One pretty surprising result when I consulted with my builder on the new high-offset fork, is that a much longer brake would be required if i didn't want to go with cantilevers. The bike is a 1984 Trek 610 with the 52 mm fork, possibly the same as the one thebulls is talking about. A number of years ago I had the original fork de-raked (yes, I added trail) to improve the bike's stability. I wanted it to feel more like a race bike. It ended up with trail around 59 mm with 28 mm 700c, and the original brakes fit just right. When I wanted to try low trail I first added a front rack and bag to that bike and went out for some test rides. It was not to hard to control with one hand at speeds above 16 mph, needed two hands from around 9 to 14, and needed good attention at lower speeds. This was with about 12# in the front bag.
BTW, my Mondonico makes a much better racy bike.
My next trial was on my Woodrup, which had a 5.5 cm offset resulting in about 48 mm trail with 700x32 Paselas. With the same load setup on the front and the Paselas it was much easier to ride at any speed, but difficult one-handed and no-handed. Nonetheless I did four metrics on it last summer. Frame has been sold.
Questing less trail, I found a local builder to build me a 6.5 cm fork for the Trek, maintaining a level frame. The long blades of this fork require either Cantis or Mafacs, and I am going with the Mafac brakes. Needless to say, it will have endless fender clearance. This bike will not be soft and cushy in the front, since the great fork length necessitated use of fairly stout Dediaccai fork blades, not the cute slim New Continental ovals of the 610 Trek. We'll see how it goes. The bike will end up with geometry very similar to a Boxdog Pelican, and with luck it will handle about as well.
RFC, your new fork may end up forcing some unforeseen changes.