Devon, try 0 scale Code 148 for that really light rail look. 
Thanks all. While I want this to be as close to prototypical as I can be I have to be reasonable also. Wheels will likely be from different manufacturers as I buy and build equipment. The first culprit is my current build on the Bachmann ten wheeler which I am told has deep flanges. I don’t know because until now I haven’t cared but I have to have track that will accommodate my stock. I Originally planned on 215 because this indoor display was not yet an idea. So I guess the real question is what size(code) track is the smallest I can get away with that will fit all common wheels.
On a side note I was complaining (whining) to the wife about how stupid big Fn3 is. My prototype station in real life is 80x24 well thats an 18" wide 4 foot long building. I have 12 by 2-3 to work with. Not mush room to do anything else like a trestle and a tunnel. Big dreams small space. So in my complaint she says to me well there is more than one wall. Why not do two displays on of the depot and one of a valley/trestle/tunnel scene.
Oh cool more real estate. We will see, to much to do not enough funds. So the first display will be the trestle tunnel combo (the tunnel will only be long enough to hold about 2/3 of the loco so something will always be perpetually coming out of it).
Devon,
Steve suggested you might use Code 148 for really light-looking rail. In Fn3, code 215 scales out to 65 lb. rail and code 148 scales out to about 30# rail. If you want to see a comparison of the two, take a look at the first photo in my Bridge 44B article. The guard rails (located outside of the running rails) are Code 148.
http://www.rhyman.org/articles/new-bridge-44b-at-red-rock-creek
Many large scale flanges are 1/8th of an inch, or thereabouts. That’s .125 inches. Code 148 rail is supposed to be .148 inches high. How thick is the foot of the rail? How high will the spikes be above the foot of the rail? You only have .023 inches to spare.
Another poster questiond how wide the rail-head is, and how far the wheel tread would overhang the rail-head. If the tread of the wheels overhung the rail-head too much, it would look odd in pictures. Of course with the “slop” between the wheel flanges and the rail-heads, you might be able to push the subject being photographed back, so there is very little overhang of the tread on the rail-head, maybe.
Since it is a static display, use fine scale wheels with prototype flanges… that will look great.
You may have to turn down the flanges on locos.
Greg
Just a note regarding the height of the flanges on the 1:1 wheels.
Take a look at this link:
http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-PR-M-S-015-06.pdf
The average railroad car flange depth is around 1 inch to as much as 1-3/64 inches. In the 1/8th scale ride-on wheel, our standards for the IBLS is around a 3/16" (.187) flange depth. That would equate to about .052" in 1/29th scale (if my math is OK). 
I think I had better qualify. The trains will be operable on my outdoor layout when it comes. The display is just for decoration and display indoors and for taking photos. So I am likely not going to get to over the top with making accommodations for track and wheel combinations. If the rolling stock and loco were to be only static I would go for it. I think using Code 215 will be just fine.
30# rail would be to light. So I think using 215 will be just fine.