staehpj1

I did a quick look at what the numbers might look like and they were surprisingly good, at least to me. I could definitely live with something like that. The numbers will vary a bit based on the exact cassette you choose as well as tire size, but the following is an example of what you might expect and to me it looks pretty serviceable. I have crossed the US a couple times and done a lot of other touring with about the same low gear and have crossed the US once with a lot lower high gear. You really are not giving up much with a 95.7" high gear.

The following numbers are chain ring size, followed by cog size, gear inches, and percent change.
39/11 95.7" 18.2 %
39/13 81" 15.4 %
39/15 70.2" 13.3 %
39/17 61.9" 11.8 %
39/19 55.4" 10.5 %
39/21 50.1" 14.3 %
39/24 43.9" 16.7 %
39/28 37.6" 14.3 %
39/32 32.9" 15.6 %
39/37 28.5" 13.5 %
39/42 25.1"

There are options for going higher or lower various ways but that looks like a sweet spot to me. Folks who really just need super low gears or just insist on carrying heavy loads rather than my typical ultralight packing style could opt for lower gearing and still not have a crazy low high gear.

Edit:
Note that I chose a 39 T ring rather than the 42 that the OP mentioned.. I think the lower gearing is more versatile and for some going even lower might be nice.. I am not one who requires super low granny gear, but it is never a big deal to lose a few gear inches on the top gear either. Oh, and fwiw, I confess that I didn't always feel that way about the big top gear. If you go back 10 years or so you can probably find posts where I said I preferred to have a tall high gear even on a heavily loaded touring bike.