I am going to differ in some in saying a touring bike can often be a great rando bike. Actually with some clarification, a vintage touring bike is a great rando bike. Many 70's/80's touring bikes were not made anywhere near as robust as say today's touring bikes. I have owned a number of vintage touring bikes and also own a LHT. The LHT is a pig and is not fast even unloaded (with f/r racks, fenders, and my 62cm sized frame I think it is 33-35lbs). The vintage touring bikes depending on parts selection and size should be able to be built in the mid-upper 20lb range. My Seral rando bike (see below) weighs in at 28lbs (62cm frame) with front rack, full fenders, generator hub, and front and rear lights. The 64cm Kogswell P/R I built up came in at 26lbs with full fenders, front rack, 700cX32 tires, but without the generator front wheel and lights. Too bad the frame is way to flexy to actually be useful or it might have made a great rando bike*

The vintage touring bikes were built with standard diameter (sometimes slightly beefier tubing) from many good tubing manufacturers and came with lots of braze ons for adding racks, fenders, etc as needed. Some of these were also of the low(er) trail variety so would handle greatly with a front load. When starting my reading of low trail I decided to check out some of the bikes I already owned and found out my 83' Nishiki Seral was of a lower trail design (73 degree head tube and 60mm rake=43mm of trail with 700cX32 tires).

They can fit fatter tires (32-35mm tires) with room for fenders still and you can add the racks as you see fit to carry your supplies for a out in the country ride, 200K, or PBP. Some sport touring bikes of the same era work well also, but don't have all the braze ons and generally use caliper brakes instead of cantis.

*all 64cm P/R were made incorrectly with a 28.6mm downtube instead of the specified 31.8mm one so it ghost shifts like crazy if I get out of the saddle even slightly.