries facing on way and the other has 2 facing that way. I kinda like the flow of the first plan better I think....DaveB

Here's what I saw

Here are my observations.  They assume that the train stays on the main and the locomotive uses the run-around.  If not, my points are moot.

Ken hit one point on switching the blue feel mill.  Since it's the second industry, I'll likely block the cars at the end.  In pulling 2-3 cars out of the mill I'm concerned with the upper design that I'm going to run out of length of a tail track.  The bottom terminates in a wall, so there's no room to extend the main.

The other issue I have with the run-around on the right on the upper design, is when I want to switch the lower feed mill.  If I'm swapping 2 cars, I will likely have those towards the front of the train.  That leaves me with 1) running around the train, 2) pulling the whole train well past the run-around (almost the whole way back to staging) and 3) leaving the outbound empties over the bottom switch of the run-around while I push loads back into the mill.  When I'm done with that I then have to pull the whole way past the run-around almost towards staging and push back down to the warehouse to pull any outbounds.  If I'm not switching the lower feed mill and just need to switch the warehouse, I'll have the train blocking the switch for the warehouse after I run around the train. 

I think the lower design mostly eliminates this.  I'll likely switch the warehouse before the lower feed mill, so cars for the warehouse are blocked towards the middle of the train.  The pull back shouldn't be as far and pulled cars can be dropped on the lower part of the run-around and not fouling the switch.  I can then switch the lower feed mill.  The inbounds for the feed mill will either foul the switch to the mill or I could pull them 'north' clear of the switch before uncoupling to take any cars to the warehouse.

Clear as mud?

I think the limiting factor in both is the runaround.

I like the top plan a little better because it squeezes another car length in the runaround. You have a nice plan. If you changed the three switches at the top of the runaround to wyes I think you could squeeze another car length into the runaround.

I forgot that I can get an

I forgot that I can get an extra car in the top design.  I'm pretty happy with 6 cars for a run-around.  I think I was assuming 60' average for that, so I can sneak in a longer propane tank or centerbeam if there is a 50' box or a couple 55' covered hoppers.  The only reason I would add length is to get a little breathing room on car length for longer boxcars and reefers.