Originally Posted by Shiznaz
The Soma Double Cross is only 1cm shorter in wheelbase than the Trek 520, even though its chainstays are 2.5 cm shorter. This is good in my books as I prefer a longer front end and a snappier back end, but I hope I dont' need that extra inch of heel clearance. The Soma has a longer top tube and head tube which are also good in my books. At this point it seems more a debate on price, tubeset and colours, and the Soma wins on all of those points (Soma available used vs. Trek 520 new, tange prestige tubing vs. Trek butted Cro-Moly, british racing green vs. black). I don't think the Kona Jake, Specialized Tricross or Fuji Cross Pro have as many touring-friendly features as the Soma Double Cross so that kind of rules them out as well.
A couple of comments from my touring experience. Using a 58cm frame as a point of comparison, the Soma has a top tube length of almost 2 cm longer than the Trek, which would be a plus for me. The Soma comes in 10 different sizes in 2cm increments, 5 for the Trek which may be useful for you. Chainstay length is better on the trek, 2.5 cm longer than the Soma. Nothing bites more than hitting your heels when riding or having a tough time descending properly because you can't get your pedals level without hitting a bag. Gearing on the stock Trek looks a little high. The 52 front is nice for wheeling about when you're unloaded, but for self-support touring, it may not be as useful on a loaded bike depending on your terrain. Have a good look a the availalbe gear ratios. The Bontrager components have come under some critique on roadbikereviews.
And although this is the greatest thread in the history of BF, you may want to post something in the touring forum.